HomeMy WebLinkAbout3583_001Next Ordinance No. 4169��
Next Resolution No. 17-90
A G E N D A April 17, 1990
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
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 April 17, 1990
50 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. M.
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
I. CALL TO ORDER
Ii. ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald IlSkip'l Farley
Trustee Ralph Arthur Trustee Leo Floros
Trustee Mark Busse Trustee George Van Geem
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Theodore Wattenberg
III. INVOCATION - Trustee Floros
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, April 3, 1990
V. APPROVAL OF BILLS AND FINANCIAL REPORT
Vi. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
A. Presentation of Seat Belt Safety Poster Awards
VII. MAYOR'S REPORT
A. PROCLAMATIONS:
1. Girl Scout Leaders Day - April 22, 1990
B. Request for Class "W" (beer & wine) liquor license
Taqueria Fiesta Restaurant, 1802 S. Elmhurst Road.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Pate Subdivision, 1000 Cardinal Lane
2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF A RECAPTURE AGREEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS PATE'S
SUBDIVISION
This Ordinance establishes a recapture agreement
for roadway, sewer and water main installations
as the area is improved. (Exhibit A)
B. ZBA 17 -SU -90, 2200 South Busse Road
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE
NO. 3656 AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE
NATURE OF A -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2200 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD
This Ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 3656, which
granted specified variations no longer applicable
to this development and grants a Special Use in
the nature of a Planned Unit Development to
permit a light industrial complex with 5 units.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting
.Iris request by a vote of 6-0. (Exhibit B)
C. ZBA 14-V-90, 910 Owen
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION
FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 910 OWEN STREET
This Ordinance grants a variation to allow a
24 foot wide driveway for a one -car garage,- instead
of the permitted 151; to allow a zero foot setback
for a parking pad; and, to allow 37% impervious
coverage in the front yard instead of the permitted
35%. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting these variations by a vote of 4-0. (Exhibit C)
D. ZBA 18-V-90, 7 South Edward Street
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION
FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 7 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
This Ordinance grants variations to permit
a 4 foot separation between the existing garage and
proposed room addition, instead of the required 10'
and to allow 47.5% lot coverage, approximately 200
square feet over the allowed 45%. The Zoning Board
of Appeals, by a vote of 5-0 recommended approval
of the request for the 4 foot separation between
structures, however, the request for 47.5% lot
coverage was denied by a vote of 3-2. (Exhibit D)
E. ZBA 19-V-90, 1411 Circle
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION
FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1411 CIRCLE
This Ordinance grants a variation to allow an
accessory structure 400 square feet in size, instead
of the permitted 120 square feet, and 12 feet high,
instead of the permitted 10 feet. The Zoning Board
of Appeals recommended to grant this request by a
vote of 5-0, subject to the condition that no
business be operated on the property. (Exhibit E)
F. ZBA 21-V-90, 301 East Rand Road
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS
FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 301 EAST RAND ROAD
This ordinance grants variations to allow an
18 foot front yard building setback, instead of
the required 30 feet (along Highland); to allow
a 10 foot rear yard building setback, instead
of the required 20 feet; to allow zero foot setbacks,
instead of the required 20 feet when adjacent to
residential and 30 feet when adjacent to a right-of-
way (both Highland and Rand);.and, to waive the
requirement for a 12' x 35' loading dock. The
Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denying the
variations as requested by a vote of 2-3. (Exhibit F)
G. ZBA 22-V-90, 2100 South Elmhurst Road
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS
FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2100 S. ELMHURST ROAD
This Ordinance grants variations to permit a
parking lot and driveway aisle setback of zero feet
instead of the required 30 feet along Midway Drive
and to allow a maximum building height of 35' 611,
excluding the light well, instead of the permitted
30 feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting these requests by a vote of 5-0. (Exhibit G)
H. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8
(REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
This Ordinance increases the real estate transfer
tax paid by the purchaser from $1.00 per $1,000
to $3.00 per $1,000. The Finance Commission
recommended this increase. (Exhibit H)
2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance increases the license fee for
cigarette vending machines from $50 to $150. (Exhibit J)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZBA 5-Z-90, 6 -SU -90, 7-V-90, 400 East Rand Road
1. The Petitioner is requesting an amendment to
the Comprehensive Land Use Map to reflect
multi -family use. The Plan Commission
recommended granting this request by a vote
of 6-0.
2. The Petitioner is requesting a modification
from the Development Code to permit a
detention basin closer to the buildings than
the permitted 75 feet. The Plan Commission
recommended granting this request by a vote
of 6-0.
3. The Petitioner is requesting rezoning the
subject property from R-1 (Single -Family)
to R-3 (Multi -family Residential); a
Special use in the nature of a Planned Unit
Development in order to construct 24 townhomes
(resulting in 8.8 dwelling units per acre); and,
a variation to allow a 10 foot setback from the
cul de sac bulb to the property line rather
than the required 20 feet. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting the requests by a
vote of 7-0.
B. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION
OF LAND ADJACENT TO FOREST AVENUE
This Ordinance, along with the accompanying Plat of
Dedication, accepts the 9 foot strip from District
214 in order to improve Forest Avenue. (Exhibit K)
C. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF SPECIFIED
MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS (Exhibit L)
D. A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING A VIOLATION OF THE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BY TCI, INC. (Exhibit M)
E. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A HEARING PROCEDURE
FOR VIOLATION OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT PERTAINING
TO CABLE TELEVISION (Exhibit N)
X. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Bids:
1. Detention/Storm Water Improvement - Melas Park
2. Water Main Replacement Program
3. Resurfacing Program
4. Curb and Gutter Replacement
5. Forest Avenue Reconstruction
6. Lincoln Street Bridge Rehabilitation
7. Water Meter Replacement
B. PUBLIC HEARING
This Public Hearing, called pursuant to proper
legal notice having been published in the Mount
Prospect Herald on April 5, 1990, is for the
purpose of considering the annual budget for
fiscal year 1990/91.
C. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ANNUAL
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990/91 (Exhibit 0)
D. Change Order Request, Sewer Rehab
E. Request for field change from Euclid Lake Villas,
Wheeling Road, south of Euclid Avenue.
The Homeowners Association has requested a
field change to permit the installation of
fences throughout the 49 unit complex.
E. Status Report
Xi. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Potential Litigation
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
APRIL 3, 1990
CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present upon roll call: Mayor Gerald Farley
Trustee Ralph Arthur
Trustee Mark Busse
Trustee Timothy Corcoran
Trustee Leo Floros
Trustee George Van Geem
Trustee Theodore Wattenberg
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Trustee Van Geem. INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Busse, APPROVE
moved to approve the minutes of the regular MINUTES
meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees
held March 20, 1990.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
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
$ 643,882
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
110
Community Development Block Grant Fund
1,822
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
10,693
Waterworks & Sewerage Fund
54,751
Parking System Revenue Fund
7,163
Risk Management Fund
122,283
P.W. Facility Construction Fund A
-
P.W. Facility Construction Fund B
-
Capital Improvement, Repl. or Rep.Fund
1,636
Special Service Area Const, #5
-
Special Service Area Const. #6
-
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1985)
-
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1987)
-
Corporate Purpose Improvement 1990
-
Debt Service Funds
3,644
Flexcomp Trust Fund
-
Escrow Deposit Fund
3,159
Police Pension Fund
37,315
Firemen's Pension Fund
41,591
Benefit Trust Fund
$928,049
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem
Nays: Wattenberg
Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Dolores Haugh stated that the Historical Society has HISTORICAL
established a Corporate Citizen Award, acknowledging SOCIETY:
the financial support of the Society by a business CORPORATE
in excess of $5,000. CITIZEN
AWARD
The first recipients of this award are the First
Chicago Bank of Mount Prospect and the Randhurst
Merchants Association.
MAYORIS REPORT
PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Farley proclaimed the April 27, 1990 as Arbor Day
ARBOR DAY in the Village.
SENIOR CITIZEN The month of May was proclaimed as Senior Citizen Month
MONTH & SENIOR and May 3, 1990 as Senior Citizen Celebration Day in
CITIZEN Mount Prospect.
CELEBRATION DAY
ORGAN DONOR & Mayor Farley also proclaimed the week of April 22-29,
LIBRARY WEEK 1990 as Organ Donor Week and Library week.
Page 2 - April 3, 1990
OLD BUSINESS
PATE SUBDIVISION
Pate Subdivision, Wildwood Lane
An ordinance was presented for second reading that
would authorize execution of a recapture agreement
relative to the development of the subject property.
At the request of the Petitioner, action on this matter
was deferred to the next meeting April 17th.
ZBA 15-V-90
ZBA 15 -V -90f 215 East Prospect Avenue
215 E.PROSPECT
An ordinance was presented for second reading that
AVENUE
would grant the following variations in order for this
existing business to expand: to allow an 111 side yard
to the east and a 25.56 side yard on the west, instead
of the required 301; to allow the existing front yard
of 29.57', instead of the required 40'; to allow a lot
size of 2.285 acres instead of 4 acres; to allow two
121 x 351 loading docks, instead of the required 121
x 501; to allow 61 parking spaces instead of the
required 66; to allow a zero foot distance on the east
for parking, instead of the required 101, and 15l on
the south, instead of the required 301; and, to allow
84% impervious surface lot coverage (3,684 sq. ft. over
the maximum) , instead of the permitted 80%). The
Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting these
requests by a vote of 6-0.
This property will be the subject of a plat of
subdivision in the near future, conolidating these two
lots of record into one.
Trustee Busse stated that he would pass on this vote
due to the fact that he does business with the
Petitioner and that may be considered a conflict of
interest.
ORD. NO.4164
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved for
passage of ordinance NO. 4164
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 EAST PROSPECT AVENUE
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Corcoran, Floros,
van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Pass: Busse
Motion carried.
AMEND CH. 18
An ordinance was presented for first reading that
would amend specified sections of Chapter 18
(Traffic Code). The amendments include prohibiting
Page 2 - April 3, 1990
parking on the north side of Henry street for the
first 35 feet east of Owen; prohibiting parking on
both the north and south side of Highland Avenue
35 feet west of Main Street; reducing the speed limit
on Eric, Neil, Autumn and Harvest Lane from 30 MPH
to 25 MPH; prohibits parking on the north and south
sides of Harvest Lane, at the narrow portion at
Business Center Drive; and, prohibits parking within
a specified area on the west side of Nordic Road.
The Safety Commission recommended the amendments by
votes of 6-0.
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to
waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved
for passage of Ordinance No. 4165
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF
CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC CODE)
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 17 -SU -90, 2200 South Busse Road
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Use in the
nature of a Planned Unit Development to permit a
light industrial condominium complex comprised of
5 units. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting this request by a vote of 6-0.
The Petitioner stated that he would like to create
a commercial condominium complex on this 8 acre
parcel.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning
Board of Appeals and grant the Special Use as
requested in ZBA 17 -SU -90.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented for 1st reading on
April 17th.
ZBA 14-V-90, 910 Owen
The Petitioner is requesting variations to allow
a 24 foot wide driveway for a one -car garage,
instead of the permitted 15 feet; to allow a zero
foot setback for a parking pad; and, to allow 37%
impervious coverage in the front yard instead of
the permitted 35%. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting these variations by a vote
of 4-0.
It was noted that the Petitioner had replaced an
existing 24 foot wide driveway that was in disrepair,
however he did not obtain a permit. It was also
noted that most of the homes in this area have
driveways of this width.
Page 3 - April 3, 1990
ORD.NO. 4165
ZBA 17 -SU -90
21200 S.BUSSE
ZBA 14-V-90
910 OWEN
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to concur with the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant
the variations requested in ZBA 14-V-90.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An ordinance will be presented for first reading at
the April 17th meeting of the Village Board.
ZBA 18-V-90 ZBA 18-V-90, 7 South Edward Street
7 S. EDWARD The Petitioner is requesting variations to permit a 4
foot separation between the existing garage and a
proposed room addition, instead of the requested 10
foot separation, and to allow 47.5% lot coverage, which
is an area approximately 200 square feet larger than
the permitted 45%. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting the :variation to permit the
separation between buildings by a vote of 5-0 but to
deny the increased lot coverage by a vote of 3-2.
It was noted that the proposal includes a patio, which
increases the lot coverage by 200 square feet. The
Petitioner noted that his lot is 160 feet deep and the
garage is approximately 40 feet from the rear property
line. He stated that if he moved the garage back to
the rear property line, eliminating the need for the
variation from the separation requirement, the driveway
leading to the garage would actually increase the lot
coverage.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved to
grant the variations requested in ZBA 18-V-90.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented April 17th for first
reading.
ZBA 19-V-90 ZBA 19-V-90, 1411 Circle
1411 CIRCLE The Petitioner is requesting variations to allow an
accessory structure 400 square feet in size, instead
of the permitted 120 square feet and a variation to
permit a 12 foot high shed, instead of the permitted
10 foot height. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting this request by a vote of 5-0.
It was noted that the Petitioner would like to use this
shed as a workshop as a hobby and will not conduct any
type of a business.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded Trustee Arthur, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of
Appeals and grant the variation requested in ZBA 19-
V-90, with the condition that conducting a business
from the property be strictly prohibited.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented April 17th for first
reading.
Page 4 - April 3, 1990
ZBA 21-V-90, 301 East Rand Road ZBA 21-V-90
The Petitioner is requesting variations for this 301 E.RAND RD
property, located at the southwest corner of Rand
Road and Highland Avenue. The property is presently
occupied by a vacant, boarded up building that was
a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food establishment.
The Petitioner would like to construct a commercial
building approximately 7,200 square feet in size with
the expectation of renting the space out to 6 tenants.
Thevariations being requested in order to develop
this property as proposed would allow a front yard
building setback of 18 feet, instead of the required
30 feet along Highland Avenue; a 10 foot rear yard
building setback, instead of the required 20 feet; a
zero foot, instead of the required 20 feet from
residential property and 30 feet from a right-of-way;
and, to waive the requirement for a 121 x 351 loading
dock. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denying
these requests by a vote of 2-3.
The Petitioner stated that there would be an area
off Highland Avenue which would provide parking
spaces for 4 or 5 employee vehicles. The balance of
the parking would be provided in the front of the
building adjacent to Rand Road. Due to the type of
businesses anticipated for this building, the
Petitioner stated that the space to be utilized for
loading would be provided in the front of the building.
All equipment mounted on the roof, such as air
conditioning, etc. would be screened from the townhouses
to the east.
Janet Hacker, 600 Windsor, and Michael Wexler, 606 Windsor,
expressed concern relative to traffic patterns and stated
that the Petitioner was proposing a building too large
for a parcel this size.
Trustee Corcoran stated that he could support the request
if the number of tenants was limited to 5 rather than
the 6 as proposed. The Petitioner stated if the
decision of the Board was to limit the number of
tenants to 5 that he would abide by that decision.
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Wattenberg, moved to
grant the variations requested in ZBA 21-V-90, subject
to the commercial building housing no more than 5 tenants.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floras,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ZBA 22-V-90, 2100 South Elmhurst Road
The Petitioner is requesting variations to permit a
parking lot and driveway aisle setback of zero feet
instead of the required 30 feet along midway Drive
and to allow a maximum building height of 351 611,
excluding the light well, instead of the permitted
30 feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting these requests by a vote of 5-0.
The Petitioner stated that they would like to construct
a Park National Bank facility at this location. The
bank is presently operating out of a temporary trailer
type facility, which was erected some months ago.
The proposal provides for a large front yard setback,
which will provide more open space than required.
Page 5 - April 3, 1990
ZBA 22-V-90
2100 S.EINHURST
It was noted that while the Petitioner had requested
a zero foot setback on Midway Drive for parking, an
alternate plan to provide a 10 feet setback was
Page 6 - April 3, 1990
agreeable to the Petitioner.
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board
of Appeals and grant the variations requested,
including the 10 foot parking lot setback on Midway
Drive.
Upon roll call:,Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
YARD WASTE
It was noted that the State of Illinois has enacted
legislation, effective July 1, 199 0, that prohibits the
disposal of yard waste, including grass clippings,
branches, etc., in the same containers as household
garbage. The Village has informed the residents that
the local policy of disposing of yard waste would
become effective April 1, 1990.
The approved method of disposing of yard waste in the
Village is to use special biodegradable bags, sold by
the Village for $25.00 for 20 bags.
AMEND CH.11
An ordinance was presented for first reading that
YARD WASTE
would amend Chapter 11 (Merchants, Businesses,
Occupations and Amusements) governing the newly adopted
policy of proper disposal of yard waste.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
I , Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ORD.NO. 4166
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved for
passage of Ordinance No. 4166
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 (MERCHANTS,
BUSINESSES, OCCUPATIONS AND AMUSEMENTS) OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
AMEND CH. 19
An ordinance was presented for first reading
YARD WASTE
establishing the approved method of disposing of yard
waste in the Village.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 6 - April 3, 1990
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved 0RD.NO.4167
for passage of Ordinance No. 4167
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 (HEALTH
REGULATIONS) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that AMEND CH. 23
would amend Chapter 23 (Offenses and Miscellaneous
Regulations) relative to the disposal of yard waste.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to waive the rule requiring two readings of an
Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
ORD.NO.4168
for passage of Ordinance No. 4168
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 (OFFENSES
AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
AMEND CH. 8
would amend Article VIII of Chapter 8 of the
REAL ESTATE
Village Code relative to Real Estate Transfer Tax.
TRANSFER TAX
In an effort in increase revenues, it is proposed that
the existing real estate transfer tax of $1.00 per
each $1,000 of the purchase price be increased to
$3.00 for each $1,000 in purchase price.
Trustee Busse suggested that a $2.00 rebate be given
to anyone who moves within the Village.
There were several real estate agents and residents
that voiced their opposition to the proposal to
increase the real estate transfer tax.
This Ordinance, amended to include the $2.00 rebate,
will be presented April 17th for -second reading.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would
amend Chapter 11. The proposal .is to increase the
licensing fee for a cigarette vending machine from $50.00
per year to $150.00.
This Ordinance will be presented for second reading on
April 17th.
Page 7 - April 3, 1990
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the low bid submitted by Lenny Hoffman
Excavating for the improvement of Schoenbeck Road at
a cost not to exceed $377,845.75.
MELAS PARK The following bids were received for the project of re -
STORM WATER routing the storm water from the Public Works Facility,
IMPROVEMENT 1700 W. Central Road, and to provide compensatory
Page 8 - April 3, 1990
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
BIDS:
Village Manager, John Fulton Dixon, presented the
following bids for the annual turf mowing contract:
TURF MOWING
CONTRACT
Bidde Amount
Ingram Enterprises $18,200
Hoff corporation $23,608
Excel Maintenance $25,480
Restrepo Brothers $30,381
E -Z Landscaping $32,760
Gambino Landscaping $33,124
North Shore Greenscapes $36,530
Martam Construction $88,634
INGRAM
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
ENTERPRISES
to concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the low bid submitted by Ingram Enterprises
in an amount not to exceed $18,200 for the turf mowing
contract.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,- Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ENGINEERING
A proposal was presented from Greeley and Hansen
HIGH SERVICE
Engineers for engineering services in connection with
PUMP
the replacement of a high service pump at Pumping
Station #1 at a cost of $5,800.
GREELEY & HANSEN
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the proposal submitted by Greeley and Hansen
for services connected to the replacement of a high
service pump at Pumping Station #1 at a cost not to
exceed $5,800.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
BID:
The following bids were received for the Schoenbeck
Road reconstruction project:
Bidder Amount
Lenny Hoffman Excavating $377,845.75
Martam Construction Co. $418,659.00
MCC Contractors $435,903.00
Kovilic Construction Co. $697,373.50
LENNY HOFFMAN
It was noted that the Village has recently assumed the
EXCAVATING
jurisdiction responsibilities from Cook County and this
improvement is in conjunction with that jurisdiction
transfer, as well as the development of the Lexington
townhomes.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the low bid submitted by Lenny Hoffman
Excavating for the improvement of Schoenbeck Road at
a cost not to exceed $377,845.75.
MELAS PARK The following bids were received for the project of re -
STORM WATER routing the storm water from the Public Works Facility,
IMPROVEMENT 1700 W. Central Road, and to provide compensatory
Page 8 - April 3, 1990
storage as required by the MWRD (formerly known as
the MSD):
Amount
Martam Construction $ 89,420.00
William J. Olson $ 95,280.45
Vincent DiVito, Inc. $ 96,256.00
Suburban General Construction Inc. $ 97,855.25
American Cutting Systems, Inc. $111,375.00
Mosell & Assoc. Inc. $167,605.00
It was noted that an option was given in the proposals
to eliminate the sod and substitute mulch and grass
seed, which reduces the cost by $17,420.00.
Trustee Van Geem requested additional information
relative to the commitment of the Mount Prospect
and Arlington Heights Park Districts and asked that
action on this bid be deferred until a signed
d
commitment from the Park Districts is received.
It was the consensus of the Board that a vote on
re-routing the storm water from the Public Works
Facility be deferred until the April 17th meeting.
Proposals were received from Soil and Material
Consultants, Inc. and H.H. Holmes Testing
Laboratories, Inc. for the material testing
for street projects for 1990
Based on the unit prices received it was the
recommendation of the administration that the
proposal received from Soil and Material Consultants,
Inc. be accepted.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved
to accept the proposal from Soil and Material
Consultants, Inc. for the material testing program
at a cost not to exceed $15,000.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
would adopt the budget for fiscal year 1990/91.
This Ordinance will be presented for 2nd reading
at the April 17th meeting, as well as a Public
Hearing for the purpose of considering the proposed
budget.
Cheryl Pasalic, Cable Television Administrator for
the Village, presented an update on the recent
problem with TCI not providing cable service to a
customer at 1350 West Northwest Highway. This
matter was the subject of discussion at the Village
Board meeting on March 20, at which time the Board
informed Mark Hess, representing TCI, that a 2 week
period would be given TCI in order to provide the
services requested to this customer. If service
wasn't provided by that time then a fine may be
assessed.
It was noted that while a permit was issued to TCI
on Friday, March 31st, as of this date, April 3rd,
service had not been supplied to the customer.
Page 9 - April 3, 1990
SOIL TESTING
PROGRAM
SOIL & MATERIAL
CONSULTANTS
BUDGET 90/91
TCI -
CABLE TV
There was discussion among the members of the Board
relative to assessing a fine of $200 per day,
retroactive to March 1 for failure to comply with the
franchise agreement.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved to
assess a fine against TCI of $200.00 per day of non-
compliance effective April 4, 1990.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Wattenberg
Nays: Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Floros, Van Geem
Motion failed
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved
to assess a fine against TCI of $200.00 per day of non-
compliance retroactive from March 20, 1990 until the
customer at 1350 West Northwest Highway is able to
receive cable TV service.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem
Nays: Wattenberg
Motion carried.
ACCEPT GRANT A Resolution was presented that would authorize
FROM EPA execution of an agreement between the Village and the
Environmental Protection Agency relative to accepting
and applying this grant as prescribed by law.
RES.NO.16-90 Trustee Van Geem, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
for passage of Resolution No. 16-90
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SESSION
SESSION Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved
to go into Executive Session for the purpose of
discussing Personnel, Potential Litigation and
reviewing the minutes of the Executive Sessions for
the past 6 months in order to determine if any of those
minutes can be released to the public.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Unanimous
Motion carried.'
The Village Board went into Executive Session at
10:58 P.M.
Page 10 - April 3, 1990
The meeting was reconvened at 12:01 A.M. RECONVENE
Present upon roll call: Mayor Farley
Trustee Arthur
Trustee Busse
Trustee Corcoran
Trustee Floras
Trustee Van Geem
Absent: Trustee Wattenberg
It was determined that the minutes of the following
Executive Sessions may be released to the public:
October 17, 1989
November 8, 1989
January 9, 1990
February 6, 1990
A Resolution will be presented April 17th authorizing
the release of these minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to ADJOURN
adjourn the meeting.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Unanimous
Motion carried.
The meeting :was adjourned at 12:11 A.M.
Carol A. Fields
-Village clerk
Page 11 - April 3, 1990
P R 0 C L A M A T 1 0 N
WHEREAS, April 22, 1990 is the occasion of the ninth annual
GIRL SCOUT LEADER'S DAY; and
WHEREAS, Girl Scouting provides a special place for girls to
have fun while gaining self-confidence, developing skills, and
learning how to be thoughtful and responsible; and
WHEREAS, the adult Girl Scout leaders are a vital part of this
process, serving as role models, and providing inspiration and
leadership; and
WHEREAS, the 78 -year old tradition of Girl Scouting depends
upon the continuing service and devotion of these volunteer
leaders; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting that Girl Scout leaders be publicly
recognized and honored on April 22, the official GIRL SCOUT
LEADER'S DAY.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald L. Farley, by virtue of the
authority vested in me as Mayor of the Village of Mount
Prospect, hereby proclaim April 22, 1990, as GIRL SCOUT
LEADER'S DAY in Mount Prospect, Illinois.
I do further call upon all citizens of the Village of Mount
Prospect to join me in honoring Girl Scout leaders and lending
continued support and cooperation to all Girl Scouts.
Gerald L. Farley
ATTEST: Mayor
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 17th day of April, 1990
Village of Jount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
N.
A,
2a
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 3, 1990
SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - CLASS W
TAQUERIA FIESTA, 1802 SOUTH ELMHURST ROAD
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF GOLDEN NUGGET RESTAURANT
On Tuesday, April 3, 1 met with Mr. Fernando who is the Manager of Taqueria Fiesta.
Mr. Fernando explained the request for a Class W (beer and wine only) License for this
new Mexican restaurant. I was informed that Salud Cortez is the brother-in-law of
Fernando and Oralia Barajas is the sister. They have been involved with operating eight
Mexican restaurants in the City of Chicago with their father who retired over a year ago.
This is the first restaurant to be owned and operated by the siblings.
None of the individuals involved in this restaurant had a Liquor License in their name
in the past. They have been involved with restaurants which did have Liquor Licenses
in the name of their father. Their practice is to not sell liquor until after 11:30 on any
day and stop sales approximately one hour before closing. They are estimated to be
open for breakfast, lunch and dinner from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday and from 6:00 am. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. The liquor sales time would be
from approximately 11:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on each of the days. They also have, an
internal policy of not selling more than three alcoholic beverages to any of their
customers. This is a practice they have had in the past and they feel is worthwhile.
Four employees are presently going through the restaurant and cooking certification
courses. The brother-in-law, sister and Mr. Fernando all have their certifications at this
time. They also anticipate sending several of their people for the liquor handling course
at Harper College or some other similar site in the very near future. At least one of
the three siblings will be on site at all times. They anticipate that at least two, or
possibly all three of them, will be there the majority of the time.
Mr. Fernando was made aware of the liquor controls the Village of Mount Prospect
follows. He had already applied to the Police Department for finger printing and filling
out of the State liquor application. He was also made aware of the procedures to be
followed if there are any problems with any of the patrons because of the sale of alcohol
and was fully aware of actions that need to be taken by the restaurant.
It is anticipated that there would be very little wine sales, however, they would anticipate
selling imported beers of Mexican variety with their meals.
Mr. Fernando will be present at the Village Board meeting on April 17. They have been
in operation since the third week in March and sell a unique variety of authentic
Mexican foods.
JOHN FULTON ;IRON
JFD/rcw
VILI 11'.GE OF MQUNIPRf P ECT
COOK OX&M ILLINOIS
RENEWAL DATE-,3 - lj�%t�
NEW _Lv, 0150 Non-Refundable Application Fee for issuance of Ain
Liquor License; one-time only fee)
Honorable Gerald L. Farley, Village President
and Local Liquor Control Commissioner
Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
Pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code of Mount Prospect of 1957, known as
Section 13.103, passed by the Board of Trustees of said Village on the 15th day of
January, 1957, as amended, regulating sale of alcoholic liquors in the Village of Mount
Prospect, County of Cook, State of Illinois:
The undersigned, r'
hereby makes application or a ass quor dealer's cense or the period ending
April 30, 19�/ , and tenders the sum o /�'SDl1 `—' ,the prescribed fee as set
forth in the and
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL FEES FOR THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
RETAIL LIQUOR DEALERS' LICENSES (SECTION 13.106):
An-nxAl Fce
CLASS A: Retail package and consumption on premises $ 2,500.00
CLASS B: Consumption on premises only 2,000,00
CLASS C: Retail package only 2,000.00
CLASS D: Non-profit private clubs, civic or fraternal
organizations; consumption on premises only 750.00
CLASS E: Caterer's license 2,000.00
CLASS G: Park District Golf Course; beer and wine;
limited number of special events to include
full service bar facilities; consumption on
premises only 00.00
CLASS H: Supper Club; offering live entertainment 2,000.00
CLASS M: Hotels, motels, motor inns, motor lodges;
retail package and consumption on premises 2,500.00
CLASS P: Retail package - refrigerated and non-
refrigerated beer and wine only - no
consumption on premises 1,750.00
CLASS R: Restaurant - consumption at dining tables only 2,000.00
CLASS S: Restaurant with a lounge 2,500.00
CLASS T: Bowling Alley 2,500.00
CLASS V: Retail package - wine only 1,500.00
CLASS W: Restaurant - consumption of beer or wine only
and at dining tables only 1,500.00
SURETY BOND REQUIRED 1000.00
EACH LICENSE TERMINATES ON THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL,
Your petitioner, r, , doing business as
respectfully requests
permission to operate a retai liquor business at dr�2 c• ,
Mount Prospect, Illinois.
Description and name of premises: 15EQ-Uletee� hYid2r+A�f #'*3 4 4vazolt
&-SIAAe4V7� :�LW AAM 41—
Iz- —
must be complete as to floor area, Erontage, etc.) o1a-:V,4q
Is applicant owner of premises: Ajj
If not owner, does applicant have a lease?State date applicant's lease expires:
If not owner, attach copy ease hereto.
Does applicant have a management contract with another person or entity for the
operation or management of the licensed premises? &12
If so, state the name and address of the manager or management company.
(The manager or management company must complete
the same application as the owner).
Is applicant an individual,<Co—rpo—ratiola a co -partnership or an association? (Circle one)
If an individual, state y9ur name, date of birth, address, telephone number and Social
Security Number:
If co -partnership, state name, date of birth, address, telephone number and Social
Security Number of each person entitled to share in the profits thereof:
If a co -partnership, give the date of the formation of the partnership:
If a corporation, give state and date of incorporation:
1- �z
If a corporation incorporated in a state other than the State of Illinois, indicate date
qualified under Illinois Business Corporation Act to transact business in Illinois:
If a corporation, give names, addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers and Social
Security Numbers of Officers and Directors. Also, list the names, addresses, dates of
birth and Social Security Numbers of shareholders owning in the aggregate more than
5% of the stock of such corporation.
OFFICE AND/OR
PERCENT OF
NAME ADDRESS 5-T
DCK, HELD
Date of Birth: / Az. //g<7 Social Security #,?jLd &
,Z Phone #
4
2f,-5� X), 11111h.4djub I - I
oej Yz" --A
Date of Birth: Social Security
Phone
Date of Birth: Social Security # Phone #
(Additional informationtobe included on a separate listin-9)
Objects for whichorgai don is formed: #)IjjA),h 010ewl"
�/
If an individual, a co -partnership, a corporation or an association, has the applicant or
any of the partners, incorporators, directors, officers, agents or stockholders ever been
,convicted of a ftkmy or a misdemeanor? —LZO If so, explain:
If applicant is an individual, state age:46—Marital status:
Is applicant a citizen of the Um' ed States'),U/A If a naturalized, citizen, state date and
place of naturalization:
How long has applicant been a resident of Mount Prospect, continuously next prior to
the filing of this application?
301 114 A410wr
Local address: — zz:-ejq&4Telephone no._� �`�
State character or type of business of applicant heretofore:_Ag„,,, d.4
0
-e42ej� 0,4- '&0YAeL'
State amount of goods, wares and merchandise on hand at this time:
How long has applicant been in this business?
-t��..
Is the applicant an elected public official? .4JO If so, state the particulars thereof:
Is any other person directly or indirectly in applicant's place of business an elected public
official?
In the case of an application for the renewal of a license, has the applicant made any
Political contributions within the past 2 years?
�--AZI-L�
If so, state the particulars thereof.___"
Does the applicant hold any law enforcement office? � If so, designate title:
Does zthe -epplicant possess -a -current Federal Wagering -or Gambling -Device Stamp?
If so, state the reasons therefor:t)/) 4jlj
Has applicant ever been Convicted of a gambling offense as presented by any of
subsections (a) (3 through a) (10) of Section 28-1, or as prescribed by Section 28-3 of
the "Criminal Code of 1961" as heretofore or hereafter amended? /,./,o If so, list
date(s) of said conviction(s):
Has applicant ever made similar application for a similar or other license on premises
other than described in this application? VO If so, state disposition of such
application:
Is applicant qualified to receive State and Federal license to operate an alcoholic liquor
business? >/Z5 Has applicant ever bad a previous license revoked by the Federal
government or by any state or subdivision thereof? .4)0 If so, explain:
Is applicant disqualified to receive a license by reason of any matter or thing construed
by this Ordinance, the laws of this State or other Ordinances of this Village? A1()
Does applicant agree not to violate any of the laws of the State of Illinois, the United
States of America or any of the Ordinances of the Village of Mount Prospect in the
conduct of his/her place of business? Uor
Does applicant currently , ty Dram Shop Insurance covers gt. Aj 0 __. If 'Yes," attach
copy. AVIArl;V-5 'rl,*e,
If applicant is not the owner of the premises, does the owner thereof carry Dram Shop
insurance ,coverage? A2 (If the answer to either of the foregoing questions is 'No,"
no license shall issue.)
Does Surety Bond required by Ordinance accompany this application at the time of
filing? A.�Q
State name and address of each surety next below:
Give name, address, date of birth, telephone number and Social Security Number of
manager or agent in charge of premises for which this application is made:
UAB SA XA ArA�'4-yl-
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT,.,,�Qj
I
Corporate Seal
(If applicant is corporation)
Who, first being duly sworn, under oath deposes and says that he is/are the
applicant(s) for the license requested in the foregoing application; thit— lie_ is/are of
good repute, character and standing and that answers to the questions asked in the
foregoing application are true and correct in every detail.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS.
QOUNTY ,OF -COOK
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
APPLICATION APPROVED;
OFFICIAL SEAL
JOSEPH ROBERT RUFFING
NOTARY PUBLIC, SWE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 7/18/93
A
this :3 day of kD., 19
V
Nota r(rlicv
Local Liquor Control Commissioner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER'
SUBJECT: ZBA-17-SU-90, ROSENOW INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
LOCATION: 2200 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD
DATE: MARCH 13, 1990
The applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 22, 1990 to
request the following:
1. A Special Use/Planned Unit Development for the creation of a five -lot 1-1, Light
Industrial Park. Currently, this parcel is a one lot, three -unit condominium tight
industrial park. The average proposed lot size is just over one acre. Variations to
the P.U,D. standards are also requested as part of the Special Use including:
a. A waiver of the common ownership requirement for a Planned Unit
Development.
b. The perimeter yard setbacks.
Mr. Stefaniak, the attorney representing the petitioner, explained the background of this
case to the Board. In 1986, this parcel was rezoned to I-1 and granted variations for a 20
perimeter yard setback along the north property line and a 10 foot setback along the south
property line, along with a variation to the parking space requirements which meet today's
standard. Conditions were attached to those variations including:
1. No outside storage of equipment or materials on the site.
2. Petitioner cooperating with staff in the development of a parking plan, landscape
plan and water detention plan.
The property was originally set up as a three unit condominium. J & L Industrial Supplies
already occupies Unit #1. The remainder of the property was to be developed as mini -
warehouses at the far west end and the Rosenow Roofing facility on the south half of the
property. However, those plans have changed. Mr. Rosenow, the owner of the remainder
of the parcel has found difficulty marketing the project as it was approved in 1986.
Therefore, they are proposing to abolish the condominium ownership and subdivide the
John Fulton Dixon - Page 2
March 13, 1990
parcel into five separate lots of record. The most apparent change between the 1986 site
plan and this new proposal is that Unit #2, as exists, will be split into three separate lots
of record. The average proposed lot size is just over one acre. A portion of the private
street and detention areas has already been completed in order to serve J & L.
Mr. Lenit, a land planner representing the petitioner, went over the specifics of the site
plan. He stated that it has been his experience that the 4 acre minimum in our Code is too
large for small industrial users. The one plus acre size, as shown on this site plan, should
be acceptable. Mr. Lenit presented an exhibit to the Zoning Board showing building
envelopes on each individual new lot. In some cases, these buildings are located 10 feet
away from the south property line. Mr. Lenit said the 10 foot setback along the south
property line would be necessary since they plan to provide a 30 foot front yard setback.
The petitioner also committed to appearing before the Sip Review Board in order to offer
a P.U.D. sign package.
Staff informed the Zoning Board of Appeals that the smaller acreage of the proposed lots
does not present a problem based upon:
1. The fact that Lake Center Plaza and Kensington Business Center have many lots
that are less than 4 acres in size and are acceptable.
2. By approving a Planned Unit Development, we will ensure proper maintenance
and sign control for each individual lot.
3. A 4 acre minimum lot size seems to be too big for smaller industrial users.
It was noted that the petitioner is proposing the same perimeter setbacks as originally
approved in 1986 which are 20 feet on the north and 10 feet on the south.
All other 1-1 District requirements, such as building height, floor area ratio, lot coverage
should be observed for each individual lot. The petitioner noted that all utilities and the
street will remain in private ownership and maintenance. He agreed to all concerns set
forth in the Village staff comments.
The Board members then discussed the following issues at length:
1. Whether the one acre lot size is appropriate for this parcel. It was noted that
other business parks have lots just over 2 acres in size. It would be possible to
combine two of these proposed one acre Jots to have a comparable lot size.
2. There was some discussion with regards to the hardship for variations. Some
comments were made that it was a self-made hardship resulting from too large a
building on a one acre lot size, thereby reducing the rear and side yard setback
requirements as recommended by staff.
John Fulton Dixon - Page 3
March 13, 1990
After some discussion, the Board then decided to approve the Special Unit/Planned
Development with the following conditions:
1. Each lot, except Lot #1, provide a 30 foot front yard.
2. A 20 foot perimeter yard be required on the north property line and 10 foot yard
on the south with a 20 foot on the west.
3. A 15 foot side yard required for buildings on each lot except for Lot #1. A 10
foot side yard for parking on each one of these lots. If the building height is over
20 feet, then an additional I foot building setback for each foot of building height
must be provided in the affected side yard.
4. No outside storage will be allowed on any lots.
5. The petitioner will cooperate with staff with regards to an acceptable landscape
plan, site plan and drainage plan for each lot.
This motion was approved unanimously. There were no objectors present in the audience
to voice any concerns.
If the Village Board approves the zoning requests, the applicant will then proceed to the
Plan Commission with a plat of subdivision.
PB:hg
Approved:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 17 -SU -90
PETITIONER:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: February 22, 1990
Rosenow Investment Properties
2200 South Busse Road
February 7, 1990
A Special Use/Planned Unit Development is
proposed for a five -lot Light Industrial
subdivision and the following variations to the
P.U.D. standards: A waiver of the common
ownership requirement for a Planned Unit
Development; and the perimeter yard setbacks.
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Lois Brothers
Peter Lannon
Marilyn O'May
Len Petrucelli
Gil Basnik
Mr. Alan Stefaniak, Attorney representing the petitioner, gave a brief summary of the
history of the project. In 1996, a rezoning to 1-1 and variations were granted for a one lot,
3 unit condon-tinium. This proposal is slightly different than the approved site plan, He
then informed the Board that the J & L building on Unit #1 is already constructed and
operational. Mr. Rosenow, the owner of the remainder of the parcel, is having difficulty
marketing it as per the approved site plan. The petitioner is requesting that the original
condominium association be abandoned and that the site be developed according to a
Planned Unit Development. Mr. Stefaniak stated that the owner is now seeking to create
a five -lot subdivision with the -individual property owners forming an association. The
association would be responsible for maintaining the detention facilities private roadway and
other common elements. He noted that the private road serving the site is listed as an
outloi.
Mr. Steve Lenit, land planner representing the petitioner, stated that the subject site is too
narrow, creating a hardship in the development of this parcel. He stated the width of the
parcel is approximately 400 feet. Mr. Lenit stated that the variations being requested will
not have a negative impact on adjoining properties and that adequate light, veniflation and
ZBA-17-SU-90
February 22, 1990
Page 2 of 3
drainage will remain adequate: around the site. He noted that the proposed plan is in
compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan, is part of a previously approved
variation, and is being requested because of the irregular shape and narrowness of the site.
He added that one of the variation requests, for a 10 foot side yard on the south side,
would be adequate for fire protection, drainage, and would allow for reasonable
development of the property. He added that the petitioner is willing to trim up trees on
the north side and to comply with screening outside storage. He stated that a letter from
the Project Design Engineer regarding drainage has been submitted to the Village.
Mr. Lenit also noted that the petitioner is requesting a reduction of the minimum lot size
for the site from 4 acres to 1 acre. He stated that market conditions and site constraints
create a hardship and prevent the site from being developed on 4 acre lots.
Paul Bednar, Planner, commented upon the case. He stated that a smaller lot size does not
pose a problem based upon three facts:
1. Lake Center Plaza and Kensington have some lots smaller than 4 acres;
2. A Planned Unit development will ensure proper maintenance and sign control;
3. A 4 acre minimum lot size seems too big for smaller users.
The same perimeter yard setbacks which were approved in 1986 are now requested. The
staff recommends the same setbacks for each individual lot as was approved for Lake
Center Plaza, including 15 foot side yards (10 foot for parking), 20 foot rear yards and 30
foot front yards. With regards to the south side perimeter yard, Mr. Bednar said that a
10 foot setback for parking and a 20 foot setback for a building may be acceptable. It was
also noted that outside storage was not permitted in the 1986 plans for this facility and that
should be a condition of any new approval.
Mr. Brian Carrol, from Baird & Warner, explained the marketing conditions for the site.
He noted that the proposed development is intended to serve the smaller industrial users,
Mr. Petrucelli stated that he felt the Board should keep the Village's higher standards and
have the petitioner return with a more specific site plan. He expressed his concern of the
variations on the perimeter yard and side yards. He also mentioned that he felt the
petitioner has self-imposed hardships, especially if they relate to the number of buildings
on the site. Many Board members agreed.
After farther discussion, Mrs. Brothers moved, seconded by Mr. Lannon, to approve the
Special Use/Planned Unit Development along with variations to the perimeter yard and
ownership as follows:
1. A 15 foot side yard be approved except to allow parking up to 10 feet from the side
yard, also that buildings over 20 feet in height be required to add 1 foot setback for
every 2 feet in height;
ZBA-17-SU-90
February 22, 1990
Page 3 of 3
2. A 20 foot setback be required on the north property line, a 10 foot setback on the
south property line and a 20 foot setback along the Northwest Tollway property line;
3. The developer cooperate with the Village in the preparation of landscaping and site
plan;
4. These requirements pertain only to Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 as shown on Exhibit A;
5. The developer abide by all conditions stated in the staff's comments;
6. There will be no outside storage.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Brothers,Cassidy, Lannon, O'May, Petrucelli
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 6-0.
This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board.
Michael E. Sims
Recording Secretary
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C RMAN
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZBA-17-SU.90, ROSENOW INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
LOCATION: 2200 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1990
The applicant is requesting a Special Use/Planned Unit Development for the creation of
a five -lot 1-1, Light Industrial Park. Currently, this parcel is a three -unit condominium light
industrial park, 60% vacant. The average proposed lot size is just over one acre.
Variations to the P.U.D. standards are also requested for the following:
1. A waiver of the common ownership requirement for a Planned Unit
Development.
2. The perimeter yard setbacks.
Both Engineering and Inspection Services Departments note the following:
1. Sanitary sewers, storm sewers, detention basins, and watermains will remain in
private ownership and maintenance. Easements should be granted for access to
valves, hydrants and service valves. There are additional easements for watermain
on Lot No. 2 that should be shown. No structures including parking lot should be
built in an easement.
2. A grading plan for each lot shall be submitted prior to the development of a lot.
All lots shall drain to an existing detention area. More detention may be provided
on each lot.
3. The cul-de-sac bulb dimension must be verified by the Fire Department. Turning
-movements for emergency vehicles must be substantiated in this cul-de-sac.
4. If more impervious area is to be created than originally stipulated on the M.S.D.
Permit No. 87625 (6.86 AC) the restrictor size may need to be changed.
5. All Development Code and Building Code regulations shall apply to each lot.
Gil Basnik - Page 2
February 14, 1990
This property was annexed to the Village and subsequently rezoned to I-1, Light Industrial
in 1986. Ordinance No. 3656 was approved in June, 1986 by the Village Board granting
variations for a condominium light industrial park. A copy of this Ordinance and site plan
is attached for your review. In essence, variations were granted for a 20 foot setback along
the north property line, a 10 foot setback along the south property line, and parking space
requirements as currently required. Conditions were attached to these variations, including:
1. No .outside storage of equipment or materials be permitted on the site.
2. The petitioner cooperate with the Planning and Zoning Department concerning
the development of a suitable parking plan, landscape plan, and storm water
detention plan.
This property was originally intended to be developed as .a three -unit condominium. J &
L Industrial Supply has already built their building on Unit 1 of the condominium parcel
located at the north end of the property. A portion of the private street and detention
areas have already been completed in order to serve J & L Industries. The remainder of
the condominium property was to be developed as mini -warehouses on the far west end,
and a Rosenow Roofing facility on the south half of the property.
rrg-nt Proposal
Rosenow's Investment Properties is now proposing to abolish the condominium ownership
and subdivide this parcel into separate lots of record. The most apparent change between
the unit boundaries and the lot boundaries proposed is evident when comparing the plat
of survey to the proposed site plan. Unit No. 2, as it exists, is proposed to be split into
three separate lots of record, lots 3, 4, and 5. The average proposed lot size is just over
one acre. Representatives of the petitioner should explain to the Board the reasons behind
this proposal. Staff has no objection to the proposed change in ownership from
condominium to individual lots of record.
The average size of proposed lot being just over one acre is less than the 4 acre minimum
required in an I-1 District. However, we do not have an objection based upon the fact that:
1. A 4 -acre minimum seems too large for small industrial users.
2. Both the Lake Center Plaza and Kensington Business Center have many lots that
~aren't 4-acres�Ihesmalieronesare-about 2+ acres)and-they-donuttimte-problems.
3. The P.U.D. designation will ensure proper maintenance and sign control. It is
to the Village's benefit that a P.U.D. be established in order to maintain control of
the small lot development.
Gil Basnik - Page 3
February 14, 1990
A ftanned Ung Development would require perimeter yard setbacks of 25 -feet on the
north and south property lines and 20 feet to the west. The petitioner is proposing the
same perimeter setbacks as originally approved in 1986, which are 20 feet on the north,
and 10 feet on the south property line. We would recommend that the Zoning Board
consider the normal 1-1 setback requirement standards for each individual lot, which would
include the following:
1. Front yards (along the private drive) of 30 feet.
2. Side yards of 30 feet between industrial lots (parking could be allowed up to 10
feet from the side property line).
3. Rear yards (backing up to the adjacent residential) of 40 feet (parking can be as
close as 30 feet from a transitional rear property line).
As you can see if the above requirements were applied, it would be much more restrictive
than the setbacks allowed previously. It would seem reasonable that this development of
small industrial users would not have to provide the strict 1-1 setbacks for each lot, nor is
it required since this project is proposed as a P.U.D. However, we recommend that any
approval of this proposal be conditioned on individual lot setbacks similar to that of Lake
Center Plaza.
1. Allow 15 foot side yards instead of 30 feet. If the building height is over 15 feet
then an additional 1 foot setback is provided for every 2 feet of building height.
2. A 20 foot rear yard setback instead of 40 feet when adjacent to a residential
district. Additional landscaping should be installed.
3. Thirty foot front yard setbacks.
Other 1-1 District requirements, such as, building height, floor area ratio, lot coverage
should be observed.
In su "'10 b "'IN aaggg
Sib I I * WOO IN W. ON
PB:hg
CAF/
4/13/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3656 AND
GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY
COMMONLY KNOWN 1--A-S 2200 SOUTH --BUSSE FOAD
WHEREAS, Rosenow Investment Properties (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner) has filed a petition for a Special Use with respect to
property commonly known as 2100 South Busse Road (hereinafter
referred to as the Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows:
Lot 1 in Busse Road Subdivision, being a subdivision in the
East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 41
North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal meridian in Cook
County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner had submitted a request for variations, being
the subject of ZBA Case No. 4-V-86, which variations were granted
by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect on June 6, 1986, through the passage of Ordinance No. 3656
entitled "An Ordinance Granting Variations for Certain Property
Generally Located on the West side of Busse Road Approximately 800
Feet North of the Northwest Tollway in the Village of Mount
Prospect; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks a Special Use in the nature of a Planned
Unit Development, providing for the development of a 5 -lot Light
Industrial use, a variation from the Planned Unit Development
standards:
1. To waive the requirement that the development be under common
ownership for the 18 month period, as required; and
2. To waive the required perimeter yard setbacks.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for Special Use
(designated as ZBA Case No. 17 -SU -90) before the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect 'on the 22nd day of
February, 1990, pursuant to proper legal notice having been
published in the Mount Prospect Herald on the 7th day of February,
1990; 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 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: That inasmuch as the variations granted under
Ordinance No. 3656 will no longer be applicable following the
adoption of the Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit
Development, being the subject of ZBA 17 -SU -90, said Ordinance No.
3656 is hereby repealed.
SECTION THREE: That a Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit
Development is hereby authorized, which Planned Unit Development
shall be developed in accordance with the Site Plan attached hereto
and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
SECTION FOUR: That the Planned Unit Development being the subject
of this Ordinance is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Planned Unit Development shall remain under common
management or control by an Association of the individual
owners of lots within said Planned Unit Development, for the
maintenance of private streets, utilities, open, space and
storm water detention areas.
2. That a proposal for unified signage in the Planned Unit
Development be approved by the Sign Review Board.
3. All industrial lots shall provide a thirty foot (301) front
yard setback, with the exception of Lot 1 which is a
development parcel.
4. That Lot 1-A shall be designated for future parking for
Lot 1, which parking shall be designed using the same setbacks
as existing parking on the west side of Lot 1.
5. That a twenty foot (201) perimeter yard be provided on the
north property line, a ten foot (101) perimeter yard on the
south lot line, and a twenty foot (201) perimeter yard on the
west lot line.
6. That there shall be a fifteen foot (151) side yard requirement
for all buildings and a ten foot (101) side yard requirement
for parking lots. If the height of a building facing a
specified side yard is in excess of twenty feet (201), then
an additional one foot (11) of setback shall be provided for
every one foot (11) of building height over twenty feet (20').
7. There shall be no outside storage within the Planned Unit
Development.
8. Individual site plans, drainage plans and landscape plans
shall be submitted for each' lot within the Planned Unit
Development for staff review. The final plans specified
herein and as approved by staff shall be made a part of this
Ordinance and attached hereto as exhibits.
SECTION FIVE: 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
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
day of
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
1990.
iLLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPL,:t
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT:
ZBA.14.V-90, MICHAEL MADAY
LOCATION:
910 SOUTH OWEN STREET
DATE:
MARCH 2 8, 1990
The applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 22 to request the
following variations:
1. Section 14.3016 in order to allow a 24 foot wide driveway for a one -car garage
instead of 15 feet.
2. Section 14.1102.A to allow a zero foot setback for a parking pad instead of
30 feet.
3. Section 14.1102A to allow 37% impervious surface coverage in the front yard
instead of 3Wo.
Mr. Maday stated that when he purchased the home there was an existing 24 foot wide
driveway that was in disrepair and he replaced it with concrete. He replaced this existing
driveway without obtaining the necessary variations. He presented evidence to the Board
that only two homes out of 22 in the neighborhood have 15 foot wide driveways. The
remainder have driveways wider than 15 feet for one -car garages. This evidence was
verified by the staff at the hearing. The Board then voted to approve all variations
unanimously 4-0. There were no neighbors present to object to this proposal.
W-0
Approved:
David A Clements, Director
910 F. (\;a'
?l ,'y,: (312) 7Z6-1313 lqyroa;pcct, IlLinoi-S
(Aj): 1,120986
Zarka
ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
PL -4T r sion of UwtL p,�.IrL oF the West Half Of the 4`Cj� "'qlf of Cha[
,,t: 25 ir) (jci.r-[-,MA� 1,�iU�tus, heinr n sulxlivi41 �AVLIIiid Tirinci.NIL 14cridinn JN,jrj�, j,k,rLh (If,
section U, 'I't-11shil) , MIlVe ur the
�,urthcoSL marWC Of t or deLic,,tif, rm,,j%jc6 I L,
]929 as [X)CLuictit- '1(y,9;,q7`3 pccordb, to
che cen Lerline Of Golf Road Of the 11,LFisLr,1r �,[ titles of G)ok Goijnty, Iltimis, Oo
plat of said Clearbrook rstaLcs rmisLurcd in the ()ffice
pW,ust 21, 1956'as Docullenc 1+1690611-
'S'
4*V=-,--7-4--.244>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 14-V-90 Hearing Date: March 22, 1990
PETITIONER: Michael Maday
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 910 South Owen Street
PUBLICATION DATE: March 6, 1990
REQUEST: Variations from: Section 14.3016 to allow a 24'
wide driveway for a one -car garage instead of
15'; Section 14.1102.A to allow a zero foot
setback for a parking pad instead of 30'; Section
14.1102.A to allow 37% impervious surface
coverage in the front yard instead of 35%.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
ABSENT:
Robert Brettrager
Marilyn O'May
Len Petrucelli
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None
Chairman Gil Basnik introduced this case as being variations to allow a 24' wide driveway
for a one -car garage instead of 15'; a zero foot setback for a parking pad instead of 30';
and 37% impervious surface coverage in the front yard instead of 35%.
The petitioner, Michael Maday, presented his case stating that the 24 foot wide driveway
was in place when he purchased the home. He further stated that it was a blacktop
driveway in disrepair and he wanted to replace it with concrete. He explained that in his
neighborhood there were only 2 homes out of 22 that had 15 foot driveways. He further
mentioned that he spoke to his neighbors about the improvement he was proposing to the
driveway and none of his neighbors objected. He alluded to some patio work which was
done in 1988 and which required a variation, but did stipulate that he received a permit for
that patio.
Paul Bednar, Planner for the Village, acknowledged the majority of driveways in the
neighborhood as being wider than 15 feet with only one•car garages. He clarified the issue
of the permit for patio work done in mid -1988, by explaining that a permit was issued,
however, the work done on the patio was more extensive than what the permit allowed and
ZBA-14-V-90
Page 2 of 2
that constituted the need for the variation. Mr. Bednar further stated that, since there were
already so many homes in the neighborhood with wider driveways, he did not feel that this
24 foot wide driveway would negatively impact the neighborhood.
There was a brief discussion as to the negligence on the part of the contractor to obtain
a permit for this driveway, and Chairman Basnik instructed Paul Bednar to have someone
notify the contractor to apply for permits before he does any future work for the Village.
Mr. Lannon, seconded by Mrs. Brothers, voted to grant variations from Section 14.3016
to allow a 24' wide driveway for a one -car garage; Section 14.1102.A to allow a zero foot
setback for a parking pad; and Section 14.1102.A to allow 37% impervious surface coverage
in the front yard as per petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Cassidy, Brothers, Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 4-0.
This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
Helen Giordano,
Recording Secretary,
'viLLIAGE OF MOUNT PROSPER T
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNEi_�_'
SUBJECT:
ZBA.14.V.90, MICHAEL MADAY
LOCATION:
910 SOUTH OWEN STREET
DATE:
MARCH 14, 1990
REQUEST
The case has been
continued from the February 22 hearing date since the original
submission did not
include one necessary variation. The applicant is requesting the
following variations:
1. Section 14.3016 in order to keep a new 24' wide driveway rather than the 15'
Code allows for a one -car garage.
2. Section 14.1102.A to allow for a minimum front yard setback of zero feet for
a parking pad instead of the required 30'.
3. Section 14.1102.A to allow 37% impervious surface coverage in the front yard
instead of 35%.
VILLAGE STAFF COMMENTS
The Police Chief notes that parking is a problem in this neighborhood. The Inspection
Services Department indicate that a permit was not issued before this driveway was
installed. It is also noted that there was patio work done in mid -1988 which was also done
without a permit and required a variation, which was since granted. The Engineering
Department notes that the trenches along the concrete drive should be backfilled as soon
as possible to prevent injury. No other comments or objections were received regarding this
case.
The applicants live in a single family home typical of other homes in this neighborhood.
They have a one -car attached garage at the north end of their home. Mr. Maday recently
replaced his driveway at a 24 foot width. Since there is only a one -car garage on the
property, Code limits the width of the drive to 15 feet. Therefore, variations are required
not only for the driveway width but also for the parking pad in the front yard and the lot
coverage which exceeds 35% in the front yard.
Gil Basnik - Page 2
ZBA-14-V-90
Upon a brief inspection of the neighborhood, we found other homes with one -car attached
garages that had driveways wider than 15 feet. Some of these driveways appeared to be
between 18' and 21' wide with a parking pad in the front yard similar to the one proposed.
This particular 24' wide drive appears to be the widest in the neighborhood. Given the fact
that there are other drives in the neighborhood similar but not as wide as this one, and also
assuming that this particular drive had existed at this width before Mr. Maday reconstructed
it, it should not have a significant impact upon the neighborhood. The petitioner should
satisfy the Board as to why he did not receive a permit for this work.
In summary, Mr. Maday has already installed a 24' wide driveway which necessitates three
variations in order to keep it. Given the facts that there are other similar drives in the
neighborhood, this particular driveway should not have a significant impact on the
neighborhood.
go
CAF/
4/11/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN.AS 919 SOUTH . ..... OWEN STREET
WHEREAS, Michael and Lisa Maday (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioners) have filed an application for variations from certain
provisions of Chapter 14 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect,
Illinois, for property commonly known as 910 South Owen Street
(hereinafter referred to as Subject Property) , legally described
as:
Lots 25 in Clearbrook Estates being a subdivision of that part
of the west half of the west half of the northeast quarter of
Section 13, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, lying north of the centerline of Golf Road
as per plat of dedication recorded October 11, 1929 as
Document #10494973 according to plat os said Clearbrook
Estates registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles
of Cook County, Illinois on August 21, 1956 as Document
#1690611
and
WHEREAS, Petitioners seek variations from section 14.1102.A to
allow a zero foot (o,) front yard, instead of the required 301;
from Section 14-1102.A to allow an imperious surface coverage of
thirty-seven percent (37%), instead of 35%, and, from Section
14.3016 to permit a twenty-four foot (241) wide driveway, instead
of the permitted 151; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variations requested
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 14-V-90 before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22nd day of
March, 1990, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published
in the Mount Prosect Herald on the 6th day of March, 1990; 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 the same satisfies the standards
set forth in Section 14.605 of Article VI of Chapter 14 of the
Village Code and the Board of Trustees further find that it would
be in the best interests of the Village to grant the variations as
specified herein.
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 the
following:
1. A variation from Section 14.1102.A to allow a zero foot (01)
front yard, instead of the required 301;
2. A variation from Section 14.1102.A to allow an imperious
surface coverage of thirty-seven percent (37%), instead of
35%; and
3. A variation from Section 14.3016 to permit a twenty-four foot
(241) wide driveway, instead of the permitted 151; and
SECTION THREE: Except for the variations granted herein, all other
NwIre-E
FWA
M
ZBA 14-V-90
Page 2 of 2
applicable Village of Mount Prospect ordinances and regulations
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR: In accordance with the provisions of section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted herein
herein shall be null and void unless permits are issued and
construction begins within one (1) year from the date of passage
of this Ordinance.
SECTION TILREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval, publication in pamphlet form,
as provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
Gerald L. Farley
ATTEST: Village President
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
11990.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT:
ZBA-18-V-90, KEITH AND LAURY YOUNGQUIST
LOCATION:
7 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
DATE:
MARCH 28, 1990
Mr. Youngquist appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 22, 1990 to
request the following variations:
1. Section 14.102.13.1 to allow a 4' separation between a new room addition
and the existing detached garage instead of 10 feet.
2. Section 14.1102.E to allow 47.5% lot coverage with impervious surface instead
of 45%.
Mr. Youngquist stated that his home is small and situated on a narrow and long lot. He
is proposing a 775 square foot addition at the rear of the house for a kitchen expansion and
family room. He further stated that his existing garage is located such that it is in the
middle of his rear yard, close to the proposed addition. It is in good condition and does
not want to move the garage further back to create more buildable space off the rear of
the house. Along with this addition, he desires to install a 12'x16' patio which thereby
exceeds the allowable impervious surface coverage by 2-1/2%, or approximately 200 square
feet. Mr. Youngquist does not want to reduce the size of the addition or eliminate the
patio in order to meet the lot coverage maximum, but he wishes to retain his original
proposal.
The Planning staff verified the facts presented by Mr. Youngquist, such as, this home being
1500 square feet, on a long and narrow lot and the garage being close to the rear of the
house. Mr. Lannon expressed his opinion to the Zoning Board members regarding the lot
surface coverage on 50 foot wide lots. He felt that, in the older parts of the Village,
exceeding the impervious lot surface coverage was unavoidable. Mr. Basnik felt that there
was good reason to stay within the lot surface coverage maximum, particularly on these
smaller lots in town. Drainage was Mr. Basnik's main concern.
John Fulton Dixon - Page 2
March 28, 1990
The Zoning Board voted on the two variation requests separately. The first variation
regarding the 4 foot separation between the garage and room addition was approved
unanimously 5.0, subject to the condition that 5/8" Class X drywall be installed in the
existing garage. The second variation regarding the 47.5% lot coverage was denied by a
vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays, There were no neighbors or objectors present at this hearing to
express their concerns. A super majority vote of the Village Board will be required to
approve the lot coverage variation.
PB:hg
Approved:
�WA M. uhy'OIA- -
David M. Clements, Director
JL V L A I
Lot 14 In Block 3 In BPSE.iS
:fE'S TEVN AMITICa Tc . PiHG3PECT in thw East 112 of Section 12,
Lomship 41 N.
rtnI Range 1; East o: the Third Principal Kertwfian.
mlmk4-r r{ , $:;Of tAkQ- /
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 18-V-90
PETITIONER:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Hearing Date: March 22, 1990
Keith and Laury Youngquist
7 South Edward Street
PUBLICATION DATE: March 6, 1990
REQUEST: Variations from: Section 14.102.B.1 to allow a
4' separation between the garage and a room
addition instead of 10'; Section 14.1102.13 to
allow 47.5% lot coverage instead of 45%.
: , I u I. WV91tim0ely
ABSENT:
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Len Petrucelli
Robert Brettrager
Marilyn O'May
Chairman Gil Basnik introduced this case as being a variation to allow a 4' separation
between the garage and a room addition instead of 10' and a variation to allow 47.5% lot
coverage instead of 45%.
Keith Youngquist, petitioner, presented his case stating that his home is very small on a
narrow and long lot, and he is proposing to construct a 775 square foot addition. He
mentioned that his kitchen was only IV X 10' and he could not consider building an
addition smaller that the one he proposed. He further stated that his garage is in good
condition and be would not want to move the garage further back and lose the mature
trees he has in the rear of his property. He is an architect by profession and when he
made the plans for his addition he assumed that the floor area ratio would govern the
overall availability to build on his lot. He explained that he had a dated Zoning Ordinance
which did not address the impervious surface coverage regulation when he was working
on his plans for this addition. He explained that next to his family room he wanted a 12'
X 16' patio and therefore, exceeded the allowed impervious surface coverage by 2 1/2%,
or approximately 200 square feet. He understands that he does have an option of reducing
the size of the addition or eliminating the patio, but wishes to remain with his original
proposal.
'—JA -18-V-90
March 22, 1990
Page 2 of 2
Paul Bednar, Planner representing the Village, stated that the home is typical of the homes
in the neighborhood, that it is on a narrow, long lot and that the proximity of the garage
to the house makes any large addition impossible without a variation. He further stated
that there would be a lesser impact if a smaller addition, such as 600 square feet, were
proposed, and mentioned that this should be addressed.
Mr. Bednar suggested to the Board members that, if' they were to recommend approval
of this addition, they should condition it upon the installation of 5/8" Class X drywall in the
garage for safety reasons.
There was some discussion regarding the impact of impervious lot surface coverage, Mr.
Lannon mentioned that the Zoning Board members envisioned these types of variations
surfacing when they reduced the impervious lot surface coverage from 50% to 45%. He
felt that most of the homes in the older part of the Village, are already exceeding the
maximum allowed impervious surface coverage, and felt that in many cases this was
unavoidable,
Chairman Basnik felt that there was a reason for reducing impervious surface coverage,
particularly in town where the lots are smaller, and did not feel that this issue should be
disregarded. He felt that the maximum impervious surface coverage should be maintained,
particularly in areas where the lots are only 50 feet in width. Mention was made that
drainage is also impeded when impervious surface coverage is maximized in an area where
there is a lack of open space. 'Mere is a vacant lot next to this property and Mr. Basnik
felt that, if it wasn't vacant, the resident living there would be objecting to this proposal.
Mr. Cassidy, seconded by Mr. Lannon, moved to grant a variation from Section 14.102.B.1
to allow a 4' separation between the garage and a room addition subject to the condition
that 5/8" Class X drywall be installed in the existing garage, as per petitioner's Exhibit No.
1.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Cassidy, Brothers, Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Petrucelli, seconded by Mr. Lannon, moved to grant the petitioner's request for a
variation from Section 14.1102.E to allow 47.5% lot coverage as per Exhibit No. 1.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Brothers
NAYS: Cassidy, Basnik
Since 4 votes are needed for approval, the motion failed by a vote of 3-2.
These recommendations will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
Helen Giordano,
Recording Secretary
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER,
SUBJECT:
ZBA-18-V-90, KEITH AND LAURY YOUNGQUIST
LOCATION:
7 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
DATE: MARCH 12, 1990
The applicants are requesting the following two variations:
1. Section 14.102.13.1 to allow a 4' separation between a new room addition
and the existing detached garage. Code normally requires a 10' separation.
2. Section 14.1102.E to allow 47.5% of the lot to be covered with impervious
surface instead of the maximum 45%.
The Engineering Department notes that a grading plan must be submitted prior to any
permit being issued. The existing drainage pattern must not be altered. The location of
downspouts must conform to new Village ordinance. They also note that the applicant
should check to see if the old septic tank or catch basin is in the way of the proposed
addition. Inspection Services notes that building plans will be required. The interior of the
garage should be lined with 5/8" Class X drywall for fire safety reasons, if this 4 foot
separation is approved. No other comments or objections were received regarding this case.
The Youngquist's live in an older single family neighborhood on a narrow but long lot.
They have a 1500 square foot home which is typical of other homes in the neighborhood.
A detached garage is located 26 feet away from the rear of the house, and at least 40 feet
from the rear property line. The garage is in good condition. Besides the house, garage,
and driveway, the rest of the property is open landscaped area with several large trees in
the rear yard.
The Youngquist's are proposing to add 775 square feet of living space to the rear end of
the home. The configuration of the addition, as proposed, would come as close as 4 feet
from the existing garage. Also, this room addition along with the 12' X 16' new patio will
Gil Basnik - Page 2
ZBA-18-V-90
increase the total impervious surface on this lot to 47.5%. All other zoning requirements,
such as Floor Area Ratio, yard setbacks, and building height are conforming. Code requires
a 10 foot separation between detached structures such as garages and the principal home,
mainly for light and air circulation and fire safety reasons. There are no encroachments
into the 5 foot side yard.
As evidenced by the site plan, the existing detached garage being located only 26 feet away
from the home limits the size of any building addition if Code requirements are met. The
petitioners should address the need for this size of addition. If the addition were
approximately 600 square feet, it could probably meet the 10 foot separation requirement
between the garage and the addition. It would also decrease the impervious surface to the
maximum of 45%.
An option of moving the garage further back on the property in order to open up more
buildable area for a room addition, would require removing a large mature tree and cover
more of the lot with impervious surface. As noted in the Village staff comments, neither
the Fire Department nor Inspection Services have an objection to this 4 foot separation if
the approval is conditioned upon the requirement of installation of fire -rated drywall in the
existing garage. Similar requests for reduced separation between room additions and
existing detached garages have been approved in the past several years. In these cases,
the garage was located 26 feet from the house yet the homes were generally of smaller
sizes.
In summary, the Youngquists must address the proposed size and configuration of their
addition. If this proposal is approved, we would recommend a condition be attached
that fire -rated drywall be installed in the garage. Reducing the size of the addition could
increase the separation between the house and the garage. The impervious surface
coverage of the lot could be reduced to the Code maximum of 45% if either the addition
size were decreased or the patio was eliminated. Since the garage is in good condition, and
a large fir tree is located at the rear of the garage we would not recommend moving the
garage back on the lot to open up more buildable space.
CAF/
4/12/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY --KNOWN AS 7 O^TT TH EDWARD STREET
WHEREAS, Keith E. and Laury E. Youngquist (hereinafter referred to
as Petitioners) have filed an application for variations from
certain provisions of Chapter 14 of the Village Code of Mount
Prospect, Illinois, for property commonly known as 7 South Edward
Street (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property), legally
described as:
Lot 19 in Block 3 in Bussets Addition to Mount Prospect
in the East 1/2 of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range
11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County,
Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioners seek a variation from Section 14.102.B.1 of
Chapter 14 of the Village Code Of Mount Prospect to permit a
separation of four feet (41) between a room addition and an
existing detached garage, instead of the required 10 foot
separation, and a variation from section 14.1102.E to allow 47.5%
impervious surface lot coverage, instead of the permitted 45%; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variation requested being
the subject of ZBA Case No. 18-V-90 before the zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22nd day of March,
1990, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published in the
Mount Proggect Herald on the 6th day of March, 1990; 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 the same satisfies the standards
set forth in Section 14.605 of Article VI of Chapter 14 of the
Village Code and the Board of Trustees further find that it would
be in the best interests of the Village to grant the variations as
specified herein.
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 the following variations for the
Subject Property:
1. A variation from Section 14.1102.8.1 to allow a four foot
(41) separation between a room addition and an existing
detached garage; and
2. A variation from Section 14.1102.E to allow an impervious
surface lot coverage of 47.5%.
The Petitioner shall install a wood deck, rather than a
patio at the rear of the proposed room addition.
Said variations are granted subject to the installation of 5/81,
Class "X11 drywall being installed in the existing garage.
91A
WAM!m
W�z
I'M
ZBA 18-V-90
Page 2 of 2
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.
SECTION FOUR* In accordance with the provisions of Section 3.4.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted
herein shall be null and void unless permits are issued and
construction begins within one (1) year from the date of passage
of this Ordinance.
SECTION FIVE: 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.
Gerald L. �Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village clerk
viLLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPLCT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT:
ZBA.19.V-90, JACK REITZ
LOCATION:
1411 CIRCLE DRIVE
DATE:
MARCH 28, 1990
Mr. Reitz appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 22 to request the
following two variations:
1. Section 14.102.B.4 to allow a 400 square foot accessory building (not a garage)
instead of 120 square feet. This accessory building is proposed to be a
workshop.
2. Section 14.102.13.3 to allow a maximum building height of 12' for an accessory
building instead of 10'.
Mr. Reitz has a modest -sized single family home with an attached one -car garage. He is
proposing to construct a workshop structure in his rear yard. This structure meets all
requirements of the Zoning Code except for the size and height. Mr. Reitz explained to
the Zoning Board that he converted his attached garage to a workshop years ago. He now
wishes to construct a separate workshop in the rear yard due to his wife's allergies to
sawdust and varnish odors. He further testified that be has a hobby of furniture making
and does not intend to ran a business out of this structure.
Staff's main concern with this proposal is its intended use. It can only be used for a hobby
and not a place of business in a residential district. The location of this workshop will be
located in a similar area of the rear yard as garages on the adjoining properties, and will
be the same height as those garages. Therefore, staff foresees no more of an impact on the
neighborhood than if a garage were allowed. Some of the Board members discussed the
possibility of eliminating the existing garage and building a new two -car garage in the rear
yard. This idea is not possible for two reasons:
1. There is not enough room between the side of the house and the property line
to put in a driveway leading to a new garage; and
John Fulton Dixon - Pa&,- 2
March 28, 1990
2. Having the workshop in a separate structure is important when considering Mrs.
Reitz' allergies. Mr. Reitz further explained that building a separate structure was
cheaper than any addition to the house.
The Board then voted unanimously 5-0 to grant variations provided that no business will
be conducted from the premises and that the structure be used strictly as a place for an
avocation and not a vocation. There were no neighbors in attendance to voice their
concerns to this case.
PB:hg
Approved:
David M. Clements, Director
I- '=T, t I,,/
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 19-V-90
190JIVIC00:13
Hearing Date: March 22, 1990
Jack and Wilma Reitz
1411 Circle
PUBLICATION DATE: March 6, 1990
REQUEST: Variations from: Section 14.102.B.4 to allow
a 400 square foot accessory structure instead
of 120 square feet; Section 14.102.8.3 to allow
a maximum building height of 12' for an
accessory structure instead of 10'.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Len Petrucelli
Robert Brettrager
Marilyn O'May
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTTES: None
Chairman Gil Basnik introduced this case as being a request to allow a 400 square foot
accessory structure instead of 120 square feet and a maximum building height of 12' for
an accessory structure instead of 10'.
Mr. Jack Reitz, petitioner, presented his case stating that he and his family were the
original owners and lived at 1411 Circle Drive for approximately 25 years. Their home is
a raised ranch with a garage underneath. He further testified that several years ago he
converted his garage to a workshop instead of using it to store his vehicle. He now wishes
to construct a 400 square foot, accessory building in his rear yard, to use as a workshop.
He proposes to build it 12 feet in height. His wife's allergy to sawdust and varnish odors
in the past few years, precipitated the reason to move the workshop further from the house.
He further testified that he has a hobby of furniture making and his present workshop is
now over -crowded and he would now like to store his vehicle in a garage. He therefore is
requesting to be permitted to build a 20' X 20' accessory building in the rear yard with a
6 foot double passage door so he could move furniture in and out.
ZBA-19-V-90
March 22, 1990
Page 2 of 2
Paul Bednar, Planner representing the Village, reiterated that this is a ranch -type home
with an attached one -car garage. He explained the Code requirement that a shed be a
maximum of 120 square feet, and 10 feet in height. Since this structure cannot qualify for
a garage, it must be interpreted as a shed and governed by those regulations. The structure
meets all other Code requirements. He further noted that Code does not allow any
businesses in a residential district, and the petitioner must be aware that, if his request is
granted, he can only use this building for his hobby and not as a place of business.
Mr. Bednar stated that this accessory building is proposed to be placed in a similar area
as the adjoining garages, and the structure will be basically the same height as the garages.
Therefore, the impact will be less than normally expected with a structure of this size. If
the Zoning Board members recommend approval, Mr. Bednar suggested that they prohibit
the installation of any overhead (garage -type) door for this structure.
Mr. Cassidy questioned the logic of permitting such large accessory buildings. Discussion
ensued regarding the possibility of eliminating the existing garage and using this structure
as a garage. However, there would not be enough room for a driveway leading to this
location. The issue of constructing an addition to the home was brought up and discussed.
Mr. Reitz stated that having a separate structure is important considering his wife's
allergies. Further, he felt that building a separate structure was cheaper than adding an
addition to the home.
Mr. Basnik noted that this structure was so far from the concept of a shed and that it would
probably be very difficult to control the usage of this structure if it were sold.
Mrs. Brothers, seconded by Mr. Lannon, moved to grant a variation from Section 14.102.8.4
in Case ZBA-19-V-90, to allow a 400 square foot accessory structure and Section 14.102.B.3
to allow a maximum building height of 12' for an accessory structure as per petitioner's
Exhibit No. 1, provided that no business will be conducted from these premises, and the
structure used strictly as a place for an avocation and not a vocation.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Cassidy, Brothers, Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
These recommendations will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
Helen Giordano,
Recording Secretary,
ViLLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER'�� j`_P
56
SUBJECT: ZBA-19-V-90, JACK REITZ
LOCATION: 1411 CIRCLE DRIVE
DATE: MARCH 12, 1990
The applicant is requesting the following two variations:
1. Section 14.102.B.4 to allow a 400 square foot accessory building (not a garage)
instead of 120 square feet. This accessory building is proposed to be a
workshop.
2. Section 14.102.B.3 to allow a maximum building height of 12' for an accessory
building instead of 10'.
The staffs main concern is whether this building will be used to operate a business.
Businesses are not allowed in residential districts. Inspection Services questions whether
sanitary sewer and water is proposed for this building. Building permits will be required
before any building occurs. Engineering Department notes that a grading plan must be
submitted prior to building permits being issued. They also note that the existing driveway
is wider, than the 15 foot width allowed by code for a single garage. If this driveway is ever
replaced, the owner should be aware that a variation may be necessary.
PIANNING AND ZONING COMMENT
Mr. Reitz resides in a single family neighborhood on the south end of town. There is a
modest -sized home with an attached one -car garage on a standard -sized lot. Mr. Reitz is
proposing a 400 square foot accessory building/workshop, 12' tall, in his rear yard. The
structure meets the required 5 foot setback from the property lines. Variations are required
for both the size and height of this accessory structure. Code allows two detached accessory
structures on a property, (one garage of 600 square feet in size and one accessory structure
120 square feet in size.
Gil Basnik - Page 2
ZBA-19-V-90
The main question Mr. Reitz should address before the Board is what the intended use is
for this structure. Businesses are not allowed in residential areas. If this is indeed a
workshop for personal hobbies, then Mr. Reitz should address why it cannot be located in
the house, and why it is to be 400 square feet in size.
The neighbors on either side of this property already have detached 400 square foot garages
similar to the structure proposed by Mr. Reitz. For this reason, this structure will not look
out of place considering the neighboring properties. The total impervious lot surface
coverage is approximately 35% when considering this new accessory structure.
In summary, Mr. Reitz must understand that a business is not allowed in a residential area.
If approved as a personal workshop, the structure size and setback from property lines, and
the proposed height will not be out of character for the neighborhood, especially when
considering the neighbors on either side.
Lastly, should the Zoning Board recommend approval of the application, there should be
a condition prohibiting the installation of an overhead door.
PB:hg
CAF/
4/11/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN _AS_1A11pS,ftCi�E
WHEREAS, Jack and Wilma R. Reitz, (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioners) have filed an application for variations from certain
provisions of Chapter 14 of the Village code of Mount Prospect,
Illinois, for property commonly known as 1411 Circle (hereinafter
referred to as Subject Property), legally described as:
Lots 255 in Elk Ridge Villa, Unit No. 5, being a subdivision
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 41 North, Range
11 East of the 3rd Principal Meridian in Cook County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioners seek variations from Section 14-102.B.4 to
allow a 400 square foot accessory building, which shall be utilized
as a workshop, instead of the maximum 120 square feet and a
variation from Section 14.102.B.3 to allow a maximum building
height of twelve feet (121) for an accessary building, instead of
the permitted maximum height of 101; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variations requested
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 19-V-90 before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22nd day of
March, 1990, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published
in the Mount Prospect Herald on the 6th day of March, 1990; 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 the same satisfies the standards
set forth in Section 14.605 of Article VI of Chapter 14 of the
Village Code and the Board of Trustees further find that it would
be in the best interests of the Village to grant the variations as
specified herein.
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 variations
from Section 14.102.B.4 to allow a 400 square foot accessory
building, instead of the maximum 120 square feet and a variation
from Section 14.102.B.3 to allow a maximum building height of
twelve feet (121) for an accessary building, instead of the
permitted maximum height of 10'. The variations granted herein are
subject to the condition that no business or occupation shall be
conducted on the subject property as a result of the oversized shed
being the subject of this Ordinance.
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.
SECTION FOUR: In accordance with the provisions of Section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted herein
ZBA 19-V-90
Page 2 of 2
shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction
begins within one (1) year from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
SECTION FIVE: That the Village Clerk is hereby directed to record
a certified copy of this Ordinance with the cook County Recorder
of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles, whichever is applicable.
SECTIO SI: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form, as provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of .1990•
Gerald L. Farley
ATTEST: Village President
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZBA-21-V-90, KGS INDUSTRIES
LOCATION: NWC OF HIGHLAND AND RAND ROAD (302 RAND ROAD)
DATE: MARCH 28, 1990
The applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 22, 1990. Originally
proposed was a 7,870 square foot one-story strip center which has been amended to allow
a 7,200 square foot building. The following variations are requested.
1. Section 14.2002.A. to allow an 18' front yard building setback instead of 30' (along
Highland).
2. Section 14.2002.0 to allow a 10' rear yard building setback instead of 20'.
3. Section 14.2002.12 to allow 0' setbacks for parking instead of 20' when adjacent to
residential and 30' when adjacent to a right-of-way (both Highland and Rand).
4. Section 14.30123 to waive the 12' X 35' loading zone space requirement.
Two parcels of land are involved in this redevelopment proposal. One is the old Kentucky
Fried Chicken site, the other being the adjacent vacant parcel. The property is zoned
appropriately for commercial development. Adjacent land uses include the townhouse
development to the west, single family to the south and commercial along Rand Road to
the north. It is recognized that this parcel is an irregular shape which in itself creates a
hardship to meet both the parking requirements and all setback requirements. For these
reasons, the variations are requested. It was also indicated that other businesses along
Rand Road currently provide little, if any, setbacks along the frontage. Therefore, in staffs
opinion it is reasonable to allow some flexibility with the setback requirements for this
piece of property. Commercial redevelopment on these parcels can be supported by staff.
It was also noted that greater setbacks could be provided if:
1. the parking ratio were reduced to the Code requirement if 4 spaces per 1000
square feet instead of 4-1/2 per 1000 square feet as shown on the original plan; and
2. the size of the building were reduced
An optional site plan was submitted to the Board by staff addressing some of our main
concerns including the traffic flow, and increased buffering and landscaping on the site.
Mr. Louis Cassover, representing KGS, presented a revised site plan to the Zoning Board
showing a 7200 square foot building with similar setbacks to the staff generated site plan.
Members of the audience voiced their concerns with this proposal. Most of the neighbor's
comments were opposing the development based on:
John Fulton Dixon - Page 2
March 28, 1990
1. the amount of traffic already existing on Rand Road; and
2. the fact that there is a small parking area proposed at the back of this building
to be accessed by Highland Street, possibly by delivery trucks.
Some neighbors opposed the project stating that there was no need for another commercial
development in this area.
The Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the proposed development and the requested
variations at length. It was agreed upon that a commercial redevelopment was permitted
by right in this district, however, some safeguards to the surrounding neighborhood had to
be addressed. The main concern the Zoning Board had with this proposal was the small
parking area located to the rear of the building off Highland Street. Some members of the
Board wanted to see this eliminated by either reducing the size of the building accordingly
and/or putting some additional parking spaces in front. Other members were mainly
concerned that no deliveries would be made to the rear of this building, thereby, lessening
the impact on the neighborhood. It was agreed by most members that the unique
circumstance, that being the irregular shape of the lot, was a hardship and therefore, some
variation to the setback requirements was in order.
The Zoning Board then considered a number of conditions be attached to any site plan
approval including:
1. A revised landscape plan approved by the staff;
2. The dumpster must be enclosed with a fence or a wall and be located so as not
to impact the townhouse neighbors;
3. Face brick be required around the entire building, no roof top mechanicals being
visible;
4. A 6 foot high board on board fence be installed at the rear of the property; and
5. Uses in the center be limited to retail only.
The Zoning Board of Appeals then voted 2-3 denying the requested variations. The
dissenting Board members advised the petitioner that if be were to eliminate the parking
area and possible delivery area to the rear of the store, by adding more spaces in front
and/or reducing the size of the building, that this would alleviate their major concerns.
There was also the opinion that the developer was trying to build too large a structure on
this small, irregular -shape parcel.
Approved:
David M. Clements, Director
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 21-V-90 Hearing Date: March 22, 1990
PETITIONER: KGS Industries
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 301 E. Rand (Comer of Highland & Rand)
PUBLICATION DATE: March 6, 1990
REQUEST- Variations from: Section 14.2002.A to allow
an 18' front yard building setback instead of 30'
(along Highland); Section 14.2002.0 to allow
a 10' rear yard building setback instead of 20';
Section 14.2002.13 to allow 0' setbacks for
parking instead of 20' when adjacent to
residential and 30'when adjacent to a right-of-
way (both Highland and Rand); Section
14.3012.8 to waive the 12' X 35' loading zone
space requirement.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
0
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Len Petrucelli
Robert Brettrager
Marilyn O'May
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Several
Chairman Basnik introduced ZBA Case 21 as being an application by KGS Industries for
variation of front and side yard requirements along Rand Road and Highland Avenue, and
the rear yard requirement, the request also includes a waiver of the loading space
requirement.
Mr. Paul Bednar, Planner for the Village, was sworn in, by Chairman Basnik prior to his
testimony. Mr. Bednar summarized in further detail the request for the Zoning Board of
Appeals. He indicated that this site is the location of the former Kentucky Fried Chicken
building and a vacant lot north of the Kentucky Fried Chicken site. He said the combined
area of these two parcels is approximately 33,000 square feet.
Mr. Bednar stated that the property is zoned a B-3 Commercial District and the
Comprehensive Plan indicates commercial or retail as being desirable at this location.
ZBA-21-V-90
March 22, 1990
Page 2 of 5
He also described the surrounding uses of the subject site and stated that, with
redevelopment of this property, all zoning and Development Code modifications would have
to be met. This would include parkway trees, sidewalks, and storm water detention
requirements.
Mr. Bednar stated that the Planning and Zoning staff supports the redevelopment of this
site, but indicated that, due to the unique nature in size of the property, certain variations
of yard requirements are necessary. Mr. Bednar noted that flexibility is important when
looking at yard requirements on an irregular-shaped parcel, such as this; but that the staff
notes that certain revisions could be made to the plan to help minimize the variations and
perhaps provide a better design. Mr. Bednar indicated that he had distributed a slightly
revised site plan to Zoning Board members that he had discussed with the petitioner, and
that he anticipates the petitioner will address. Mr. Bednar stated that this redesign reduces
the variations on Highland Avenue and Rand Road and slightly reduces the size of the
building.
Mr. Bednar concluded in stating that, should the Zoning Board recommend approval of the
request, he suggests that there be the following conditions:
1. A 6 foot board -on -board fence be installed at the rear of the property.
2. The shopping center be designed with all face brick construction on all four sides .
3. There be no roof -type mechanical equipment visible;
4. The parking be designed at a rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 rather than 4-1/2 spaces per
1,0000 and that there be a limitation to only permit retail uses in the center.
Mr. Louis Cassover then introduced himself to the Zoning Board as the project architect.
Mr. Cassover indicated that the project had been revised several times pursuant to
discussions with the Planning and Zoning Department; and that the petition was submitted
with a plan depicting a 7,800 square foot building. The architect presented a revised plan
that showed the building size reduced to 7,200 square feet, which increased setbacks along
Rand Road and Highland. He indicated that this is close to the staff generated design and
that he believes this demonstrates sensitivity to the unique shape of the parcel.
Chairman Basnik asked for the number of stores that would be anticipated in this
development. Mr. Cassover indicated that there could potentially be seven 1,000 square
foot retail stores in the development. Mr. Basnik asked if the property had been pre -leased
and the architect indicated that there are no leases presently for the center. Mr. Cassover
indicated that typical tenants would be retail tenants or service oriented uses, such as,
cleaners or a small paint store or hardware store.
Chairman Basnik then asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Fred Hejduk, 604
Wilshire Drive indicated that he opposes the shopping center plan. He questioned the
ZBA-21-V-90
March 22, 1990
Page 3 of 5
demand for more stores in this area along Rand Road, and indicated that traffic on Rand
Road is at high volumes, and that the intersection of Highland and Rand is dangerous with
heavy congestion.
Mr. Petrucelli noted that the property is currently zoned commercial and asked Mr. Hejduk
what he would anticipate is a better development for this commercial site. Mr. Hejduk did
not indicate a preferred development.
Mr. George Lieder, 401 Highland, indicated that he believed there were too many stores
proposed for this plan and that this would generate too much traffic in the area.
Joe Mathews, 607 North Maple Court, indicated a concern about the design, but stated that
the plan was better than the Kentucky Fried Chicken building. He objected to the number
of variations with the request and stated that the commercial building is too close to the
Maple Court Townhomes.
Mr. Petrucelli questioned how far the townhome building is from the property line and Mr.
Mathews indicated he believed it was approximately 20 feet Mr. Lannon asked if an 8 foot
fence might solve some concerns of the townhome owners and Mr. Mathews indicated that
an 8 foot fence would help.
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the parking at the rear of the building
adjoining the townhomes and indicated a concern about the dumpster and the loading area
at the rear of the property. Mr. Basnik stated that such a design could only be accessible
by traffic eastbound on Highland Avenue, and that this parking area could generate more
traffic in the adjoining residential neighborhoods than current volumes.
Mr. Bednar indicated that he believed this parking area was designed for "employee only"
parking but that this would be difficult to monitor. Mr. Petrucefli asked if the loading area
could be located elsewhere on the site, and Mr. Bednar responded that it could possibly be
placed in front of the building at the northern edge of the property. Mr. Basnik stated that
he did not like the driveway location on Highland Avenue. Mr. Cassidy pointed out that
the Kentucky Fried Chicken had two curbcuts on Highland for some time.
Mr. Tom Ziegenftiss, a nearby property owner, objected to the driveways on Highland
Avenue because of a concern about increased traffic. He also believed that this driveway
location would increase truck traffic in the neighborhood.
Mr. David Hacker, 600 Windsor Drive, had a concern for any potential 24 hour businesses
in the center. He also pointed out that the intersection of Highland and Rand is very
dangerous.
Michael Wexler, 606 Windsor Drive, noted that access in and out of the proposed site is
difficult and that he thought it would be a difficult turning movement for retail customers
coming to the center. He also pointed out that it is extremely difficult exiting Highland
ZBA-21-V-90
March 22, 1990
Page 4 of 5
Avenue at Rand Road, and that this development might make that condition worse. He
pointed out that the property has an unusual shape and that it is difficult to develop and
he suggested that it not be necessary that every property in the community be redeveloped,
and perhaps, this property could be acquired for a park for the children in the nearby
townhomes.
Janet Hacker, 600 Windsor, stated that she had witnessed many accidents at Highland and
Rand and indicated a preference for a single user building on this site.
Mr. Cassover briefly addressed comments from adjoining property owners and stated that
he did not believe this development would generate significant traffic on Highland, and that
it is oriented to Rand Road.
Larry Gold, one of the partners of KGS Industries, stated that the shopping center had
originally been designed at 9,000 square feet and that through discussions with staff, the size
had been'reduced several times. He indicated that they have cooperated as best they could
with staffs attempts to minimize variations, but that the project is very nearly at the
minimal size for any economic return from the development.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the request, and Mr. Basnik indicated a preference
for a single user, rather than the potential of 7 small stores on the site. Mr. Gold stated
that the number of stores in the center would ultimately depend on final leasing, but that
7 would be a maximum and that there could conceivably be less, depending on the square
foot needs for tenants. Mr. Lannon pointed out that this parcel has an irregular shape and
that he saw advantages to redeveloping the former Kentucky Fried Chicken site with the
vacant parcel to the north. He stated that assembling the sites for redevelopment is the
best approach, and that this plan is a reasonable redevelopment for the area. He indicated
that the small shopping center would not generate any traffic in a residential neighborhood
and that the only reasonable use of the property would be for development with
commercial.
Mr. Petrucelli indicated a concern only for the loading area behind the shopping center off
of Highland Avenue, and stated that he would like to see if there could be some change
made in that location. Mr. Lannon noted that the petitioner had already reduced the size
of the shopping center twice and that this helps to minimize the variations necessary with
the site. He also pointed out that there are already refuse trucks in the single family
neighborhoods serving those residents, and that providing service to the shopping center,
would not increase truck traffic in the neighborhood. He also indicated that the four
parking spaces behind the building would not be a, problem for the area. He stated that
the property is zoned commercial, and that combining the sites for a larger scale
redevelopment is the best approach.
Mr. Basnik indicated that perhaps the petitioner was attempting to over -build an irregular-
shaped lot, and noted that if the property had a more regular shape, it would be easier to
develop and might not necessitate so many variations.
ZBA-21-V-90
March 22, 1990
Page 5 of 5
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the alternative site plan submitted by the
petitioner and noted that this helps reduce the variations on Highland Avenue and Rand
Road, but felt the parking and driveway on Highland Avenue behind the shopping center
might have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Basnik asked how the Zoning
Board might choose to proceed and it was determined that they would review the
alternative plan submitted by the petitioner which was noted as Exhibit No. 1. This plan
depicted a 22 foot building setback and a 10 foot parking setback on Rand Road, a zero
foot parking setback on the northerly parking bay on Rand Road, and 16 foot parking
setback for the southerly parking bay on Rand Road.
Mr. Basnik asked for a motion on the revised plan and Mr. Lannon moved that the plan
be approved with the conditions noted by the staff as to fencing, all face brick construction,
no roof -type mechanical equipment, and a limitation on retail uses only with no restaurants.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Petrucelli.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Cassidy
NAYS: Petrucelli, Brothers, Basnik
Mr. Petrucelli stated his negative vote was due to a concern about the parking and driveway
on Highland Avenue and felt that, if the shopping center size could be reduced and this
parking be relocated, he would support the plan. Mr. Basnik stated his no vote was because
he believed the petitioner was over -building this irregular shaped site.
Motion denied by a vote of 2-3.
This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
&WA M. Uhyj/�
David M. Clements,
Recording Secretary
0 k 0 1 0 . I #
MROW—NN11 4 rV.1il -&A w. a Ulm 07if, zTT v -71-777-M
TO: GIL BASNI& ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER 7pi
SUBJEC`r- ZBA-21-V-911, KGS INDUSTRIES
LOCATION: NWC OF HIGHLAND AND RAND ROAD (302 RAND ROAD)
DATE: MARCH 16,19"
REOVE
The applicant is proposing a 7,870 square foot, one-story strip center and requests the
following variations:
1. Section 14.2002.A to allow an 18' front yard building setback instead of 30' (along
Highland).
2. Section 14.2002.0 to allow a 10' rear yard building setback instead of 20'.
3. Section 14.2002.E to allow W setbacks for parking instead of 20' when adjacent to
residential and 30' when adjacent to a right-of-way (both Highland and Rand).
4. Section 14.3012.11 to waive the 12' X 35' loading zone space requirement.
VILLAGE UAEE COMMM
The following comments were submitted by various departments:
1. It is noted that the traffic on Highland at this location is one-way westbound,
Highland Avenue is a half street.
2. The parking lot layout off of Highland is very awkward. Only 3 to 4 stalls are
actually usable. The one-way traffic flow on Highland makes this area virtually
unusable.
3. With no loading space designated on the site, delivery trucks will block the parking
tot aisle in front of ~the ding.
4. Any driveway widths should be 24 feet wide for two-way traffic.
5. An I.D.O.T. permit will be required for all work done along Rand Road.
Gil Basnik - Page 2
ZBA-21-V-90
6. Parking stalls should be a minimum of T wide by 16.5' long with a 1.5' overhang.
The plans show a 15' length with a 3' overhang.
7. On-site water detention will probably be required. The Engineering Department will
determine this after reviewing engineering plans.
6. Full right-of-way improvements will be required on both Rand Road and Highland
Street, including but not limited to sidewalks, street lights and street trees.
7. The plat of subdivision shows a 10' easement between what is now Lot 1 and Lot
2, whereas the applicant's plat of survey does not indicate this. It is unclear whether
any utilities are located in this easement or not. The building will not be allowed
to be built upon an easement. If an easement exists, it will have to be vacated and
any utilities located in it will have to be relocated
8. Village water is available on the south side of Highland at Elm Street.
9. Sewers are available along Highland.
10. The sanitary sewer stub will go to a 30" line on Highland Avenue. An M.S.D. permit
will be required.
11. Full engineering plans and grading plans are required.
12. The Fire Department notes that this layout causes difficult apparatus maneuvering.
14. Development guarantees and fees are required. Both the Development Code and
Building Code must be followed.
PLANNING AND Z,0rflNGf
The petitioner is proposing a small strip center redevelopment on two parcels of land, one
which was an old Kentucky Fried Chicken site, the other being an adjacent vacant parcel.
The entire property is zoned B-3 which allows for commercial development. Adjacent uses
include a multi -family townhouse development to the west, single family to the south and
east, and other commercial users north on Rand Road. The Comprehensive Plan identifies
this parcel as being best suited for general coinmdreial/office. These two parcels combined
form an irregular-shaped lot. As a result of the proposed redevelopment, all zoning and
Development Code regulations must be met or variations must be granted.
The previous Kentucky Fried Chicken development did not meet the setbacks along Rand
or Vighland that would be required today. Other commercial properties Rand -Road
do not meet today's requirements of setback along Rand Road. The office building directly
north of this proposal is well short of required parking and, in fact, has used the vacant
parcel for parking at rimes.
Gil Basnik - Page 3
ZBA-21-V-90
It should first be noted that Planning and Zoning supports a redevelopment on these
parcels. However, when reviewing this particular site plan, we have some concerns. We
understand that the irregular-shaped property creates a hardship in itself to be able to meet
both parking requirements and all setback requirements. Also considering the fact that
other businesses along Rand Road currently provide little, if any, setbacks along the
frontage, it is reasonable to allow some flexibility. Even so, it appears as though greater
4 setbacks could be provided if`.
1. The parking ratio reduced to the Code requirement for retail uses of 4 spaces
per 1000 square feet instead 4 1/2 spaces per 1000 square feet, as shown.
2. The size of the building were reduced.
We are in the process of designing optional site plans that we will present to the Board for
your review at the hearing. It is our opinion that these staff generated alternatives Will
address our main concerns including ft-affic flow, increased buffering and landscaping on the
site. We cannot support the site plan submitted without some refining to correct these
issues.
In addition to these main concerns, we would recommend a number of conditions be
attached to any revised site plan approval including:
1. The landscape plan must be revised and approved by staff.
2. The dumpster as shown is located very close to the townhouse development. It
should be relocated and enclosed with a fence or wall.
3. Face brick should be required around the entire building use of the close
proximity to residential at the rear. No roof -top mechanicals should be visible.
4. A 6 foot high board -on -board fence should be installed by the developer along the
rear of the property.
5. The uses in this center should be limited to retail only.
In summary, we can support a commercial redevelopment on this property if the site plan
is revised to alleviate our concerns. One of the standards for a variation states that a
hardship has been caused by unique circumstances, such as, an irregular-shaped lot. This
particular lot being odd -shaped makes it difficult to meet all the setback requirements and
therefore, some flexibility in these regulations is reasonable. By decreasing the building
size and reducing the provided parking ratio to 4 spaces per 1000, we believe the plan will
be more acceptable.
PB:hg
CAF/
4/12/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY KMWNOWN 301 EAST EM9 &OAD
WHEREAS, KGS Industries (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 301 East Rand Road (hereinafter referred
to as Subject Property), legally described as:
Lots 1 and 2 in Maplecrest Subdivision, being a subdivision
of part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 42
North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, Cook
County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks variations as follows:
1. Section 14.2202.A to allow an eighteen foot (181) front
yard building setback, instead of the required 301 along
Highland Avenue;
2. Section 14.2002.0 to allow a ten foot (101) rear yard
building setback, instead of the required 201;
3. Section 2002.E to allow zero foot (01) setbacks for
parking, instead of the required 201 when adjacent to
residential and the required 301 when adjacent to a
right-of-way (Highland Avenue and Rand Road)
4. Section 14.3012.B to waive the required 121 x 351 loading
space.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variations requested
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 21-V-90 before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22nd day of
March, 1990, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published
in the Mount Prognect Herald on the 6th day of March, 1990; 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 the same satisfies the standards
set forth in Section 14.605 of Article VI of Chapter 14 of the
Village Code and the Board of Trustees further find that it would
be in the best interests of the Village to grant the variations as
specified herein.
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 the following:
1. A variation from Section 14.2002.A to allow a twenty-two
foot (221) front yard building setback along Highland
Avenue,
0
ZBA 21-V-90
Page 2 of 2
2. A variation from Section 14.2002.0 to allow a ten foot
(101) rear yard building setback;
3. A variation from Section 2002.E to allow ten foot (10')
parking lot setback on Highland Avenue and a zero foot
(01) setback on Rand Road;
4. A variation from Section 14.3012.8 to waive the required
121 x 351 loading space.
SECTION THREE: That the variations granted in this Ordinance are
subject to the following conditions:
1. To permit the construction of a commercial building 7,200
square feet in size, subject to the condition that no more
than five (5) tenants be permitted to rent space in the
subject building, in accordance with the Site Plan attached
hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by
the Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The dumpster must be enclosed with a fence or landscaping and
be located so as not to be prominantly visible from adjoining
residential properties.
4. Face brick will be installed on all sides of the building and
roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened.
5. A six foot (61) board -on -board fence shall be installed at the
rear of the property.
6. Uses in the center shall be retail only, with no restaurants
or 24 hour operations.
SECTION FOUR: 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.
SECTION FIVE: In accordance with the provisions of section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted
herein shall be null and void unless permits are issued and
construction begins within one (1) year from the date of passage
of this Ordinance.
SECTION SIX: 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.
Gerald L. Farley
ATTEST: Village President
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
F z O. P,
�f. h `'
moo,
Q4
1
Fj
di d] 42-
V 3
A
0�1 t�aitD fE�l ` of ''cam'
f-JlVrj;4 ?AIZV-iW4 4
Al¢O-A f¢oPA
Nk
� � N
Alf ifs. \lGYiUF-
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZBA-22-V-90, P.N.B. FINANCIAL CORPORATION
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELMHURST RD. AND MIDWAY DR.
DATE: MARCH 28, 1990
Park National Bank is proposing to build a new banking facility on this vacant 3.4 acre site.
Representatives from Park National Bank presented their case before the Zoning Board
of Appeals on March 22. They are requesting the following variations:
1. Section 14.2002 to allow a parking lot and driveway aisle setback of 0' instead
of 30' as required along Midway Drive (a 6' setback is provided for most of
the parking lot).
2. Section 14.2004 to allow a maximum building height of 35'6", not including
the light well, whereas 30' is the maximum allowed by code.
Mr. Don Anderson of Park National Bank gave Board members some of the bank's
background in this area. He further stated that they are proposing to build a new facility
upon this property and are requesting two variations in order to do so. Presently, the parcel
is a vacant 3.4 acre site zoned B-3 allowing for such a use. Their neighbors are the Auto
Care Mall, Charlie Club, and Zanies Comedy Club. Currently, there is a temporary
banking facility on this property that will be removed when the permanent building is
completed.
The first variation discussed reflects the parking lot setback along Midway Drive as
evidenced on the submitted site plans. Mr. John Clarke, the architect for this facility,
explained the difficulties in meeting the 30 foot setback along Midway Drive. He also
submitted an alternative site plan which by revising the parking layout from 90 degrees to
angle parking, he is able to provide at least a 10 foot setback along the Midway Drive
property line. This revised plan addresses comments made in the staff memo. It was also
mentioned that Park National Bank has provided very generous setbacks at the front and
rear of the property, resulting in in much more open space provided, than the surrounding
commercial users.
John Fulton Dixon - Page 2
March 28, 1990
The second variation regarding the building height at the entrance was explained to the
Board by Mr. Clarke. Only at the octagonal -shaped entrance lobby will the height of the
building be 35 1/2 feet. The bulk of the building will meet the 30 foot maximum height.
The Board members discussed the issues and generally agreed that the building height
variation was insignificant and the setback variation would be acceptable, with either the
original or the alternate site plan. The Board then voted unanimously 5-0 to approve both
variations, subject to Park National Bank representatives discussing the alternative site
plan with staff. There were no objectors present at this hearing regarding this case.
Subsequent to this Zoning Board hearing, the Park National Bank's representatives have
indicated their willingness to submit the alternate site plan showing a minimum 10 foot
setback along Midway Drive.
PB: hg
Approved:
David M. Clements, Director
&196 LH1E
e..u.N ■gav ATION
PAST fI/YATION
NEW BANKING FACILITY
/I�k
-am ma fim
�
4!E PLAN
13
§
&
§
■
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 22-V-90
12:010030:113
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Hearing Date: March 22, 1990
P.N.B. Financial Corporation
2100 South Elmhurst Road
PUBLICATION DATE: March 6, 1990
REQUEST: Variations from: Section 14.2002 to allow a
parking lot and driveway aisle setback of 0'
instead of 30' as required along Midway Drive
(a 6' setback is provided for most of the parking
lot); Section 14.2004 to allow a maximum
building
'-
building height of 35'6", not including the light
well, whereas 30' is the maximum allowed by
code.
KWEN kv) I:Ikvj 100 ',4M 9,9*10w' 1V
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Len Petrucelli,
Robert Brettrager
Marilyn O'May
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None
Chairman Basnik introduced the variation request filed by Park National Bank and
indicated that the petition was filed for variations of the front yard requirement on Midway
Drive and the building height.
Mr. Don Anderson introduced himself as a representative of Park National Bank from 2958
North Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Anderson indicated that Park National
Bank is celebrating their 40th Anniversary in Chicago and that this would be their first
suburban location. Mr. Anderson stated that the bank currently operates a temporary
facility at this location and that this would be removed upon completion of the new
structure. He stated that the proposed bank building is of,a good design and sensitive to
--the-character okurroundin&properties. -He4ndicated that -the bank is set back sub"utially
from Elmhurst Road with a landscape retention pond in front providing an attractive
entryway.
With a mounted site plan, Mr. Anderson then described the parking on site, traffic
circulation, and a landscape plan. He indicated that the request was filed because the 30
foot parking lot setback on Midway Drive could not be met He demonstrated that this was
ZBA-9-V-90
January 25, 1990
Page 2 of 3
a function of the width of the lot and indicated that as much setback as possible is being
provided. Concerning the height variation, he stated that the only location the building
height exceeds the ordinance requirement is at the main entrance, and this is because of
the decorative atrium type feature at the main door. Mr. Anderson stated that, in his
opinion, this bank is compatible with the area and would enhance `surrounding uses and, in
all likelihood, would become an attractive addition for this part of Mount Prospect.
Mr. Paul Bednar then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board and indicating that
the property is zoned commercial and that this development meets the Comprehensive Plan.
He described surrounded uses and made reference to the 30 foot setback requirement on
Midway Drive. He stated that the proposed setback is 6 feet for most of the length at
Midway Drive and reduced at the cul-de-sac bulb. Mr. Bednar stated that the setback could
be increased by shifting the entire parking lot north and eliminating proposed parking
spaces on the east/west driveway. Mr. Bednar pointed out that other uses in this vicinity
do not meet our current setbackrequirements, but that Park National Bank is providing
setbacks and landscaping far in excess of surrounding uses. He indicated that this is a good
design.
Mr. Bednar stated that the staff has no objections to the minor height variation at the main
entrance and that this request is similar to the height variation granted to the nearby
Dempster Development Center.'`
Mr. Basnik questioned the necessity of the cul-de-sac at the west end of Midway Drive and
asked if this could be eliminated to possibly open up the setback at that point. Mr. Lannon
stated that, perhaps this could be vacated and that it does not seem to have any real
purpose. Mr. Lannon and Mr. Basnik indicated that this was a good plan and an excellent
building design, and that they appreciated' having such a good product to review at the
public hearing.
Architect John Clarke, 716 N. Wells, Chicago, Illinois, briefly stated that a revised, plan had
been prepared that depicted angle parking in the parking lot and that this works to increase
the landscape setback and reduce the variations.. He stated that the bank believes that this
angle parking works well, and that this re -design helps meet some of the concerns of the
staff. He stated that he believes the bank is an attractive design, and the good design and
the landscape retention pond on Elmhurst Road will be a quality development at this
location.
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the plan and indicated a consensus for
-they.design,and=architectaural features -of the bank. The Zoning Board-indicated.that they
believe the original site plan and proposed variations were reasonable, but also endorsed
a revised plan submitted by the project architect in an effort to increase the setbacks.
Accordingly, Chairman Basnik asked for a motion on the request. Mr. Petrucelli moved
that the variations for setback requirements on Midway Drive and the building height be
approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lannon.
ZBA-9-V-90
January 25, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Upon Roll Call:. AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Cassidy, Brothers, Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 5-0,
This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
Mr. Lannon indicated that he would ask the staff and Village Board to consider vacating
the north half of the cul-de-sac to further increasing landscaping at this location.
David M. Clements,
Recording Secretary
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPE CHAIRMAN
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZBA-22.V.", P.N.B. FINANCIAL CORPORATION
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELMHURST RD. AND MIDWAY DR.
DATE: MARCH 14, 1990
Park National Bank is requesting the following variations in order to construct a new
banking facility on this property.
1. Section 14.2002 to allow a parking lot and driveway aisle setback of 0' instead
of 30' as required along Midway Drive (a 6' setback is provided for most of
the parking lot).
2. Section 14.2004 to allow a maximum building height of 35'6", not including
the light well, whereas 30' is the maximum allowed by code.
VILLAGE STAFF COhMNTS
The following comments were submitted by staff:
1. The Police Department suggests that the Bank contact the Crime Prevention
Department regarding security concerns.
2. Both Engineering and Inspection Services Department recommend that access
off of Midway Drive be limited to two locations only. Another option is to make the
east drive an entrance only and the furthest west drive an exit only. Curbs at the
west drive shall be depressed for handicapped access.
3. --Both Engineering and Fire Department ; -note that the drive-through by-pass lane
along the north property line is on the Village easement. The Fire Department
suggests that the width of this by-pass lane be 12 feet. If the by-pass lane is located
on the easement as shown, any damage done to the parking lot as a result of utility
work, will not be the Village's responsibility. There is an existing 24" sanitary sewer
in this easement,
Gil Basnik - Page 2
ZBA-22-V-90
4. There is an existing Village storm sewer on Midway Drive. An I.D.O.T. storm
sewer is located on Elmhurst Road. An I.D.O.T. permit will be required for
connection.
5. The existing sanitary service to the trailer is in the same location as the proposed
detention basin. Engineering Department wants the representatives to explain what
will be done with this service after the permanent structure is built. M.S.D. permits
will be required.
6. Detention will be required. The total site shall drain to the detention basin.
The Engineering Department questions how the detention will be installed prior to
the Certificate of Occupancy for this building if the temporary trailer is located in
the location of the basin.
7. There is an 8" watermain on Midway Drive. The existing water service will be
shut off at the main.
8. A sidewalk is not required west of the bulb on the Midway cul-de-sac. If a walk
is desired, it should be placed on Park National Bank property.
9. Driveways shall have a 2" galvanized conduit buried 24" below grade for a street
light cable.
10. Any grade changes for berms must be shown on the engineering plans.
11. All Development Code and Building Code requirements shall apply. Full
engineering drawings are required.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS
Park National Bank Corporation wants to build a banking facility on this vacant 3.4 acre
parcel. This property is zoned B-3 which allows for the proposed use. The surrounding
uses include the Auto Care Mall to the north, Charlie Health Club to the west, and Zanies
Comedy Club to the south. All the surrounding parcels are also zoned commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan identifies this parcel, as well as all the surrounding parcels, as being
best suited for general commercial/office. Park National Bank is currently operating a
temporary banking facility on this property. This trailer will be removed within the year
as the permanent building is completed. Two variations to the Zoning Code requirements
are requested as part of this proposal.
-The first Tariation to'bediscussed reflects the -parking tot'setback along Midway Drive. The
proposed site plan shows an east/west parking lot aisle 6 feet from the Midway Drive right-
of-way line. The parking lot setback is as close as zero feet at the western -most driveway.
As evidenced by the site plan, the bulk of the parking lot is set back 22 feet from Midway
Drive.
071.
.owotu s'qI a! POls'll sluOuIwbD JJ'Bls 02181PA [TV JO 0-mmV J105=q 031M
pinolqs jouoppod -aip IA11=14 -rom oqj uodn indwi u -e aAvq lou pinoqs pine sn of wolqojd
ou sosod xatuluo oqj loj uot uu-eA jqgloq 2uT
plinq oELL -soniodoid Suipumuns oqj
jo Aut, tmqj oils jioql jo joiotrqiod oEp ?uore q)leqjos jo Anne otp M ojow
qanw 2ui tA d
P. 0-1
aq 1p^ Tmq jruouLN ),sea 'oAoqL, polou sV -OAP(i AempilN 2uojv 3puqjos: oqj 2m irSoi
owom s!qi m poiajjo suopdo, otp jo f4T P
.Uqlsuoj oqj ssaipp ism r v ip kmuna
L' slum. [dd o I ns uj
-mmddroqj jo poisonboi uooq seq 123.md u2is sTp jo A!legol
oqj BuTp.mg0i UO!IEWJOJM. Ieuo!iq)Pv -peoN isinqEula WuoTe pourauad oqpino)
u2is )[ueq
mou L, aioj;>q pmog mow u2iS oqi Aq pamouol aq of oAleq Am onssi sig 1, -po*
u2is qnl,ailing. Id maol ST
D -aql i4ai
,qm uo AoAjns oEp uo umoiqs loaxed u2is lims v si ojoqj Allrui'
oql 2utmoav ipyA molqoid ou onq om 'guiPfmq jurwL,
oEp jo Ind llvns u Apio do so)[= iomol owelmo stqi oaui -tlgtoq wnunxLltu joqj OC
oqi sham 2ur Im S
i
1p , q otp jo jopiqetuoi oELL -iqgtlaq loot g-gC v it, umoqs si iomol oautuluo
podvqs-Feuo2Rjao sTiLL .03voiluo aq) is llqS!oq gulppnq oqi sossojpp-e uoilt!urA pu000s oEU
-spjuX noi oqj puL, moig oqj EDoq ui qa7aqlQs snolouoS
paplAoid sgq *mq oELL *":)uqios asoqj kq oplq-e of gutAeq voir siql ul luoiudolQAQP
Aluo oEp aq p1nom 'solru jo las mou 2qj jopun jammed Oql iUTdojOAOP Mou "Alma Iruollie N
31-md 'hm-JO-SIOR OEP jo Am Suolu q:)Icqlos iooj oc p-aplAold jou QArq 'ojqj*jQqj'pm
loft, snaA saoprjn2oj jo las iuojojpp le iopun podoloAop oiata spillodoid 2uipunouns oELL
-MOO 3g3ujl POOS put, suosual f4aps arg joj tuld oqi uo umoqs sm IoAu Isom/ino
. p
us 2Atq oi zu'euodmT si il wqi polou oq ppioqs 11 -wool oldure si ojoqi ojoqm jol Suqxud
ujRul oEp jo pu2 Isom aED oiul poltmodmoui oq ppioa sooleds 01 asoqL -gu!pinq aEp spxem o
i
qjou poljTqs sung OAup isom/mo oqi pus `poleu!u! a
ojom q3ions sTqi SuoTe un oqs wands
SEqAivd 0i oqi p
. posvonui oq pinoo uoilmdos sitLL -Auodoid *mq otp uo alsiR Isom/isuo
oLp pue ouil kuodoid qmos oqi uooAqoq uopendos loot 9 v smogs oslr urld oip Qqj,
qlnq DLS-OP-IM OqI In )laughs
,6 mnum=B oplAoid p1nom uoi do silty -uoiido alq!sLoj
r N p1nom si
qj 'uoiuldo ino
ul -102191 of lopi tz tuoij qip!m ul poonpoi sum aml I!xo dn-OA.U OT P '1401 6
ioqioulR
quOu INUM POW aq MOO 101 2Mnd oMuo OtLL 'OAUG ArmplW Suoreiojjnq posrojoui
us qi!m guop poplAoid aq uw iol 2ur.4.md s
ozi oums otp 'mjoqm IsisTxo oAgeul-alTe uv
v u2isop of ilmUp -oords autos Supsem Inotp!m fol Suplied
.p I! so3pua %jadoid Tmq 2tp spmmol q1lou looi zz AlavemixoIddle
mofojd qpiq otp IrEp jolej oq.L 'q,')ions aipuo oqi guolv )iavql;;s loo; OE paimboi
le ftFp!Aoxd joj dRsPM v 30 MqAtomos amia scop oA!j(j ArmplW uo qlnq ms-2p-po vELL
06-A-ZZ-VEIZ
02nd - 3IMSTEI po
CAF/
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
90MONLY KNOWN AS 20.S E O
WHEREAS, P.N.B. Financial Corporation (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 2100 South Elmhurst Road
(hereinafter referred to as Subject Property), legally described
as:
That part of Lot 2, lying East of a line 212.0 feet, as
measured along the North line thereof, East of and parallel
with the West line of said Lot 2 and lying North of the North
line of Midway Drive and said North line of Midway Drive
extended West to said last described parallel line, (excepting
therefrom that part of said Lot 2, beginning at the North West
corner of heretofore dedicated Midway Drive; thence West along
an extension of the North line of said heretofore dedicated
Midway Drive, 85.95 feet; thence Northeast, East and South
East along a curved line convexed to the North and having a
radius of 54.0 feet, an arc distance of 99.41 feet to the
point of beginning) in Northway Investment Subdivision of the
North 480 feet of the East 931.35 feet (as measured parallel
to the North and East lines thereof) of the South East 1/4 of
the South East 1/4 of Section 23, Township 41 North, Range 11,
East of the Third Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks variations from Section 14.2002 to allow
a parking lot and driveway aisle setback of zero feet (0'), instead
of the required 301 along Midway Drive, and a variation from
Section 14.2004 to allow a maximum building height of thirty-five
feet six inches (351 611), not including the light well, instead of
the maximum permitted height of 301; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variations requested
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 22-V-90 before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22nd day of
March, 1990, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published
in the outLt Prospect Herald
on the 6th day of March, 1990; 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 the same satisfies the standards
set forth in Section 14.605 of Article VI of Chapter 14 of the
Village Code and the Board of Trustees further find that it would
be in the best interests of the Village to grant the variations as
specified herein.
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 the following:
1. A variation from Section 14.2002 to allow a parking lot and
driveway aisle setback of ten feet (101) along Midway Drive.
ZBA 22-V-90
Page 2 of 2
2. A variation from Section 14.2004 to allow a maximum building
height of thirty-five feet six inches (351 611), not including
the light well.
p_F
CTIONTHREE- 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.
_sEcTioN FOUR- In accordance with the provisions of Section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted
herein shall be null and void unless permits are issued and
construction begins within one (1) year from the date of passage
of this Ordinance.
gjECZ1:,QN FIVE: 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.
Gerald L. Farley
ATTEST: Village President
Carol A. -Fields
Village Clerk
CAF/
4/12/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VIII OF CHAPTER 8
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PRQ$RK-
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 8.802 entitled "Imposition of Tax" of
Chapter 8 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is
hereby further amended in its entirety by increasing the real
estate transfer tax imposed from one dollar ($1.00) for every one
thousand dollars ($1,000) value to three dollars ($3.00) for every
one thousand dollars ($1,000) value for any transaction dated May
1, 1990, or later, and providing for a rebate of the tax paid of
two dollars ($2.00) for every one thousand dollars ($1,000) value
for a single-family residence, townhouse or condominium property
owner relocating and purchasing similar property within the
Village; so that hereinafter said Section 8.802 of Chapter 8 shall
be and read as follows:
Sec. 8.802. Imposition of Tax; Application for Rebate.
A. A tax shall be imposed on the transfer of title to real
property located in the Village as evidenced by the
recordation of a deed by any person or by the delivery
of any deed or assignment of interest of said real
property, made as of the first day of November, 1987, and
thereafter, whether vesting the owner with the beneficial
interest in or legal title to said property or merely the
possession or use thereof for any purpose or to secure
future payment of money or the future transfer of any
such real property.
The tax imposed for any transaction entered into between
November 1, 1987 and April 30, 1990 shall be one dollar
($1.00) for every one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) value
or fraction thereof as stated in the declaration. The
tax imposed for any transaction entered into after April
30, 1990 shall be three dollars ($3.00) for every one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) value or fraction thereof
as stated in the declaration.
The term "deed" as used in this Article shall mean all
documents transferring or reflecting the transfer of
legal title, equitable title, or both legal and equitable
title to real property, or the beneficial interest in a
land trust. Delivery of any deed shall be deemed to have
occurred when the transferee or purchaser, or his
representative or agent, receives possession of the deed
or in the case of a land trust when the trustee receives
possession of a valid assignment of a beneficial
interest.
B. Any buyer who and has paid the Real Estate Transfer Tax
at the three dollars ($3.00) per one thousand dollar
($1,000) rate shall be entitled to a rebate of two
dollars ($2.00) for each one thousand dollars ($1,000)
of the purchase price, providing proper application has
been made to the Village Treasurer and further provided
that the buyer meets the following criteria:
1. The buyer shall have owned and occupied a single-
Real Estate Transfer Tax
April 12, 1990
Page 2 of 2
family residence, townhouse or condominium unit
within the corporate boundaries of the Village of
Mount Prospect as his principal residence and said
single-family residence, townhouse or condominium
was sold and the Real Estate Transfer Tax was paid
within one year of the date of application for
rebate; and
2. The buyer purchases and occupies a single-family
residence, townhouse or condominium within the
Village of Mount Prospect as their principal
residence, for which they have paid the Real Estate
Transfer Tax of three dollars ($3.00) per one
thousand dollars ($1,000), within one year of the
date of selling the previous residence located
within the Village of Mount Prospect.
Within 30 days following the receipt of Application for
Rebate of Real Estate Transfer Tax, as provided herein,
the Village Treasurer shall verify the information
provided and if, in the opinion of the Village Treasurer,
the applicable criteria has been met the Village
Treasurer shall cause a warrant to be issued to the buyer
applying for said rebate. 11
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 1990.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
HIVOOD&V6
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
CAF/
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VIII OF CHAPTER 11
!2-F—Tff:K,-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 Section 11.3410 entitled "Other Fees" of
Chapter 11 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is
hereby further amend Section 11.3410.D.2 by increasing the license
fee for tobacco vending machines from $50.00 per machine annually
to one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per machine annually; so
that hereinafter said Section 11.3410.D.2 of Chapter 11 shall
include the following:
" Sec. 11.3410.D
2. Tobacco vending machines $150-00 per machine annually 11
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
May 1, 1990 following its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
N
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPLCT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT: BLUE JAY BUILDERS ORCHARD FIELD TOWNHOUSE
PROPOSAL
LOCATION: 400 EAST RAND ROAD
DATE: APRIL 11, 1990
The petitioner, Blue Jay Builders is proposing a townhouse redevelopment on what is now
two large single family lots along Rand Road. This development will have access off of
Rand Road and back up to the single family subdivisions along Highland Avenue and
Eastman Court. Public hearings were held before the Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan
Commission in order to address specific concerns. The findings of each Board can be found
below.
Zoning
On February 2, 1990, Blue Jay Builders presented their case to the Zoning Board of
Appeals requesting the following:
1. A rezoning is required from R-1, Single -Family; to R-3, Multi -Family Residential.
2. A special Use/Planned Unit Development originally proposing 24 townhouse
units has since been reduced to 22 units.
3. A variation from the P.U.D. requirements in order to allow a 10 foot setback
from the cul-de-sac bulb to the east property line, instead of 20 feet as required.
At the meeting, the petitioner explained that a multi -family townhouse development fits the
site better than either single family residential or a commercial development. The
petitioner said that, in order to develop these parcels as single family residential with lots
on both sides of a cul-de-sac, they would need a much wider frontage on Rand Road than
they have. They explained that an effort was made to acquire the remaining single family
lot to the south in order to incorporate it into this proposal, but they were unsuccessful.
The main issue with this request was that of appropriate zoning for this property. After an
analysis of possible redevelopment scenarios, staff offered the Board the opinion that a
multi -family rezoning is justified.
The original proposal at 24 units (8.8 dwelling units per acre) was compared to recent
townhouse developments, such as, Evergreen Woods, Village Commons, and Courts of St.
John, and found to be at a slightly lower density. Several land plans for this site have been
prepared by the staff within the past few years, addressing potential commercial and multi
family projects• It was found that a townhouse plan was the best alternative. A concern
John Fulton Dixon - Page 2
April 11, 1990
of everyone present at the hearing was that a redevelopment of this subject parcel will have
a direct bearing on the remaining single family lot to the south on Rand Road. The site
plan submitted addresses a possible Phase II townhouse development on this one remaining
parcel.
The second main issue of this request is the specific site plan. At the hearing several
concerns were voiced by staff which were incorporated as conditions of the approval.
Several neighbors from Highland and Eastman Court were present at the hearing to request
certain conditions be attached to any approval. These items include:
1. A 6 foot high fence on the east property line erected as soon as possible to screen
out construction.
2. A guard-rail erected on the east side of the cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac bulb
shifted further from the east property line than the 10 foot proposed.
3. A maximum of 22 units if a detention pond is added.
4. A brick facade required for the buildings
5. The installation of a sidewalk on both sides of the street, possibly reduced in
width.
None of the neighbors present had any objection to the concept of a townhouse.
After some discussion, the Zoning Board members agreed that this was a good proposal.
Multi family, low density townhouses, rather than commercial or single family fit this site
best. They expressed the desire to have the adjacent single family property to the south
made part of this development, and requested the builder to re -approach the owner to try
to make it work. The standards for rezoning, special use and variations were reviewed
before the Zoning Board approved all requests unanimously, 7-0, with the following
conditions attached to the Special Use/ PUD.
1. Engineering plan approved by the Village Engineer regarding final determination
for the sewer locations. If a detention pond is required on the property, two units
may have to be deleted. NOTE: It has been determined that a detention pond is
necessary, and therefore, two units have been deleted (the total is now 22.)
2. Sidewalk installation to be determined by the staff and petitioner for recommen-
dation to' the Village Board. NOTE: the builder at the request of neighbors will
provide sidewalks on both sides of the cul-de-sac.
3. Revised landscape plan to include more plantings on the north and east sides
and tree preservation plan approved by Village staff.
4. A 6 foot high wood fence along the east property line, to be installed after public
improvements are completed.
5. A guard rail installed on the east end of the cul-de-sac.
John Fulton Dixon - Page 3
April 11, 1990
6. On -street parking to be prohibited.
7. A minimum of 18 feet for driveway lengths.
8. A brick facade required for the buildings.
9. Formation of a Homeowner's Association.
Plan CoMmissio -.
The applicant appeared before the Plan Commission on February 21, 1990 and again on
April 14, 1990 to request:
1. A change in the Comprehensive Plan from General Commercial/Office to Multi
Family Residential/Low Density.
2. Approval of a resubdivision plat.
3. Permission to locate a detention basin as close as 10 feet from the proposed buildings,
rather than 75 feet.
At the initial meeting, the Commission required the builder to work out details of the
detention basin easement before the plat could be approved. On April 4, the Commission
recommended approval of the plat unanimously, 6-0, provided that the storm sewer to
Highland is verified as being adequate and operating. A neighbor present at the hearing
noted that the sewer line is on his property and there is no recorded easement. If Blue Jay
ties into this line, an easement must be in place.
The Commission also deliberated the 10 foot separation from the detention basin to the
building. They voted unanimously to recommend approval 6-0 provided that soil borings
indicate there is stable ground for the buildings in the proposed locations.
The Comprehensive Plan request was approved unanimously 6-0. Residents present at the
hearing supported the change from commercial to multi -family.
Approved:
W*NUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMSSION
APRIL 4, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to
order by Chairman Donald Weibel at 8:00 P.M. at the Village Hall, 100
South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
ROLL CALL
Present upon Roll Call: Frank Boege
Tom Borrelli
Lynn Kloster
William Navigato
Louis Velasco
Donald Weibel, Chairman
Absent: Frank Breitsameter
Tom McGovern
Village Staff Present: Michael Sims, Staff Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Boege moved, and Mr. Velasco seconded, that the minutes of March 21, 1990
be approved. All members voted Aye and Chairman Weibel declared the minutes
approved.
SUB -DIVISIONS
Orchard Field Townhomes Resubdivision.- The petitioner was requesting
approval of a subdivision plat and Development Code modifications to permit
buildings closer than 75 feet from detention facilities. Engineering and
Planning staffs indicated no objections provided that soil borings showed
adequate ground stability.
During the discussion on the project it was pointed out that a sewer drain
located just north of the project would receive the overflow from the
detention facility. A nearby resident, George Lieder, 401 Highland on whose
property the sewer drain is located, expressed concern about flooding of
his property. He stated that this drain is either blocked up or there is
no drain because it does not take water.
Mr. Velasco moved, and seconded by Mr. Borrelli, that the Orchard Field
Townhouses Subdivision plat be approved with the provision that the sewer
arrangements are operative and adequate. The vote was 6 Aye: 0 Nay. Motion
passed.
Mr. Boege moved. and seconded by Mr. Velasco, that the Development Code
modification permitting buildings 10 feet or greater from the detention
facility be approved, providing that soil borings show adequate ground
stability. The vote was 6 Aye; 0 Nay. Motion passed.
PAGE 2
PLAN COMMISSION
APRIL 4, 1990
PLAT OF DEDICATION - Road Right -of -Way Dedication of 9 feet on the West Side
of North Forest Avenue, Memory Lane to Kensington Road
and Development Code modifications on Street Trees,
Street Width, Sidewalk and Parkway.
The request for dedication is to permit improvement of the one way street
through resurfacing and widening the present 16 ft. wide paved area to 20
feet and the addition of curb and gutter on the west side which is adjacent
to School District 214 property. There was a question as to whether or not
The Development Code required this plat to be presented to the Plan Commiss-
ion for consideration. The Code wording is ambiguous but it was agreed the
Plan Commission should hear it.
Mr. Sims stated that School District 214 would pay for the curb and gutter
on the west side and the Village would pay for the road improvement to the
east side. Charles Miller of 715 North Forest Avenue was present and spoke
about his concern on traffic safety in the area and what effect the road
widening would have on traffic. He indicated that the street improvement
and widening had the approval of the residents but only on the basis that
it stayed a one way street. Mr. Navigato expressed his opinion that if
they were going part way with street improvement they should do it right
and go the whole way with full street width, curb and gutter, trees, side-
walk and lighting. Chairman Weibel asked for motions on the dedication and
on each of the Development code modifications.
Mr. Boege moved, and seconded by Mr. Navigato, that the Development Code
Modification request to allow a curb to curb street width of 20 feet
instead of 28 feet be approved. The vote was 2 Aye; 4 Nay. Motion failed.
The reason given for the Nay vote was that it was felt that this was not
the best way to improve the street, if it was to be done it should be in
accordance with the Code.
Mr. Boege moved, and seconded by Mr. Velasco, for approval of the Devel-
opment Code Modification to eliminate the parkway trees. The vote was
2 Aye; 4 Nay. Motion failed. Reason for the Nay vote was the same as in
the prior vote.
Mr. Velasco moved, and seconded by Mr. Navigato, for approval of the
Development Code Modification to eliminate a sidewalk on Forest Avenue.
The vote was 3 Aye; 3 Nay and Chairman Weibel declared the motion failed
for lack of 5 Aye votes. Reason for the Nay votes was the same.
Mr. Velasco moved, and seconded by Mr. Navigato, to approve the Develop-
ment Code Modification to eliminate the parkway on Forest Avenue. The vote
was 3 Aye; 3 Nay and Chairman Weibel declared the motion failed. Reason
for the Nay votes was the same as in the previous cases.
Mr. Velasco moved, and seconded by Mr. Navigato, to approve the Plat of,
Dedication for Road Right -of -Way west side of North Forest Avenue between
Memory -Lane and Kensington Road. The vote was 2 Aye; 4 Nay. Motion failed.
Reason given for the Nay vote was the same as for the prior vote. Reason
given for the minority Nay vote was that besides the approval of the School
District and the Village, the project appeared to be what the residents of
the area wanted.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3
APRIL 4, 1990
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Community Development: Mr. Sims reported that the request for the Block
Grant funds had been submitted to HUD. It was
estimated that the Village would receive about $233,000.
B. Comprehensive Plan: No report
C. Development Code: No report
D. Text Amendment: No report
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Boege reported on a concern that he had relating to the Plat of
Subdivision for the Lexington Homes Development that had been before the
Plan Commission for approval some time back. This Development was part of
a PUD agreement and there was a provision for a street from Schoenbeck to
enter at right angle to Rand Road. Mr. Boege said that nothing appears to
have been done on this and he is concerned because request for bids have
gone our for Schoenbeck Road Reconstruction from Persimmon Lane to Camp
McDonald Road but nothing for the Rand Road access work. He has not been
able to get a satisfactory answer from Engineering and feels there has been
dragging of feet on this. Chairman Weibel said that it would not be the
Plan Commission's prerogative to press the issue however Mr. Boege's
comments and concern would be noted.
Mr. Sims asked the Plan Commission to recommend specific language to change
Section 14.101G of the Zoning ordinance regarding Lot Consolidation. Mr.
Weibel furnished two possible wordings and after discussion, Proposal No. 1
was thought to be the better version however recommendation was held up
pending clarification of wording from Mr. McGovern.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Sims reported on a one -day Planning and Zoning workshop scheduled for
Saturday, May 5 at the Alsip Holiday Inn and asked the Commission members
to let him know if anyone wished to attend.
Mr. Charles Miller,who attended the meeting and spoke on the North Forest
Avenue Right -of -Way Dedication expressed his appreciation for the discussion
and concern given to the cases by the commission. He reiterated his concern
about traffic safety at the Prospect High School area and said he had not
been able to get a satisfactory response on the matter from the Village.
Mr. Sims stated that the Safety Commission was the proper body to review
the problem and recommended that Mr. Miller first contact the Village
Manager and meet with him to discuss the problem.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Weibel adjourned the meeting
at 10:20 P.M.
Respecfully submitted
Lynn Kloster
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 5-Z-90, 6 -SU -90,
Hearing Date: January 25, 1990
and 7-V-90
February 1, 1990
PETITIONER:
Blue Jay Building Corporation
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
400 East Rand Road
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 9, 1990
REQUEST:
A rezoning from R-1 Single -Family, to R-3
Multi -Family Residential; a Special
Use/Planned Unit Development in order to
construct 24 townhomes of 8.8 dwelling units
per acre; and a variation from the P.U.D.
requirement to allow a 10 foot setback from the
cul-de-sac bulb to the property line, instead of
the required 20 foot.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
V .114
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Marilyn O'May
Len Petrucelli
Barbara Phillips, 516 Eastman Ct.
Brian Cousins, 405 E. Highland
John Michaels, 505 Highland
This case has been continued from the January 25, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
Chairman Gil Basnik introduced this case as being a rezoning from R-1 Single -Family, to
R-3 Multi -Family Residential; a Special Use/Planned Unit Development in order to
construct 24 townhomes of 8.8 dwelling units per acre; and a variation from the P.U.D.
requirement to allow a 10 foot setback from the cul-de-sac bulb to the property line.
Attorney John Mlade, of 5744 Cermak Road, Cicero, Illinois, represented the petitioner,
Blue Jay Builders. He gave a brief report on the successful developments in the
surrounding suburbs, constructed by his client, Mike Losacco, owner of Blue Jay Builders.
ZBA-5-Z-90, ZBA-6-SU-90, ZBA-7-V-90
February 1, 1990
Page 2 of 2
He stated Blue Jay Builders is proposing to construct a 24 unit townhouse project with a
density of 8.8 per acre, at 400 East Rand. He explained that a rezoning to a multi -family
designation is sought because of the configuration of the lot which prevents construction of
single family or commercial on this lot. A single family project would require a total of 306
feet in width, and this lot is 198 feet wide. A commercial development would require more
frontage width on Rand Road than what is available. He stated that an offer was made to
purchase the 88 foot wide lot to the south, but even if they had been successful, it would
not have been sufficient for either single family or commercial development. He gave a
brief description of the types of units and submitted renderings showing the facades of the
buildings.
Darryl Mayo, Architect with Robert H. Jessen & Assoc., 4242 Kirchoff Rd., Rolling
Meadows, was sworn in and confirmed the proposed type of construction and number of
units. He added that they took a survey of the character of the neighborhood and then
developed a design compatible with the environment.
John Schuller, Engineer with Applied Engineering,4242 Kirchoff Rd., Rolling Meadows, was
sworn in and testified that they had expected to tie into the Village storm sewer which
handles the single family homes to the east. However, they had been informed that the
sewer does not have the capacity to handle the water. He stated that they will investigate
tying into the State storm sewer on the far side of Rand Road or the Village sewer to the
northwest of the their property. If a detention area will have to be provided on site, then
the developer is agreeable to eliminate the necessary units on the northwest comer of the
site for this detention area.
Paul Bednar, Planner, represented the Village. He commented briefly on the background
of the case, and affirmed that a multi -family development, such as this, is the most feasible
given the configuration of the lot. Mr. Bednar then listed some issues regarding the
development which included: a) the possible need of a detention area in the northwest
comer of the parcel; b) shifting the cul-de-sac bulb to increase perimeter yard setback to
20 feet; c) a 5 foot wood fence along the east property line; d) a guard rail installed at the
east end of the cul-de-sac; e) the elimination of at least one unit on the northwest corner
to increase the building setback from Rand Road; and e) establishment of a Homeowner's
Association.
Mr. Mayo addressed the issues and stated the developer would be willing to install the
fence on.the-east side.of-the property,and the guard rail on the east side end of the cul-
de-sac, and work with the Village Engineer to resolve the storm.sewer issue. However, he
commented that they could not shift the cul-de-sac because it would greatly impact the end
unit.
Barbara Phillips, 516 Eastman Court, spoke on behalf of the residents on Eastman Court,
and stated that they would request the following:
ZBA-5-Z-90, ZBA-6-SU-90, ZBA-7-V-90
February 1, 1990
Page 3 of 3
1. A 6 foot fence rather than 5 ft. on the east side of the property line, and erect as
soon as possible to eliminate construction noise and debris.
2. A guard rail erected on the east side of the cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac bulb shifted
further from the east property line.
3. A maximum of 22 units if detention pond is added.
4. A brick facade for the townhomes.
5. Installation of a sidewalk on both sides of the street, possibly reduced in width.
6. Development of adjacent property at the same time, and if not possible, a covenant
added to ensure that no more than 8 units be developed on the property to the south.
Brian Cousins, 405 East Highland, was sworn in and stated he had two concerns. The first
was drainage and flooding since his home is lower than this property; and the second was
the appearance of the units facing his home. Some mention was made of having the fence
extend around the perimeter on north side of the development,
John Michaels, 505 Highland, commented that he did not agree that a fence should be
erected on the north side of the development, as many residents in his neighborhood
abutting this development have their own fences.
After some discussion, the Zoning Board members were all in agreement that this was a
favorable development for this parcel and that it would set a favorable tenor for the
remaining property on Rand. There was some discussion on obtaining the 88 foot parcel
to the north and the petitioner, Mike Losacco, mentioned that he had tried but the price
was exorbitant. He agreed to attempt further negotiations, but would not pay the price
requested. Discussion ensued concerning the height of the fence, sidewalks and final
determination of sewer connections. Chairman Basnik then reviewed the rezoning, special
use and variation standards.
Mr. Brettrager, seconded by Mrs. Brothers, moved to grant the petitioner's request, in Case
No. ZBA-5-Z-90, to rezone from R-1, Single Family, to R-3, Multi Family Residential on
the subject -property, per petitioner's Exhibit No. L
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Brothers, Cassidy, Brettrager, O'May,
Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0
ZBA-5-Z-90, ZBA-6-SU-90, ZBA-7-V-90
February 1, 1990
Page 4 of 4
Mr. Petrucelli, seconded by Mrs. Brothers, moved to grant the petitioner's request in Case
ZBA-6-SU-90 for a Special Use/Planned Unit Development in order to construct 24
townhomes of 8.8 dwelling units per acre, per Exhibit No. 1, subject to the following:
1. Engineering plan approved by the Village Engineer regarding final determination for
the sewer locations. If a detention pond is required on the property, two units may have
to be deleted.
2. Sidewalk installation to be determined by the staff and petitioner for recommendation
to the Village Board.
3. Revised landscape plan to include more plantings on the north and east sides and tree
preservation plan approved by Village staff.
4. A 6 foot high wood fence along the east property line, to be installed after public
improvements are completed.
5. A guard rail installed on the east end of the cul-de-sac.
6. On -street parking to be prohibited.
7. A minimum of 18 feet for driveway lengths.
8. Formation of a Homeowner's Association.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Brothers, Cassidy, Brettrager, O'May,
Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Brettrager, seconded by Mrs. Brothers, moved to grant the petitioner, in Case No.
ZBA-7-V-90, a variation from a the Planned Unit Development requirement to allow a 10
foot setback from the cul-de-sac bulk to the property line, per Exhibit No. 1.
Upon roll call: AYES: Lannon, Petrucelli, Brothers, Cassidy, Brettrager, O'May,
Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
These recommendations will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
Helen Giordano,
Recording Secretary,
`VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AM ZONING DEFAMIENT
Mount Prospect, Minois
TO:
GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT:
ZBA-S-Z-", ZBA-&SU.", ZBA-7-V."
BLUE JAY BUILDERS
LOCATION:
400 EAST RAND ROAD
DATE:
JANUARY 17, 119"
The applicant is requesting the following:
1. A rezoning from R-1, Single -Family, to R-3, Multi -Family Residential.
2. A special Use/Planned Unit Development in order to construct 24 townhomes,
which will be 8.8 dwelling units per acre.
3. A variation from the P.U.D. requirements in order to allow a 10 foot setback
from the cul-de-sac bulb to the property line, instead of 20 feet required by Code.
The following comments were received from various departments:
1. The watermain must be looped. The preliminary engineering plans will have to
be revised accordingly. The watermain on-site may be privately owned and
maintained.
2. The existing sanitary sewer south of this property is an 8" line (not 10" as
indicated on the plan). There should be a recapture agreement for tying into this
line.
3. The existing 36* storm sewer east of the property wasn't designed to accept
-&ainagetrom.this site. -Eighty percent of this.site drains to the northwest comer,
therefore, the drainage should be directed to the State storm sewer on Rand Road.
And I.D.O.T. permit will be required. It is possible that the State will not allow this
connection. In that case, a detention area must be provided on site.
Gil Basnik - Page 2
January 17, 1990
4. I.D.O.T. permits will be required for access to Rand Road. The street pavement
width ,end cross octien does not ale" VUlage standards {31' width back of curb to
back of curb required). Privately owned and maintained streets would be allowed
as shown.
S. Hydrant locations shall be determined by the Fire Department and Public Works.
6. The developer should make himself aware of all Development guarantees and
fees. A minimum of 3 street lights, 7 parkway trees and sidewalk on Rand Road will
be required.
7. The proposed grading at the east and north perimeters appears high, causing
concern of drainage onto adjacent property.
8. The configuration of the cul-de-sac bulb could be shifted slightly so that a 20'
setback is maintained.
9. Driveway slopes shall be a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 10%.
10. A plat of subdivision must be submitted with public utility and drainage
easements around the perimeter of the property. Any existing easements should be
shown on the plan.
10_arU
NO
Blue Jay Builders has a contract to purchase two lots located on Rand Road and totaling
2.70 acres. These lots are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Adjacent to this parcel is
a single family neighborhood to the north and east. A single family home on a large lot
is located between this parcel and the Matz Funeral Home to the south. The Comprehen-
sive Plan identifies these parcels as general commercial/office. On the east side of Rand
Road, the Christian Life Church owns a large open parcel of land. The applicant will be
appearing before the Plan Commission requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan in
order to allow low-density multi -family residential.
nin
The main issue with this request is that of the appropriate zoning for this property. These
two parcels along with the adjacent properties are currently zoned R-1, Single Family. The
redevelopment of these two parcels must keep in mind the remaining large single family
lot to the south. Redevelopment of these subject parcels will have a direct bearing on the
-dot 4o the -south. -ne one Marge single familydot to the -south will -likely be redeveloped in
the near future. For this reason, the applicant prepared a conceptual townhome plan for
this remaining lot, to demonstrate how a compatible development could be designed. It is
our understanding that this budder unsuccessfully attempted to purchase this lot for the
purpose of unifying the redevelopment of all three parcels along Rand Road.
Gil Basnik - Page 3
January 17, 1990
The two remain. Across Rand
su
g single
e tin
Ytoad, to be could potentially be
> west,
developed in a S! of this parcel could
undoubtedly
be developed d such for multi -family, or
C mmerc I/office i vl�l different
commercial/office a s a possibility.
Three options for redevelopment of these subject parcels are analyzed below:
1. Development VAth Eidsting R -I Zonim
This option would be consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods. However, the two
parcels proposed for development by the petitioner do not have sufficient dimensions
for development with single family lots. A public street would require a 66' right-
of-way. Lots adjoining the street would require a 120' lot depth or 24V for lots on
both sides of the street. This would result in a total dimension of 306'. The subject
property has a north/south dimension of 198'. Acquiring the lot to the south would
provide 296, still short of the requirement for acceptable single family lots. Also
important, is the question of a small single family subdivision abutting Rand Road,
with this as the only access.
rn= WTV77M93DO 07741T-=24
This option seems to make some sense when considering the busy Rand Road
frontage. However, the depth of these three single family lots is much greater than
the frontage along Rand. This is a disadvantage for commercial development
especially when considering the 6W plus depth. It is not probable that a quality
commercial redevelopment would occur on these lots given the circumstances. More
importantly, commercial activity would be less compatible with the adjacent existing
single family subdivisions than residential redevelopment.
lr=Wl =oif MJFK1UM-,,1,TTTrX,
A residential redevelopment is preferred on these parcels. Single family redevelop.
ment, as evidenced above, is not probable given the lot size parameters and location.
A multi-fainfly project can fit on the parcels, is more marketable than single family
along Rand Road, acts as a buffer between the single family neighborhood and Rand
Road traffic, and, finally, is compatible with the existing II",tial. Ideally, this
development would include the lot to the south for the best design.
We believe that the above analysis justifies rezoning these parcels to allow multi -family
Site Plan AaWyak
The second main issue of this request is the specific site plan. Blue Jay Builders had
submitted several preliminary plans to the Village for our comments, and as a result, this
proposed P.U.D. site plan for 24 townhomes reflects most of our initial concerns.
Comments are itemized below-
Gil Basnik - Page 4
January 17, 1990
1. The number of units (24) may have to be reduced by two in order to accom-
modate a detention basin, as indicated .in Village Staff comments
2. By eliminating two units in the northwest corner, the buffer between Rand Road
and the nearest building increases favorably. A V minimum setback should be
provided.
3. The off-street parking areas are acceptable. On -street parking should be
prohibited because of the street width.
4. The density of 8.8 units per acre is reasonable. An R-3/P.U.D. would allow up
to 14.8 dwelling units per acre. For your information, densities of recent townhouse
projects have been between 9.5 to 11.3 dwelling units per acre.
5. The distance between buildings is acceptable.
6. The access to Rand Road is located to maximize the separation from other access
points along Rand Road.
7. This layout affords the potential of interconnection to the south lot for future
redevelopment, (a Phase II of this townhouse project).
8. The cul-de-sac bulb could be shifted away from the east property line to increase
the perimeter yard setback to 20 feet.
9. Every effort should be made to save some of the existing trees on site. A tree
preservation plan will be required.
10. The preliminary landscape plan should be slightly revised adding plants along the
east property edge and increasing the size . of the trees.
11. A five foot wood fence along the east property line will help block out headlight
glare and noise to the adjacent neighborhood. Six foot privacy fences for some
patios are reasonable.
12. A Homeowner's Association should be in effect in which rules will prohibit
exterior alterations, additions, or modifications to the buildings.
13. Sidewalks are shown on both sides of the street. In our opinion, the elimination
of a sidewalk on one side will allow more front yard open space without creating a
problem for pedestrians.
14,-The.driveway lengths should be -no less than 18' .(preferably.W) from the garage
to the street. This length is consistent with other recent townhouse developments.
15. A guard rail should be installed at the east end of the cul-de-sac. This could
prevent the unlikely occurrence of an automobile driving onto the lot to the east.
Gil Bastult - Page 5
January 17, 1990
As a final summary on the application, it is important to point out that the proposed
tOwnbome development is similar to Evergreen Woods, the Courts Of SL John's, and Wage
Commons. These are recent townhomes that the community has found acceptable. "This
application results in a slightly lower density than these other developments.
Also, after these parcels were designated for a commercial land -use with the revised
Comprehensive Plan, the Planning staff prepared several land plans for the site. We
explored a commercial site plan, and a townhome design. It was our belief that the
townhome plan better fit the site, and was more compatible with adjoining properties. This
application is consistent with our conceptual designs for the site.
Accordingly, the staff recommends approval of the request.
PB:hg
V-ft-,LAGE OF MOUNT PROSP]t&
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: MICHAEL E. SIMS, PLANNER
DATE: APRIL 6, 1990
SUBJECT: PLAT OF DEDICATION OF ROAD -RIGHT-OF-WAY
WEST SIDE OF NORTH FOREST AVENUE, BETWEEN
MEMORY LANE AND KENSINGTON, AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS FOR SIDEWALK, PARKWAY
TREES, STREET LIGHTING, AND STREET PAVEMENT WIDTH
School District 214 and the Village of Mount Prospect are requesting that a 9 foot wide
road right-of-way be dedicated to the existing 33 foot wide road on North Forest Avenue.
The street, between Memory and Kensington, is one-way north and is bordered on the west
side by Prospect High School and on the east by single family residential homes. There is
currently no parking on the west side of the street, except for a small area of 90 degree
parking near the tennis courts. There is also no curb or gutter on the west side of the
street. Currently, the pitch of the street's surface is to the east and all water appears to
flow to the side. This plat of dedication is being requested so that the roadway can be
widened. This will allow the Village to widen the current pavement width from 16 feet to
20 feet and to allow the school district to install new curb and gutter on the west side of
the street. Staff would note that a 20 foot wide pavement width is the minimum the Fire
Department needs for proper fire equipment operation.
The Plan Commission heard the above mentioned Development Code items during its
regular meeting on April 4, 1990. During that meeting, the Commission voted 4 nays, 2
ayes denying the request for a 20 foot street width. Mr. Navigato, representing the
Commissioners voting against this issue, stating that they did not want to create an inferior
and sub -standard street. The next item acted upon by the Commission was the request to
waive the requirement for street trees and public sidewalks. The Plan Commission voted
3-2 against the request.
Staff had recommended approval of the plat of dedication since it will widen this one-way
street to the minimum width of 20 feet needed by the Fire Department and still permit curb
and gutter to be installed on the west side of the street. Also, staff noted that the Village
Board and school district had agreed to this arrangement, and there was not land area
available for full public improvements.
Approved:
David M. dements, Director
a`
F
DEDICATION
` Att'S�i�J.f/M N.L.#✓MX.l.�✓Ir '
XIM�Ain ' x a JY tne✓./ Mt ste! P. M., i14 R�, i
i a 1
i
r l - dr�N. lam s pfd -Aw
-A. Aw dRs
f
4#*AOMWV of
� AYIAIdlA�
C � V 4 V 4 4 ♦ V y `
# cs C t R A 4t $ 5 4 2 0 4 a
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING PLAT OF DEDICATION
ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
THIS DAY OF -0 1990
Published in pamphlet form
by authority of the President
and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect, Cook
County, Illinois, this
day of 1990.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING PLAT OF DEDICATION
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has received a
proposed Plat of Dedication ("Plat") from the Board of Education
of Township High School District No. 214, Cook county, Illinois
and the Trustees of Schools of Township 42 North, Range 11 East
of the Third Principal Meridian Cook County, Illinois of certain
real property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof; ("Subject Property") and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect has determined that it is necessary and convenient for
the Village to use and occupy the subject property for street
purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect hereby finds and ratifies its determination that it is
necessary and convenient for the Village to use and occupy the
subject property for street purposes.
Section 2: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect hereby accepts the Plat and the Village President,
Clerk, Treasurer, Collector, Engineer, Plan Commission, attorneys
and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all
necessary steps to execute the Plat and all documents necessary
to effect the Plat and its placing of public record.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and approval as provided by
law.
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE This day of
1990.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT FROM COMMENT AND VOTE:
APPROVED this _ day of 1990.
ATTEST:
village �Clerk
Village President
The r,.l SO& fool, of 100z4u �eAf 'ea;q 0,114C
Nol-lh of Ilie S. S.. A/,vf Oe NZ. f,1, v,7 a/* f the N.2".1 W life N.Ar. ,fw111;?
Jec//o,7 33$ 75-;vw7x,41,o 42 Ilm-1h, R67y & W, trl of &e jtaP /Y., iir
Cook Cow7ly, (except the No,14 33.00fl. Ne"*fj -
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE
OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect have met from time to time in executive session for
purposes authorized by the Illinois Open Meetings Act; and
WHEREAS, as required by the Act, the Village Board has kept written
minutes of.all such executive sessions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Public Act 85-1355, the
Mayor and Board of Trustees have met in closed session to review
all closed session minutes; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have determined that a
need for confidentiality still exists as to the executive session
minutes for the meetings as set forth on Schedule A attached
hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have further determined
that the minutes of the meetings as noted on Schedule A attached
hereto no longer require confidential treatment and should be made
available for public inspection.
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 executive session minutes from those
meetings as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto are hereby
released.
SECTION TWO: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to make said minutes available for inspection and copying
in accordance with the standing procedures of the Clerk's Office.
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.
F.V4014
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1990.
ATTEST:
-Ea—roi A. Fields
Village Clerk
ot
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
SCHEDULE A
Executive Sessions of the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect were held as listed hereon. The minutes
that have been determined may be released for public inspection are
indicated by "Release":
October 17,
1989
Release
November 8,
1989
Release
January 9,
1990
Release
February 6,
1990
Release
Phone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 70E3 / 392.6022
MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
FEBRUARY 6, 19"
An Executive Session was called to order at 12:30 am., in the second floor conference
room of the Senior Citizens' Center, .50 South Emerson. The purpose of the Executive
Session was to discuss pending litigation and personnel. Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald Farley-, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo
11 Oros, George Van Geem and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present was Village
Manager John Fulton Dixon.
1. The Village Board discussed the pending lawsuit brought by the Elk Grove Township
Rural Fire Protection District.
2. The Village Board also discussed establishment of a committee to investigate the
handling of a permit at Four North Pine Street.
3. Also discussed was an agreement for termination and settlement of an employee in
the Police Department.
On a Motion by Trustee Van Geem and Seconded 'by Trustee Ralph Arthur, the
Executive Session was adjourned at 1:10 am.
JOHN FULTON D ON
JFD/rcw
MAYOR
GERALD L FARLEY
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE R. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENBERG
Village of
Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 70E3 / 392.6022
MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
FEBRUARY 6, 19"
An Executive Session was called to order at 12:30 am., in the second floor conference
room of the Senior Citizens' Center, .50 South Emerson. The purpose of the Executive
Session was to discuss pending litigation and personnel. Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald Farley-, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo
11 Oros, George Van Geem and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present was Village
Manager John Fulton Dixon.
1. The Village Board discussed the pending lawsuit brought by the Elk Grove Township
Rural Fire Protection District.
2. The Village Board also discussed establishment of a committee to investigate the
handling of a permit at Four North Pine Street.
3. Also discussed was an agreement for termination and settlement of an employee in
the Police Department.
On a Motion by Trustee Van Geem and Seconded 'by Trustee Ralph Arthur, the
Executive Session was adjourned at 1:10 am.
JOHN FULTON D ON
JFD/rcw
MAV**
GERALD L FARLEY
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CRCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE A. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENSERG Village of Mount Prospect
VIUAGE WIM"In
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLA" CLERK 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A, FIELDS
Phone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 706 / 392-6022
N41NUM
EXECUTIVE SESSION
JANUARY 9, 1990
An Executive Session was called to order at 8:41 p.m., in the second floor conference
room of the Senior Citizens' Center, 50 South Emerson, in order to discuss the matter
of potential litigation. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald Farley; Trustees
Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros and George Van Geem.
Absent from the meeting was Trustee Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the
meeting were Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Michael Jannis, Fire Chief Edward
Cavello and Village Attorney James Stucko.
Mr. Stucko reviewed with Committee members the validity of the underlying
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Village and the Elk Grove, Township Rural
Fire Protection District. Additionally, Mr. Stucko reviewed with the or and Board
of Trustees the various Counts of the lawsuit filed by the Fire Protection District as well
as the relative merits of the case. It was also announced that Mayor Farley was in the
process of sending letters to the various District Trustees in an effort to arrange a
meeting that might bring about the resolution of this matter without resort to litigation.
After further discussion, Trustee Ralph Arthur moved and Trustee Timothy Corcoran
Seconded that staff be authorized to defend the Village of Mount Prospect against the
lawsuit filed by the Elk Grove Township Rural Fire Protection District.
On a Motion by Trustee Floros, and Seconded by Trustee Van Geem, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
MEJ/rcw
MAYOR
GERALD L FARLEY
TRUJIMS,
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLOWS
GEORGE A. VAN DEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENBERG Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MAGIAWN
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 3S2-6022
MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOVEMBER 8, 1989
An Executive Session was called to order at 10:53 p.m., in the second floor conference
room of the Senior Citizens' Center, 50 South Emerson. The purpose of the Executive
Session was to discuss personnel. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald 'Farley;
Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Ito Floros, George Van Geem
and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present was Village Manager John Fulton Dixon.
The Village Board discussed the six-month review of the Village Manager. No action
was taken.
On a Motion by Trustee Mark Busse and Seconded by Trustee Ralph Arthur, the
Executive Session was adjourned at 12:46 am.
JOHN FULTON DN
JFD/rcw
NIIAVON
GERALD L FARLEY
?WU*""
AAUFIH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE A. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENBERG 11,1111age of Mount Prospect
MAINE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON 100 S. Emerson Mount
VILLAGE CLERK Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone 312 / 392-6000
MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
OCTOBER 17, 1989
An Executive Session was called to order at 10:05 p.m., in the second floor conference
room of the Senior Citizens' Center, 50 South Emerson, in order to discuss two matters
of potential litigation. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald Farley; Trustees
Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geem and
Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were Village Manager John Fulton
Dixon and Director of Planning and. Zoning David Clements.
Thet item of discussion was the parcel of land at the northwest corner of Kensington
and The owner of the property indicated to staff he was contemplating suit
against the Village since he purchased the property based on the assumption that the
underlying zoning was B4. After the developer had gone through the Hearing process
before the Zoning Board of Appeals for minor variations, it was discovered that there
was an unrecorded PUD on this parcel which would mean that the entire process that
was used would be null and void. The question was raised whether or not the PUD had
existed on the parcel since it had not been recorded. Direction to staff was to lessen
the impact of the car wash.
The second item of potential litigation concerned whether or not the Village wished to
file a suit against the City of Des Plaines over billboards particularly the billboard at
Dempster and 83. After extensive discussion, it was felt that filing of a suit was not
action the Board wished to take at this time.
A Motion was made by Trustee Ito Floros and Seconded by Trustee Mark Busse to
adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
JOHN FULTOC CIN
Village Manager
JFD/rcw
Village of *"Aount Prospect
Moor: Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Cheryl L. Pasalic, Cable Television Administrator C
DATE: April 11, 1990
RE: Franchise Violation Hearing Procedures
Upon review of the Cable Communications Code of the Village of
Mount Prospect, I would recommend that the attached resolution
outlining procedures for future franchise violation hearings. Upon
advice of counsel, this will eliminate any possibility that a cable
operator could question due process rights. Given the possibility
of violations in the near future, I would recommend immediate
passage of this resolution. This would, of course, follow passage
of the previous resolution I submitted to you with regards to the
Perkers complaint.
By way of copy of this memo, I am giving the Village Clerk the
opportunity to put this resolution in the form necessary for Board
consideration.
cc: Village Clerk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Code of the Village of Mount
Prospect sets forth the guidelines and procedures for the operation
of a cable television system by a franchised cable operator; and
WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Code outlines the penalties
for violation of said Code; and
WHEREAS, outlined in the Cable Communications Code, the
Franchisee is given notice of a violation of said Code, the
opportunity to cure the violation, and the opportunity for a
presentation to the Village Board.
THE BOARD THEREFORE SETS FORTH THE FOLLOWING FRANCHISE VIOLATION
HEARING PROCEDURES:
1. After a Franchisee has been issued a notice of violation
and has had the opportunity to cure as outlined by the
Cable Communications Code, the Franchisee, found to be in
violation by the Cable Television Administrator, will be
scheduled to appear at a public hearing before the Village
Board at the earliest available Village Board or Committee
of the Whole meeting. The Franchisee shall be notified
in writing of the date, time, and location of the hearing.
2. The Franchisee will be given the opportunity to present
materials and testimony relevant to the violation before
the Village Board, public in attendance, and public
viewing the hearing live on cable television.
3. In lieu of attendance at this public hearing, the
Franchisee may submit a written presentation to the Cable
Television Administrator prior to the hearing. The Cable
Television Administrator shall submit the written
presentation in full to the Village Board upon receipt.
Submission of a written presentation by the Franchisee
shall constitute a waiver by the Franchisee of its
opportunity for a hearing before the Village Board.
4. Immediately following said public hearing or written
presentation, the Village Board shall decide by majority
vote:
A. To reaffirm the finding of violation by the Cable
Television Administrator.
B. If violation is reaffirmed, whether penalty
provisions will be imposed.
5. Franchisee will be notified in writing of the Village
Board Decisions.
6. The aforementioned procedures are not, nor shall they be
construed to be, any limitation upon rights granted to the
municipality by the Cable Communications Code.
Village Of Mount Prospect
MoL, I ?rospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Cheryl L. Pasalic, Cable Television Administrator 0. 9�p
DATE: April 11, 1990
RE: Board packet materials for April 17
Attached are copies of all the pertinent materials that should be
placed in the Board packets for the meeting on April 17. Also
attached is a memo and resolution that should be considered after
the resolution on the Perkers complaint.
By way of copy of these materials, I hope I have afforded the
Village Clerk the opportunity to get these materials in the proper
form for presentation to the Board.
cc: village Clerk
Village of Mount Prospect
Mf t Prospect, Illinois 11
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
In
FROM: CHERYL L. PASALIC, CABLE TELEVISION ADMINISTRATOR C.
DATE: APRIL 6, 1990
RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF ATTORNEY ON PERKERS COMPLAINT
Attached you will find a copy of correspondence that was faxed to
me today from the attorney of record, Robin Charleston. MY
recommendation would be that the Board opt to not collect the fines
at this time, but to pass the resolution at a public meeting which
puts this on record and acknowledges the violation and places it
on the permanent record. This way, the, violation stands and we
avoid a long, drawn-out legal battle due to TCI Is policy on
litigating fines. The most important thing to keep in mind is that
this and any future violations will be on the record when we
consider renewal of the franchise in a few short years.
In addition, as I mentioned to you the other day, I would recommend
that we institute some proceedures for the violations process for
any future situations of this type, such as hearing notices and
proceedures. We will need to draw those up in the near future for
Board consideration.
LAW OFFICES
JONES, WARE & GRENARD
180 NORTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE IWO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS WWI
TELEPHONE (312) 2634=
TELEFAX (312) 8554845
April 6, 1990
Cheryl L. Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Ms. Pasalic:
You have asked for our counsel and advice regarding action
by the Village Board pursuant to Section 6.712B of the Village of
Mount Prospect's Cable Communications Code. Based upon that
provision and upon a citizen's complaint processed through the
Cable Administrator's office, the Board has voted to assess a
fine of two hundred dollars ($200.00) per day against the
Village's franchised cable operator, TCI of Illinois, Inc.
The immediate issue is what the Board's options are as to
future actions, and what the legal ramifications of such actions
might be.
Our assessment is that the Cable Administrator and the Board
acted in accordance with the requirements of the Cable
Communications Code. There is, however, a potential issue as to
whether the Code provision itself fully accords with federal due
process requirements.
Court decisions interpreting the federal constitutional
guarantee of due process have established that prior to
deprivation of life, liberty or property, due process requires
that a governmental entity, such as the Village Board, must
provide a person adequate notice, as well as an ample opportunity
to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner
appropriate to the nature of the case. E.a•, Board of
Regents vs. Roth, 408 U.S. 564.
In this instance there is certainly a strong argument that
adequate notice was given. The Cable Administrator'informed the
operator both in writing and orally that if the operator did not
resolve the complaint by providing cable service to the
complainant by a date certain, or by submitting proof as to why
service could not be provided, the Village Board would consider
imposing a fine. These same communications informed the cable
operator that its representative could appear before the Board at
a Board meeting.
. LAW OFFICES
JONES. WARE & GRENARD
Ms. Cheryl L. Pasalic
April 6, 1990
Page 2
Despite this notification, there is a basis for an argument
that the operator was in fact not afforded an opportunity to be
heard, because a specific right to or procedure for a hearing is
not set forth in the Cable Communications Code or elsewhere. In
the event that a court had to decide this issue, it might decide
it against the Village, even in the face of the documented notice
given to the operator, due to the lack of a clear and explicit
provision in the Code or elsewhere for a hearing.
In light of the demonstrated propensity of the cable
operator in question to seek legal redress whenever it is forced
to pay a fine to a municipality, the Board may want to consider
exercising its discretion to decline to collect the fine. Should
the Board wish to take such action, it might consider a
resolution such as the sample one enclosed with this letter.
On the other hand, should the Board desire to proceed to
collect the fine, a letter to that effect, restating the Board's
action and setting forth the exact amount of the fine, should be
sent to the operator. The letter should also include a date
certain by which the operator should pay the fine in order to
avoid deduction from its letter of credit. Under such a
scenario, it is likely that the operator will pay the fine in
order to avoid disturbance of its letter of credit, and then file
suit to challenge the assessment and collection of the fine.
Regardless of what immediate action the Board takes, we
recommend that the Board also do the following within the
reasonably near future:
1. Establish and promulgate a definite procedure for
notice and hearing in connection with violations of the Cable
Communications Code. Such a provision need not be elaborate or
complicated.
2. Establish a general formula for setting fines. For
example, the formula could specify that a fine will commence
running on after the date of a finding of violation, or on or
after the date of, issuance of a Notice of Violation by the Cable
Administrator (subject, of course, to a subsequent finding of
violation and fine by the Board).
lAW OFFICES
JONES. WARE & GRENARD
Ms. Cheryl,L. Pasalic
April 6, 1990
Page 3
3. Confirm the existence and acceptability of the escrow
or letter of credit that the Cable Operator is to have on deposit
with the Village pursuant to Section 6.412E of the Cable
Communications Code to insure that sums are readily available in
the event of a need for a draw on funds.
In summary, while the actions of the Board and Cable
Administrator appear to meet or exceed all applicable ordinance
requirements in connection with the identification of a violation
by the cable operator and the assessment of a fine, there is,
nevertheless, a definite possibility that a legal issue as to due
process could be raised and decided in the operator's favor in
the event of litigation. The Board should take this factor into
account in deciding whether or not to collect the fine.
In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to provide a
service to you and your Board. We hope that we can be of future
assistance, and urge you to call upon us without hesitation in
connection with this or any other legal matter.
Very truly yours,
JONES, WARE & GRENARD
Ro in P. Charleston
Attorney -at -Law
RPC/cyc
Enclosure
0406RPC.ltr
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Code of the Village of
Mount Prospect requires that a cable television franchise Grantee
fill all requests for CATV service within 30 days of a request;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a complaint by Mr. Perkers of 1350 West
Northwest Highway, originally made in February of 1989,
investigation by the Cable Administrator's office, and inquiry by
the Village Board, the Board has found the 'Grantee TCI of
Illinois in violation of that provision as a result of its
failure to provide cable service; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee was given notice, afforded an
opportunity to cure the violation, and given an opportunity to
appear before the Board and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Board assessed a fire, pursuant to Section
6-712(B)(1) of the Cable Communications Code, of $200.00 per day
from 3 co/gD_ through , totaling $ ; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee provided service to the Grantee
subsequent to the Board's assessment of the fine.
THE BOARD THEREFORE FINDS:
1. In recognition of the Grantee's provision of service
and expressions of intent to avoid such violations in the future,
the Board will exercise its discretion and refrain from
collecting a fine.
2. This action is not, and shall not be construed as being
a limit upon or precedent for any future actions by the Board in
connection with other findings of violations.
1201 Feehanville Drive
7 Mt. Prospect, Illinois 6Cr16
(312) 299-9220
Anr__ 4, 1990
Mof Illinois, Inc.
The Honorable Gerald Farley
Village of Mount Prospect ! ,
100 South Emerson
Mount Prospect, IL. 60056 ,{r
Dear Mr. Farley, ✓�
I. am writing you in regards dour discussion todav and the
Village of Mount Prospectextent decision to levy fines
concerning construction at 1450 Northwest Highway. For the
record, our construction c ;. worked until 9:30 pm on the
night of April 3rd to finish the project and the installation
to the office. That requested a service call be done today,
April 4, 1990:
During the last two weeks we have worked very closely with
the Village of�Mount Prospect to complete this construction.
Daily,, calls were made to the Cable Administrator advising
her of the -situation and our staff worked closely with your
Engineering Department. In fact, the construction to this
building was so difficult that the permit process itself took
five days to complete. Mount Prospect's Engineering
Department did an excellent `job of ensuring that the
construction would be done safely and not effect utilities
and 'large trees in the construction area. They even had a
representative there during construction.
Since? we' made every effort to finish construction in the two
weeks. I"outlined at the last Village meeting and kept the
Village informed through the whole process, I feel the fines
are not justified. I would appreciate the Village
considering recinding the fines or, not collecting them at
this time. Please let me know what the position of the
Village will be.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter,
plea con ct me.
.
S1
Mar Hess
.I
General Manager
cc: George Van Geem
An Equal ppporluniry
llr. Employer
1201 Feehanv�e Crive
Mt. Prospect, incis 60056
(312) 299-9220
WKE V APR 10 RECD
April 6, 1990
Mof Illinois, Inc.
Ms. Chervi Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson
mount Prospect, IL. 60056
Dear Chervl,
T am responding to your letter of April 4, 1990. 1 believe
there has been a misunderstanding between TCI of Illinois and
the Village of Mount Prospect and it is regrettable that the
events of the meeting of April 3, 1990 took place. When 1
informed you an April 3, 1990 that I had other obligatiohs
and could not attend the meeting, 1 believed that you were
completely informed of the situation surrounding construction
at 1350 lNortawest Highway. Since you had been in almost
daily contact with our staff and were appraised of all the
facts. 1 felt that through you the Village had been undated
and that you wculd be able to update the board. For myself
and my staff, I apologize for this misunderstanding.
In an effort to re -address the situation, I am requesting
that the Village rescind it's recent action or have the -fines
remain uncollected until the Villace is aaain convinced that
TCI of Illinois has always, and will always, meet the
requirements of the franchise agreement. IT believe that 7
have always worked closely with the Village in the vast and
do not want the Board of Trustees to believe that TC! of
Illinois is not concerned with their wishes.
During the two weeks from March 20, 1990 to April 3, 1990 my
staff worked very diligently to have construction completed
at 1350 Northwest High,way. ?Members of the Village Staff
responsible --for processing permits can attest that this
construction was very difficult and needed to be handled
carefully due to location of utilities and some very large
trees. We had to bore under the high -way, being carefui not
to damage the nearby utilities and trees. _7r fact, due to
these complications, the oer-mittina process was delayed and
took over nine (9) days. While this is not the fault of the
Village, but rather it's diligence in helping us accomplish
safe construction, it - did delay the process.
ACA
An Equal Opponun,ty
�. Employe(
These delays made it difficult to finish the work in the two
week time frame 1 indicated to the board on March 20, 1990.
Njaverz.heless, the construction began as soon as permits were
received and locates were called in. As vou know, the crews
worked well in to the night on April 3rd to finish
construction. We also appreciated that a member of the
Village staff was at the construction site to continue to
help us ensure safe construction.
Mr. Perkers was installed on April 4, 1990 and is now
watching cable television. I thought that you had understood
that he would be installed as soon as construction was
completed, ninety five percent (950) of which was done by
9:30vm on Anril 3, 1990.
While T fully understand the Village's position on this
construction issue, I again request that the Villages
reconsider it's actions. I believe the entire construction.
process shows our willingness to work closely with you and
the Village. 1 apologize again for the misunderstanding
surrounding the meeting of April 3rd. Again, 1 felt that you
has been made aware, through daily updates, of the facts i
mentioned above and the problems surrounding the construction
and would update the board on them. Tn the future TC! of
Illinois will submit, in writing, updates to the board when
representatives are unable to attend meetings.
Sin er
Mark Hass
General Manager
CC'. Mayor, Gerald Farley
Trustee, Ralph Arthur
Trustee, Ddark Busse
Trustee, Timothy Corcoran
Trustee. Leo FlOros
Trustee, George Van Geem
Trustee, Theodore Wattenberg
john Fulton Dixon
tutu! r.4
^ 2/l4/89
n�E____
Village ufMount Prospect 0 Cable Administrator's Office
50 S. Emerson St. 0 Mount Prospect Illinois 60056 0 312/392-6000
CABLE TELEVISION COR8PL�N�REC�WESTFOR8H
FILE NUMBER
21480P0
_
Bruce H. Perkers Limited (Bruce Perkers) 259-0090
SUBSCRIBER NAME HOMEPH. BUS. PH,
1350 W. Northwest Hwy,
ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE
FILE CODE: 11 RECEPTION OCUSTOMER SERVICE 0RE8TDRAJ|ON OPHONES OB|LL|NG
Wants [�OTHER
V ts service
VIOLATION: FRANCHISE SEC. NO.
COMMUNICATIONS CODE SEC. NO—
OREOUEGTONLY OFOLLOW-UP COMPLAINT OREPEAT COMPLAINT
11 COMPLAINT Has called TCI three times to request quote for service. No calls
RESPONSETDCOMPL\NT
10:I0 a.m. - Sharon will handle
C'^-4-&e�
LETTER SENT — - -- Date ON U D Date .4
E. Reinhard /
CABLE COMPANY—Please forward response to complaint within 10 business days to Village.
COPY DISTRIBUTION: WHITE/SUEWECTFILE—YELLOW/CABLENETASSOCIATES—PINK/SUBSCRIBES—GOLD/N.WM.C.C.
L L; i.,J
Village of Mount Prospect 0 Cable Administrator's Office
50 S. Emerson St. 0 Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 * 312/392-6000
CABLE TELEVISION COMPLAINT/REQUEST FORM
DATE 11/20/89 FILE NUMBER 112089Po(2)
Bruce Per*±ns Limited ( Bruce Pe�ns) 259-0090
SUBSCRIBER NAME HOME PH.. BUS. PH.
1350 W. Northwest Highway
ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE
FILE CODE: 11 RECEPTION 0 CUSTOMER SERVICE El RESTORATION C1 PHONES C1 BILLING
MOTHER Construction
VIOLATION: FRANCHISE SEC. NO.
COMMUNICATIONS CODE SEC.
0 REQUEST ONLY 0 FOLLOW-UP COMPLAINT 0 REPEAT COMPLAINT
El COMPLAINT Has been requesting service since Febryary 1989, has
not received any quotes after many OX40 phone calls.
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT Contact Daiid Rhodes ( 640-1500 ) property
Manager. 2:45 11/20 NA; 2:50 Greg. B. N/A; 11/21 Greg B. design not
approved by TCI. Expects service early next year. Village to require
service no later than Feb. 28, 1990.
copy ',Tt)d$X;6 Trustee Van Geem, Mark Hess
. ......... . .........
2Z8/20-,Xr..?erkers called to say that he had not yet been contacted b0 TCI. 3/9/90 -Cheryl
contacted TCI. 'Mark Hess not in, so spoke to GregPoesiger who reported no design problem.
He thouaht Sales had taken care of. He will callxr. FerRers. CHUTE will cuU-7=-5;�
11/27/89
RES 0 ERE 9.,
D to
STAFF NAME-�--' =E "I E DZ�IRCTOF�S'IG - N-OFFMA7E
CABLE COMPANY—Please forward response to complah t within usmess days to Village.
COPY DISTRIBUTION: WHITE/SUBJECT FILE—YELLOW/CABLENET ASSOCIATES—PINK/SUBSCRIBER—GOLD/N.W.M.C.a
3 -9 -90 --Cheryl sent notice of violation by certified mail to TCI. 3 -13 -90 --Received
response from TCI. Answered back with corrections to response letter. 3 -16 -90 --Called
TCI for update. Mark Hess not available. Spoke to Dan Budinger. He indicated that
the state permit will be applied for soon. This permit normally takes two to three
weeks. Dan hopes that he can get a permit in one week. It will then take one to two
weeks for locates and construction crew to be set. It will then be turned over to sales.
When asked why this was not being fed off the same trunk lines feeding the residential
area behind this building, Dan indicated that that line was already at capacity. TCI
will plan to bring service from across Northwest Highway. Dan indicated that he was
given this project today because of it's "hot" status. 3 -19 -90 --Mark Hess returned call.
He indicated that he felt the primary service area was for residential only. Cheryl
informed him that municipal code & franchise stipulate all incorporated areas of the
Village. Since deadline of 3-16-90 was not met nor was a waiver sought, Cheryl will
take complaint to the Manager/Village Board. 3/19/90 --Mark Hess called again to say that
TCI had received verbal approval for their State permit. He will have Dan Budinger call
Cheryl with details. Dan called and indicated he would rush plans to Public Works for
the Village permits. Dan indicated that he would like to get this through quickly so
that he can have a crew start construction on Friday. Cheryl spoke with Jerry MacIntosh
at Public Works and informed him of the situation. He will keep Cheryl updated.
3/28/90 --,Terry McIntosh of Public Works issued permit for TCI to begin construction after
review of plans that had to be re -submitted due to the close proximity to private property.
3/29/90 --.Cheryl spoke to Dan Budinger of TCI and he reports that locates will be called in
today. Providing all goes well, locates will be in place by Mon., April 2. If that is
4cconplished and weather allows, construction will begin on April 2. Since TCI must bore
under all the trees in the parkway, construction will be a little tricky. Dan feels it
will be done, best case scenario, by April 4. Sales will then be contacted and will in
turn contact Mr. Perkers. Cheryl asked why Sales could not call Mr. Perkers in advance,
and was told that it would not be the usual procedure. Dan feels earliest Mr. Perkers could
')have service would be April 5. 4/3/90 --Cheryl was informed by Mark Hess during meeting on
modifications that Mark will not be able to attend Board meeting. 4/3/90—Cheryl informed
Village Board of where the Perkers complaint stood. Cheryl reported that construction did
begin today and crews were still working at 5:00 p.m. The Village Board voted to impose
the penalty provisions as outlined in the Cable Communications Code. Cheryl is to notify
TCI of the Board's action. 4/4/90 --Cheryl had a letter of notification of the Board's
action of 4/3/90 on the Perkers complaint hand -delivered to TCI. TCI reports that Mr.
Perkers was installed on this date by late afternoon. Mark Hess reports that TCI crews
worked until 9:30 p.m. on 4/3/90 to complete construction in the parkway and then completed
all additional work on 4/4/90. Sales then contacted Mr. Perkers on 4/4/90. Cheryl called
Mr. Perkers to verify. He reports that he does have service and thanked the Village for
assistance. Cheryl will continue to work with the Board, TCI, and the Village attorney of
record on the imposition of penalties.
MAYOR
GERALO L PARLEY
TRUSTEES
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W. BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLCRCS
GEORGE A. VAN GEEM
THEQQCPE J. WATTENSERG
Village of
Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON OIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone 312 / 392-9000
CERTIFIED MAIL
P 396 083 983 ...
November 27, 1989
Mr. Mark Hess, General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, Il. 60056
Dear Mr. Hess:
On February 14,1989, Mr. Bruce Perkins of Perkins Limited, 1350 W.
Northwest Highway, contacted the Village to request service for his
business. At that time, he stated that he had called TCI three (3)
times and had not received a call back. The Village notified TCI,
on that same date, of Mr. Perkins request.
On February 15, 1989, Sharon Galey reported that Mr. Perkins was
being turned over to sales and that a right -of -entry from the owner
would be needed for work to begin.
The Village did not hear from TCI, or Mr. Perkins, and assumed that
the work had begun and was, by this time, completed. In a review
of subscriber complaints on November 15, 1989, Mr. Perkins informed
the Village that he still had not had a quote from TCI for the
work. Gerg Boesigner was contacted and so was Mr. David Rhodes, the
property manager. Both agreed that the ROE and the contract had
been signed.
In speaking to Greg, he noted that the delay was in the design
approval. It seems that the subcontractor had not designed the
project in an acceptable manner. Greg also noted that a part of
the problem was that this address has been tied into the Arlington
Heights system and that had also caused a delay.
Certainly Mr. Perkins has waited long enough.
Prospect is requiring that this business be
than February 28,1990. Should TCI be unable
tha date, it must seek a waiver from
Advnistrator. Said waiver may, or may not,
IIX-r-
Giet
ion Administrator
c: Mayor Farley
Trustee George Van Geem
Village Manager
The Village of Mount
serviceable no later
to provide service by
the Cable Television
be granted.
perkins
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Mark Hess
General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr, Hess:
This letter is to serve as notice that TCI of Illinois is in
violation of Sec. 6.607 Subsection A of the Mount Prospect Village
Code for failure to provide cable service within 30 days of
request. As you can clearly see from the attached complaints
received in the Cable Television Administration office, Mr. Bruce
Perkers began requesting service in February, 1989. After repeated
attempts by the Village of Mount Prospect to compel TCI to comply,
a certified letter was sent to your attention on November 27, 1989
that gave TCI until February 28, 1990 to provide service to Mr.
Perkers or to request a waiver from the Cable Television
Administrator.
As of March 8, 1990, Mr. Perkers had still not been contacted in
any way by TCI, and I have not received any request for waiver.
I spoke to your engineer, Greg Boesiger, today, and he indicated
that there were no design problems now standing in the way of this
installation. He indicated that he was under the impression that
this complaint had been handled by the Sales Department of TCI.
If Mr. Perkers is not provided with service by the end of the
business day on March 16 or proof of why service cannot be provided
is not issued by that date, I will be forced to go to the Village
Board and request that fines of $200 per day, effective from the
date of March 1, 1990, be levied against TCI of Illinois.
Sincerely,
Cher L. Pas
a�k alic
Cable Television Administrator
cc: Mayor Farley
Trustee Van Geem
Village Manager
MAYOR
GERALD L. FARLEY
TRUSTEES
RALPH W- ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLORCS
GEORGE R. VAN GEEM
THEOOOREJ. WATTENSERG
Village of
Mount
Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON OIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIE -LOS
Phone: 708 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
March 9,
1990
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Mark Hess
General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr, Hess:
This letter is to serve as notice that TCI of Illinois is in
violation of Sec. 6.607 Subsection A of the Mount Prospect Village
Code for failure to provide cable service within 30 days of
request. As you can clearly see from the attached complaints
received in the Cable Television Administration office, Mr. Bruce
Perkers began requesting service in February, 1989. After repeated
attempts by the Village of Mount Prospect to compel TCI to comply,
a certified letter was sent to your attention on November 27, 1989
that gave TCI until February 28, 1990 to provide service to Mr.
Perkers or to request a waiver from the Cable Television
Administrator.
As of March 8, 1990, Mr. Perkers had still not been contacted in
any way by TCI, and I have not received any request for waiver.
I spoke to your engineer, Greg Boesiger, today, and he indicated
that there were no design problems now standing in the way of this
installation. He indicated that he was under the impression that
this complaint had been handled by the Sales Department of TCI.
If Mr. Perkers is not provided with service by the end of the
business day on March 16 or proof of why service cannot be provided
is not issued by that date, I will be forced to go to the Village
Board and request that fines of $200 per day, effective from the
date of March 1, 1990, be levied against TCI of Illinois.
Sincerely,
Cher L. Pas
a�k alic
Cable Television Administrator
cc: Mayor Farley
Trustee Van Geem
Village Manager
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
(312) 299-9220
March 13, 1990
Mof Illinois, Inc.
Ms. Cheryl Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
50 South Emerson
Mount Prospect, 1L, 60056
Dear Cheryl,
am writing with regards to your recent letter dated March
9, 1990. In order to build cable plant to the building in
question, we will need a State Permit. We will file for the
permit toddy, March 13, 1990. We fully intend to build
service as the Village has requested.
It is our position, however that address in question, 135 W.
Northwest Highway, is not part of the primary service area as
described in Section 6.601 A of your ordinance and therefore
is not governed by section 6.607 C. There are not 50
dwelling units per mile in this area and we believe it is an
area where a charge for installation, as described in Section
6.603 A, is necessary.
As far as I know, Mr.Perkins has not agreed to such a charge.
Since the Village has requested this construction, we will
proceed with it and construction will begin as soon as a
State Permit is received. Until that time and since Section
6.607 A does not apply, I encourage you to reconsider levying
fines against TCI of Illinois.
Sire
e' y
Mark lf—e!is
General Manager
cc: Mayor, Gerald "Skip" Farley
Trustee, George Van Geem
Village Manager, John Dixon
MH/kg
An Equal 00portunify
Employer
Phone: 706 / 3S2-6000
CERTIFIED MAIL Fax: 70e / 3S2.6022
March 13, 1990
Mr. Mark Hess
General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr. Hess:
I am writing in response to your reply letter of March 13, 1990
regarding service to Mr. Bruce Perkers of 1350 W. Northwest
Highway. There are some errors in your response which I feel need
to be clarified. I
First of all, the address in question is 1350 not 135 as stated in
your letter. This address is in our primary service area and in
the incorporated limits of the Village. I do not understand your
reference to Section 6.607 C of the Village Code as it has nothing
to do with this issue. I previously cited Section 6.607 A in my
notice of violation dated March 9, 1990.
You cite Section 6.603 A stating that there are not 50 dwelling
units within a mile- of this area as outlined in this Section. That
Section does not address the number of dwelling units, but rather
serving isolated service areas measuring over 150 feet from the
nearest trunk or feeder cable pursuant to qualifying under Sections
6.601 or 6.602. Section 6.602 addresses dwelling units. After
consulting with the Inspection Services and Planning and Zoning
Departments of the Village, there are considerably more than 50
dwelling units per mile in this area. in fact, within a 4/10 mile
area of this building, there are more than 73 dwelling units
according to our Planning and Zoning Department.
With regards to Mr. Perkers agreement to a charge, there should be
no charge unless proof can be given that this is an isolated
service area via Section 6.602. In addition, Mr. Perkers has not
agreed to such a charge as he has never even been contacted by TCI
of Illinois.
GERALAYOR
D I..cARLEY
TRUSTEES
ji
RALPH W ARTHUR
IM
W. BUSSE
TIMARK
MOTHY J. CO 2CORAN
• LEO FLORCS
GEORGE A. 'IAN GEEM
RE J. WAT7ENBE
HEOGG RG
Village of
Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
'JOHN FULTON OIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone: 706 / 3S2-6000
CERTIFIED MAIL Fax: 70e / 3S2.6022
March 13, 1990
Mr. Mark Hess
General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr. Hess:
I am writing in response to your reply letter of March 13, 1990
regarding service to Mr. Bruce Perkers of 1350 W. Northwest
Highway. There are some errors in your response which I feel need
to be clarified. I
First of all, the address in question is 1350 not 135 as stated in
your letter. This address is in our primary service area and in
the incorporated limits of the Village. I do not understand your
reference to Section 6.607 C of the Village Code as it has nothing
to do with this issue. I previously cited Section 6.607 A in my
notice of violation dated March 9, 1990.
You cite Section 6.603 A stating that there are not 50 dwelling
units within a mile- of this area as outlined in this Section. That
Section does not address the number of dwelling units, but rather
serving isolated service areas measuring over 150 feet from the
nearest trunk or feeder cable pursuant to qualifying under Sections
6.601 or 6.602. Section 6.602 addresses dwelling units. After
consulting with the Inspection Services and Planning and Zoning
Departments of the Village, there are considerably more than 50
dwelling units per mile in this area. in fact, within a 4/10 mile
area of this building, there are more than 73 dwelling units
according to our Planning and Zoning Department.
With regards to Mr. Perkers agreement to a charge, there should be
no charge unless proof can be given that this is an isolated
service area via Section 6.602. In addition, Mr. Perkers has not
agreed to such a charge as he has never even been contacted by TCI
of Illinois.
In your summation you state that you will proceed with serving this
request as soon as you receive a state permit, but that Section
6.607 A does not apply, so the Village should reconsider levying
fines against TCI of Illinois. Why was this permit not obtained
when the complaint was filed in February, 1989, and then again when
TCI was placed on notice by Karen Giet in November, 1989? Your
response does not indicate what this permit is needed for nor why
service is not provided in that area currently as required. No
waiver was ever requested for this.
in conclusion, the Village is happy to hear that TCI of Illinois
plans to provide service to this requestor, however, more than
adequate time and notice have elapsed on this request. Unless the
requested service or proof of why service can not be provided are
submitted by the end of the business day March 16, the Village will
be forced to pursue levying fines against TCI of Illinois in the
amount of $200 per d4y starting from March 1, 1990.
Sincerely,
Chery7L. `P`a�salic
Cable Television Administrator
CLP: sn
cc: Mayor Farley
Trustee Van Geem
Village Manager Dixon
NWMCC
Village of Mount Prospect
M t Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM �1111H
TO: Mayor, Village Board, and Village Manager
FROM: Cheryl L. Pasalic, Cable Television Administrator
DATE: March 27, 1990
RE: Update on TCI Progress with 1350 W. Northwest Hwy.
As requested, I have been following the progress of TCI of Illinois
in the Perkers complaint at 1350 W. Northwest Highway. TCI has not
been granted a permit by the Village of Mount Prospect to begin
construction because of design errors in the plans submitted by
TCI. According to Jerry McIntosh, the person who grants such
permits for the Village, TCI's plans were too close to the private
property line of a parcel than they should•be. Dan Budinger of TCI
has taken the plans back for revisions and will resubmit them to
Jerry at Public Works on Wednesday. If those plans are approved,
a permit will then be issued immediately. TCI will then need to
have locates done and schedule a work crew. It is anticipated that
construction could not begin until Friday or Saturday at the
earliest or early next week if locates take longer. It is not
possible to say definitely that TCI will have Mr. Perkers installed
as hoped by the Board meeting next week. I will continue to
monitor the status of this complaint and I will keep you apprised.
Village of Mount Prospect
MOL 'rospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, Village Board, and Village Manager
FROM: Cheryl L. Pasalic, Cable Television Administrator
DATE: March 29, 1990
RE: Update on Perkers complaint -1350 W. Northwest Highway
As directed at the March 20 Village Board meeting, I am reporting
back to you on whether Mr. Perkers of 1350 W. Northwest Highway
will be installed with cable service by April 3 as requested. Mr.
Perkers will not have service yet by this date, but significant
progress has been made on the complaint since my last report. As
I reported last week, TCI was sent back to the drawing board with
their designs for getting cable to this site because of errors in
the proximity to private property. Revised plans were submitted
on Wednesday, March 28. After inspection by Jerry McIntosh of
Public Works, a permit for construction was issued late in the day
on March 28.
According to Dan Budinger of TCI, locates were called into
J.U.L.I.E. by this morning. Providing all goes as hoped, he will
have those locates in place by Monday, April 2. If that is
accomplished, and weather allows, construction will begin on
Monday, April 2. construction, including boring under Northwest
Highway, and boring under all the trees in the parkway along the
highway, will be a little tricky. If all goes well, in the best
case scenario, construction will be done by Wednesday, April 4.
The TCI Sales Department will then be contacted and will proceed
with contacting Mr. Perkers. I inquired why Mr. Perkers had not
been contacted yet and was told that that would not be the usual
procedure. Potential customers are contacted after cable is
available. I have placed a call to Mr. Perkers to update him.
The earliest that Mr. Perkers could possibly have service would be
Thursday, April 5. This does not seem likely as that would be less
than 24 hours from the earliest time it could be turned over to
Sales. I would anticipate service to realistically go into effect
between April 6 and April 13.
I will continue to monitor the progress of this complaint and will
have a further update for you at the April 3 Village Board meeting.
I am anticipating the attendance of Mark Hess of TCI at this
meeting for any questions you may have.
Village 0.4 Mount Prospect
M6.,t Prospect, Illinois
-4 D UM
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
S7,
TO: MAYOR, VILLAGE BOARD, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: CHERYL L. PASALIC, CABLE TELEVISION ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 3, 1990
RE: UPDATE ON PERKERS COMPLAINT - 1350 W. NORTHWEST HWY.
To update you further on the Perkers complaint, as I indicated in
my earlier memo, a permit for the construction to 1350 W. Northwest
Highway had been granted to TCI. This permit is to bring existing
plant over to this area so that the building can have service. The
actual installation of Mr. Perkers will have to take place
following the availability of active cable plant.
The locates for the construction area were performed yesterday.
Actual construction began today which will require the contractor
to bore under all the trees in the parkway for a significant
stretch along Northwest Highway. Dan Budinger of TCI indicated to
me this morning by phone and again by message this afternoon that
construction was underway and that he hoped to have the plant into
the parkway by tonight or early tomorrow. Following the completion
of plant construction, splices will be made to the lines that will
go to the actual building. This is anticipated to take place
tomorrow if all goes well. Following the splice, the area will be
considered ready for service, and will then be turned over to TCI
Sales. The earliest sales will be authorized to contact Mr.
Perkers will be Thursday if all goes well in the next few days.
With regards to TCI response, there has definitely been
considerable movement on this complaint in the last few weeks, but
only after TCI failed to meet the original deadline and was
officially notified of the violation by certified mail on March 9,
1990. This letter was received by TCI on March 12, 1990 and TCI
was given until March 16, 1990 to again request a waiver or grant
service. Karen Giet's letter of November 27, 1989 does not
specifically address penalties to be imposed, it does serve as
notice and opportunity to cure. TCI was given more than the
Northwest Municipal Cable Council's required 45 days to cure this
situation as well as our additional notice and opportunity to cure.
At the last Village Board meeting, Mark Hess of TCI indicated that
Mr. Perkers would be completely installed by the end of last week
barring any complications. Since that time, and subsequent to the
following Committee of the Whole Meeting, service is still not
available. No specific complications have been brought to my
attention. Mr. Perkers will not be able to receive service for
several days yet at best. TCI has been given a total of over 4
months to extend their cable plant to an area that should have
already been ready to be served. While TCI is now making an effort
in the thirteenth hour to get this complaint resolved, it has
dragged on for over a year.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hess will not be in attendance at the meeting
this evening due to another commitment. He asked me to update you
on this complaint for him. I wish I could report that this has
been resolved, but it has not as of this date.
While I am certainly not an attorney, I would say that my
predecessor and I have documented this complaint very thoroughly,
and as TCI has fully admitted, this is definitely a violation, and
would be subject to the penalty provisions in the Village Cable
Code if you so choose. I might add that in a conversation I had
with Mr. Hess today, he expressed that he would challenge our
current ordinance. My recommendation on this situation would be
that the Village faces setting a precedent on the enforcement of
complaints and violations of the franchise agreement and ordinance.
I do not wish to create an adversarial situation, but as your
advisor on such matters, I must keep you apprised of your rights
and responsibilities under the current contract and laws. My only
caution to you, should you choose to levy penalties, would be the
likely legal action TCI would undertake to challenge. The Cable
Act clearly gives municipalities the right to set Customer Service
standards to ensure compliance with the Act. This is the leverage
that cities are left with following rate deregulation. Mount
Prospect has a very good, strict set of standards that TCI would
like to loosen if given the opportunity. My opinion is that these
standards would stand up in court.
I will be on hand to answer any questions you may have this
evening.
Mr. Mark Hess
General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mark,
I am writing to let you know that the Village Board voted to take
action on the Perkers complaint at the Board meeting last evening,
April 3, 1990.
You will receive correspondence on the action to be taken very
shortly. Should you now or in the future wish to arrange a time
to address the Village Board, I would be happy to assist in getting
your request on the meeting agenda.
It is regrettable that you did not attend this meeting. When you
appeared before the Board on March 20, 1990, the Board made clear
to you and took action to the effect that this matter would again
be addressed at the April 3 meeting and that TCI should have an
update for the Board at that time. During your discussion with me
yesterday, I again indicated to you that this subject would be
addressed at that evening's Board meeting.
I hope that we can see Mr. Perkers provided with service as
expeditiously as possible. Please do not hesitate to contact me
with updates on the progress of Mr. Perkers' complaint.
Sincerely,
Cheryl)L. Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
CLP:sn
cc: Mayor
Village Board
Village Manager
Attorney of Record
MAY"
GERALD L FARLEY
T001117"s
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W. 8USSE
TIMOTHY CORCORA
J.N
LEO FLOPOS
GEORGE A. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J. WATTENBERG
Village of
Mount
Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Phone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 706 / 392-6022
April 4,
1990
Mr. Mark Hess
General Manager
TCI of Illinois
1201 Feehanville Drive
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mark,
I am writing to let you know that the Village Board voted to take
action on the Perkers complaint at the Board meeting last evening,
April 3, 1990.
You will receive correspondence on the action to be taken very
shortly. Should you now or in the future wish to arrange a time
to address the Village Board, I would be happy to assist in getting
your request on the meeting agenda.
It is regrettable that you did not attend this meeting. When you
appeared before the Board on March 20, 1990, the Board made clear
to you and took action to the effect that this matter would again
be addressed at the April 3 meeting and that TCI should have an
update for the Board at that time. During your discussion with me
yesterday, I again indicated to you that this subject would be
addressed at that evening's Board meeting.
I hope that we can see Mr. Perkers provided with service as
expeditiously as possible. Please do not hesitate to contact me
with updates on the progress of Mr. Perkers' complaint.
Sincerely,
Cheryl)L. Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
CLP:sn
cc: Mayor
Village Board
Village Manager
Attorney of Record
PC/caf
4/12/90
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING A VIOLATION OF THE
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CODE BY TCI_ INC.
WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Code (Chapter 6) of the village
Code of Mount Prospect requires that a cable television franchise
Grantee fill all requests for CATV service within 30 days of a
request; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a complaint by Mr. Perkers of 1350 West
Northwest Highway, Mount Prospect, originally made in February,
1989, investigation by the Cable Administrator's Office, and
inquiry by the Village Board of Mount Prospect, the Village Board
has found the Grantee TCI of Illinois -in violation of that
provision as a result of its failure to provide cable service; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee was given notice, afforded an opportunity to
cure the violation, and given an opportunity to appear before the
Village Board and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Village Board assessed a fine, pursuant to Section
6.712.B.1 of the Cable Communications Code, of $200.00 per day from
March 20,1990 through April 4, 1990, totalling $3,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee provided service to the Grantee subsequent to
the Village Board's assessment of the fine.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE:. In recognition of the Grantee's provision of service
and expressions of intent to avoid such violations in the future,
the Village Board will exercise its discretion and refrain from
collecting a fine.
SECTION TWO: This action is not, and shall not be construed as
being a limit upon or precedent for any future actions by the
Village Board in connection with other findings of violations.
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
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
0
, 1990.
Village of ospect, IlliMount noisprospect
Mo " Pr
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: Cheryl L. Pasalic, Cable Television Administrator C
DATE: April 11, 1990 1
RE: Franchise Violation Hearing Procedures
Upon review of the Cable Communications Code of the Village of
Mount Prospect, I would recommend that the attached resolution
outlining procedures for future franchise violation hearings. Upon
advice of counsel, this will eliminate any possibility that a cable
operator could question due process rights. Given the possibility
of violations in the near future, I would recommend immediate
passage of this resolution. This would, of course, follow passage
of the previous resolution I submitted to you with regards to the
Perkers complaint.
By way of copy of this memo, I am giving the Village Clerk the
opportunity to put this resolution in the form necessary for Board
consideration.
cc: Village Clerk
CP/caf
4/12/90
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR HEARING
RELATIVE TO VIOLATING THE 9ABLE COMMUN19MIONS CODE
WHEREAS, Chapter 6 entitled "Communications Code" of the Village
Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, sets forth the guidelines and
procedures for the operation of a cable television system by a
franchised cable operator; and
WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Code outlines the penalties for
violation of said Code; and
WHEREAS, outlined in the Cable Communications Code, the Franchisee
is given notice of a violation of said Code, the opportunity to
cure the violation, and the opportunity for a presentation to the
Village Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The following hearing procedures are hereby
established when considering a violation of the Cable Television
Franchise Agreement:
1. After the Franchisee has been issued a notice of violation and
has had the opportunity to cure as outlined by the Cable
Communications Code, the Franchisee, found to be in violation
by the Cable Television Administrator, will be scheduled to
appear at a public hearing before the Village Board at the
earliest available Village Board or Committee of the Whole
meeting. The Franchisee shall be notified in writing of the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
2. The Franchisee will be given the opportunity to present
materials and testimony relevant to the violation before the
Village Board, public in attendance, and public viewing the
hearing live on cable television.
3. In lieu of attendance at this public hearing, the Franchisee
may submit a written presentation to the Cable Television
Administrator prior to the hearing. The Cable Television
Administrator shall submit the written presentation in full
to the Village Board upon receipt. Submission of a written
presentation by the Franchisee shall constitute a waiver by
the Franchisee of its opportunity for a hearing before the
Village Board.
4. Immediately following said public hearing or written
presentation, the Village Board shall decide by majority vote:
A. To reaffirm the finding of violation by the Cable
Television Administrator.
B. If violation is reaffirmed, whethev penalty provisions
will be imposed.
5. Franchisee will be notified in writing of the Village Board
decisions.
6. The aforementioned procedures are not, nor shall they be
Cable TV Hearing Procedures
Page 2 of 2
construed to be, any limitation upon rights granted to the
municipality by the Cable Communications Code.
SECTION TWO: 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 , 1990.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Un Crff tU
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE: March 16, 1990
SUBJECT: Detention/Storm Water Improvement - Melas Park
On March 13, 1990, sealed bids were opened for a contract to
reroute the storm water from the Public Works facility to a new
area in Melas Park and to provide compensatory storage as re-
quired by MWRD regulations. This work is being done to increase
the usable recreation area at Melas Park that is currently being
contemplated by the Mount Prospect and Arlington Heights Park
Districts.
Attached are the bid tabulation and recommendation presented by
our consulting engineer, Donohue and Associates, Inc. They
recommend acceptance of the lowest bid as submitted by MAEg=_
stru Martam's base bid was for $89,420, which
included sodding the new detention basin area. There is an
alternate method of awarding the bid by substituting grass seed
and mulch,in lieu of sod, for a $17,420 savings. I would recom-
mend that we take advantage of this cost savings and award the
bid to Martam Construction Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$72,000.
��Qbxt
Herbert L. Weeks
HLW/td
attach.
March 16, 1990
Honorable President and Board of Trustees
Village of mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056'
ENGINEERS Attn: John Dixon,
Village Manager
ARCHITECTS
SCIENTISTS Re: Detention Improvement -
Public Works Building,
Melas Park Storm Sewer
Donohue Project No. 17201
Dear President Farley and Trustees:
Pursuant to the Official Notice to Bidders, sealed bids for the
above referenced projects were received at the office of the
Village Manager, John Fulton Dixon on March 13, 1990, at 10:00
A.M. and publicly opened and read aloud. We have reviewed all
the bids received for the Detention Improvement Contract and have
attached a copy of the Bid Tabulation for your information.
We take this opportunity to submit to the Village Board our writ-
ten recommendations concerning the Conditional Award of Contract.
Six sealed bids were received for the Detention Improvement -
Public Works Building. The low bid was submitted by Martam
Construction, Inc., of Glen Ellyn, Illinois in the amount of
$89,420.00. The second low bid was submitted by William J. Olson
of Rosemont, Illinois in the amount of $95,280.45.
It is our opinion that the low Bidder on the Contract submitted a
responsive bid and is qualified and capable of performing the
work as specified. It is therefore recommended that the Contract
for Storm water detention improvements to service the Public
Works building be conditionally awarded to Martam Construction,
Inc.in the amount of $89,420.00.
9 150/ Wxxifteld Road
Suite 200 East
Schaumburg, Illinois 60173
708605.8800
Telefax 7086058914
There is an opportunity to reduce the price of this construction
if seeding is substituted for the sodding called for in the con-
struction documents. A supplemental unit price was bid for
seeding with mulch to be used if temporary erosion control was
required on areas where the excess excavated material was spread.
Martam Construction in a telephone conversation of March 15th
stated that they would be agreeable to the deletion of sodding
from the contract and utilizing seeding at the supplemental bid
price. This change would result in a decrease in the contract
amount of $17,420 yielding a revised total of $72,000.00. If this
ENGINEERS reduction is desired, the Village may wish to conditionally award
ARCHITECTS the contract contingent on the change from sodding to seeding at
SCIENTISTS the unit prices bid.
We will be pleased to answer any questions concerning the recom-
mendations set forth herein.
Very truly yours,
DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Thomas J. Rowlett
Senior Civil Engineer
TJR:dlc
enc: Tabulation of Bids
T/L/CT7
Mr. John Dixon
March 16, 1990
Page 2
A B U t A T 1 0 R O F B 1 0 S DONOMIE S ASSOCIATES, INC.
.......................m_.,...,.__.._____.__.-----___.__.
.ETENTION IMPROVEMENTS - PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
WIVE
-VINCENT DIVITO. I
AND
23 W. 050 MSS ST.
QVICIPMITY: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT DATE: 13 IAN 90
ADDRESS
GLEN ELLYN. It. 60
TINE: 10:00 AN
OE
......................................................».....
BIDDER
700-690-9181
A....._.....
_...._ -_...... -ITEMS UNIT DMTITVa
.......__
-_......
UNIT COST tOTAti,
_.._.....aa» ...... ......... .
I_ UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AS SPEC. LOM t
„------,
......... _
IBM
SUN
1 5000
'. TOPSOIL 4" AS SPEC.
50.
5800
YARD
4 2
S. SODDING-SMAN
T TOLERT AS SPEC.
SD.
YARD
.. PAVEMENT REIOVM AND SITUIINOUS
SO.
23
37
051
SEPLACEMENT 9•.AS SPEC.
YARD
2775
;. RESTRICTOR ASSENBIY, COMP AS SPEC.
LUP
SUN
42.5
13600
>. 27" SIDON UNIX, COW. AS SPK
LINEAR
320
FEET
?. ST— SEVER, . AS SPEC.
LINEAR
635
20
1�
FEET
3. 21" —INTO SEWER: COMP. AS SPEC..
LINEAR
10
245
2450
FEET
7, S£LOCAY 00 OF EX�1ST12 FLARED
LUMP
400
END SECTION AND GRATE. COMP. AS SPEC.
SIM
10. I2- FLARED END SECTION UITN GRATE.
M-91
200
200
M
LO. AS SPEC
i1. E DIAMETER, COMAS SPEC m
EACN
1
1900
-J M
.2. E 60- OIAMETER. COMP. AS SPEC.
EACN
1
1JOO
IM
33, IANNOLE 46+- 01AMEtER WITH
EACH
1
4 006
4m
DROP CONNECTION, CONPL AS SPEC.
!4, -TCM BASIN ii- 61ANQiFR.
EACH
1
t800
1800
COMP. AS SPEC.
l5> -'C* BASIN - DIAMTEA,
EACN
t
1600
16W
COIF. AS I.C.
NC MARIAN CONST. INC, MOSELLE E ASSOC.
810 NORTM AVE. .INC.
i GLEN ELLYN. It 551 EDENS LANE
60137 :MORMTFIELO.IL 60093
708-790-1414 ';:706-446-7095
Wlt-COS7�
TOTAL !---T COST .TO2�-
____________.._..----- .--_..
JAMERICAN
SYSTEM IN CokSTSUC, INC. III
45S EASsi
TS51-9OUNXDEE,IL60116 j�RTiB#390 4T2i 60018 1117401
CCaWIR4-354I LM25111
UNIT COST.-TO12AiXNNT COSI 11765`7tANIT COSTj__!14A900
I A R U L A T 1 0 N 0 1 H t D S COMMIE R ASSOCIATES. INC.
,ETENTIOM IMPROVEMENTS - PUBLIC UORHS BUILDING
.NAME
UID
#NIICIPALITY. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT DATE: 13 RAI 90
AGREES$
TIME: 10:00 AM
if
BIDDER
....__a_,......-. ITENS....__.__,,..._.. .Q4N11--. OLWITITY
...._.
16. INET COW. AS SPEC.
EACH
2
IT. RIPlW COW. AS WE
S0.
YARD
1S, NAY WE$ COMP. AS SPEC.
EACH
i . TREE TRANSPLANT _
EACN
i1
COW. AS SPEC.
TOTAL SID I AS READ
MICE
h+�= i
FORSEWNTAL TI1
OR SEEDING UIiR IUICN
�
LENT DIVtTO, 1NC MARTA" CONST. INC. 11IMMILE19
ASSOC. III:MEl..— -ITT- Ut1l IAN i. OLSON IIISIMItASAR GENERAL
IN
INC.
INC
NOR
N EYNIL.601� �OLENf ELLYN,I IL SSI EDEELDLANTIO0. INC.
EdO043 EASTENOIN9NA
EEi1C8O1MROSE ONT.7IL 6001R C7401 OW1CONST4 SLOE, ILRRINGS
+TOTAL'. �UNIT.COSIj_TOTALRm �(UMt,COST1__ TOTAL
i- I UNIT *COSTI.`TOTAL_- I iKITxCOSTJs-TOTAL
•6 UNtT`OOSTI-,TOTAL
,v
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
*
I INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Deputy Director Public Works
DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJ: Bid Opening - Water Main Replacement
On April 10, 1990, bids were received and opened for the replace-
ment of two segments of watermain. one is 920 feet of main on
Council Trail between Route 83 and Hi-Lusi Street and the other
is 1000 feet of main on Oak Street between Gregory Street and
Forest Avenue. Bid results as follows:
Glenbrook Excavating $124,390.00
Vincent Divito, Inc. 126,497.00
Martam Construction 133,431.00
Joel Kennedy Construction 137,593.00
Vian Construction Company 141,867.25
The bid plans and specifications were developed by our consult-
ing engineer, Beling Consultants. Their estimate for the
project was $139,959.00.
After checking and receiving favorable performance comments from
all of Glenbrook's references, Beling Consulting Engineers recom-
mends, and I concur, that this water main replacement contract
be awarded to the lowest bidder, Glenbrook Excavating for an
amount not to exceed $124,390.00. Funding for this project can
be found in the 1989/90 annual budget on Page 188, Account #41-
072-10-8724.
Glen R. Andler
GRA/eh
cc: Herbert L. Weeks
Jerry McIntosh
Attachments
Beling Consultants
April 11, 1990
Mr. Herbert L. Weeks, Director of Public Works
Village of Mount Prospect
1700 West Central Road
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
SUBJECT: . 1990 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
63067-B-81335
Dear Mr. Weeks:
As you are aware, proposals for the subject project were received by the
Village until 10:00 A.M., on Tuesday April 10, 1990, at the Village Managers
Office. At the time of the closing of the receipt of bids, five (5) proposals
were received and were publicly opened. Attached, for your use and
information, is a copy of the Bid Tabulation Sheet indicating the Engineers
Estimate, and also the bid prices submitted for the work items included in the
project.
As you can see, the low bid was received from Glenbrook Excavating and
Concrete, Inc. of Prairieveiw, Illinois with a total bid of $124,390.00. In
our review of the low bidders proposal, we have noted that an error was made
in the extension of the PCC sidewalk removal and replacement cost, and the
total shown on the Bid Tabulation Sheet is $2.00 less than the total shown on
the original bid proposal form. The bid security which was submitted with the
proposal meets the requirements as stated in the Advertisement for Bid. We
have contacted the references given by the low bidder in regard to his
performance record and have determined that the bidder has completed projects
of a similar nature and magnitude to the proposed project. The Contractor has
previously completed projects for the Village of Glenview and the Winnetka
Park District, as well as privately funded projects involving the construction
of water main systems. We would recommend, therefore, that the Village Board
award the contract for the 1990 Water Main Replacement Program to Glenbrook
Excavating and Concrete, Inc. for their low bid of $124,390.00. This
recommendation is made under the conditions that the Contractor supply the
necessary Letter of Credit in the full amount of the contract guaranteeing the
faithful performance of the contract, as well as the required Certificate of
Insurance showing complete coverage of all insurance required as specified in
the General Conditions.
Boling Consultants, Inc. Professional Engineering • Environmental Laboratory
Hillcrest Center, N. Larkin Avenue at Plainfield Road, Joliet, IL 60435 / 815-729-1800 FAX / 815-729-4207
Mr. Weeks 2 April 11, 1990
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this
matter, please callus.
Very truly yours,
BELING CONSULTANTS, INC.
allztL - -
C. Daniel Albert
Project Manager
sj
herbwk.j
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Glen Andler, Deputy Director of Public Works
BELING CONSULTANTS, INC.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
BID TABULATION:
PROJECT: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1990 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
810 OPENING: TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990 AT 10:00 AM AT VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
JOB NO.: 8-81335-63067
PAGE 1 OF 3
ENGINEER'S GLENBROOK EXCAVATING VINCENT DIVITO, INC.
ESTIMATE PRAIRIEVIEW, IL. GLEN ELLYN, IL.
ITEM
NO.
ITEM UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
PRICE PRICE PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
8' D.I. WATER MAIN CL 56 L.F.
1,920
$40.00
$76,800.00 $29.50 $56.640.00
$34.00
$65,280.00
2
8' GATE VALVE W/48' VAULT EA.
3
$1,800.00
$5,400.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00
$1,400.00
$4,200.00
3
6' GATE VALVE W148' VAULT EA.
3
$1,500.00
$4,500.00 $900.00 $2,700.00
$1,300.00
$3,900.00
4
FIRE HYDRANT W/AUX. VALVES 6 BOX EA.
3
$1,500.00
$4,500.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
$1,400.00
$4,200.00
5
1' COPPER SERVICE RECONNECTION EA.
6
$700.00
$4,200.00 $200.00 $1,200.00
$400.00
$2.400.00
6
1' CURB STOP W/ BOX EA.
6
$425.00
$2,550.00 $200.00 $1,200.00
$100.00
$600.00
7
TRENCH BACKFILL C.Y.
755
$15.00
$11,325.00 $25.00 $18,875.00
$24.00
$18,120.00
8
8IT. CONC. PVMT. REM. d REP. S.Y.
435
$30.00
$13,050.00 ' $20.00 $81700.00
$16.00
$6,960.00
9
CONC. CURB d GUTTER REMA REP. LF.
85
$18.00
$1,530.00 $35.00 $2,975.00
$15.00
$1,275.00
10
81T. CONIC. DRIVE REM. 8 REP. S.Y.
96
$20.00
$1,920.00 = $25.00 $2,400.00
$25.00
$2,400.00
11
P.C.C. DRIVE REM. 6 REP. S.Y.
10
$50.00
$500.00 $30.00 $300.00
$30.00
$300.00
12
P.C.C. SIDEWALK REM. d REP. S.F.
22
$4.00
$88.00 $10.00 $220.00
$5.00
$110.00
13
WATER MAIN REMOVAL LF.
72
$12.00
$884.00 $50.00 $3,600.00
$12.00
$864.00
14
VALVE 8 VAULT REMOVAL EA.
2
$400.00
$800.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00
$400.00
$800.00
15
HYDRANT W/AUX. VALVES 6 BOX REM. EA.
3
$250.00
$750.00 $500.00 $1,500.00
$800.00
$2,400.00
18
ABANDON WATER MAIN EA.
8
$400.00
$3,200.00 $200.00 $1,600.00
$800.00
$6,400.00
17
SOD RESTORATION S.Y.
405
$10.00
$4,050.00 $20.00 58,100.00
$6.00
$2,430.00
18
TRAFFIC A. DUST CONTROL L.SUM
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
19
1' CHLORINATIONIAIR RELEASE TAP EA.
7
$200.00
$1,400.00 $150.00 $1,050.00
$80.00
$560.00
20
BIT. MATERIAL PRIME GOAT GAL
266
52.00
$532.00 $5.00 $1,330.00
$3.00
$798.00
`TOTAL (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 20j
$139,959.00 $124,390.00
$126,487.00
NOTE: DUE TO ERROR MADE IN EXTENSION OF ITEM 12,
TOTAL SHOWN ON PROPOSAL FORM IS $124,392.00.
BELING CONSULTANTS, INC.
CIIICAGO, ILLINOIS
BID TABULATION:
PROJECT: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1990 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
BID OPENING.: TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990 AT 10:00 AM AT VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
JOB NO.: B-81335-63067
PAGE 2 OF 3
ENGINEER'S MARTAM CONST. INC. JOEL KENNEDY CONST.
ESTIMATE GLEN ELLYN, IL. GURNEE. IL.
ITEM
NO.
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
8' D.I. WATER MAIN CL. 56
L.F.
1,920
$40.00
$76,800.00
$44.00
$84,480.00
$39.00
$74,880.00
2
8' GATE VALVE W/48' VAULT
EA.
3
$1,800.00
$5,400.00
$1,800.00
$5,400.00
$1,400.00
$4,200.00
3
6' GATE VALVE W148' VAULT
EA.
3
$1,500.00
$4,500.00
$1,600.00
$4,800.00
$1,300.00
$3,900.00
4
FIRE HYDRANT WIAUX. VALVES & BOX
EA.
3
$1,500.00
$4,500.00
$1,500.00
$4,500.00
$1,900.00
$5,700.00
5
1' COPPER SERVICE RECONNECTION
EA.
6
$700.00
$4,200.00
$100.00
$600.00
$600.00
$3,600.00
6
1' CURB STOP WJ BOX
EA.
6
$425.00
$2,550.00
$120.00
$720.00
$130.00
$780.00
7
TRENCH BACKFILL
C.Y.
755
$15.00
$11,325.00
$12.00
$9,060.00
$25.00
$18,875.00
8
BIT. CONC. PVMT. REM. & REP.
S.Y.
435
$30.00
$13,050.00
$26.00
$11,310.00
$25.00
$10,875.00
9
CONIC. CURB &GUTTER REM.&REP.
L.F.
85
$18.00
$1,530.00
$20.00
$1,700.00
$15.00
$1,275.00
10
BIT. CONC. DRIVE REM. & REP.
S.Y.
96
$20.00
$1,920.00
$20.00
$1,920.00
$14.00
$1,344.00
11
P.G.C. DRIVE REM. & REP.
S.Y.
10
$50.00
$500.00
$35.00
$350.00
$50.00
$500.00
12
P.C.C. SIDEWALK REM. & REP.
S.F.
22
$4.00
$88.00
$5.00
$110.00
$4.00
$88.00
13
WATER MAIN REMOVAL
L.F.
72
$12.00
$864.00
$15.00
$1,080.00
$20.00
$1,440.00
14
VALVE & VAULT REMOVAL
EA.
2
$400.00
$800.00
$150.00
$300.00
$300.00
$600.00
15
HYDRANT W/AUX. VALVES & BOX REM.
EA.
3
$250.00
$750.00
$150.00
$450.00
$200.00
$600.00
16
ABANDON WATER MAIN
EA.
8
$400.00
$3,200.00
$120.00
$960.00
$600.00
$4,000.00 =
17
SOD RESTORATION
S.Y.
405
$10.00
$4,050.00
$5.00
$2,025.00
$4.00
$1,620.00
18
TRAFFIC & DUST CONTROL
L.SUM
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00.
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.001
19
1' CHLORINATION/AIR RELEASE TAP
EA.
7
$200.00
$1,400.00
$200.00
$1,400.00
$150.00
$1,050.001
20
BIT. MATERIAL PRIME COAT
GAL.
266
$2.00
$532.00
$1.00
$266.00
$1.00
$266.00
TOTAL (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 20) $139,959.00 $133,431.00 $137,593.00
BELING CONSULTANTS, INC.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
BID TABULATION:
PROJECT: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1990 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
BID OPENING: TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990 AT 10:00 AM AT VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
JOB NO.: B-81335-63067
ENGINEER'S VIAN CONST. CO.,INC
ESTIMATE ELK GROVE VILLAGE, IL
ITEM
NO.
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
8' D.I. WATER MAIN CL 56
L.F.
1,920
$40.00
$76,800.00
$46.00
$88.320.00
2
8' GATE VALVE Wt 48' VAULT
EA.
3
$1,800.00
$5,400.00
$1,265.00
$3,795.00
3
8' GATE VALVE WI 48' VAULT
EA.
3
$1,500.00
$4,600.00
$1,160.00
$3,480.00
4
FIRE HYDRANT W/AUX. VALVES & BOX
EA.
3
$1,500.00
$4,500.00
$1,750.00
$5,250.00
5
1' COPPER SERVICE RECONNECTION
EA.
8
$700.00
$4,200.00
$458.00
$2,748.00
6
1' CURB STOP W/ BOX
EA.
6
„ $425.00
$2,550.00
$260.00
$1,560.00
7
TRENCH BACKFILL
G.Y.
755
$15.00
$11,325.00
$19.00
$14,345.00
8
BIT. CONC. PVMT. REM. & REP.
S.Y.
435
$30.00
$13,050.00
$17.00
$7,395.00
9
CONC. CURB & GUTTER REM.& REP.
L.F.
85
$18.00
$1,530.00
$20.00
$1,700.00
10
BIT. CONC. DRIVE REM. & REP. ''
S.Y.
96
$20.00
$1,920.00
$17.00
$1,632.00
11
P.C.C. DRIVE REM. & REP.
S.Y.
10
$50.00
$500.00
$50.00
$500.00
12
P.G.C. SIDEWALK REM. & REP.
S.F.
22
$4.00
$88.00
$12.00
$264.00
13
WATER MAIN REMOVAL
L.F.
72
$12.00
$864.00
$10.00
$720.00
14
VALVE & VAULT REMOVAL
EA.
2
$400.00
$800.00
$400.00
$800.00
15
HYDRANT WIAUX. VALVES & BOX REM,
EA.
3
$250.00
$750.00
$150.00
$450.00
16
ABANDON WATER MAIN
EA.
8
$400.00
$3,200.00
$200.00
$1,600.00
17
SOD RESTORATION
S.Y.
405
$10.00
$4,050.00
$5.25
$2,126.25
18
TRAFFIC & DUST CONTROL
L.SUM
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,600.00
$3,600.00
19
1' CHLORINATION/AIR RELEASE TAP
EA.
7
$200.00
$1,400.00
$160.00
$1,050.00
20 1
BIT. MATERIAL PRIME COAT I
GAL. 1
266
$2.00 1
$532.00
$2.001
3532.00
TOTAL OTEMS 1 THROUGH 20) $139,959.00 $141,867.25
PAGE 3 OF 3
Village of'hAount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Engineering Coordinator
DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION - General Maintenance/Resurfacing Program
90 -00000 -02 -GM
On April 11, 1990, at 10:00 A.M., sealed bids were received for
the 1990 General Maintenance Program - Resurfacing Program.
BIDS RECEIVED
Twelve contractors received Contract Bid Documents. -A total of
four contractors submitted bids. The bids range from a low of
$262,174.35 by Allied Asphalt Paving Co. to high of $303,180.84 by
American Asphalt & Seal Coating Co. The Engineer's Estimate for
the project was $302,246.75.
ANALYSIS OF BIDS
All Bidders submitted Bid Bonds in the amount of 5% of their total
bid as required by the Contract Documents. All Bidders correctly
signed their bids and bid bond. The lowest bid was 13% below the
estimate.
iWiToyan.,
1.) Allied Asphalt Paving Co. $262,174.35
2.) Arrow Road Construction Co. $267,999.97
3.) Palumbo Bros., Inc. $273,981.29
4.) American Asphalt & Seal Coating Co. $303,180.84
QUALIFICATIONS OF LOW BIDDER
The low bidder, Allied Asphalt Paving Co., has performed work in
Mount Prospect over the past several years. This will make the
third Resurfacing Program, Allied Asphalt Paving Co., has completed
for the Village within the past 10 years. For the most part,
Allied Asphalt's quality of work is very good.
Page Two
Resurfacing Program
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the evaluation of the Bid received, I recommend awarding
a Contract to Allied Asphalt Paving Co., with a Bid price of
$262,174.35.
Funding for this project is shown on Page 152 of the 1990-91 budget
under Account Code No. 22-071-04-8505 which currently has
$500,000.00.
4-tw
Robert Pszanka
I concur with the above recommendation
Charles Bencic,
Director of Inspection Services
I cocur w' ive recommendation
-: 2=
Glen Afidl6r,
Deputy Director of Public Works
RP: CB/m
Village of Mount Prospect
1990 General Maintenance Resurfacing Program
April 11, 1990
I0:00 A.M.
€Allied Asphalt Paving Cc
Hiltaido llt., b0162
Arrow Road Const Co
Mount Prospect. BI b0056H
Palumbo Bros. Inc
!!side, ID 60!62
American Asphalt &
Seal Com ng Co., lac
6ugincer*a Estimate
Estimated
No. Item Quantity
Darien, B 60559
1. Bit. Cone. Surface Cm Cl 1, Mix D, Type 2
4762 Tan
26.00
123,812.00
° 21.80
118,097.60
25.00
119,050.00
28.03
133,478.86
75.00
119,450.00
2. Levet Binder (Machine Method) Mix B. Type 2
2300 Ton
22.00
50,600.00
23.20
53,360.00
25.00
57,500.00
2753
63,319.00
74.00
5' V
3, Bit. Materials (Prime Cost RC -70)
3251 Gat
0.10
325.10
0.87
2,828.37
0.50
1,625.50
1.71
5,559.21
1.50
4,,,,,,.50
4. Bit. Materiels (Prime Coat MC -30)
4685 Gal
0.10
469.50
0.87
4,075.95
0.50
2,342.50
1.42
6,652.70
1.50
7,027.50 ,
S. Preparation of Base
3932 SY
0.10
393.20
0.20
796A0
0.65
2,555.80
0.36
1,415.52
0.50
1,966.00
6. Bituminous Surface Removal 2'
14900 SY
1.00
14,900.00
0.97
14,453.00
1.00
14,900.00
1.07
15,943.00
1.25
18,625.00
7. Bituminous Surface Removal 2.5'
24500 SY
0.98
24,010.00
LOD
24,500.00
LOD
24,500.00
1.12
27,440.00
1.50
36,750.00
8. Bituminous Surface Removal (Var. Depth)
3100 SY
0.75
2,325.00
1.04
3,224.00
1.00
3,100.00
1.02
3,162.00
1.10
3,410.00
9. Area ReB Crack Control Treatment System A
18105 SY
0.56
10,138.80
0.58
10,500.90
0.66
11,949.30
0.61
11,044.05
0.75
13,578.75
10. Poured Crack Said
12205 LF
0.35
.� 4,271.75
0.35
4,271.75
0.33
4,027,65
0.34
4,149.70
0.60
7,323.00
IL Dry Grout Solids
180 CF
21.00
3,780.00
21.00
3,780.00
32.62'
5,871.60
4.02
723.60
5,50
990.00
12. Hol= Drilled
137 FA
90.00 _
12,330.00
92.00 -i
11,234.00
92.62 `
12,688.94
47.60
6,521.29
100.00
13,700.00
i3. Fume And Grates To Be Adjusted
5 E.
165.00
825.00
140.00'
700.00
140.00
- 700.00
258.00
1,290.00
150.00
750.00
14. Structuea To Be Adjusted
37 Ea
16500
6,105.00
140.OD
5,180.00
210.00
7,770.00
361.00
13,357.00
300.00
11,100.00
15. structures To Be Reconstructed
9 Ea
450.00
4,050.00
330.00
2,970.00
400.00
3,600.00
575.00
5,175.00
600.00
5,40000
16. Traffic Control & Protection
1 LS
31800.00
3,800.00
7,500.00
7,500.00
1,300.00
1,300.00
3,200.00
3,200.00
2,0110.00
2,000.00
17. Maintenance, Bond 24 Month
1 LS
40.0(1
40.00
538.00
538.00
500.00
500.00
750.00
750.00
500.00
500.0(1
Tont 262,174.35
Told 267,999.97
Total 273,981.29
Total 303,180.84
Total 302,246.75
Village of'Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Engineering Coordinator
DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION - General Maintenance/Curb & Gutter
90 -00000 -03 -GM
On April 11, 1990, at 10:00 A.M., sealed bids were received for
the 1990 General Maintenance Program - Curb & Gutter.
BIDS RECEIVED
Thirteen contractors received Contract Bid Documents. A total of
nine contractors submitted bids. The bids range from a low of
$196,268.25 by F & V Cement Co. to high of $241,299.50 by C -A
Construction Co. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was
$222,895.00.
ANALYSIS OF BIDS
All Bidders submitted Bid Bonds in the amount of 5% of their total
bid as required by the Contract Documents. All Bidders correctly
signed their bids and bid bond. The lowest bid was 12% below the
estimate.
ff=DER TOTALc W,
1.)
F & V Cement
$196,268.25
2.)
Trialta Construction
$198,044.30
3.)
M & A Cement Work
$210,947.00
4.)
August Contractors
$227,615.10*
5.)
Kings -Point Gen. Cement
$230,580.00
6.)
Schroeder & Schroeder
$238,536.75
7.)
J & J Newell Concrete
$239,204.50
8.)
Globe Construction
$240,116.25
9.)
C -A Construction
$241,299.50
* Incorrect Unit Price Format
- Invalid Bid Proposal
QUALIFICATIONS OF LOW BIDDER
The low bidder, F & V Cement Contractors, Inc. has completed
various concrete sidewalk projects throughout the Village over the
past several years. Their quality of work is good and they
complete their projects in a timely manner.
Page Two
Curb & Gutter Program
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Bids received, I recommend awarding a Contract to F
& V Cement Contractors Inc., with a Bid price of $196,268.25.
Funding for this project is shown on Page 152 of the 1990-91 budget
under Account Code No. 22-071-04-8505 which currently has
$500,000.00.
Robert Pszanka
I concur with the above recommendation
Charles Bencic,
Director of Inspection Services
I concur with the above recommendation
%
Herbert L. Weeks,
Director of Public Works
RP: CB/m
Village of Mount Prospect
1490 G-1 Mainmudnee Curb & Gulw Repair Program
April It, 1990
10:00 A.M.
E64i.4md
FAY CementConUuton Ing
T
T'w Co W-uun CO, I" M&A Cement Wurk lne
%ingr•Poiement ot Oen C
Sehronda A Schroeder
Na. Item Quantity
Chicago 0 60631
O. Park. 0 60181 Smanv0la, 1160106
AMiwn n 60101
0. FLina 0 60016
1. Curcio Cox Cmb Ad Cn Rem?Ad Raps 9650 LF
9.95
96,017.50
8.50
42,025.00 11.00
106,150.00
12.00
115,800.00
WAS
100,642.50
2. Irdegd Caa:*da Cab Rt Ad Re0 3095 LF
3, IuegW C9 Cart Reed Ad Type S 6.12 RqY 3620 LF
MAI
HAS
32,342.75
41,449.00
10.00
11.00
30,950.00 II. a
39,820.00. 11.00
34,045.00
39,620.00
12.00
10.00
37,140.00
� 36,200.00
11.95
13.95
36,965.25
30,499.00
4, Cab T. a. At�.W 35 EA
165.00
5,775.00
170.00
5,950.00'.- 30.00
......'"
1,750.00
100.00
3,500.00
150.00
3.250.00
i Cab - T. Jw It ..-._-d I 6
6. Cub WTo #a A0jAType I Fr, Op. Lid 36 Ea
350.00
165.00
350.00
5,940.00
500.00500.00
261.00
475.00
9.540.00275.00
475.00
9,900.00
400.00
330.00
400.00
12,600.00
I,.SW..
450.00
1,500.00
16,200.00
7, '-•-- Type A ATypa I Fe, Opee Ud opmWl I E.
350.00
350.00
810.00
I10.00''... 1,273.00
1,275.00
900.00
900.00
I.5W.00
1,500.00
S. oam-y P*- R-4 760 SY
4.50
3,420.00
22.00
16,720.00 4.95
3,762.00
9.00
6,840.00
9.00
4,810..
9, PCC lld-"5* 200 OF
3.00
600.00
2.30
460.00 2.00
400.00
3.00
600.00
3.00
600.00
10. Sn (SP -4-1)2720 SY
295
8,024.00
3.45
9,364.00 4.73
12,920.00
5.00
13,600.00
6.00
14,320.00
:L Tef.C.-AAd P4ua�a 1 LS
[.000.00
1.000.00
900.00
900.00 300.00
X0.00
2.3W.00
2,500.00
8.500.00
z:00
12. ._bad 24 Mamb 1 LS
:,000.00
I 1,000.00
1 985.30
%5.30 130,001150.00
1 500.00
SWAG
Told 1%,248.25
ToW 19-- TaW 210,947.00
777-777-77-7
TaW 218534.75
36! W -M Cwcrde C
O1obe Ceowactioo I.
C -A Carmratioa Ice
Aogew Cootragon
Engines'. Edl-
&U-wd
No. Ile. 0--d y
t'w}amrt Cty O 604M
Addi.oa n 60101
Md- Pok R 60164
and -Park 060160
L Cuab ConeC b Ad Ones Remi Ad Rept
9630 LF
II.75
113,317.50
1125
100.562.10
11.20
IW,010..
It.W 806,150. 1
:0..
%.500.00
2. IwvA Coxean Cub Fent Ad R,71
3095 LF
14.60
45,117.00
13.25
41,008.75
:3.50
41,782.50
13.00 40,233.00
f 1.00
34,043 00
3. WwW (: Cub Rend Ad Type b 6.12 Rept
3620 LF
15.00
54,300.00
13.25
47,965.00
13.50
48,670.00
13.00 47,060.00
t 1.50
41.630.00
4. Cub Struma To M Adj-d
35 Ea
50.00
1.750.00
100.00
3,500.00
166.00
5,8:0.00
I10.00 3,150..
300.00
I0,5W.00
5. Cadr Stratton To M Ramutructd
I E.
450.00
450.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
333.00
533.00
200.. 200.00
6..00
600,00
6. CubStr To M Adj AType l Fr, Op. Lid
36 F
165.00
5,940.00
MOD
; 7,200.00
281.00
10,116.00
375.00 13,5W.00350.00
12,600.00
7. Iden Typa A ATypo i Fr. Open Lid (Sp W)
I &
700.00
700.00
1,700.00E[
1,700.00
450.00
450.00
373.00 375.00
1.000.00
1.0..00
g. odn.ay P. -R -I
760 SY
4.50
3,420..
9.00
( 6,840.00
8.00
6,OM1.00
5.00 3,8..00
12..
9,120.00
9. PCC SW-dk S'
200 SF
2.50
500.00
3.00 tt
600..
2.49
498.00
2.40.5 480A0
4.00
800.00
10. 8odding(Spncid)
2720 SY
3.75
10,200..
7.00
19 .00
5.25
14,290.00
2.501''.. 6,800.00
..
5..
13,600..
II. Tnlf C. -I Ad Praeaion
1 LS
.O.00
IW
1,000.00
1,2..00
1,200.00
3.800.00
3.800.00
4,SW-00 1,5..00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2, Mak-Heed 24 M -6t
LS
2,170.00
2370..
1,000.00-
1,0.A0
)'"'00 1
1.000.00
ERR
500.001
5..00
T- 239.-30 .TOW 240.116.21 TOW 241.294.10 TeW 227.615.!0 Turd 222,895.00
• I-4 Unk Price Forsa "
188414 bid PropOW
Village of'__"cunt "cunt Prospect
Mount—P-rospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 13, 1990
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION - FOREST AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION
MEMORY LANE TO KENSINGTON ROAD
The low qualified bidders are Arrow Road for asphalt at $270,289 and Triggi
Construction for concrete, type two and concrete fast curing.
The Concrete Institute had indicated to the Village that concrete road construction
should be approximately the same as asphalt. As you can see, it is approximately 200
more and I recommend the Board accept the contract of Arrow Road for $270,289.
The potential for the addition of five to ten years of concrete versus asphalt before
reconstruction is too unknown at this time.
A
D
JOHN FULTON DIXON
JFD/rcw
attachment
Village of,.-Acunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Engineering coordinator
DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Recommendation - Forest Ave. Reconstruction
Memory Ln. to Kensington Rd.
On April 11, 1990, at 10:00 A.M. sealed bids were received for the
Forest Ave. Reconstruction - Memory Lane to Kensington Road. At
this time, the sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud.
This Contract was bid using three different types of base course
material for the pavement. The Bidder was requested to submit unit
prices for 32 Bid Items. All bid items are the same for each
proposal except for the base course material.
Proposal Type 1: Stone Aggregate Base Course
Proposal Type 2: P.C. Concrete Base Course
Proposal Type 3: P.C. Concrete Base Course - High
Early Strength
The difference between Type 2 & Type 3 is the length of curing time
for the concrete.
In this, type of contract form, the Village is allowed to choose
which of the proposed base course construction is in its best
interest. Namely, the Village may choose to award the Type 2
contract rather than the Type 1 contract, even if the overall bid
is higher.
BIDS RECEIVED
Nineteen Contractors received Contract Bid Documents. All Bidders
submitted Bid Bonds in the amount of 5% of their total bid as
required by the Contract Documents. All Bidders correctly signed
their bids and bid bonds.
PROP014AL—TY)PF
,-A BID
1.) Kings Point General Cement $263,229.00*
2.) Arrow Road Construction $270,289.00
Engineer's Estimate $351,585.00
Page 2
Forest Avenue Reconstruction
PROPOSAL TYPE 2
BID
1.)
Kings Point
General Cement
$284,282.00*
2.)
Triggi Construction
$332,983.00
Engineer's Estimate
$400,385.00
PROPOSAL TYPE 3
BID
1.)
Kings Point
General Cement
$292,214.00*
2.)
Triggi Construction
$357,783.00
Engineer's Estimate
$409,385.00
Since Motor Fuel Funds will be used for this project, I.D.O.T.
Prequalification is required. Kings Point General Cement is
prequalified to do concrete work totalling $396,000. Since this
project is less than one half mile in length and the pavement width
is two lane, only the concrete items in Kings Point's bid can be
used to determine their eligibility. To qualify, Kings Point's bid
prices for concrete work must be at least 51% of their total bid.
KINGS POINT GENERAL CEMENT BID "CONCRETE" 51%
Proposal Type 1 $263,229 $ 70,344.00 $134,247
Proposal Type 2 $284,282 $125,249.00 $144,984
Proposal Type 3 $292,214 $129,889.00 $149,029
Therefore, Kings Point General Cement is not qualified per I.D.O.T.
criteria, to receive this Bid Award. The next low bidders meet all
qualifications.
QUALIFICATIONS OF LOW BIDDERS
Proposal Type 1: Lowest qualified bidder is Arrow Road
Construction. This company has done numerous projects for the
Village.
Proposals Type 2 & 3: Lowest qualified bidder is Triggi
Construction. This company frequently bids on Village projects.
Their last contract was Fire Station #1 drive apron.
RECOMMENDATION
The Engineering Division established this type of bid format to
allow the Village Board the option of choosing the base course
material. As indicated by the Bids, a concrete base course would
have a higher cost.
Depending on which base course is chosen, the Engineering Division
recommends awarding the contract to the lowest qualified bidder.
Page 3
Forest Ave. Reconstruction
Funding for this project is shown on Page 152 of 1990-91 budget
under Account Code No. 22-071-04-8510 (Amount = $475,000)
High school District 214 will dedicate nine feet of right-of-way
to the Village on the west side of Forest Ave. The School District
will be only responsible for the cost of curb and gutter on the
west siof Forest Avenue across their frontage.
'R -k.-A7, t4-4ci
Robert Pszanka
I concur with the above recommendation
7
Charles Bencic, Director of Inspection services
I concur with the above recommendation
2k/�-k
len ,Xndier,]Deputy --Director of Public Works
RP/m
* Estimated School District Share:
Type I - $14,700
Type -II or III - $18,900
Village of Mount Prospect
Forest Avenue Memory Lane To Kensington Road
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Page t
Kings Point Gen Cement
Arrow Road Costs Co
Fuda Paving Co
Triggi Construction Inc
Milburn Brothers Inc
KEYdtthin{ tna
1>xo. Item Quantity
Addison B 60101
Mount Prospect 1160056
Hodglbns B 60525
W Chicago 0 60195
Elgin 1160120
1. Earth Excavation
2100 CY5.95
12,495.00
15.40
32,340.00
- 12.25
25,725.00
12.00
25,200.00
13.55
28,455.&
2. Trench Backfill
700 Ten
16.00
11,200.00
21.60
15,120.00
12.20
8,540.00
12.15
8,505.00
12.20
8,540.0
3. SubBasc Granular Material Type B
4400 Ton
10.00
44,000.00
12.70
55,880.00
11.60
51,040.00
12.50
55,000.00
14.25
62,700.0
4. Bit Concrete Binder Course Type 2
440 Too
33.00
14,520.00
23.50
10,340.00
33.25
14,630.00
27.05
11,902.00
29.00
12,760.0
S. Bit Cote Surface, Mix C, Class 1, Type 2
440 Ton
33.00
14,520.00
27.90
12,27600
34.90
15.356.00
32.10
14,124.00
33.30
52.0
6. Bituminous Matarials(Prime Cost)
1700 Gal
2.00
3,400.00
0.85:
1,445.00
1.00
1,700.00
1.00
1,700.00
1.40
7. Protective Coat
1810 SY
0.50
905.00
0.45
„ 814.50
0.75
1,357.50
1.00
1,810.00
1.50
2,715.0
8. Storm Sewer Spial
120 LF
30.00
3,600.00
t 25.00
3,000.00
33.00
3,960.00
24.15
2,898.00
31.50
3,780.0
9. Storrs Sewer Rubber Casket Ty 1 12'
750 LF
23.50
17,625.00
1 24.00
18,000.00
26.60
21,450.00
21.50
16,125.00
25.60
19,200.0
10. Storm Sewer Removal Special
600 LF
5.00
3,000.00
4.70
2,820.00
6.60
3,960.00
3.80
2,280.00
4.20
2,520.0
It. Catcb Basin Ty A 4' Die Ty l Fr., O.L.
10 Ea
1,250.00
12,50000
1,400.00
14,000.00
1,400.00
14,000.00
1,104.00
11,040.00
1,155.()7
11,550.0
12. Caleb Basin Ty A 4' Di. Ty I Fr., C.L.
I Es
- 1,250.00
1,250.00
1,400.00
1,40000'.
1,400.00
1,400.00
1,104.00
1,10400
1,207.00
1,207.0
13, Manhole Ty A 4' Dim Ty 1 Fr., C.L.
6 Ea
950.00'-k-5,700.00
1,300.00
7,800.00 !
1,5-40.00
9,300.00
1,143.00
6,858.00
1,050.00
6,300.()
14. Ida Ty A Ty 1 Fr., O.L.
13 Fa
900.00
11,700.00
725.00
9,425.00
550.00
7,150.00
486.50
6,324.50
630.00
8,190.0
15, Flesh Ida Box For Medial (2240)
1 Ea !
350.00
350.00
2,550.00
2,550.00
° 2,750.00
2,750.00
2,475.00
2,475.00
1,575.00
1,575.0
16. Masholn To Be Rersoved
1 Ea
300.00
300.00
470.00
470.00
200.00
200.00
202.50
202.50
105.00
105.0
17. Nets To Be Removed
9 Fa
E 100.00
9W.00
210.00
1,890.00
60.00
540.00
101.00
909.00
79.00
711.0
18. Frame & Grata To Be Adjuacd
15 Ea
100.00
1,500.00
180.00
2,700.00
175.00
2,625.00
161.00
2,415.00
194.00
2,760.0
19. Comb Conc Curb And Gunn Ty B 6.12
4200 LF
10.00
42,000.00
7.00
29,400.00
9.50
39,900.00
11.00
46,200.00
9.00
33,600.0
20. Driveway Pavement Removal
550 SY
9.00
4,950.00
5.15
2,832.50
5.00
2,750.00
9.00
4,950.00
3.35
1,942.5(
21. Combination Curb And Gutter Removal
2200 LF
3.00
6,600.00
2.60
5,720.00
3.50
7,700.00
4.00
8,800.00
6.90
15,180.0
22. Sidewalk Removal
1200 SF
1.00
1,200.00
0.55
660.00
0.95
1,140.00
0.75
900.00
2.30
2,760.0
23. Biturntaoua Surface Removal
4600 SY
3.50
16,10.00
1.15
5,290.00
1.00
4,600.00
1.50
6,900.00
2.45
11.270.0.
24. Conenee Curb Removal
1955 LF
2.00
3,910.00
L60
3,128.00
3.09
6,040.95
4.00
7,820.00
6.90
( 9.A
25. P.0 C. Driveway Pavement 6'
507 SY
17.00
8,619.00
20.00
10,140.00
21.95
11,126.65
27.00
13,689.00
28.15
t.,d72.0�
26. P.C.C. Sidewalk 5'
1200 SF
1.60
2,160.00
2.10
2,520.00
2.45
2,940.00
3.00
3,600.00
3.05
3,660.0
27. Sodding Special
3250 SY
2.90
9,425.00
4.30
13,975.00
4.60
14,950.00
S.20
16,900.00
4.05
13,162.5A
28. Suppl.-W Watering
33 Unit
100.00
3,300.00
1.00
33.00
5.00
165.00
69.00
2,277.00
1.00
33.0
29. Traffic Control And Prdsction
1 LS
2,5W.00
2,500.00
1,700.00
1,700.00
3,290.00
3,240.00
4,000.OG
4,000.00
5,653.00
5,653.0
30. Dust Control
to Ea
100.00
1,000.00
52.00
520.00
1.00.
10.00
70.00
700.00
58.00
580.0
31. Incidental Bituminous Suri ing
30 Ton
50.00
1,500.00
50.00
1,500.00
36.80
1,104.00
57.50
1,725,00
61.90
1,857.0
32. Maintenance Soul (Non MFT)
1 Ea 1
500.00
500.00
600.00 _
60.00
1,580.00
1,58000
200.001
200.001
5W.W 1
50.0
L
Total 263,229.0
Total 270,289.00
ToW282,982.10
7oa1 289,5}3.00
Total 307,954,1
Village of Mount Prospect
6xest Avenue Memory Lane To Kensington Road
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Type I Pavement
No. Item
Estimated
Quantity
L
Earth Egcavatsoa
2100 CY
2.
Treacb Butditt
700 T-
3,
Subbase Gr-.1ar Matuki Type 8
4400 Toa
4.
Bit Caacrow Bi. Courts Type 2
440 Tan
5.
Bit Cost Swf- , Mia C. Ciaaa I, Type 2
440 Ton
6.
Hinwainaaa Ala(". (Pri.aa Coat)
1700 Gal
7.
Pr.€aaiv4 Cort
1510 SY
:.
Swart Sa.ter Spseid
120 LF
9.
Stoma t& -c Bubb" Gaak4 Ty 1 12`
750 LF
10.
Slemx
600 LP
11,
Caul Baia Ty A 4' Dia Ty I Fr., 0 1--
10 Ea
12.
0" Latin Ty A 4' Dia Ty I Fr., C.L.
i Fa
13.
Masbate Ty A 4' Dia Ty I Fr,. C.L.
6 Fa
14,
Ty A Ty I Fr., O.L.
13 Fa
15.
F1.6 laky Boa For {24.10)
t Ea
16,
Miuzkoto To 5e Ratanved
1 Fa
IT
!data To lk
9 Fa
15,
Frame 4, Or". Ta be Adj.atod
IS Fa
t9.
Co Cada Curb And 010" Ty 8 6,12
4200 LF
20,
Driveway Pevaaacnt Removal
550 SY
21-
C*iubmatiou Cub And C. Ratanvd
2200 LF
22.
Rstaavd
1200 SF
U.
Bituminous S.riaea Removal
460D SY
24..
Carp Removal
1955 LF
25..
P.C.C. Drive." Pavorouat 6"
507 SY
26,
PIC C. Side.*Ik 5'
12W SF
27,
Sodding SPaca1
3250 SY
28,
SaPpi Wslari.g .
33 Unit
29.
Trafrw Central And
1 LS
X.
0.8 Comm
10 Fa
3t,
B's*. Suturing
30 Tao
32.
hi meaa.ca Baud Won MFT)
1 Ea
viceal Divuo Inc
Glen Elly. 0 60137
E.gia.ar i Esti nate
10.00
21,000.00
7.50
15,750.00
14.00
9,800.0D
10.00
7,000.00
13.00
57,200.00
20.00
88,000.00
33.00
14,520.00
40.00
17,600.00..
36.00
15,840.00
40.00
17,600.00
1.50
2,550.00
0.50
556.00
LDD
1,810.00
1-00
1,810.00
46.00
5,52000
28.00
3,360.00
35.00
25,500.00
30.00
22,500.OD
17.00
10,200.00
6.00
4,8W.OD
1,400.00
14,000.00
1,30DAD
13.000.00
1.400.00
1,400.00
1,300.00
1,300.00
1,500.00
9,000.00
1,500.00
9,000.00
600.00
7,500.00
500.00
6,500.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1.000.00
1,000.00
300.00
300.00
250.00
250.00
IOD.OD
900.00
150.00
1.350.00
200.06
3,000.00
150.00
2,250.00
12.00
50,400.00
10.00.
42,000.00
3.00
1,650.00
9.00
4,950.00
4.00
5,500.00
4.001
8,500.00
IAO
1.20000
1.00
1,200.00
2.00
9.200.00
S.OD
23,ODD.OD
3.00
5,865.00
3.00
5,565.00
36.00
18.252.00
30.00
15,210.00
3.00
3.600.00
3.00
3.600.00
5.00
16,250.00
7.00
22,750.00
SOHO
1.650.00
30.00
990.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
5.000.00
5,000.00
100.00
1.000.00
250.00
- 2.500.00
60.00
1.500.00
50.00
1.500.00
I ADD.00
1,000.00
1
300.00
300.00
Tout 331,067.00
Taal 351,585.00
Page 2
Village of Mount Prospect
Forest
n
Aveue Memory !,.sere To Kemington Road
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
King. Point Gen Cement
Triggi Co U..tio Inc
Wis.. Brother. Inc
AU__ C.w.cton Inc
Vi -t DiVito Inc
ypq vemea[ - stltm
No. Item Quantity
Addi.00 B 60101
W Chicago B 60185
Elgin 111 60120
Woodstock 0 60098
,
Glee Ellyn H 60137
L Earth Et ra
xc.va
2100 CY
6.00
12,600.00
12.00
25,200.00
13.001
27,300.00
04.25
29,925.00
10.00
21,000.00 I
2, Trh Baeksdi
700 Toa
16.00
11,200.00
12.15
8,505.00
12.20
i "0.0014.45
10,115.00
14.00
9,800.00
3. SaMtlu . Granular Material Type B
3230 Tm
10.00
32,300.00
11.50
37,145.00
13.75
44,412.50
14.00
45,220.00
13.1)0
41,990.00
4.
5. as Coac Surge , Mix C, Ci.n L Type 2
660 Tm
32.50
21,450.00
32.10
21,186.00
31.70
20,922.00
29.25
19,305.00
36.00
.00
6, Bit minae. Material. (Prime Cod)
1700 Gal
1.80
3,060.00
1.00
1,700.00
1.40
2,380.00
0.90
1,530.00
1.50
� .._.A.00
7. ProtectiveC a
1810 SY
1.00
1,810.00
LOO
1,810.00
1.50
2,715.00
0.75
1,357.50
1.00
1,810.00
A. St.= Sewer Special
120 LF
26.50
3,180.00
24.IS
2,898.00
31.50
3,780.00
47.25
5,670.00
46.00
5,520.00
9, Starts Sown It bb" G..kve Ty 1 12'
750 LF
23.00
17,250.00
21.50
16,125.00
25.60
19,200.00
27.95
20,962.50
38.00
28,500.00
10. Stora S. -w Roowv.l SP_;,I
600 LF
5.00
3,000.00
3.80
2.230.00
4.20
2,520.00
15.00
9,000.00
17.00
10,20000'
11. C Baia Ty A 4' Dir Ty I Ft., O -L.
10 Ea
1,210.00
12,000.00
1,104.00
11.040.00
1,155.00
11,550.00
1,303.00
13.030.00
1.400.00
14,000.00'
12, Cawb Sara Ty A 4' DiA Ty I Ft., C.L.
i E.
1.200.00'.
1,200.00
1,104.00
1,104.00
1,207.00
1,207.00
1,303.00
1.303.00
1,400.00
1,400.00
13. Ty A 4' Dia Ty I Fr., C.L.
6 1.
90.00
" 5,760.00
1.143.00
6.858.00
1.050.00
6,300.00
1,307.00
7,542.00
1,500.00
9.000.00
14. lariat Ty A Ty I Fr., O.L.
13 Ft
450.00
5.850.00
486.50
6,32,4.50
630.00
8.190.00
437.00
5,681.00
600.00
7,800.00
IS. Fluab €alto Bu Faxes Medial (22400
1 Ea
400.00
400.00
2,475.00
2,475.00
1,575.00
1,S7S.00
2,125.00
2,12S.OD
1.000.00
1,000.00;
I6. Mallbolft To !1e
I Ea
300.00
300.OD
, 202.50
202.50
105.00
105.00
100.00
100.00
300.00
300.00
17. iulau To Ba lora weed
9 Ea
100.00
900.00
IOLOD
909.00
79.00
711.00
80.00
720.00
100.OD
900.00 ••,
16, Frame A Graft To as Adj."
15 Ea
100.00
1,506.00
161.00
2,415.06
WOO
2,760.00
165.00
2,475.00
200.00
3,000.00
19. Coro@ Coac Curb Aad Onaa Ty B 6.12
4200 LF
10.00
42,000.00
9.00
37,800.00
8.25
34,650.W
7.50
31.500.00
12.00
50.400.00
20. Dri "y F.vemmt Raatoval
550 SY
9.00
4,950.00
9.00
4,950.00
3.35
1,842.50
1.00
2,200.00
3.00
0,650.00
21. Corairmatim Curb And Gam
2200 LF
3.00
6,60D.OD
3.00
6,600.00
6.90
15,180.00
5.50
12,100.00
4.00
8.800.00
22. Sidearm% Aeraoval
1200 SF
LOD
1.200.00
0.75
900.00
2.30
2.760.011
1.00
1,200.00
1.00
1.200.00''.
23, Sorfam Reroaval
4600 SY
3,00
13,800.00
1.00
4,600.00
2.45
11,270.00
3.45
15,870.00
2.00
9 700.00 3
24. Cvwb Romov.I
1955 LF
2.00
3,910.00
3.00
5,865.00
6.90
13,489.30
5.50
10,752.50
3.00
1 ,00
25, P.C.C. Dtieaway Pa soasi r
507 SY
17.00
6,619.00
27.00
13,689.00
28.15
14,272.05
23.50
11,914.50
36.00
1.,.12.00 3
26, F.C.C. Sidmalit S'
1200 SF
1.30
2.160.00
3.00 i
3,60D.00,
3.05
3.660.00
2.40
2.850.00
3.00
3,600.004,
27. Soddia8 Spaei.t -
3250 SY
3.00
9,750.00
5.20 B
16,900.00
4.05
13,162.50
4.95
16,087.50
5.00
16,250.00
2L SufflosmW We"iag
33 Usk
1.00
33.00
69.00 ''..
2,277.00 l
1.00
33.00
1.00
33.00
50.00
1,650.00 €
29. Ttall.c Casual And Pratactioa
1 LS
500.00
500.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
5.653.00
5.653.00
6.300.00
6,300.00
6.000.00
6,000.00
3O• Do* Corwal
10 Ea
100.00
1.000.00
70.00
700.00
55.00
550.06
15.00
150.00
100.00
1,00.00 j
31. z_:f__..s Bitoouma. Sart.cing
30 Tm
50.00
1,500.00
57.50
1.725.00
61.90
1,857.00
52.50
1,575.00
60.00
1.600.00,.
32. Mirkovarastce 8'osd(Nm MFT)
t Fa
500.00
500.00
200.00
200.00
500.00
SOD.00
1,035.00
1,035.00
1.000.00
1.WO.OD'
34, P.C.C. Ba a Cmrae 6'
4500 SY
12.00
54 -OW -00
18.001
81,000.06
15.201
68.400-00
17.55
78,975.00
20.00
90,000.00
Total 284,282.00
T.W 332,983.00
T.W 351,447.05
T.W 368,933.50
Tota( 399,197.00
Village of Mount Prospect
'Forest Avenue Memory Lime I -o Kensington Road
April 11, 1940
10:00 A.M.
I ype, L ravement
No. Item
F.strmated
(quantity
L
Earth Excavation
2100 CY
2.
Tseach Backfill
700 Too
3.
SubBase Granular Material Type B
3230 Toa
4.
10.00
5,
Bit Cone Surface. Mix C. Chu 1, Type 2
660 Toa
6.
Biuminoua Material. (Prime Cm)
1700 Cd
7.
P-tective Coat
1610 SY
8.
Storm Sewn Spacial
Ito LF
9.
Storm Sewer Rubber Gasket Ty 1 12"
750 (F
10.
Storm Sewer Removal Special
600 IF
It.
Catch Basin Ty A 4' Dia Ty 1 Fr., O.L.
t0 Ea
12.
Czech Basin Ty A 4' Dia Ty I Fa; C.L.
I Ex
13.
Manhole Ty A 4' Dia Ty 1 Fr., C.L.
6 Fa
14.
Inlet Ty A Ty I Fr., O.L.
0 Be
15.
Floab lata Box For Medial (2240)
1 Fa
16.
Maobter To S. Rem -W
t Es
17.
holm To Be Removed
9 Ea
IS.
Fry a A Grata To Be Adjusted
t5 Fa
19.
Comb Coo, Curb And Goner Ty B 6.12
4200 LF
)11.
Driveway Pavem,ot Ramoval
550 SY
I L
Corobiaa Curb And Oatau Removal
2200 LF
22.
Sidewilk Romovd
1200 SF
D.
Binwieous SurLca Removal
4600 SY
14.
Ceacrvto Curb Removal
19SS LF
IS.
P.C.C. Driveway Pavemea 6-
307 SY
N.
P.C.C. Sidewalk S'
1200 SF
17.
Sodding Special
3250 SY
IS.
Supptewww Wateria8
33 Unit
29.
Traffic Cootxol And Protection
I LS
30.
Duet Control
10 FJ
31.
Iweidantal Bituminous Surheia8
30 Toa
32.
Main aao- Bond (Nos MFr)
I Fa
34.
P.C.C. Base Comae 6'
4500 SY
viz- Coocruction hoe
Dowscn Grove 0 60516
Engineer'. Eatimate
Elgio 0160120
22.00
46.200.00
7.50
15.750.00
20.00
14.000.00
10.00
7.000.00
22.00
71.060.00
20.00
64.600.00
31.00
20,460.00
40.00
26,400.00
1.00
1.700.00
0.50
830.00
0.75
1,357.50
3.00
1.810.00
3S.00
1.200.00
28.W
1 3.360.00
38.00
28.500.00
30.00
1 22,500.00
22.00
13,200.00
8.00
4,800.00
2,200.00
22.000.00
1,300.00
13.000.00
2,2W.00
2,200.00
1.300.00
1,300.00
2,200.00
13,2W.00
1.500.00
9.OW.00
650.00
8.450.00
500.00
6,300.00
650.00
650.00
1.000.00
1,0W.00
250.0
230.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
2.250.00
150.00
1,350.00.
150.0
p 2.250.00
150.00
2,250.00
9.00:
37,800.00
10.00
42,000.00
8.50
4,675.00
9.00
4,930.00
5.00
11,OW.W
4.00
8.800.00
1.00
1.200.00
1.00
1.200.00
6.00
27,600.00
5.00
23,000.00
5.00
9.775.0
3.00
5,865.00
19.50
9.886.50
30.00
15.210.00
2.15
2,580.001
3.00
3.600.00
5.50
17,875.00
7.00
22,750.00
10.00
330.00
30.00
990.00
4,000.00
4,OW.00
5,ODD.00
5.000.00
10.00
100.00
250.00
2.500.00
35.00
1.050.00
50.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
1.500.00
300.0
300.00
17.50
78,750.00
1
18.00
81,000.00
Total .019 00
T,W400.385-00
Page 2
Village of Mount Prospect
Forest Avenue Mcmory Lane To Kensington Road
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
'Kings Point Gen Cement
Frig Construction Inc
MiE6uzn Braliers Lw
vinous DiYita Inc
F unsta
a#Imo
r'
No. Item Quantity
Addison 1160101
4Y Chicago It 60185
Elgin U 60120
0- Ellyn U 60137
1. Firth E -tion
2100 CY
5.00
10,500.00
12.00
25,20000
13.55
28,455.00
10.00
21,000.00
7.50
15,750.00
2. Trcach B..krdl
700 Ton
15.00
10,500.00
12.15
8,505.00
12.20
8,540.00
WOO
9,800.00
10.00
7,000.00
3. SabBaae Graeul. Mistrial Type B
3230 Toa
10.00
32,300.00
11.50
37,145.00
14.40
46,512.00
13.00
41,990.00
20.00
64,600.00
4.
S. Be Con. Surtax , Mix C. Clan 1, Type 2
660 Ton
32.00
21,120.00
32.10
21,186.00
31.70
20,922.00
36.00
23,760.00
40.00
2,/ 0
6. Bases- Materials (Prime Cost)
1700 Gal
1.80
3,060.00
1.00
1,700.00
1.40
2,380.00
1-50
2,550.00
0.50
x.„.00
7. Pmt -u - Coat
1810 SY
0.40
724.00
1.00
1,810.00
1.50
2,715.00
1.00
1,810.00
1.00
1,810.08
S. Sturm Sew. Special
120 LF
26.00
3,120.00
24.15
2,895.00
31.50
3,780.00
46.00
5,520.00
25.00
3,360-00
9. Storm Sew. Rubber Cnaket Ty t 12'
750 LF
22.50
16,575.00
21.50
16,125.00
25.60
19,200.00
38.00
28,500.00
WOO
22,508._00
10. Strom Sewer Removal Spacial
600 1.F
5.00
3,000.00
3.80
2,280.06
4.20
2,520.00
17.06
10,200.00
5.80
4,5W.00
11. Catch Buie Ty A 4' Dia Ty 1 Fr., O.L.
10 E4
1,200.00
12,000.06
1,108.00
11,040.00
1,155.00
11,550.00
1,400.00
14,000.00
1,300.00
13,000.00
12. Catch Basin Ty A 4' Die Ty 1 Fr.. C.L.
1 Fa
1,100.00
1,100.00
1,104.00
1.101.00
1,207.00
1,207.00
1,406.00
1,400.00
1.300.00
1,306.00
13, Maehde Ty A 4' Du Ty I Fr., C.L.
6 F.
906.00
5,400.00
1,143.00
6,858.00
1,050.01)
6,30D.00
1'SW.00
9,000.00
1,500.00
9,OOD.00
14. Islas Ty A Ty 1 Fr., O.L.
€ 13 Fi
900.00
11.700.00
486.56
6.324.50
630.00
8,190.00
600.00
7.800.00
500.00
6,50040
15. Flua► Ida Box For Madill (2240)
1 FA
350.00
350.00
2,475.00
2,475.00
1,573.00
1,575.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.40
16. kU bnl. To Be Removed
1 6
300.00
300.00
202.50
202.50
105.00
105.00
300.00
300.00
250.00
250.00
17. Wm To Be Ressoved
9 Es
100.00
900.00
101.00
909.08
79.00
71 LOD
100.00
900.00
150.00
1.350.00
16. Frame A Drat. To Be Adjured
IS E.
100.00
1,500.00
161.00
2,415.00
194.00
2,760.00
210.00
3,000.00
150.00
2,250.00
19. Comb Cane Curb And Guam Ty B 6.12
4200 LF
10.00
42.000.00
9.00
37.800.00
5.25
34,650.00
12.00
50,400.00
10.00
42.000.00
20. Driveway Paveraam Removal
550 SY
9.00
4.950.OD
9.00'...
4.950.00
3.35
1.342.50
3.00
1,630.00
9.00
4,950.00
21. Corebiostion Cast, And Games, Removal
2200 LF
3.00
6.600.00
3.00 -
6,600.00
6.90
15.180.00
4.00
5.800.00
4.00
1.500.00
22. Sidewalk R.sovd
1200 SF
1.00
1.200.00
0.75
:' 900.00'.
2.30
2,760.00
0.00
1.200.00
LOO
1,2W.O4
23. Bituminous Surface R-11
4600 SY
2.30
11,500.00
1.50
6,900.00 {
2.45
11.270.00
2.00
9.278.00
5.00
23.1- 00
U. Ccecrre Curb Removal
1955 LF
3.00
S,S65.00
3.00
5.865.0
6.90
13,489.50
3.00
5.865.00
3.00
3
23, P.C.C. Driveway P.emrot 6'
507 SY
28.00
10,140.00
2TOO
13,689.00
28.15
14,272.05
36.00
18,252.00
30.00
13,2ru.W
26. P.C.C. Sidewalk 5'
1200 SF E
1.80
2,160.00
3.00
3.600.00
3.05......
3.660.00
3.00
3.600.00
3.00
3,6W.00
27. Sodding Spacial
3250 SY
3.00
9,750.00
5.20
16,900.00
4.05
13,162.50
5.00
16,250.00
7.00
22,750.00
25. SygkmwW wat.iog
33 Unit
100.00
3,3W OO
69.00
2.277.00
1.00
33.00
50.00
1.650.00
WOO
990.00
29. Traffic Cow" And Protection
1 LS
1.500.00
1,500.00
4.000.00
4,000.00
5.653.00
5,653.00
6,OW.00
6,003.00
5.000.00
5,000.00
3O. Dur Coetral
10 Ea
100.001.00D.00
70.00
700.00
SB.W
580.00
100.00
1.000.00
?301.00
2,500.00
33. Iacideatal Bitunieoua Surfacing
30 Toe
50.00
1.500.00
57.50
1.725.00
61.90
1,857.00
66.00
1,500.00
50.00
1,50000
32. Maimeoance Bond (Non MET)
I E.
WOO
50.00
2W.W
20.00
500.00
500.00
1.000.00
1.000.00
300.00
3W.00
134. Nigh Strength P.C.C. Bane Course 6'
4500 SY
12.50
56,254.00
23.00
103,500.00
16.00
72,000.0
21.00
94,500.00
20.00
WOWOD
Tata) 292,214.00 Tool 357,783.00 7oW 355,331.Si Tae.! 403,697.00 TaW 409.385.00
i
Village of nt ProspectMountIllinois Prospect
0 .1 4
Id .
Mou, 2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Engineering Coordinator
DATE: April 11, 1990
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION
On April 11, 1990, at 10:00 A.M., sealed bids were received for
the LINCOLN STREET BRIDGE REHABILITATION. At this time, the sealed
bids were publicly opened and read aloud.
BID FORM
The Bidder was requested to submit unit prices for 19, BID ITEMS
BIDS RECEIVE
11 Contractors received Contract Bid Documents. A total of 6
Contractors submitted bids. The bids range from a low of
$65,900.00 by Albin Carlson & Co. to high of $99,892.50 -by Accu -
Paving Co. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $62,835.75.
gfflm��-- Mt
All Bidders submitted Bid Bonds in the amount of 5% of their total
bid as required by the Contract Documents. All Bidders correctly
signed their bids and bid bonds. The lowest bid was 4.8% above
the
estimate.
BIDDERIg
TOTAL BI
1.)
Albin Carlson & Co.
$65,900.00
2.)
Vincent DiVito
$68,738.00
3.)
R. & W. Clark Construction
$71,970.00
4.)
Kustom Construction
$75,585.00
5.)
Alliance Contractors
$79,335.45
6.)
Accu -Paving Co.
$99,892.50
RECOMMENDATION
Page Two
QUALIFICATIONS OF LQW BIDDER
The low bidder is ALBIN CARLSON & CO. All of the bidders had to
have I.D.O.T. Prequal if icat ions. Albin Carlson & Co. has not
performed any recent Village Contract. They were a bidder for our
1988 George St. Bridge Contract. This contractor has performed
work on bridges for the State, Cook County and the Tollway
Authority.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, the Engineering Division recommends awarding a Contract
to ALBIN CARLSON & CO., with a.Bid price of $65,900.00.
Funding for this project is shown'on Page 152 of the 89-90 budget
under Account Code No. 22-071-04-6150. (Amount = $55,000). Also,
additional funds are in the 90-91 budget (Page 151) under Account
Code No. 22-071-04-6150. (Amount = $60,000).
Robert Pszanka
I concur with the above recommendation
Charles Bencic,
Director of Inspection services
I concur with the above recommendation
zzv-, WJ-1—
Glen,Andier,
Deputy Director of Public Works
RP: CB/m
Village of Mount Prospect
Lincoln Street Bridge
89 -00104 -00 -BR
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
''..... No.
Item
Estimated
Quantity
L
I'mforned Joint Sal 1.75'
39 LF
2.
Protective Coat
250 SY
3.
Clcaniag Aad Paining Stud Railing No. 1
1 LS
4.
Reinlorcetnon Ban. Epoxy Coated
2350 Lb
S.
Bkuminau Coacrae Surface Removal
600 SY
6.
Bridge Dark Overlay, ([.alta Modified Conarete)
190 SY
7.
Concrete Bridge Dent Scarification 0.25'
190 SY
S.
Deck Drain To Bo Adjured
6 Ea
9.
Dock Stab Repair (Full Depth Type 0
26 SY
10.
Deck Slab Repair (Full Depth Type Bl
14 SY
If.
Deck Slab Repair (Patial)
ISO SY
12.
Epoxy Cmek Sealing
100 Lp
13.
Epoxy Monor Repair
5 CF
14.
Stone Riprap
5 SY
15.
B3 Concrete Sorfam Source Cl 1 Type 2
32 Tat
16.
Bituminous Material {Primo Coal
205 (Jet
17.
Pavtmaot Marking Tape
3000 LF
18.
Traffic Control And Protection
1 LS
19......
Maioleoaoce Bood (Nae MFT Fundal
1 LS
Page 1
Albin Carlson & Co
Mdroae Park 1160160
Vincent Divito Inc
Glen Ellyn 1160137
R&W Clark Const 1.
Chicago B 60655
Kustom Connmction Co tee
Lombard B 60148
AB:. oa Contredon Inc
Woodcock B 60098
200.00
7,800.00
22.00
858.00
ISOM
5,850.00
135.00
5,265.00
75.30
2,936.70
0.30
75.00
1.00
250.00
LOO
250.00
0.50
125.00
LOD
?-00
1.020.00
1,020.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2.000.00
21000.00
2.500.00
2,500.00
3.440.00
3
1.00
2.350.00
1.50
3,525.00
- LOO
2.350.00
1.50
3.525.00
1.50
3152.00
15.00
9,000.00
COO
3,600.00
4.00
2,400.00
7.50
4,500.00
13.25
7,950.00
85.00
16,150.00
60.00
11,400.00
80.00
15,200.00
82.00
15j80.0D
120.65
22,923.50
10.00
1,900.00
25.00
4,750.OD
20.00
3,800.00
15,00
2,850.00
13.25
2,517.50
7S.OD
450.00
300.00
1.800.00
350.00
2,100.00
50.00
300.00
82.OD
492.00
110.00
2,860.00
200.00
5,200.00
160.00
4,160.00
120.00
3.120.00
201.00
5,304.00
IMOO
1,540.00
260.00
3,640.00
180.06
2,520.00
130.00
1.820.00
202.00
2,828.00
60.00
9,000.00
80.00
12,000.00
60.00
9.000.00
110.00
16,500.00
85.00
12.750.00
25.00
2,500.00
30.00
3.000.00
25.00
2,500.00
40.00
4.000.00
22.01)
2,200.00
200.00 7
1.00D.00
300.00
1,500.00
140.00
700.00
200.00
1,0woo
20SA0
I.w3.Do
20.00
- 100.00
80.00
400.00
75.00
375.00
75.00
375.00
40.00
200.00
100.00
3,20D.00
100.00
3,2W.OD
120.00
3.810.00
60.00
1.920.00
126.00
4.032.00
1.00
205.00
3.00
615.00
1.00
205.0D
1.00
205.00
1.35
276.75
8.25
750.00
2.00
6,ODO.00
0.80
2,400.00
0.40
1,200.00
0.45
1,350.00
5,800.00
5.800.00 -:
4.000.00
4,000.00
11,320.OD
11.320.00
10,5(10.00
10,500.00
5,100.00
5.100.00
200.00
2(10.00
1.000.00
1.000.00
1.000.00
1,000.00
300.00
300.00
235.00
235.00
Total 65,900.00 -
Toml 68,738.00
Taw 71,970.00
Tont 75,%5.00
Tow 79,335.43
Village of Mount Prospect
Lincoln Street Bridge
89 -00104 -00 -BR
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Page I
Albin Carlson & Co
Vincent DiVito Inc
R&W Clark Const Inc
Kustom Construction Co Inc
k a
Alliance Contractors Inc
Estimated
No. Iter] Quantity
Melrose Park 1160160
Glen Ellyn 1160137
Chicago U 60655
11-ombard U 6014$
Woodstock 1160098
L Preformed Joint Seal 1.75"
39 LF
200.00
7,800.00
22.00
858.00
150.00
5,850.00
135.00
5,265.001
75.30
2,936.70
2. Protective Coat
250 SY
0.30
75.00
1.00
250.00
I.00
250.00
0.50
125.00
1.00
250.00
3. Cleaning And Painting Steel Railing No. I
I LS
1,020.00
1,020.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
3,440.00
3,440.00
4. Reinforcement Bars, Epoxy Coated
2350 Lb
I.00
2,350.00
1.50
3,525.00
1.00
2,350.00
1.50
3,525.00
1.50
3,525.00
5. Bituminous Concrete Surface Removal
600 SY
15.00
4,000.00
6.00
3,600.00
4.00
2,400.00
7.50
4,500.00
13.25
7,450.00
i, Bridge Deck Overlay (Latex Modified Concrete)
190 SY
85.00
16,150.00
60.00
' 11,400.00
80.00
15,200.00
82.00
15,580.00
120.65
22,923.50
7. Concrete Bridge Deck Scarification 0.25"
190 SY
10.00
1,900.00
25.00
4,750.00
20.00
3,800.00
15.00
2,850.00
13.25
2,517.50
8. Deck Drain To Be Adjusted
6 Ea
75.00
450.00
300.00
1,800.00
350.00
2,100.00
50.00
300.00
82.00
492.00
4. Deck Slab Repair (Full Depth Type 1)
26 SY
C
110.00
2,860.00
200.00
5,200.00
160.00
4,160.00
120.00
3,120.00
204.00
5,304.00
10. Deck Slab R epair{FuU Depth Type
14 SY
110.00
1,540.00
260.00
3,640.00
180.00
2,520.00
130.00
1,820.00
202.00
2,828.00
11. Deck Slab Repair (Partial)
150 SY
60.00
4,000.00
80.00
12,000.00
60.00
4,000.00
110.00
16,500.00
85.00
12,750.00
12. Epoxy Crack Sealing
100 LF
25.00 i`
2,500.00
30.00
3,000.00
25.00
2,500.00
40.00
4,000.00
22.00
2,200.00
13. Epoxy Mortor Repair
5 CF
200.001
1,000.00
300.00
1,500.00
140.00
700.00
200.00
1,000.00
205.00:
1,025.00
14. Stone Riprap
5 SY
20.00
100.00
80.00
400.00
75.00
375.00
75.00
375.00
40.00
200.00
15. Bit Concrete Surface Soursc CII Type 2
32 Ton
100.00
3,200.00
100.00
3,200.00
120.00
3,840.00
60.00
1,920.00
126.00
4,032.00
16. Bituminous Material (Prime Coat)
205 Gal
1.00
205.00
3.00
615.00
1.00
205.00
1.00
205.00
1.35
276.75
17. Pavement Marking Tape
3000 LF
0.25
P 750.00
2.00
6,000.00
0.80
2,400.00
0.40
1,200.00
0.45
1,350.00
18. Traffic Control And Protection
1 LS
5,800.00
5,800.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
11,320.00
11,320.00
10,500.00
10,500.00
5,100.00
5,100.00
14. Maintenance Bond (Non MFT Funds)
1 LS
200.00
200.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.001
300.00 1
300.00l
235.001
235.00
Total 65,400.00
Total 68,738.00
Total 71,970.00
Total 75,585.001
Total 79,335.45
Village of Mount Prospect
Lincoln Street Bridge
89 -00104 -00 -BR
April 11, 1990
10:00 A.M.
No.
Item
Estimated
Quantity
1.
Preformed Joint Seal 1.75"
39 LF
2.
Protective Coat
250 SY
3.
Cleaning And Painting Steel Railing No. 1
1 LS
4.
Reinforcement Bars, Epoxy Coated
2350 Lb
5.
Bituminous Concrete Surface Removal
600 SY
i.
Bridge Deck Overlay (Latex Modified Concrete)
190 SY
7.
Concrete Bridge Deck Scarification 0.25"
190 SY
8.
Duk Drain To Be Adjusted
6 Ea
9.
Deck Slab Repair (Full Depth Type I)
26 SY
10.
Duk SLb Repair (Full Depth Type II)
14 SY
11.
Deck "Repair (Partial)
150 SY
12.
Epocy Crack Sealing
100 LF
13.
Epoxy Mortor Repair
5 CF
14.
Stone Riprap
5 SY
15.
Bit Concrete Surface Sourse CI I Type 2
32 Ton
16.
Bituminous Material (Prime Coat)
205 Gal
17.
Pavement Marking Tape
3000 LF
18.
Traffic Control And Protection
1 LS
19.
Maintenance Bond (Non MFT Funds)
1 LS
Accu -Paving Co
Chicago 1160 7
i�
p
Engineer's Estimate
247.00
9,633.00
73.00
2,847.00
1.25
312.50
7.50
1,875.00
950.00
950.00
1,200.00
1,200.00
0.80
1,880.00
0.75
1,762.50
4.90
2,940.00
7.50
€ 4,500.00
104.00
19,760.00
45.00
8,550.00
6.00
1,140.00
8.00
1,520.00
132.00
792.00
150,00
900.00
175.00
4,550.00
200.00
5,200,00
175.00
2,450.00
250.00
3,500.00
200.00
30,000.00
95.00
14,250.00
38.00
�' 3,800.00
18.50
1,850.00
550.00
2,750.00
75.00
375.00
90.00
450.00
52.00
260.00
100.00
3,200.00
46.00
1,472.00
3.00
615.00
0.85
174.25
0.60
1,800.00
1.65
4,950.00
12,570.00
12,570.00
7,500.00
7,500.00
300.00
300.00
1
150.00
150.00
Total 99,892.50
Total 62,835.75
Page 2
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 7M My UM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE: April 6, 1990
SUBJ: Purchase of Water Meters
Our current contract for purchasing water meters has expired.
The last time we bid for water meters was August 24, 1983, and
it was for a guaranteed purchase price per meter for one year.
For the past six years the low bidder, Badger Meter Company, has
extended our contract at no increase in cost. Per our recommen-
dation to your office, that offer has been accepted each year.
Prior to the 1983 contract we had bid meters on an annual basis
but the specifications were designed around the Badger meter in
order to standardize on type of meter. Of the typical house
size meter, 5/811 x 3/411, over 85% of our meter inventory is made
by Badger Meter Co. Also for every year that we did bid, Badger
Meter Co. was the low bidder.
Badger Meter has now made another offer to extend our contract
until August 24, 1991, again at no increase in cost. we have
been purchasing about 1000 house meters a year and have a re-
placement budget of $70,000, which includes funds for larger
meters also.
I made a survey of other customers of theirs in the area to
determine if this latest offer is to our advantage. Results as
follows:
Est. Quan. Unit cost per
Municipality Purchased in Year Meter (5/8 x 3/4)
Mount Prospect
1000
$34.45
Des Plaines
100
42.94*
Arl. Heights
1 - 600
41.00
Palatine
1000
40.41
Wheeling
500
41.95*
Barrington
400-600
36.36
*Brass Meters
Based upon the foregoing prices I would recommend that we extend
our contract with Badger Meter Co. at no increase in costs. I
request that this be placed on the agenda for the Village
Board's consideration on April 17, 1990.
11 ."i
Herbert L. Weeks
HLW/eh
BadqwMeterjnc. Utility Division
4545 W. Brown Deer Road, P.O. Box 23099
Milwaukee, WI 53223-0099 (414) 355-0400
Mr. Glen R. Andler April 4, 1990
Deputy Director of Public Works
Mount Prospect Public Works Dept.
11 S. Pine Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Re- Contract Extension - Bid 08/24/83 - Water Meters
Dear Mr. Andler:
In accordance with your request received from our Northern
Regional Manager, Mr. Jim Patton ,,we are writing to advise you
that Badger Meter, Inc. will extend the contract for your bid
of August 24, 1983 to August 24, 1991, with the same prices and
conditions.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue serving you under
this contract.
Sincerely,
BADGER METER, INC.
John W. Smilanich
Assistant Vice President -Sales
jm
cc: Jim Patton
Kurt Wirth
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: March 30, 1990
SUBJECT: Adoption of Budget Ordinance
E -=i
Attached is the Ordinance providing for an Annual Budget in lieu of an
Appropriation Ordinance, and a copy of the Public Notice establishing a Public
Hearing on April 17, 1990. The Notice indicates the revised budget amounts as
a result of the changes approved by the Village Board on March 27, 1990 and the
inclusion of the Library's budget request. A detailed listing of each item that
has changed is being prepared and will be available prior to the second reading
of the Ordinance.
The following procedures are required before the budget can be adopted:
1. Announcement at the Village Board meeting on April 3, 1990 of a
public hearing on the tentative annual budget to be held on April 17,
1990.
2. First reading of the Budget Ordinance on April 3, 1990.
3. Publication of the Public Notice of the Budget Hearing on April 5,
1990 in the Mount Prospect Herald.
4. Public Hearing on April 17, 1990 on the tentative annual budget.
5. Adoption of the Budget Ordinance on April 17, 1990.
6. Filing a copy of the Budget Ordinance with the County Clerk after
adoption.
The revised copies of the budget will then be compiled and will be available
prior to May 1, 1990.
DCJ/sm
Enc
PUBLIC NOTICE
A 8v000t Hearing will be held on April 17, 1990 for all interested citizens of
the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois. The following budget is proposed for
fiscal year beginning May 1. 1990;
Village Funds:
General Fund. ....,^...-,,....$17,98e,5O0
Special Revenue Funds - . . , , . . . . .
. . 2,932,725
Debt Service Funuo, , . , , . . . . . . .
. . 1.324,530
Capital Projects runda, . . . . , . . , .
. . 6.145,165
Enterprise Fundo. . . , . . . . . . . . .
. . 6.849,015
Internal Service Fund , . . . . . . . . .
. . 2,134,200
Pension Funds . . . . , . ^ . . . , . , .
. ~ 3
Totals . . . - . . . , , .
. . u�o,oms.m5
Loao Interpund Transfers .
. .401,750>
Totals - Village Funds . .
. . T4o,4ov,3un
Library rvnu . . . . . . . , .
. ' 2 546 920
a. d. r.
Totals - Village nLibrary vu,.. .
The meeting will be held in the Mount Prospect Senior Center, 50 South Emerson
Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois, for the purpose of discussion or the
proposed budget at 7`30 p.m. The proposed budget may be examined on weekdays
in the Office of the village Clerk in the Village Holl, 100 S. Emerson Street,
Mount Prospect, Illinois between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. All interested
citizens will have the opportunity to give written and oral comments. Senior
Citizens are encouraged to attend and comment,
JOHN FULT0w DIXON
Published in Mt. Prospect Herald April 5, 1990.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN omozmAwcc xVOPTzwo AN ANNUAL 8Uo&sr FOR THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
c0nwswCrNc MAY 1, 1990 TO APRIL `n, 1991 IN
LIEU OF PASSAGE OF AN APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
wxEnc45, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of mount Prospect in
accordance with Statutes, have provided for the preparation and adoption or an
annual budget in lieu of passage of -em Appropriation Ordinance for the fiscal year
commencing May 1, 1990 to April 30, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the tentative annual budget for the Village of Mount Prospect for the
fiscal year beginning May 1, 1990 and ending April 30, 1991, as prepared by the
Budget Officer for the Village and submitted to the President and Board of
Trustees, was placed on file in the Office of the viDeoo Clerk on April 5, 1990"
for public inspection, as provided by Statute; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly published on April 5, 1990, a public hearing was
held by the President and Board of Trustees on said tentative annual budget on
April 17, 1990, as provided by statute; and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, said tentative annual budget was reviewed
by the President and Board of Trustees and a copy of said tentative annual budget
is attached vnrotn and hereby made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
vluAC[ OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE. The tentative annual budget for the Village of Mount Prospect
beginning May 1, 1990 and ending April }O, 1991, e copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part »erevf, is hereby approved and adopted as the Annual Budget
for the Village or Mount Prospect for said fiscal year.
SECTION TWO: within thirty (JO) days following the adoption of this Ordinance
there shall be filed with the County Clerk of Cook County a copy thereof duly
certified by the Village Clerk and Estimate of Havo"uev by source anticipated to
be received by the village in the fiscal year beginning May 1, 1990 and ending
April 30, 1991, duly certified by the Chi=p Fiscal Officer.
SscTzow T*ncs: 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,
ABSENT:
PASSED AND APPROVED this.17th day of.L�' 1990.
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
Villages of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois r' I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJECT: 1990/91 Budget Changes
Attached is a schedule listing the changes to the 1990/91 budget that have been
discussed at the Committee of the Whole budget meetings. The first four pages
identify revenue changes and the last six pages itemize the expenditure changes. A
summary of all the revenue changes can be found on page 4 and a summary of the
expenditure changes can be found on the last page. Following is a brief explanation
of the changes:
Revenues
In the General Fund, total revenues are expected to decrease from $20,479,500 to
$19,489,500, a reduction of $990,000. The overall reduction is made up of a number
of increases and decreases, but the significant changes include:
Reduced Sales Tax Revenue Estimates $<180,000>
Elimination of the Elk Grove Rural FPD Fees <850,000>
Reduced State Income Tax Surcharge Estimate <250,000>
Reduced Recycling Grant <137,500>
Transfer of Flood Control Service Charge to New Fund <305,000>
Addition of Real Estate Transfer Tax 325,000
Addition of Schoenbeck Road Reimbursement 400,000
All Other Changes 7,500
Totals <990.000>
The changes in other funds include the addition of a Flood Control Revenue Fund to
account for Flood Control User Charges rather than including these revenues in the
General Fund, an increase in the CDBG Fund to reflect increases in grant monies that
will be received to offset higher project expenditures, and changes in the IMRF
Fund and Bond and Interest Funds to reflect changes in the distribution of property
taxes as a result of*the reduction in the 1990 levy. Additionally, there is an
increase in the Water Fund due to the expected receipt of a Sewer Rehab Grant and
the addition of the Motor Equipment Pool Fund is to account for motor equipment
replacement costs.
John Fulton Dixon
pene 2
1990/9/ Budget Changes
Total Village revenues ahu° an overall increase from $41,095,630 to $41,540,630, for
an increase of $445,000, In addition to revenues for village purposes, revenues of
$2,546,920 for the Library have been added.
Expenditures
The changes in expenditures are primarily due to the elimination of one new position
in the Police Department, the elimination or three new positions and the expected
reduction of three existing positions in the Fire Department, the elimination of one
now part-time position in Human Services, changes in a number of major projects and
the ,xongoa associated with the establishment of the Motor Equipment Pool Fund.
Departmental changes in the General Fund include the following:
Inspection Services
$< 60,00}
Police Department
< 60,500/
Fire Department
(554,020>
Human Services Division
( 12,350*
Planning & Zoning Department
< 38,508>
stcer+ Division
359,500
Solid Waste Disposal
<155,920>
Capital Improvements
<130,800>
All Other Changes
< 200>
Total
$<6511990>
Other Cxanpea include inooaaaon in the CD8G Fund ($181,500), water Fund ($42,500),
the Motor Equipment Pool Fund ($393,200), and the capital Improvement Fund
($186,050). One significant decrease ($131,500) in in the Parking Fund and is due
to a reduction in the estimate for Retaining Wall Repairs. The total changes in
expenditures v»o° on overall increase of $324,760, raising the 1*90/91 uvugot totals
from $40,079,625 to $40,404,385.
Library expenditures or $2,546,920 have also been added and are in addition to we
above totals.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 7
1990/91 Budget Changes
After r,viewinq the above changes, one of the logical questions that surfaces is why
the total budget is going up when significant reductions have been made. x related
issue is trying to explain the distortion that often occurs when comparing total
uvu9et amounts from one year to the next year. There are three areas where budget
totals from one year exovlo not be uumnaceu with uvuuet totals from the previous
year. Those three areas are: 1) The expenditure or Bond Proceeds; 2) Pension Fund
balancing amounts; and 3) Payments to Internal Service ronue, The reasons these
amounts should not be included is because they result in expenditures being counted
twice.
For bond proceeds, the provision for principal repayment in the Debt Service Funds
results in a duplication of the bond proceeds amount. Additionally, if the bond
proceeds are not entirely expended in the year received, the remaining amounts are
re -budgeted in subsequent years. The amounts recorded in the Police and Fire
Pension Funds as Provision For Future Pensions is actually not an expenditure but a
balancing amount to offset expected revenues. And the payments to on Internal
Service Fund represent an expenditure in an operating department as well as an
expenditure in the Internal 5mrv1oo Fund. For example, the Police Department shows
a veh icle Lease Payment of $130,000 and ummr departments axmw payments of $436,000
for e total of B56e'000, The Motor Equipment Pool then shows expenditures of
$393,200 and the Capital Improvement Fund ex000 $186,050 for ,he same purpose. The
last area discussed is why the revised 1990/91 budget is more than the budget as
originally presented.
If we take the 1990/91 budget as proposed and as revised and adjust the totals for
the three areas indicated above and then compare the adjusted totals with the
1989/90 budget adjusted in the same manner, we see the following results:
The adjusted totals for 1990/91 show o reduction from $31,296,125 to $31,072,885. for
e true reduction or $223,240.
1989/90
1990/91
1990/91
Budget
Proposed`
Revised�'
Total 8uuqot Amounts
$34,746,080
$4090791625
$40,404,385
«dJ"etmrnto'
Bond Proceeds
$ 1,500,000
$ 5,000.000
$ 5,000,000
Police Pension Provision
1,082,800
1,154,000
1,154,000
Fire Pension Provision
1,254,500
1,220,000
1,220,000
� Risk menennmont Fund
1,253,170
1,409,500
1,391,500
M� Equipment Motor quipmen Pool
-__
-
566,000
Total Adjustments
xoJunteo Budget Totals
$29.t655 650
$31,296 125
$31,072,885
The adjusted totals for 1990/91 show o reduction from $31,296,125 to $31,072,885. for
e true reduction or $223,240.
John Fulton Dixon
Page 4
1990/91 Budget Changes
The above comparison not. only provides a more accurate analysis of the changes from
the 1990/91 budget as presented and as revised, but it also provides a more accurate
means to measure the increase from 1989/90 to 1990/91. The increase of unadjusted
budget totals from 1989/90 to 1990/92 shows a 16,�% jump. However, when the adjusted
budget totals aro cwnpaccu, it shows a more modest increase of 4.8'A. I believe this
is e much more appropriate manner by which to compare budget totals.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Revenues
90/91
90/91
Proposed
Revised
Increase
Budget
Budget
<Decrease>
General Fund
1-000-00-4001
Taxes - Corporate Current
$
1,528,400
$ 1,514,500
$<
13,900>
1-000-00-4004
Taxes - Garbage Current
731,200
745,600
14,400
1-000-00-4013
Retailers Occupation Tax
6,045,000
5,925,000
<
120,000>
1-000-00-4014
Sales Tax - Special Payment
30,000
-
<
30,000>
1-000-00-4017
Real Estate Transfer Tax
200,000
525,000
325,000
1-000-00-4150
State Income Tax
1,760,000
1,775,000
15,000
1-000-00-4152
State Income Tax Surcharge
1,750,000
1,500,000
<
250,000>
1-000-00-4160
Recycling Grant
140,000
2,500
<
137,500>
1-000-00-4161
Grant - Police MEG
-
10,000
10,000
1-000-00-4179
Elk Grove Rural FPD
850,000
-
<
850,000>
1-000-00-4190
Flood Control Service Charge
305,000
-
<
305,000>
1-000-00-4251
MROT Interest Distribution
30,000
<
30,000>
1-000-00-4268
Seminole Lane Reimbursement
18,000
-
<
18,000>
1-000-00-4268
Schoenbeck Rd Reimbursement
-
400,000
400,000
General
Fund Changes
$13,387,600
$12,397,600
$<
990,000>
All Other General Fund Revenues
7,091,900
7,091,900
Amended
General Fund Revenues
$20,479,500
$19,489,500
< 990000>
Flood Control Revenue Fund
21-000-00-4190
Flood Control Service Charge
$
$ 305 000
305.000
CDBG Fund
23-000-00-4155
CDBG Grant
$
398,225
$ 529,725
$
141,500
23-000-00-4241
Program Income
10,000
50,000
401000
Revised
CDBG Fund Totals
$
408.225
$ 589,725
$
181.5500
IMRF Fund
24-000-00-4055
Taxes Current
$
301,600
$ 307,600
$
6,000
All Other IMRF Revenue
382,600
382,600
_.
Revised
IMRF Fund Revenue
$
684 200
$ 690.200
$
6,000
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Revenues
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
48-800-00-4176
Inspection Services Charges $ -
90/91
90/91
48-000-00-4177
Human Services Charges -
1,500
Proposed
ne"iaou
Increase
1,500
1,508
Budget
Budget
<Decrease>
Water & Sewer Fund
48-000-00-4180
Fire Department Charges -
135,000
135,000
41-000-00-4157 Grant - So°nc Rehab
$
-
392,400
$ 392.400
All other Water Revenue
87,500
6,1|00,BOO
_-6,100,800
-__
Rr*ioeo Water Fund Revenue
L~6a_100.�Q.
48-000-00-4248
�����
�~~�24.400
5,000
48-000-00-4262
Risk Management Fund
2,500
2,500
48-000-00-4263
Sale or P.W. Equipment -
49-000-00-4176 General Fund Charges
$
1,224,000
$ /,206,000
${ 18.000>
All Other Risk mqt, Revenue
Revised
625,000
625,0K00�
-
Revised Risk Mgt. Revenue
$~1*849.000
��4�1.�00
L~L84-000>
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
48-800-00-4176
Inspection Services Charges $ -
$ 12,000
$ 12,000
48-000-00-4177
Human Services Charges -
1,500
1,500
48-000-00-4178
Planning & Zoning Charges -
1,500
1,508
48-000-00-4179
Police Department Cxecooa -
130,000
130,000
48-000-00-4180
Fire Department Charges -
135,000
135,000
48-000-00-4181
Street Division Charges -
190,000
1e0,000
48-000-00-4182
Water Division Cxornoe -
87,500
87,500
4e-000-00-4183
pacuinn Division Charges -
8,500
o,500
48-000-00-4248
Investment Income -
5,000
5,000
48-000-00-4262
Salo of Fire Equipment -
2,500
2,500
48-000-00-4263
Sale or P.W. Equipment -
10,000
10,000
48-000-00-4264
sozo of Police Equipment -__
O
10�V0}
10,000
Revised
Motor Equipment Pool ru^u �~�~�~�
$~_~59[3.A500�
~593.500�
Capital zmnrv' & Replacement Fund
51-000-00-4016
Taxes
Current
$ 182,800
$ 1n6,400
$
3,600
51-000-00-4262
Sale
of Fire Equipment
2,500
-
<
2,500/
51-000-00-4263
Sale
of P.W. Equipment
10,000
-
<
10,000>
51-000-oo-4264
Sale
or Police Equipment
20,000
-
<
10,000>
51-000-00-4268
Historical
Society Donation
25,000
30,000�
5,/000
Capital
Impcv.
Fund Charges
$ 230,300
$ 216°400
$<
13,900>
All other CIRR
Fund Revenues
391,000.
391,000�
-
Revised
CzRR Fund
Revenues
$~�621 300[
$�~6079400��900>
-2-
, VILLAGE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget
Changes
"evonm,a
90/91
90/91
propnno^
Revised
Increase
Budget
Budget
(
Corporate
60-000-00-4019 Taxes Current
$ 73,250
$ 7*,700
$ 1,450
All other Corp. Purv. 1973 Revenues
107,250
107,250
-
Revised Corp. Pvrp, 1973 Revenues
$~�180.500�
L~~~U1.4��.
�~�~�~,450
68 -000 -00 -*019 Taxes Current $ 18,650 $ - $< 18,650>
68-000-00-4224 Trans - o/T Const 1985 5,350 24,000 18,650!
o/T nedevelp B & I Changes $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ -
9O �
All Other D/T Rauovelp B & I Revenues ___2.0,37575
Revised 0/T Reupvrin a a z Revenues $~�114L.375 $~������ $~�~��~��
Public Works Facilit H & I 1987B
69-000-00-4019 Taxes Current $ 172,500 $ 175,900 $ 3,400
All Other P w Facility B a I Revenues 196,250
Revised P w Facility 8 a I Revenues $~�368,750 $~�372,J50$��~3 400�
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Summary or Revenue Changes
General pvnx
Flood Control Revenue Fund
coRC ruwu
zwRF Fund
Water and Sewer Fund
Risk Management Fund
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
Capital lmpc^ & Replacement Fund
Corporate Purposes B a I - 1973
Corporate Purposes 8 & l - 1974
Downtown Redevelopment e & I - 19870
Public wocva rac/luy8 a l - 19878
Total village Revenue Changes
All Other Village Revenues
Revised village Revenue Changes
Revised Village Revenue O`omnoo
Lasa' zntorfund Transfers
Revised Village Revenues
Library ruvu
�����
Library nevo^vea
90/91
90/91
p,upvood
Revised
Increase
Budget
Budget
<Dnc>
$20,479°500
$19,489,500
$< 990,000/
-
305,000
305,000
408,225
589,725
181,500
684,200
690,200
6,000
6,100,800
6,493,200
392,480
1,849,000
1,871,000
< 18,000>
-
593,500
593,500
621,300
607,400
< 13,900>
180,500
181.950
1,450
267,150
269,450
2,300
114,375
114,375
-
368, 750
372,150
3,400
$3/.073,800
$71,537,450
$ 463,650
10,423,580
10,423,580
jaj4A27 ��
1412961,,Q30
����,
$41,*97.380 $41,961,070 $ 463,650
8
4 750> 4
_/�_4��7�� _/�_42u,400> _« -18,65x0>
��95,6 1��Q�� ����
$ _7�����0 ��6.920.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Expenditures
General Fund
Finance Department
1-031-04-5843 Overtime
Inspection Services
1-037-02-6670 Vehicle Lease Payment
1-037-06-6670 Vehicle Lease Payment
1-037-06-6620 Seminole Lane Engineering
Police Department
1-041-01-5421 Record Clerks P/T
1-041-01-6420 Training
1-041-02-5209 Gang Crimes Task Force
1-041-02-5210 Patrol Officers
1-041-02-5811 Holiday Pay
1-041-02-5843 Overtime
1-041-02-5851 Clothing Allowance
1-041-02-6650 Medical Insurance
1-041-02-7109 Clothing Supplies
1-041-02-8002 Breathalyzer Machine
1-041-06-6122 Squad Conversion
1-041-06-8003 Mobile Data Terminals
1-041-06-8008 Visabar Unitrols
1-041-06-8013 Tune -Up Scope
Fire Department
1-042-01-7110 Clothing Supplies,
1-042-02-5121 Lieutenant/Paramedic
1-042-02-5230 Fireman
1-042-02-5231 Fireman/Paramedic
1-042-02-5811 Holiday Pay
1-042-02-5843 Overtime - Hire Back
1-042-02-6216 Training - EMS
1-042-02-6421 Training - Fire Suppression
1-042-02-6650 Medical Insurance
90/91 90/91
Proposed Revised Increase
Budget Budget <Decrease>
$ 4,500 $ 4,300 $< 200>
$ - $ 5,200 $ 5,200
6,800 6,800
72,000 - < 72,000>
$ 44,805
$ 39,805
$<
5,000>
55,100
46,200
<
8,900>
37,975
-
<
37,975>
1,440,940
1,453,915
12,975
85,175
84,225
<
950>
147,500
145,500
<
2,000>
24,750
24,300
<
450>
201,000
198,000
<
3,000>
12,000
11,250
<
750>
5,000
-
<
5,000>
3,000
-
<
3,000>
4,500
-
<
4,500>
3,450
3,000
<
450>
1,500
-
<
1,500>
$ 30,200
$ 28,250
$<
1,950>
318,265
181,865
<
136,400>
702,325
590,875
<
111,450>
1,239,360
1,313,200
73,840
93,215
87,126
<
6,090>
149,215
39,000
<
110,215>
12,875
10,675
<
2,200>
22,175
19,775
<
2,400>
207,000
192,000
<
15,000>
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Expenditures
Solid Waste Disposal
1-075-02-6290 Snuu Waste Agency
1-075-02-8001 Transfer Site Development
-2-
$ 125,920 $ 100,000 $< 25,920/
130,000 - { 130,000>
90/91
90/91
Proposed
Revised
Increase
Budget
Fire Department
1-042-02-6680
Fire Service - Des Plaines
$
170,000
$ -
$<
770,000>
1-842-02-8020
Emergency Generator - 14
8,000
-
<
a.00O}
1-042-02-8101
Station Furnishings - 11
20,000
-
/
20.000/
1-042-02-8102
office Equipment - 11
6,000
-
<
6,800>
1-042-02-8103
Phys Conditioning Equip - 11
5,150
-
(
5,150}
1-042-02-8104
Emergency Generator - 41
8,000
-
<
8,000>
1-042-02-8105
Paramedic Equip - 11
25,000
-
<
25,000>
1-042-04-6210
Organizational Memberships
605
600
<
5}
Human Services Division
1-052-01-6670
Vehicle Lease Payment
$
-
$ 1,500
$
1.500
1-052-04-5135
Social Worker p/T
13,850
-
<
13,850>
Planning & Zoning
Department
1-062-01-6670
Vehicle Lease Payment
$
-
$ 1^500
$
1,500
1-062-01-6675
Zoning Ordinances Revision
40,000
-
<
40,000>
Street Division
1-871-02-7355
muiot Supplies - Ste 11
$
3,000
$ -
$<
3,000/
1-071-02-8103
Backwater Valve - 5tn 14
14,000
-
<
14,000>
1-071-02-8104
Emergency Exit - Sta 14
2,500
-
<
2,500/
1-071-02-8110
p w 8lun Shelving
3,000
-
<
3,000/
1-071-04-8306
5cx"enued' Ru lmpr"
-
400,000
400,000
1-071-08-8009
nepl Brush Chipper - 4515
18,000
-
(
18,000>
Solid Waste Disposal
1-075-02-6290 Snuu Waste Agency
1-075-02-8001 Transfer Site Development
-2-
$ 125,920 $ 100,000 $< 25,920/
130,000 - { 130,000>
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Expenditures
-3-
90/91
90/91
Proposed
Revised
Increase
Budget
Budget
<Decrease>
Capital Improvements
1-077-81-8003 Melas Park Development.
$
_
$
100,000
$
100,000
1-077-81-8004 Melas Park/P W Sewer
-
75,000
75,000
1-077-91-9817 Transfer C/P 1990 B & I
305,000
-
<
305,000>
Total General Fund Changes
$
5,815,850
$
5,163,860
$<
651,990>
All Other General Fund
12,825,640
12,825,640
-
Revised General Fund
$18,641,490
ILL12195
$<
651 990>
Flood Control Revenue Fund
21-077-91-9817 Transfer C/P 1990 B & I
$$
-
$
305.000
$
305.000
CDBG Fund
23-062-05-6466 Asbestos Removal S/C
$
20,000
$
27,500
$
7,500
23-062-06-8001 Handicapped Access P/B
25,000
34,000
9,000
23-062-06-8013 Boxwood Street Impry
140,000
265,000
125,000
23-062-12-8951 Multi -Family Rehab
-
40,000
40,000
Total CDBG Fund Changes
$
185,000
$
366,500
$
181,500
All Other CDBG Fund
223,225
223,225
-
Revised CDBG Fund
$_408,225
$
589,725
$$
1814500
Water & Sewer Fund
41-072-08-6670 Vehicle Lease Payment
$
-
$
87,500
$
87,500
41 -072 -OB -8018 Repl Scissor Platform
20,000
-
<
20,000>
41-072-08-8109 Repl Pickup/Utility - 2712
32,000
-
<
32,000>
41-072-08-8205 Repl Trk Mtd Crane - 2723
63,000
-
<
63,000>
41-072-12-6703 Oper/Maint Costs - JAWA
170,000
240,000
70,000
Total Water Fund Changes
$
285,000
$
327,500
$
42,500
All Other Water Fund
6,383,970
6,383,970
-
Revised Water Fund Totals
$ 6,668,970
6.711.470
42,500
-3-
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Expenditures
Parking Fund
46-073-01-6670 Vehicle Lease Payment
46-073-03-8729 Retaining Wall Repairs
Total Parking Fund Changes
All Other Parking Fund
Revised Parkinq Fund Totals
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
90/91
Proposed
Budget
90/91
Revised
Budget
Increase
<Decrease>
$ -
$ B,500
$ 8,500
210,000
70,000
< 140,000>
$ 210,000
$ 78,500
$< 131,500>
129,045
129,045
-
$ 339:045
$ 207,545
L_121...500>
48-077-93-8104
Staff Car Replacement
$ -
$ 14,700
$
14,700
48-077-93-8216
Repl Brush Chipper - 4515
-
18,000
18,000
48-077-93-8232
Repl Street Sweeper - 4504
-
80,000
80,000
48-077-93-8235
Repl Tow Truck - 2727
-
97,500
97,500
48-077-93-8239
Repl Mower/Tractor - 4548
-
24,000
24,000
48-077-93-8241
Repl Pickup Truck - 4526
-
22,000
22,000
48-077-93-8251
Repl Pool Vehicle - 307
-
11,000
11,000
48-077-93-8252
Repl Pool Vehicle - 308
-
11,000
11,000
48-077-93-8301
Repl Scissor Platform
-
20,000
20,000
48-077-93-8302
Repl Pickup/Utility - 2712
-
32,000
32,000
48-077-93-8303
Repl Trk Mtd Crane - 2733
-
63,000
63,000
Revised
Motor Equip Pool Fund Totals
$
$ 393,200
$
393,200
Capital Impry and Replacement Fund
Police Department
51-041-02-8002
Breathalyzer Machine
$ -
$ 5,000
$
5,000
51-041-06-6670
Vehicle Lease Payment
-
130,000
130,000
51-041-06-8001
Police Vehicles
45,000
-
<
45,000>
51-041-06-8004
Radios
2,000
500
<
1,500>
51-041-06-8013
Tune Up Scope
-
1,500
1,500
Fire Department
51-042-02-8015
Turn Out Clothing
$ 9,905
$ 7,655
$<
2,250>
51-042-02-8020
Emergency Generator - Sta 14
8,000
8,000
51-042-06-6670
Vehicle Lease Payment
-
135,000
135,000
51-042-06-8959
New Ambulance
65,000
-
<
65,000>
51-042-06-8962
Staff Car Replacement
14,700
-
<
14,700>
-4-
Downtown Redevelopment Const. - 1985
55-077-62-9816 Trans - D/T 1987D B & I
All Other D/T Redvlp Fund
Revised D/T Redevlp Fund
$ 5,350 $ 24,000 $ 18,650
__66j 7 35 66,735 -
$$ 72,085 90,735 $ 18.650
VILLAGE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget
Changes
Expenditures
90/91
90/91
Proposed
Revised
Increase
Budget
Budget
<Decrease>
Street Division
51-071-02-8103
Backwater Valve - Sta 14
$
-
$
14,000
$
14,000
51-071-02-8104
Emergency Exit - Sta 14
-
2,500
2,500
51-071-02-8110
P W Bldg Shelving
-
3,000
3,000
51-071-12-6670
Vehicle Lease Payment
-
190,000
190,000
51-071-12-8103
Repl Street Sweeper - 4504
80,000
-
<
80,000>
51-071-12-8155
Repl Tow Truck - 2727
97,500
-
<
97,500>'
51-071-12-8207
Repl Mower/Tractor - 4548
24,000
-
<
24,000>
51-071-12-8303
Repl Pick Up Truck - 4526
22,000
-
<
22,000>
51-071-13-8003
Repl Pool Vehicle - 307
11,000
-
<
11,000>
51-071-13-8004
Repl Pool Vehicle - 308
11,000
-
<
11,000>
Capital Improvements
51-077-81-8001
Historical Society Bldg
$
50,000
$
45,000
$<
5,000>
Motor Equipment. Pool
51-077-93-8001
Police Vehicles
$
-
$
39,000
$
39,000
51-077-93-8101
Ambulance Rechassis
-
37,000
37,000
$
432,105
$
618,155
$
186,050
354,925
354,925
-
$$
7
973080
186050
Downtown Redevelopment Const. - 1985
55-077-62-9816 Trans - D/T 1987D B & I
All Other D/T Redvlp Fund
Revised D/T Redevlp Fund
$ 5,350 $ 24,000 $ 18,650
__66j 7 35 66,735 -
$$ 72,085 90,735 $ 18.650
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
1990/91 Budget Changes
Summary of Expenditure Changes
General Fund
Flood Control Revenue Fund
CDBG Fund
Water & Sewer Fund
Parking Fund
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
Capital Impry & Repl Fund
Downtown Redevelopment Const 1985
Total Changes - Village Funds
All Other Village Funds
Revised Totals - Village Funds
Revised Totals - Village Funds
Less; Interfund Transfers
Revised Village Expenditures
Library Fund
Revised Library Expenditures
-6-
90/91
90/91
Proposed
Revised
Increase
Budget
Budget
<Decrease>
$18,641,490
$17,989,500
$< 651,990>
-
305,000
305,000
408,225
589,725
181,500
6,668,970
6,711,470
42,500
339,045
207,545
< 131,500>
-
393,200
393,200
787,030
973,080
186,050
72,085
90,735
18,650
$26,916,845
$27,260,255
$ 343,410
13,564,530
13,564,530
-
$40,481.375
$40.824.785
$ 343 410
$40,481,375 $40,824,785 $ 343,410
<< 4�> < 420,400> < 18,650>
$403079»625 =$=4=044041.385 324.760
$ 2,54=6,920 2 546920
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Deputy Director Public Works
DATE: April 10, 1990
SUBJ: Sewer Rehab Change Order Request
Village SbHftLSystem
During the course of the sewer grouting contract on the Village
sanitary sewer system our contractor Visu-Sewer reported 8 loca-
tions where the sewers were broken and/or partially collapsed.
Thus they were unable to grout them and seal off the point of
storm water infiltration.
Under a separate contract Joel Kennedy is responsible for the
spot repairs to the sanitary sewer system. A spot repair in-
cludes excavating down to the broken sewer and replacing those
sections of damaged pipe.
Based on Kennedy's current contract unit price for spot repairs,
Donohue has estimated a cost of $16,140.00 to repair these eight
locations. (see attached April 9, 1990 letter) I believe it is
in our best interest that we repair these at this time and re-
move the potential threat of a future sewer failure.
Because these sections of sewer were originally shown to be cost
effective for repair under our IEPA grant program, I will re-
quest a change order approval to our grant award. There is a
$5000.00 contingency fund and it is likely that as long as these
sections were in fact cost effective to repair we will at the
least be authorized funding up to the maximum of our contingen-
cy. It is also possible that should there be excess funds in
the state's sewer grant program we could receive reimbursement
for the full amount.
I therefore request the Village Board authorize an increase to
Joel Kennedy's contract in an amount not to exceed $16,140.00.
Prospect Meadows Sewer .,System
All sewer repair work has been completed on the Prospect Meadows
sewer rehab project. The only remaining work is the restoration
of all the parkways, driveways and streets. Due to the exten-
sive repair work done on the Bob -0 -Link sewer between Elmhurst
and Forest a good portion of the street surface is scheduled to
be patched. Before this contract was started the street was not
in the best of shape. This is a no curb area and a lot of the
pavement was breaking off at the shoulders edge.
we have requested a price from Joel Kennedy to overlay the en-
tire street versus just patching the trench area. They have
quoted a price of $19,000 which includes all grinding, prime
coat and application of 1-1/2" overlay. Donohue has reviewed
this price and it is my recommendation that the Village Board
authorize an increase to Joel Kennedy's contract in an amount
not to exceed $19,000.
Under the Prospect Meadows grant there is an $8,000.00 contingen-
cy fund and I will be submitting a request for reimbursement
from the IEPA for this extra cost.
GlLenndl
R. A er
GRA/eh
cc: Herbert L. Weeks
Jerry McIntosh
April 9 ,1990
Village of Mount Prospect
1700 West Centrai Road
Mount Prospect , Illinois 60056
Attn : Glen R. Andler
Deputy Director of Public Works
Re: Village of Sewer
Prospect
" ENGINEERS Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
ARCHITECTS Contract "B" (Village Portion)
SCIENTISTS Donohue Project No. 15800
Dear Mr. Andler,
Per your request at our meeting on Apri 15 , 1990 in which we reviewed several sanitary sewer
video tapes from the recently completed sewer grouting contract , the following is an estimate of
the asst of adding (8) repair sections into Contract "B" which were found to be sources of
Infiltration into the sanitary sewer system :
Line
Location b to Manhole Station Size Length cost
1. Elm Street ..... 283007... 285102 ... 0+81 ........ 8" 6 L.F, $330/I..F. $ 1,980.00
2. Elm Street ..... 285007 ... 28S 102 ... 205-208- 8" " $ 1,980.00
3. Louis Street..... 295014 ... 29SO l 1 ... 0+26 ........ 8" $ 1,980.00
4. Estates Drive.... 12SO 18 ... 12SO 17 ... 0+59 ........ 8" $ 1,980.00
S. Wille Street .... 175033 ...175037 ... 1+93 ....... 8" $ 1,980.00
6. Busse Road ......123022 ...125020 ... 062-064..12" " $350/L.F. $ 2,100.00
7. Hat len Ave. ..... 01S042 ...025016 ... 1+59 ........ 12 " $ 2,100.00
8. Berkshire ........ 185034 ...17SO43 ... 0+64 ....... 10" " $340/L.F. QM
Total Cost Of 6=Retav Work ....... $ 16,140.00
The above figure is based on an estimated 6 lineal feet of sewer replacement at each location.
Final measurements taken at the time of the replacement may reflect an increase or decrease in
the estimated 6 lineal feet.
If you have any questions regarding the above , please feel free to cal l me at ext. 278.
Si ly ,
DONOHUE&ASU ES , INC.
E . David SeidenzahI P.E.
Project Manager
Construction Related Services
■ 1501 Woodfield Road
Suite 100 Fist
Srhmonburg, Illinois 60173
708605.8800
Telefax 708605.8914
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: APRIL 12, 1990
SUBJECT: FIELD CHANGE - EUCLID LAKE VILLAS
The Euclid Lake Villas Homeowners Association in Boxwood is requesting a field change
for their 49 unit development. The Association is requesting that their homeowners be
permitted to construct chain-link fences around the perimeter of the small backyard of each
unit. Their letter and site plan are attached.
An inspection found that there are several homeowners that have fenced rear yards. Some
of these fences are in good shape, many are in disrepair. Each unit also has a small
wooden deck with a privacy fence.
The townhome units in Boxwood were originally designed with common yards, open space
and parking. Fences behind each townhome will very much divide up the limited open
space and possibly create a very cluttered, congested look behind the townhomes. The
proposed small fenced yards might not be large enough for children to play certain games,
and children might be forced to play more in the parking areas and driveways, where there
would be more room. Also, the individual fenced rear yards might not be maintained in
a uniformed fashion as is done with common open space.
If more privacy is desired, it could be accomplished with landscaping at certain locations,
such as next to the parking lots.
The Planning and Zoning staff cannot recommend approval of individual fences at Euclid
Lake Villas, for the reasons noted above. Representatives of the Association will attend
the April 17 Village Board meeting.
N�_N
I50MNWAKn�
LM] I f
I 6bmi
March 29, 1990
EUCLID LAKE VILLAS
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
405 E. Euclid Ave. Suite 2
Mount Prospect IL 60056
253-5499
Mr. David M. Clements
Director of Planning & Zoning
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
RE: Euclid Lake Villas Homeowners Association
Plans for Fences
Dear Mr. Clements:
VO4 of Mount Prow
APR 3 1990
zu:lf?g
Enclosed is our copy of our diagram for fences for our Townhouse
Association. We are a new Association and are trying to beautify
our area. in the past we have had numerous problems with trying to
keep our lawns and homes in good condition. We currently have problems
with cars driving on lawns, children bike riding on the lawns as well
as children playing in other residents yards. We feel, that the fences
would eliminate these problems and help the residents to start restoring
their backyards.
We would sincerely appreciate any and all consideration from your
office concerning this matter. Please advise us of the procedures
required to pursue this matter.
Sincerely,
e -'David D. Gardner
President
Euclid Lake Villas HOA
DDG/scf
encl.
P.S. Mailing Address: 1222 N. Wheeling Road, Mount Prospect,
Illinois 60056. Telephone Number (708) 253-3561
1222 N. Whealkg Rd.
Mt, Pft"t, IL 60046