HomeMy WebLinkAbout3742_001Next Ordinance No. 4176
Next Resolution No. 19-90 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
A G 2 N D A ANUMMENNOMW
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
0 R D E R 0 F B U 8 1 N E 8 8 May 1/, 1990
REGULAR MEETING
Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time:
Meeting Room, 1st Floor Tuesday
Senior Citizen Center May 1, 1990
50 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. N.
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
I. CALL TO ORDER
1I. ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald "Skip" Parley
Trustee Ralph Arthur Trustee Leo Floras
Trustee Mark Busse Trustee George Van Geem.
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Theodore Wattenberg
III. INVOCATION - Trustee Arthur
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, April 17, 1990
V. APPROVAL OF BILLS
VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
A. Firefighter Achievement Awards:
Certificates of Appreication:
Lt. Keith Destree
Firefighter John Bagby
Firefighter/Paramedic Doug Lubash
Firefighter/Paramedic Don Wisniewski
Firefighter/Paramedic Terry Corr
Firefighter/Paramedic James Flory
Firefighter Thomas Reynolds
Firefighter/Paramedic Terry Corr
Outstanding Achievement Awards:
Firefighter/Paramedic Don Burger
Firefighter/Paramedic Matt Canning
VII. MAYOR'S REPORT
A. PROCLAMATIONS:
1. Children's Fire Safety Festival, May 7-12, 1990
2. Municipal Clerks' Week, May 6 - 12, 1990
3. Teacher Appreciation Week, May 6 - 12, 1990
4. Illinois Operation Lifesaver Awareness Day, May 15, 1990
B. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance creates a Class 11W11 (beer & wine)
liquor license for Taqueria Fiesta Restaurant,
1802 S. Elmhurst Road. (Exhibit A)
C. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This ordinance deletes one Class IIWII liquor
license, presently held by Sizzlers Steak House,
110 East Rand Road. This business has been sold
and the new owners will apply for a liquor
license at a future date.
(Exhibit B)
D. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance deletes one Class IIRII liquor
license, presently held by Golden Nugget,
100 South Elmhurst Road. This business has been
sold and the new owners will apply for a liquor
license at a future date.
(Exhibit C)
E. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance deletes one Class 'IS" liquor
license, presently held by the Charlie Club,
501 Midway Drive. The restaurant has been
removed from this establishment.
(Exhibit D)
F. Request to allow the new owners of O'Neils,
303 East Kensington, to continue doing business
under the existing Class 'IS" liquor license.
The business will be known as The Wild Stallion
Cafe.
G. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 13.124.A
OF CHAPTER 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance increasing the fine that can be
assessed by the Liquor commissioner for a
violation and creates a provision to reimburse
the Village for costs incurred for a hearing (Exhibit E)
H. Appointments
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Pate Subdivision, 1000 Cardinal Lane
2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE PRORATING THE COST
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WATERMAIN AND STREET
IN WILDWOOD LANE IN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
This Ordinance establishes a recapture agreement
for roadway, sewer and water main installations
as the area is improved. (Exhibit F)
B. 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.
C. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A HEARING PROCEDURE
FOR VIOLATION OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT PERTAINING
TO CABLE TELEVISION (Exhibit G)
D. ZBA 17 -SU -90, 2200 Soutb Busse Road
2nd 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
this request by a vote of 6-0. (Exhibit H)
E. ZBA 21-V-90, 301 East Rand Road
2nd 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 121 x 351 loading dock. The
Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denying the
variations as requested by a vote of 2-3. (Exhibit J)
F. ZBA 22-V-90, 2100 South Elmhurst Road
2nd 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 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. (Exhibit K)
G. ZBA 5-Z-90, 6 -SU -90, 7-V-90, 400 East Rand Road
1. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
This Ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan
to reflect multi -family use, instead of
commercial. The Plan Commission recommended
granting this request by a vote of 6-0. (Exhibit L)
2. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
MODIFICATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
(CHAPTER 16) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance grants 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. (Exhibit M)
3. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS ORCHARD FIELD
TOWNHOMES
This Ordinance rezones the subject property
from R-1 (Single -Family) to R-3 (Multi -family
Residential) to permit a townhouse
development. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting this request by a vote
of 7-0. (Exhibit N)
4. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL
USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
ORCHARD FIELD TOWNHOMES
This Ordinance grants 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). This Ordinance also
grants a variation to allow a 10 foot setback
from the cul de sac bulb, instead of the
required 20 feet. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting this request
by a vote of 7-0. (Exhibit 0)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IV
OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance amends the regulations governing
revocation or denial of a business license as
well as the hearing process for such action. (Exhibit P)
B. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance establishes regulations governing
the sale of tobacco to minors. (Exhibit Q)
C. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III
OF CHAPTER 19 ENTITLED "HEALTH REGULATIONS" OF
THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance establishes regulations against
creating a hazard to health and property as a
result of attracting animals, birds and insects. (Exhibit R)
X. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Bids:
1. Remove asbestos from Senior Center
2. Two compact station wagons
3. one 3/4 ton pick-up truck
4. One 1 -ton, two wheel drive truck cab chassis
5. Parkway restoration contract
6. Catch Basin Inlet repairs
B. Proposal to conduct rate study for flood control
C. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Exhibit S)
D. Status Report
Xi. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
APRIL 17, 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 (arrived later)
Trustee George Van Geem
Trustee Theodore Wattenberg
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Mayor Farley. INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, APPROVE
moved to approve the minutes of the regular MINUTES
meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees
held April 3, 1990.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Trustee Van Geem, seconded by Trustee Busse, APPROVE BILLS
moved to approve the following list of bills:
General Fund
$1,429,391
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
20,947
Community Development Block Grant Fund
40,843
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
212,551
Waterworks & Sewerage Fund
341,849
Parking System Revenue Fund
5,576
Risk Management Fund
147,220
P.W. Facility Construction Fund A
-
P.W. Facility Construction Fund B
-
Capital Improvement, Repl. or Rep.Fund
15,807
Special Service Area Const. #5
-
Special Service Area Const. #6
-
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1985)
345
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1987)
-
Corporate Purpose Improvement 1990
-
Debt Service Funds
1,801
Flexcomp Trust Fund
10,971
Escrow Deposit Fund
4,979
Police Pension Fund
-
Firemen's Pension Fund
-
Benefit Trust Fund
28,728
$2,261,008
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem
Nays: Wattenberg
Motion carried.
Trustee Van Geem, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved
to accept the financial report dated March 31, 1990,
subject to audit.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
SEAT BELT SAFETY Police Chief Pavlock, Officers John Dahlberg and Bill
POSTER AWARDS Roscop and Mayor Farley presented the winners of the
Seat Belt Safety Poster Awards to four 3rd grade
students from schools within the Village. The award
included a $50-00 gift certificate, compliments of the
Police Association, and a Plaque. The winners were:
Jonita Cutts, Lions Park School
Bridgett Grahn, St..Emily's School
Jamie Lyn Mc Gowan, Euclid School
Alex Rearick, Indian Grove School
EARTH DAY Two students from St. Emily's School gave a brief
presentation on Earth Day and the various activities
being planned in recognition of that event on April 21
and 22.
RECALL ORDINANCE Paul Hoeffert requested the Board reconsider the
subject of adopting a Recall ordinance. Mr. Hoeffert
suggested a draft ordinance be prepared incorporating
language that would prevent abuse of the intent of the
legislation.
MAYOR'S REPORT
PROCLAMATION Mayor Farley proclaimed April 22, 1990 as
GIRL SCOUT Girl Scout Leaders Day in the Village.
LEADERS DAY
AMEND CH.13 A request was submitted by Taqueria Fiesta Restaurant,
1802 South Elmhurst Road, to create a Class 11W11 liquor
TAQUERIA FIESTA license (beer and wine).
1802 S.ELMHURST
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
authorize the creation of a Class "W" liquor license.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An ordinance will be presented May 1st for first
reading.
OLD BUSINESS
PATE SUBDIVISION Pate Subdivision, Wildwood Lane
At the request of the Petitioner, the ordinance
presented for second reading that would authorize
execution of a recapture agreement relative to the
development of the subject property was continued to
the next meeting on May 1st.
Mayor Farley stated that this is the final continuance
on this matter and if the Petitioner isn't ready to
proceed on May 1, the request must be resubmitted and
the Petitioner begin the process.
ZBA 17 -SU -90 ZBA 17 -SU -90, 2200 South Busse Road
2200 S.BUSSE RD An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would
repeal Ordinance No. 3656 and grant 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.
This Ordinance will be presented May 1st for second
reading.
ZBA 14-V-90 ZBA 14-V-90, 910 Owen
910 S. OWEN An ordinance was presented for 1st reading that would
grant variations to allow a 24 foot wide driveway for
Page 2 - April 17, 1990
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.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur,
moved to waive the rule requiring two readings
of an Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, ORD. NO. 4169
moved for passage of Ordinance No. 4169
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 910 NORTH OWEN STREET
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ZBA 18-V-90, 7 South Edward Street ZBA 18-V-90
An Ordinance was presented for first reading
that would grant variations to permit a 4 foot
separation between the existing garage and a
proposed room addition, instead of the required
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 proposed Ordinance includes
the requirement that fire -rated drywall must be
installed in the garage on the wall closest to the
proposed room addition.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to waive the rule requiring two readings of an
Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved ORD.NO. 4170
for passage of Ordinance No. 4170
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 7 SOUTH EDWARD STREET
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 3 - April 17, 1990
ZBA 19-V-90
ZBA 19-V-90, 1411 Circle Drive
1411 CIRCLE
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would
grant 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.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded Trustee Arthur, moved to
waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ORD.NO. 4171
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved for
passage of Ordinance No. 4171
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1411 CIRCLE DRIVE
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ZBA 21-V-90
ZBA 21-V-90, 301 East Rand Road
301 E. RAND ROAD
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would
grant variations to allow a 7,200 square foot building
to house no more than 5 tenants. The Ordinance also
grants 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 setbacks instead of the
required 20 feet when adjacent to 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.
This Ordinance will be presented May ist for second
reading.
ZBA 22-V-90
ZBA 22-V-90, 2100 South Elmhurst Road
2100 S.ELMHURST
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would
ROAD
grant 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 these variations are being
requested in order to construct a Park National Bank
facility at this location.
This Ordinance will be presented May 1st for second
reading.
Trustee Floros arrived at this point in the meeting.
AMEND CH. 8
An Ordinance was presented for second reading that
REAL ESTATE
would amend Article VIII of Chapter 8 of the
TRANSFER TAX
Village Code. The proposed amendment includes
increasing the Real Estate Transfer Tax from $1.00 per
$1, 000 selling price to $3.00 per $1, 000 and to provide
a rebate of $2.00 per $1,000 for single family
residents buying and selling in mount Prospect.
Page 4 - April 17, 1990
Several real estate agents and/or members of the
audience spoke in opposition to the proposed increase
of the Real Estate Transfer Tax.
Trustee Floros made a motion to reduce the proposed
increase from $3.00 to $2.00 per $1,000. The motion
failed for lack of a second.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved to
amend the Ordinace to apply the $2.00 rebate to
commercial as well as single family dwelling units.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Floros
Nays: Arthur, Corcoran, Van Geem,
Wattenberg, Farley
Motion failed.
Trustee Wattenberg suggested the subject be placed
on the ballot for referendum.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved
for passage of ordinance No. 4172, which ordinance
will increase the Real Estate Transfer Tax paid by
the purchaser to $3.00 per $1,000 selling price
and provide for a rebate of $2.00 for single family
dwelling units.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 (REAL ESTATE
TRANSFER TAX) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Corcoran, Van Geem,
Wattenberg, Farley
Nays: Busse, Floros
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for second 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.
A representative of A & H Vending expressed his
-opposition to this increase, noting that it is his
experience that minors do not purchase cigarettes
from a vending machine due to the higher prices.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
for passage of ordinance No. 4173
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE VILLAGE
CODE
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem
Nays: Wattenberg
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 5-Z-90, 6 -SU -90, 7-V-90, 400 East Rand Road
The Petitioner is requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect multi -family use
instead of the existing designation of commercial
use. The Petitioner is also 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 these requests by votes of 6-0.
Also requested is re -zoning from R-1 (Single-family)
to R-3 (Multi -family); a Special Use in the nature
Page 5 - April 17, 1990
ORD.NO. 4172
ORD.NO. 4173
ZBA 5-Z-90
ZBA 6 -SU -90
ZBA 7-V-90
400 E. RAND RD
of a Planned Unit Development in order to construct 24
townhouses (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 these requests by votes of 6-0.
It was noted that the Petitioner has reduced his
request from 24 units to 22 units in order to provide
for adequate water detention. The proposed development
would be built on 2.7 acres.
Trustee Van Geem expressed his opinion that the plan
should be amended to increase the open green space and
remove the guest parking spaces provided'through the
development.
It was explained that the street/cul de sac would
remain a private roadway under the control and
maintenance of a homeowners association.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Plan Commission
to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect multi -family
dwelling units on the subject property.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Wattenberg
Kays: Van Geem
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented on May 1st for first
reading.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Plan Commission
and grant the 'modification from the Development Code
and permit a detention area within 75 feet of a
building.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Wattenberg
Kays: Van Geem
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented on May 1st for first
reading.
Barbara Phillips, 516 Eastman Court, requested
information about the proposed development, including
assurance that the single family homes on Eastman and'
Hill Street would not be affected by run-off storm
water and a 6 foot high fence would separate the
properties.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
Appeals and grant,the re -zoning being the subject of
ZBA 5-Z-90, in order to construct 22 townhomes.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Wattenberg
'Nays: Van Geem
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented on May 1st for first
reading.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of
Page 6 - April 17, 1990
Appeals and grant the Special Use in the nature of
a Planned Unit Development being the subject of
ZBA 6 -SU -90.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Wattenberg
Nays: Van Geem.
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented on May 1st for first
reading.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concurwiththe recommendation of the Zoning Board of
Appeals and grant the variation requested in
ZBA 7-V-90.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Wattenberg
Nays: Van Geem
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented on May 1st for first
reading.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
FOREST AVE.
would accept the dedication of 9 feet of property
DEDICATION
from School District 214 for the improvement of
Forest Avenue between Kensington and Memory Lane.
It is the intention of the Village to improve this
section of Forest Avenue, to provide storm water
mains and curbs, in an effort to better control the
run-off from the school district property. A bid
for the actual improvement of Forest Avenue is on
the agenda under the Village Manager's Report.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
PLAT OF
to waive the rule requiring two readings of an
DEDICATION
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. 4174
for passage of Ordinance No. 4174 and to authorize
the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest his signature
on the Plat of Dedication of a portion of land for
Forest Avenue.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
A Resolution was presented that would authorize the
EXECUTIVE
release of certain minutes taken during Executive
SESSION
Sessions. I
MINUTES
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved RES.NO. 17-90
Page 7 - April 17, 1990
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
CABLE TV A Resolution was presented that would establish
HEARING PROCESS a hearing procedure for violations of the franchise
agreement by a cable television franchise operator.
At the request of Mr. Mitchell, this Resolution will
be presented May 1st for consideration in order to
provide TCI an opportunity to review the proposed
hearing procedures.
BIDS: VILLAGE MANAGEROS REPORT
MELAS PARK village' manager John Fulton Dixon presented the
DETENTION/STORM following bid results for detention/storm water
WATER improvement. It was noted that this improvement will
redirect water run-off from the Public Works Facility.
The bids are as follows:
Bidde
Martam Construction, Inc. $ 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
Roselle & Assoc. Inc. $167,605.00
Several Trustees expressed their concern that the total
involvement and -commitment of both the Mount Prospect
and Arlington Heights Park Districts is not known and
they are reluctant for the Village to continue spending
money to improvement Melas Park without a commitment
from the Park Districts.
Page 8 - April 17, 1990
for passage of Resolution 17-90
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF
SPECIFIED MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
TCI, INC.
A Resolution was presented that would acknowledge
(CABLE TV)
a violation of the Franchise Agreement between TCI of
VIOLATION
Illinois and the Village. TCI did not provide services
to a customer at 1350 West Northwest Highway on a
timely basis. The proposed Resolution acknowledges the
violation, however, it waives the $3,000 fine assessed
by the Village.
Jim Mitchell, representing TCI, requested the Board to
consider the proposed Resolution and waive the fines
previously assessed.
RES.NO. 18-90
Trustee Wattenberg, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved
for passage of Resolution No. 18-90
A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING A VIOLATION OF
THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BY TCI OF ILLINOIS
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
CABLE TV A Resolution was presented that would establish
HEARING PROCESS a hearing procedure for violations of the franchise
agreement by a cable television franchise operator.
At the request of Mr. Mitchell, this Resolution will
be presented May 1st for consideration in order to
provide TCI an opportunity to review the proposed
hearing procedures.
BIDS: VILLAGE MANAGEROS REPORT
MELAS PARK village' manager John Fulton Dixon presented the
DETENTION/STORM following bid results for detention/storm water
WATER improvement. It was noted that this improvement will
redirect water run-off from the Public Works Facility.
The bids are as follows:
Bidde
Martam Construction, Inc. $ 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
Roselle & Assoc. Inc. $167,605.00
Several Trustees expressed their concern that the total
involvement and -commitment of both the Mount Prospect
and Arlington Heights Park Districts is not known and
they are reluctant for the Village to continue spending
money to improvement Melas Park without a commitment
from the Park Districts.
Page 8 - April 17, 1990
There was discussion to delay a vote on this bid until
the two Park Districts reduce their overall plan for
Melas Park to writing.
Mayor Farley stated that approving this bid and
providing this drainage from the Public Works Facility
would in no way affect the development of Melas Park
by the Park Districts.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the Village Manager
and accept the low bid submitted by Martam Construction
for the detention/storm water improvement at Melas Park.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Wattenberg
Nays: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros,
Van Geem
Motion failed.
The following bids were received for water main
replacement of 920 feet on Council Trail between
Route 83 and Hi Lusi and 1,000 feet on Oak Street
between Gregory Street and Forest Avenue:
Bidder Amount
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
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to accept the low bid submitted by Glenbrook
Excavating in the amount of $124,390.00
for the
water main replacement program.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van
Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
The following bids were received
for the general
maintenance/resurfacing program:
Bidder
Amount
Allied Asphalt Paving Co.
$262,174.35
Arrow Road Construction Co.
$267,999.97
Palumbo Bros. Inc.
$273,981.29
American Asphalt & Seal Coating
$303,180.84
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the low bid submitted by Allied Asphalt
Paving Co. in the amount of $262,174.35 for the
general maintenance/resurfacing program and that the
motion also include authorization an expenditure not
to exceed $525,000 for both resurfacing program and
the curb and gutter replacement (the next item on
the agenda) program.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 9 - April 17, 1990
WATER MAIN
REPLACEMENT
GLENBROOK
EXCAVATING
RESURFACING
PROGRAM
CURB & GUTTER The following bids were received for the general
maintenance/curb and gutter replacement program:
Bidder Amount
F & V Cement $196,268.25
Trialta Construction $198,044.30
M & A Cement Work $210,947.00
August Contractors $227,615.10*
Kings -Point Gen. Cement $230,580.00
Schroeder & Schroeder $238,536.75
J & J Newell Concrete $239,204.50
Globe Construction $240,116.25
C -A Construction $241,299.50
*Incorrect unit price format, invalid bid.
F & V CEMENT Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the low bid submitted by F & V Cement in the
amount of $196,268.25 for the curb and gutter
replacement program and that the motion also include
authorization of an expenditure not to exceed $525,000
for both the resurfacing program (the previous motion)
and this curb and gutter replacement program.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
FOREST AVENUE The following bids were received for the Forest
IMPROVEMENT Avenue improvement, between Kensington and Memory Lane.
This includes the improvement of Forest Avenue to
include the additional 9 feet in width,as dedicated
to the Village by School District 214. The
he request for
bids included 3 options: aggregate base course; P.C.
concrete base course and P.C. concrete base course -
high early strength.
Proposal #1: Aggregate Base Course
Bidder Amount
Kings Point General Cement $263,229.00*
Arrow Road Construction $270,289.00
Proposal #2: P.C. Concrete Base Course
Bidder Amount
Kings Point General Cement $284,282.00*
Triggi Construction $332,983.00
Prosposal #3: P. C. Concrete Base Course- High Early
Strength
Bidder Amount
Kings Point General Cement $292,214.00*
Triggi Construction $357,783.00
It was noted that since Motor Fuel Tax funds are
funding this project the contractor must meet IDOT
qualifications; Kings Point General Cement has not
been pre -qualified by IDOT.
It was also noted that the bids were advertised with
these options due to the request of Trustee Van Geem's
Page 10 - April 17, 1990
interest in testing the durability of concrete
versus asphalt. Because Forest Avenue isn't a
full width street and it will not have the normal
amount of usage, it was recommended that this
roadway not be used as a test site.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved
ARROW ROAD
to concur with the recommendation of the administration
and accept the low bid submitted by Arrow Road
Construction for Proposal #1 in the amount of
$270,289.00 for the improvement of Forest Avenue
between Kensington and Memory.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
motion carried.
The following bids were received for the Lincoln Street
LINCOLN ST.
bridge rehabilitation, based on closing Lincoln Street
to all traffic during the improvement:
Bidder Amount
Albin Carlson & Co. $65,900.00
Vincent DiVito $68,738.00
R & W Clark Construction $71,970.00
Kustom Construction $75,585.00
Alliance Contractors $79,335.45
Accu -Paving Co. $99,892.50
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to
ALBIN CARLSON
concur with the recommendation of the Village Manager
& CO.
and accept the low bid submitted by Albin Carlson &
Co. in the amount of $65,900.00 for the rehabilitation
of the Lincoln Street bridge.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
A recommendation was presented to authorize extension
WATER METERS
of the existing contract with Badger Meter Company for
another year for the purchase of approximately 1,000
water meters, at a cost not to exceed $70,000.
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved
BADGER WATER
to concur with the recommendation of the administration
METERS
and extend the existing contract with Badger Water
Meters for the purchase of water meters not, to exceed
$70,000.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Mayor Farley called a public hearing to order, called
PUBLIC HEARING:
pursuant to proper legal.notice having been published
1990/91 BUDGET
in the Mount Prospect Herald on April 5, 1990, which
public hearing was for the purpose of considering
adoption of the annual fiscal year budget for 1990/91.
The Public Hearing was called to order at 10:22 P.M.
Page 11 - April 17, 1990
Trustee Floros requested the Board to consider laying
off 6 firefighters who were hired in anticipation of
Mount Prospect assuming the responsibility of providing
fire and paramedic service to the Elk Grove Rural Fire
Protection District. It was noted that the Court has
nullified the Agreement between the Fire Protection
District and the Village.
Mayor Farley stated that the number of firefighters
would be reduced by attrition.
There being no further discussion on the adoption of
the budget, Mayor Farley declared the Public Hearing
closed at 10:34 P.M.
ORD.NO. 4175
Trustee Van Geem, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved for
passage of ordinance No. 4175
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1990/91
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Bussei Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
SEWER REHAB
Mr. Dixon presented a request for a change order to
CHANGE ORDER
increase the contract amount with Joel Kennedy
Construction by an amount not to exceed $19,000.00 in
order to make specified repairs to sanitary sewers.
JOEL KENNEDY
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to
CONSTRUCTION CO.
concur with the recommendation of the administration
by authorizing an increase in the contract amount with
Joel Kennedy Construction of $19,000.00 to repair
specified sanitary sewer mains.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
EUCLID LAKE
A request was presented from the Homeowners Association
VILLAS TOWNHOMES
known as Euclid Lake Villas, located at Euclid Avenue
EUCLID & WHEELING and Wheeling Road, to permit the construction of chain
link fences around the perimeter of the backyards.
These complex consists of 47 townhomes and the
Homeowners Association Board members stated that the
3 or 4 foot high fences will give the unit owners an
opportunity to have some privacy as well protecting
their gardens.
Trustee Van Geem asked the President of the Homeowners
Association to distribute flyers to the membership in
an effort make everyone aware of the proposed
improvement.
This request will be presented at the next meeting of
the Village Board on May 1st for a final decision.
PARKWAY
village Manager Dixon stated that due to the wet spring
IMPROVEMENTS
the parkway improvement program has been delayed.
ASSISTANT
Mr. Dixon also stated that he would be in a position
MANAGER
to offer the position of Assistant Village Manager in
a week or so.
Page 12 - April 17, 1990
Trustee Floros stated that he would like the Board ELIMINATE
members to consider laying off 6 firefighters, since 6FIREFIGHTERS
the Court has ruled that the Agreement between Elk
Grove Rural Fire Protection District invalid and
it appears Mount Prospect will not be providing
emergency services to that area.
It was noted that the additional personnel should
reduce the amount of money spent on overtime and
members of the Board expressed their desire to
wait and see if indeed that was the case.
Mayor Farley stated that these men have been trained,
at great expense to the Village, and that over a period
of time natural attrition will reduce the number of
ranks of the Fire Department, and he recommends the
Board not consider any action to reduce the number
of sworn firefighters.
A majority of the Board concurred with the statements
of Mayor Farley.
Trustee Van Gtem suggested that the Board review the
overtime over the next few months and if necessary
the taxes can be abated later in the year.
Trustee Floros stated that he would like the Board
to consider action on this matter at a Committee of
the Whole meeting in the near future.
The Mayor and Board expressed their appreciation to
Dave Jepson, Finance Director, and the staff for all
the work done in preparing the budget.
The subject of Schoenbeck Road improvement was brought SCHOENBECK RD
up and the question was raised as to who was IMPROVEMENT
responsible for this improvement. Mr. Dixon stated
that the developer was doing approximately 50% of
the work and the Village will be responsible for
the balance. The improvement will be done with both
parties cooperating with each other.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved EXECUTIVE
to go into Executive Session for the purpose of SESSION:
discussing potential litigation. POTENTIAL
LITIGATION
Upon roll call: Ayes: Unanimous
Motion carried.
The Board went into Executive Session at 11:00 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened at 11:32 P.M.
Present upon roll call: Mayor Farley
Trustee Arthur
Trustee Busse
Trustee Corcoran
Trustee Floros
Trustee Van Geem
Trustee Wattenberg
Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to authorize the administration to have an appeal filed
in both the Elk Grove Rural Fire Protection District
and the south Busse Road disconnect law suits.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran,
Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 13 - April 17, 1990
ADJOURN Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to
adjourn the meeting.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Unanimous
Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 P.M.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Page 14 - April 17, 1990
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
CASH POSITION
April 26, 1990
Cash & Invest.
Receipts
Disbursements
Cash & Invest.
Balance
4%13%90 Through
Per Attached
Journal Balance
4/12/90
4/26/90
List of Bills
Entry 4/26/90
General & Special Revenue Funds
General Fund
$ 3,257,673
$1,810,571
$ 455,664
$ 4,612,580
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
596,377
-
165
596,212
Community Development Block Grant Fund
2,586
25,999
23,666
4,919
Illinois Municipal Retirement
Fund
40,183
53,747
19,127
74,803
Enterprise Funds
Waterworks & Sewerage Fund
3,103,108
687,144
572,294
3,217,958
Parking System Revenue Fund
246,920
6,163
2,061
251,022
Risk Management Fund
758,927
676,847
77,825
1,357,949
Capital Projects
Capital Improvement, Repl. or
Repair Fund
1,037,795
-
4,836
1,032,959
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund
1985
207,923
1,801
-
209,724
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund
1987
-
-
-
-
Corporate Purpose Improvement
1990
-
-
-
-
Debt Service Funds
1,033,721
2
6,583
1,027,140
Trust & Agency Funds
Flexcomp Trust Fund
242
3,334
-
3,576
Escrow Deposit Fund
1,411,530
22,090
10,591
1,423,029
Police Pension Fund
14,397,738
142,868
38,815
14,501,791
Firemen's Pension Fund
16,302,434
122,195
43,091
16,381,538
Benefit Trust Funds
261,079
-
-
261,079
$42,658,236
$3,552,761
$1.254.718
$44,956,279
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE i
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26190
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
ABC PLUMBING
BOND REFUND
$75.00
$75.00
ACRO R E R SERVICE INC.
BOND REFUND
$100.00
$100.00
PETER AUDO
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$4.56
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
3.44
$5.00
AURORA SIGN CO.
BOND REFUND
$75.00
BOND REFUND
$75.00
5150.04
AVENUE BANK AND TRUST CO. OF 0
MAGE DEDUCTION 985 CH 7944
$660.03
$660.01
BETHESDA LUTHERAN HOME INC.
REFUND WATER BILL
$166.44
REFUND WATER BILL
$16.06
REFUND WATER BILL
$109.44
REFUND MATER BILL
$10.56
$302.50
BISHOP PLUMBING COMPANY
BOND REFUND
$75.00
$75.00
ALISE P. BOYLANO
REFUND WATER BILL
52.28
REFUND WATER BILL
5.22
$2.50
FRANCES BRICE
BOND REFUND
$100.00
5100.00
CITY TANK E PUMP
BOND REFUND
$100.00
i10u.00
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
PMT P/R 4/19
$224.25
$221.25*
COOK COUNTY TREASURER
AGENCY 07462 PMT OF CREDIT BAL
$21939.04
52e939.04n
JOHN OELKE
BOND REFUND
$75.00
$75.0+0
DIMUCCI BUILOERS, INC.
BOND REFUND
$253.84
$253.64
DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT
PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 4119190
$3431904.32
�
PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 4/19190
$19314.39
PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 4119190
$451.33
PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 4119/90
SZ99762.18
b3759432.2k
FIRESTONE
REFUND WATER BILL
$162.88
REFUND WATER BILL
$15.62
$178.50
FIRST NAT•L BANK OF MT. PROS.
DUE TO FED DEP PAY +4119/90
$99842.33
�
DUE TO FED DEP PAY 4119/90
$34.53
DUE TO FED DEP PAY 4119/90
$21276.81
DUE TO FED DEP PAY 4/19/90
$790.67
u
DUE TO FED DEP PAY 4/19/90
$100.55
$13,#044-89*
RONALD FUCHS
BOND RtFUNO
$100.00
$100.00
GRATE SIGNS
BOND REFUND
$100.00
$100.00
Z. HALICKI
BOND REFUND
$35.00
535.00
JACOB ISSEL
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
39.12
REFUND FINAL NATER BILL
$.88
$10.00
VENDOR
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
KEN JAGUS
ANDREA JUSLCZYK
J. KASTENS
KAUSHAAGEN CONST.
KOPKE CONSTRUCTION
R. KRUEGER
VICTORIA L. MARIN
MIDWEST REST. CONCEPTS, INC
MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY
OLYMPIC SIGNS, INC.
ON SIGHT SERVICES
PENSION DISBURSEMENTS
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
PIERCE BUILDERS
PRITSCHER S EKBACH INC.
LEO ROTELLI
ROYAL FUEL LIQUID ENERGIES INC
SERVICE MASTER OF PALATINE
STEVEN SMITH
STARCK RELOCATION
STATE OF ILLINOIS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
REFUND HLTH INS CONT
PMT PIR 4/19
BOND REFUND
BOND REFUND
BOND REFUND
BOND REFUND
REFUND FINAL MATER BILL
REFUND FINAL WATER SILL
VILLAGE STICKER REFUND
LIQUOR LICENSE REFUND
PPRT-3RD ALLOCATION
BOND REFUND
BOND REFUND
APRIL FIRE PENSION
APRIL POLICE PENSION
MISC EXPENSES
BOND REFUND
BOND REFUND
BOND RcFUNO
BOND REFUND
FUEL
BOND REFUND
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
LIQUOR APP RECORD CK
TRANSFER TO POLICE PENSION FUND
REINSPECTION FEE 05230
TRANSFER TO WATER FUND
TRANSFER TO TRUST FUND
TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND
REINSPitCTIUN FEE 04066
REINSPECTION FEE 05230
REINSPECTION FEE C5512
REINSPECTION FEE C5620
INVOICE AMOUNT
$6.8?
$254.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$75.00
$18.24
SL. 76
$20000
$L,SOO.00
$5,60 8.82
$100.00
$100.00
543,091.48
S 3 8, 8L 5.34
560.00
$50.00
$500.00
$100.00
$35.00
$8*846.67
$35.00
$22.80
$2.20
$20.52
$1.98
$30.00
$9.285.00
$46.16
$378.38
$492.10
$16 5.00
$75.00
$200.00
$50.00
$25.00
PAGE 2
TOTAL
$6.87*
$254.00*
$200.00
$LOO.00
$75.00
520.0(l
$20.00
$1+500.00
$5,608.82*
$100.00
3100.00
$81.906.82*
$6u.00*
S50.00
3500.00
$135.00
36,846.67*
$35.00
$25.0(
522.50
$30.00*
$9*285.00
`$424.54
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
GENERAL FUND $3629998.76
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $21#659.73
WATER E SEWER FUND $522,9376.76
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $6.87
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND $43.091.48
SSA 04 BUSSE-WILLE 8 E I $2,9939.04
MOTOR FUEL" TAX FUND $165.00
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $1'4*127.33
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $578.84
POLICE PENSION FUND $3898L5.34
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND $109590.53
REINSPECTION FEE C5909
$15.00
REINSPECTION FEE C6138
$25.00
REINSPECTION FEE C6714
$15.00
REINSPECTIUN FEE C6828
$25.00
REINSPECTION FEE C6887
'$25.00
REINSPECTION FEE C6899
S1S.00
REINSPECTIUN FEE 1110
$25.00
REINSPECTION FEE lilt
$25.DO
TRANSFER TO IMRF
$92.98
TRANSFER TO TRUST FUND
$80.00
TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND
$6,9372»25
TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND
S20,9000.00
TRANSFER, TO C08G
$3x861.74
TRANSFER TO IMRF
$244.79
TRAN5FE,Z TO IMRF
$51725.03
PCOD 10/10/90 FRFD49
$480*I40.00
1517#693.89*
VISU-SEWER CLEAN E SEALS INC.
SANITARY SEWER GROUTING
$1,9317.80
S1,9317.80
MICHAEL WILDER
BONO REFUND
325.00
$25.00
VEtDA WILLE
REFUND FINAL WATER BILI
$13.68
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.31
$15.00
LYNN WOODWARD
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$13.68
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.32
$15.01
STEVEN ZIOER
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$13.68
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.32
315.G
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
***TOTAL**
$19022#349.68
GENERAL FUND $3629998.76
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $21#659.73
WATER E SEWER FUND $522,9376.76
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $6.87
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND $43.091.48
SSA 04 BUSSE-WILLE 8 E I $2,9939.04
MOTOR FUEL" TAX FUND $165.00
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $1'4*127.33
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $578.84
POLICE PENSION FUND $3898L5.34
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND $109590.53
GENERAL FUND 52*U83.60
CABLE TV OPERATIONS
THE HERALD AO -P/ -T PROD SECRETARY 681.70 681.70
R.T. JENKINS M P NEWSLETTER DEW 5350.00 $350.00
MELANIE KRUPP BD MIG PROD CREW 4/24!90 $25.Ou $25.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 4
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION DIVISION
KARRISON• BYRNE♦ JANSEY E
ANNUAL AUDIT 4/30/90
S3,4ZO.00
$39420.00
PETTY CASA - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
541.03
541.03#
V L G PRINTERS INC.
LIQUOR LICENSE CERTIFICATES
5210.00
SZ10.00
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION DIVISION
***TOTAL"
539671.03
GENERAL FUND
63*671.03
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF AMHERST
BOOKLET
510.00
$10.00
DAVID M„ CLEMENTS
EXPENSE ADVANCE
6790.00
6790.004:
" PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
634.50
#
MISC EXPENSES
Si0.00
544.50#
RAFFERTY DISTRIBUTORS
ENVELOPES
$42.50
$42.50
SPEEDY MESSENGER SERVICE
DELIVERY
523.60
SZ3.60
V L G PRINTERS INC.
LETTERHEAD
$480.00
$480.00
VON BRIESEN AND PURTELLr S.C.
SERVICES RENDERED
$693.00
$693.00
VILLAGE MANAGERS OFFICE
###TOTAt**
i2: 083. 6t
GENERAL FUND 52*U83.60
CABLE TV OPERATIONS
THE HERALD AO -P/ -T PROD SECRETARY 681.70 681.70
R.T. JENKINS M P NEWSLETTER DEW 5350.00 $350.00
MELANIE KRUPP BD MIG PROD CREW 4/24!90 $25.Ou $25.00
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
BLAIR BUSINESS SERVICES* INC.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
$465.07
PAGE 5
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
$279.00
$744.1)0
I.B.M. CORPORATION
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
$189.00+
(
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CABLE TV OPERATIONS
GFOA CUNF EXPENSE
$600.00
$600.00
CAROLYN A. MILLER
8D MTG PROD CREW 4/10/90
$25.00
$25.00
PHYLLIS MOLIERE
BD MTG PROD CREW 4/24/90
$25.00
$25.00
APRIL RAJCLYK
00 MTG PROD CREW 4/17/90
$25.00
$25.00
JERRY RAJC2'YK
BD MTG PROD CREW 4/17/90
$25.00
$25.00
TASCHO SAEMS
80 MTG PROD CREW 4/10
$25.00
$25.00
CHRISTIAN SANBORN
EXPENSES
$155,.00
$15500-
THE TAPE COMPANY
VIDEO SUPPLIES
$555.50
$555..52
WHITE COLLAR SERVICES
TEMP HELP-NEWTSON
$368.70
$42.50
SPEEDY MESSENGER SERVICE
TEMP HELP-NEWTSON
$388.70
3777.40
CABLE TV OPERATIONS
DELIVERY
***TOTAL**
$2190b9.60
GENERAL FUND
$2*069.60
$398.56
$398.56
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
BLAIR BUSINESS SERVICES* INC.
TEMP HELP-BRANDT
$465.07
TEMP HELP-BRANOT
$279.00
$744.1)0
I.B.M. CORPORATION
MTCE-COMPUTERS E PRINTER
$189.00+
(
APRIL-MTCE COMPUTERS
$52400
$241.00
DAVID C. JEPSON
GFOA CUNF EXPENSE
$600.00
$600.00
PETTY CAS{ - FINANCE DEPT-.
MISC EXPENSES
$4.45
�
MISC EXPENSES
$3.57
1.8.02*
PRIORITY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
PROGRAMMING SERVICES -MARCH
$210.06
$210.00
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$5.64 -
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$47.83
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$7.38
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$67.80
$117.37
RAFFERTY DISTRIBUTORS
ENVELOPES
$42.50
$42.50
SPEEDY MESSENGER SERVICE
DELIVERIES
$20.60
DELIVERY
$7.30
$27.90
WALLACE COMPUTER SERVICES' INC
PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS
$398.56
$398.56
VENDOR
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL NUNO
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4126/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
S2r3d9.35
PAGE 6
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
***TOTAL** $29389.35
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
DELIVERY
$59.50
559.50
FLOWERS BY LARISSA
ARRANGEMENT
$30.00
ARRANGEMENT
$30.00
ARRANGEMENT
$40.00
$100.00
INTERNATIONAL AUDIO, INC.
TAPES
$110.06
$110.06
R.T. ,JENKINS
M P NEWSLETTER UEY
$1,300.00
$1*300.00
NATIONWIDE PAPERS
PAPER
$628.42
$628.42
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$193.44
$193.44
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
LEGAL RAGE
$48.75
LEGAL PAGE
$53.62
LEGAL PAGE
$53.62
LEGAL PAGE
$68.25
LEGAL PAGE
$97.50
LEGAL PAGE
$60.93
LEGAL PAGE
$92.62
LEGAL PAGE
$51.18
5526.47
RAFFERTY DISTRIBUTORS
ENVELOPES
$42.50
*42.50
SPEEDY MESSENGER SERVICE
DELIVERY
$23.60
523.60
'PILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
***TOTAL**
$2*983.99
GENERAL FUND
$tv9$3.99
VENDOR
RISK MANAGEMENT
BRROOKFI EL D
RANDY KLEMM
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
THOMAS J. PEKRAS
POSTMASTER
RISK MANAGEMENT
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
ADMIN FEES -APRIL
MED CLAIMS THRU 4/12f90
MEDICAL CLAIMS THRU 4/18/90
REIMb-MAILBOX POST
SAFETY :MAGAZINES
SERVICES RENOEREO-SCHWANDT
REIMBURSEMENT
POSTAGE -SAFETY MAGAZINE
$779817.79
PAGE 7
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
539502.85
EXPENSES
$22,7288.59
#
5511759.91
S77v551.35*
$10.69
Yi0.69
'57.76
$7.76
$191.00
$191.U0-
$10.57
$10.5
$46.42
$46.42*
***TOTAL** $77.8iT.79
************************************ ***************************************st***************vr******
INSPECTION SERVICES
WILLIAM L. AMUNOSEN
EXPENSES
$146.10
$146.10
EtEK-TEK• INC.
EQUIPME aT
$1'59.00 -
EQUIPMENT
$558.00
SUPPLIES
$212.00
SUPPLIES
6573.95
SOFTWARE
$520.00
EQUIPMENT
S239.OU
Si:943.95
ELGIN CLOTHING CENTER OF ELGIN
CLOTHING
Si15.80
$115.80
FAIRVIEW PRINTING SERVICE
FORMS
$224.00
TICKET ENVELOPES
$59.00
ENVELOPES
ST7.00
$360.00
IAMFES
MANUALS
512.00
'512.00
TEHA
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
$10.00
610.00
ILLINOIS PLUMBING INSP. ASSOC.
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
530.00
530.00
M114UTEMAN PRESS
REPORTS
$275.00
$275.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$267.34
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$625.32
$892.66
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 8
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TuTAt
INSPECTION S€RVICES
RAY O*HERRON CO.9 INC.
SUPPLIIES
$200.00
SUPPLIES
'5226.94
$426.94
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$19.73
MISC EXPENSES
£9.01
#
MISC EXPENSES
54.45
$33.19*
QUALEX9 INC.
PHOTO SUPPLIES
$4.5U
$4.50
ROBERT J. ROELS
EXPENSE ADVANCE
$130.00
$130.0f
THOMPSON ELEVATOR INSPECTION S
ELEVATOt INSPECTIONS
$850.00
5850.06
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EXTENS
REGISTRATION - REPAIR OF CONCRETE
$315.00
$375.00
XEROX CORP.
SERVICE CONTRACT
$36,90
SERVICE CONTRACT
$133.OU
SERVICE CONTRACT
$29.60
MTCE AGREEMENT 1035 COPIER
$175.43
S314.93
INSPECTION SERVICES
***TOTAL**
3599+30.07
GENERAL FUND
$59980.07
POLICE DEPARTMENT
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
MISC PAxTS
$68.24
MISC PARTS
$102.70
MISC AUTO PARTS
$9.83
MISC AUTO PARTS
$21.43
MISC AUTO PARTS
$112.30
MISC AUTO PARTS
5i16.18
PARTS
510.92
$441.60
BOWMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MISC AUTO PARTS
$98.25
$98.25
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
BH66-J"T-5422-A
$10.44
$10.44
COMPUTERLAND
PC C PRINTER
$29327.00
$2932T.OU
CURTI S 1000 INCORPORATED
ENVELOPE_ S
$144.40
REGISTRATION FORMS
$199.85
5384.25
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAG£ �?
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26190
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DES PLAINES OFFICE EQUIPMENT C
TYPEWRITERS
$869.93
TYPEWRITERS
$97.57
$967.50
EMERSON ROSS COMPANY
JACKET STAR
$31.84
$31.84
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
FRONT ENO ALIGNMENT
339.00
SERVICE
$39.00
SERVICE
$39.00
FIRES
$504.00
TIRES
$504.00
$1.125.00
MICHAEL J. GOY
EXPENSES
$12.15
$12.15
GREAT LAKES FIRE EQUIPMENT
SAFETY SUPPLIES
5840.00
SUPPLIES
582.50
SUPPLIE'i
$61.39
$983.89
H R HART PHOTO
'FILM PROCESSING
$124.56
$124.56
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
750 9 15 G
$134.30
5134.30
ILLINOIS BELL
COMPUTER STUDY OF CALLS
5100,00
$100.00
KALE UNIFORMS
BODY ARMOR
$915.00
$915.U0
KAR PRODUCTS INC
PARTS
$25.61
$25.61
KROCH'S E BKENTANO'S
ATLAS BOOKS
$55.45
355.45
LANIER WORLDWIDE* INC.
TONER
$361.83
$361.63
LATTOF CHEVROLET• INC.
PARTS
$90.96
PARTS
$106.32
PARTS
$90.42
PARTS
$39.00
PARTS
5114.38
PARTS
$89.95
15.11..05
LION PHOTO OF SCHAUMBURG
SUPPLIES
$29.85
SUPPLIES
513.08
$42.93
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS £ OFFIC
SUPPLIES
$27.95
SUPPLIES
X54.62
$82.57
LUND INDUSTRIES* INC.
SUPPLIES
369.50
$69.50
METROMEDIA PAGING SERVICES
PAGER RENTAL
$390.00
$390.00
JOE MITCHELL BUICK• INC.
APRIL CAR RENTAL
$100.00
$100.O0
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE EXPLORER
DONATION
$795.00
$795.00
MOUNT PROSPECT WHOLESALE AUTO
AUTO PAK TS-MAR 90
$164.2'9
5164.29
NAPA AUTO PARTS
MISC PARTS MARCH 90
$256.36
$256.36
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
COL VIDEOS E TEST GUIDES
$217.85
$227.45
VENDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
NATIONAL SHERIFFS* ASSOCIATION
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
RAY OOHERRON CO., INC.
OFFICE EQUIPMENT SALES CO.
OLD ORCHARD COUNTRY CLUB
P.AfC.C.
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
ERIC E. PIEE
POLICE EXEC. RESEARCH FORUM
POLICE LIABILITY REVIEW
PROSPECT BOARDING KENNEL
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
JOHN E. REID AND ASSOCIATES
ROBERT RIORDAN
SAVE -A -PET
THE SIGN CENTER. INC.
SOMAR ENTERPRISES
SOUTHERN POLICE INSTITUTE ALUM
STIPES PUBLISHING CO.
TCI OF ILLINOIS
THE TRAFFIC INSTITUTE
TRW INFORMATION SERVICES
UNITED COFFEE SERVICE, INC.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT UREA
VITAL RECORD BANC, INC.
WILSON CASE, INC.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE i0
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
SECURITY CHECKLISTS
$35.00
635.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$12.19
$12.19
PARTS
$81..57
SUPPLIES
(371.98
SUPPLIES
$463.15
SUPPLIES
s292.60
HANDCUFFS
$76.97
PARTS
s 13 272.66
PARTS
$560.00
63,118.43
UFFICL EQUIPMENT
$73.95
$73.95
RETIREMENT GIFT
1;468.00
$468.00
MEMBERSHIP-KRUCHTEN
$35.00
$35.00
TRAVE 6 SUPPLIES
$5.47
$5.47*
RADIO REPAIRS
$2v077.00
RADIO REPAIRS
$19531.OU
$3*608.00
MEMBERSHIP - PAVLOCK
s100.00
$100.00*
SUBSCRIPTION
$45.00
$45.00
STRAYS -MARCH 90
$447.00
$447.00
SUPPLIES
$61.62
SUPPLIES
$189.36
$250.98
TUITION-NICHOLSON
$450.00
$450.00
EXPENSES
124.00
$24.00
STRAYS -MARCH 90
$210.00
s210.00
STREET SIGNS
$10205.00
S1,205.0t
SUPPLIES
5521.08
SUPPLIES
$1.518.00
$2.039.08
TUITION-SALATINO
$995.00
6995.00
PUBLICATION
SIO -80
$1U.80
CABLE BILL
69.00
$9.00
MANUAL
$65.00
$55.00
SERVICES RENDERED
$3.25
$3.25
COFFEE SUPPLIES
S58.20
$58.20
TARGETS
$200.00
$200.00
MICROFILMING REPORTS
$2,070.43
$20070.43
KOT CASE
6100.00
S100-00
***TOTAL
S26,397.50
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 11
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $26*397.50
FIRE C EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
AAA TRAVEL AGENCY
DANIEL ACKERMAN
ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO.
ADVANCED ELECTRONIC
AMERITECH MOBILE COMMUNICATION
ARATEX AND MEANS SERVICES• INC
ARMSTRONG MEDICAL IND. INC.
BASIC FIRE PROTECTION INC.
BUC OM
CADRE
CALL -TECH INC
MATT CANNING
CENTRAL CONTINENTAL BAKERY
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COMMUNICATION SKILLS♦ INC.
CONTRACT BUILDERS HARDWAREvINC
CREST COMPUTER SUPPLY
DAMARK INTERNATIONALS INC-
DOLTON FIRE EQUIP SALES• INC.
DOUGLAS TRUCK PARTS
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
GREAT LAKES FIRE EQUIPMENT
H R HART PHOTO
AIRLINE TICKETS-OAWSON
$210.00
$210.UG
IL FIRE CHIEFS FOUNDATION
$125.00
EXPENSES
$50.00
$175.OI1
SLOG SUPPLIES
$10.20
$10.20
CELCULAR PHONES
$639.00
CELLULAR PHONES
$539.00
SIT178.00
APRIL SERVICE
$44.43
$44.43
1.3NEk SERVICE
$91.64
LINEN SERVICE
$131.51
LINEN SERVICE
181.24
5304.39
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
$517.36
$517.36
EXTINGUISHER REPAIR
$9.80
19.80
REPAIRS
$28.50
SERVICE
$53.25
$61.75
TRNG SUPPLIES
$50.00
$50.00
REPAIRS
$20.00
52u.u0
SOOTS
$39.75
$39.75
DONUTS
$54.00
554.0
BA77-3T-2404-A
38.57
$8»5
PUBLICATIONS
$146.75
5146.75
SUPPLIES
$37.56
$37.56
SUPPLIES
$23.49
$23.49
HANDHELD SCANNER
$156.49
$156.49
PARTS
$79.80
PARTS
$15.10
PARTS
$314.00
$408.90
PARTS
$4.55
54.55
REPAIRS
39.75
$9.75
3UPPL I ES
157.00
LIGHTS
$303.81
5360.81
SUPPLIES
$29.5u
$29.50
VILLAGE Of MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE '*/Z6/90
PAGE 12
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
FIRE 6 EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
HAGEN AUTO PAINT C SUPPLY
IGE, INCORPORATED
ILLINOIS BEtt TELEPHONE CO.
ILLINOIS FIRE INSPECTORS ASSN.
BRIAN IPSEN
CONNIE JACKSON
KALE UNIFORMS
GARY KLEIN
LOKt BUSINESS PRJUUCTS L OFFIC
MEDICAL PRODUCTS
METROMEO LABORATORIES• INC.
MIGHTY MITES AWARDS E SONS
MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS* INC.
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MOTOROLA CELLULAR SERVICE INC
MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS
MOTOROLA: INC.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES TRUST FUND
NATIONAL FIRE PRCT. ASSOC.
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSI
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
PAGE AMERICA
SUPPLIES
AIR HOSE
CYL RENTAL
575 9 I� G
Z44 9 15 G
244 9 15 G
PUBLICATION
SAFETY 6ROCHURES
IFSTA MANUALS
SUPPLIES
EXPENSES
CLOTHING SUPPLIES
UNIFJRM SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
OFFICE ;SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
BLCOU0 PRESSURE MONITOR
MEDICAL EXAM
FIRE PREV RIBBONS
SUPPLIES
BUSINESS CARDS
CELLULA:$ SERVICE 4/90
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
ADAPTOR E CABLE
SAFETY TAPES
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 800K
MEDICAL EXAMS
IN -STATION MAR E APRIL 90
OFFICE SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$192.15
$57.00
$249.15
$18.00
$18.00
$411.71
525.36
522.54
$459.61
569.75
$ 247.50
$179.00
$496.25
$228.00
$228.00
560.00
$60.00
$1.95
$144.45
$145.40
$30.58
530.58
$23.51
$249.00
540.65
5313.17
$ 348.56
$1,P7U1.07
$2:049.63
$16.00
$18.00
5250.00
5250.00
$138.07
1138.07
$152.00
$152.00
$23.59
SZ3.51
$8.00
SIi929.00
$261.25
52*218.25
S47.55
$47.55
$225.00
5225.00
$4€3.20
$48.20
$2*055.OJ
$29055.00
5264.34
5234.34
$32.07
$32.07
$34.13
'$27.30
520.48
$81.91
VENDOR
FIRE G EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
PHYSIO -CONTROL
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
QUICK PRINT PLUS: INC.
DOROTHY L. RECKLING
TRISTAR INDUSTRIES/AAA FASTEN.
RANDY UIDL
UNO-YEN PRODUCTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT UREA
VITAL RECORD dANC# INC.
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
GENERAL FUND
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 13
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/Z6/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
EKG PAPER
$68.00
S6E3.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
37.95 -
SENIOR TAXI RIDES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$389.15
ARVEY PAPER E SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$58.31
$439.51
SUPPLIES
$97.6G
$97.60
SERVICES RENDERED
$350.00
5350.00
SUPPLIES
$262.57
EL'K GROVE TAXI
SUPPLIES
$76.05
$26.55
SUPPLIES
$356.65
5695.27
SUPPLIES
$37.50
337.50
GASOLINE
$218.00
$218.00
TRNG-JUL I AND
525.00
53u.54
INSTRUCTOR II COURSE
$25.00
$50.00
MICRJFILMING RECORDS
$270.00
$270#00
***TOTAL** $15#731.70
$12#670.41 CAPITAL IMPRV. & REPL. FUND $3#061.29
AMERICAN TAXI CO.VINC.
SENIOR TAXI RIDES
$411.00
SENIOR TAXI RIDES
$457.50
$868.50
ARVEY PAPER E SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$77.1Z
OFFICE SUPPLIES
353.96
$131.08
CENTER FOR APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
PUBLICATION
$40.25
$40.25
EL'K GROVE TAXI
SENIOR TAXI RIDES
526.55
$26.55
JUDY FELL
REIMB-SUPPLIES
$182.41
$182.41
MARGARET FLOREY
REIMS-CJNT OF CARE COW
$85.00
585.00
ILLINOIS SELL TELEPHONE CO.
339 v 3G S
330.54
53u.54
KEEFER°S PHARMACY
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
$196.90
$196.90
VENDOR
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
NATIONAL ASSN. OF SOCIAL WORKS
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OMNI YOUTH SERVICES
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
THE RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE EL
SCIENTIFIC SUPPLY CO.
SPRINGHOUSE BOOK CO.
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
GENERAL FUND
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
VILLAGE Of MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCUUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
MEMf5ERSHIP RENEWAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES
FINAL PMT -BUDGET ALLOC
MISC EXPENSES
2ND E 3R O 3UDGET ALLOC
FINAL PMT-13UDGET ALLOC
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
PUBLICATION
$29941.83
PAGE 14
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
$67.0+0
667.00
$83.06
563.06
$250.00
SZ50.00
$64.59
$64.58*
s 500.00
$760.0$1
$250.00
$750.00
549.26
$50.01
$98.40
5146.6b
s19.30
$19.30
***TOTAL** 529941.83
GOLDEN CORRIDOR
REGISTRATION-FRITZ
$40.00
%40.00
GSU/THE INSTITUTE
WORKSHOP
$150.00
$150.00#
KARRISON9 BYRN£9 JANSEY E
ANNUAL AUDIT 4/30/90
%?60.00
$760.0$1
MICHAEL J. MORAN
CDBG 32 JUDITH ANN OR
$50.00
$50.01
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
577.75
%77.75
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
LEGAL PAGE
$63.37
$63.37
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$12.44
si2.42#
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$31.5U
$31.50
SUBURBAN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE C
SERVICES RENDERED 3/90
$1e133.33
$19133.33
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
***TOTAL-**
$29318.37
GENERAL FUND
'Ss11.6T COMMUNITY DEVLPHT
BLOCK GRANT
$29006.70
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 15
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE
4/26/90
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
STREET DIVISION
ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO.
MISC BLDG SUPPLIt-S
3/90
$57.89
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES
3/90
$10.02
MISC BLJG SUPPLIES
3/90
$4.49
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES
3/90
$12.39
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES
3/90
$153.36
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES
3/90
$61.46
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES
3/90
$57.93
$357.5'
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
MISC PARTS
$124.36
MISC PARTS
$22„06
MISC PARTS
$11.51
MISC AUTO PARTS
3t9.09
MISC AUTO PARTS
$116.19
$293.21
ALLEN TESTPROOUCTS
PARTS
31€32.44
$102.44
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
LOCK SERVICE
$28,22
LOCK SERVICE
$42.47
570.619
ARLINGTON HIS CAMERA
FILM PROCESSING
$14.50
$14.50
AUTO TRUCK* INC.
SUPPLIES
$225.00
$225.00
BOWMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MISC AUTO PARTS
MISC AUTO PARTS
$49.34
MISC AUTO SUPPLIES
$210.82
MISC AUTO PARTS
$119.04
MISC AUTO PARTS
$60.00
MISC AUTO PARTS
$211.56
$792.81
BRISTOL HOSE 8 FITTING
PARTS
$19.26
$19.26
BUCKERIDGE DOOR CU.
SERVICES RENDERED
552,.00
PARTS E SERVICE
$64.10
$116-10
BUSSE CAR WASH* INC.
VEH WASH
$34.50
$34.50
CADE INDUSTRIES
SUPPLIES
$159.00
SUPPLIES
$147.00
SUPPLIES
$405.00
$711.00
CENTURY LABS/PRO CLEAN* INC.
SUPPLIES
$100.00
$106.00
CHAMPION SALES CORP.
OIL
$380.90
$380.90
CLS UNIFORM RENTALS
UNIFORM SERVICE
$79-45
UNIFORM SERVICE
$17.03
UNIFORM SERVICE
374.94
UNIFORM SERVICE
$17.53
$188.35
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 16
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
STREET DIVISION
COMMODORE MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS
CLNG SERVICE
51,836.00
31:.836.00
BARRY EISEN
TOOL ALLOWANCE
$240.03
T240.OU
TIM ERLER
REIHB-SAFETY SHOES
$48.14
348.14
FINISHMASTER, INC.
MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES
$41.87
MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES
$133.83
MISC. AUT 0 PAINT SUPPLIES
$50.41
MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES
$7.20
MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES
$38.50
MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES
313.71-
5258.10
FOREST TREE SERVICE♦ INC.
PKWY TREE TRIMMING
53,0846.36
PKWY TREE TRIMMING
$1,592.96
PKWY TREE TRIMMING
$39210.84
PKWY TREE TRIMMING
$665.00
$8,555.16
THE GLIDDEN COMPANY
MISC PAINT SUPPLIES
34.62
MISC PAINT SUPPLIES
$91.32
$95.94
ANDY GOMEZ
SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
DSERVICE
$41.00
$41.00
.LAMES E. GUENTHER
TOOL ALLOWANCE
$240.00
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
$200.00
$440.00
DON HANSEN
REIMD-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
E5j.Oo
I.B.M. CORPORATION
MTCE AGREEMENT SVC
$44.41
$44.41
IST, INC.
PARTS
%13.I2
PARTS
(124.56
$137.6F
ILLINI POWER PRODUCTS COMPANY
PARTS
146.23
$146.2.
ILLINOIS LAWN EQUIPMENT INC.
EQUIPMENT PARTS
$29.64
$29.64
ITEC
SUPPLIES
$35.47
SUPPLIES
$500.00
$535.47
K & A STUDIOS
SIGNS
5496.00
5496.00
LASER SALES
SUPPLIES
$56.00
$56.00
LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC.
PARTS
$48.56
PARTS
"0.04
$68.60
LEWIS EQUIPMENT CO.
DECAL
$6.36
$6.36
JOHN MARK
REIMtB-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
TOOL ALLOWANCE
SIZO.O0
$170.00
MARTIN IMPLEMENT SALES, INC.
SUPPLIES
51,614.78
$1,614.78
MEDICAL PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES
3111.2{3
$111.20
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 17
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/26/90
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TUTAL
STREET DIVISION
MEYER MATERIAL CO.
CEMENT
$120.00
LIMESTONE SCREENINGS
560.18
$180.L8
MINOLTA BUT;INESS SYSTEMSv INC.
SUPPLItS
$96.81
SUPPLIES
$3.19
$100.00
MORAN EQUIP14ENT CORP.
PARTS
$35.72
#35.72
MORTON GROVE AUTOMOP;VE
REPAIRS
$35.00
$35.00_
MOTOROLA• INC.
REPAIRS
$271.50
MOUNT PROSPECT WHOLESALE AUTO
AUTO PARTS -MAR 90
$394.00
AUTO PARTS -MAR 90
$1.45
$395.45
NAPA AUTO PARTS
MISC PARTS MARCH 90
3679.56
MISC PARTS MARCH 90
525.09
$704.65
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$1.00
51.00#
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL 6 SUPPLIES
SZ1.75
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
$38.60
TRAVEL E SUPPLIES
58.71
TRAVEL_ E SUPPLIES
51.90
TRAVE £ SUPPLIES
343.88
#
TRAVE L SUPPLIES
57.50
#
TRAVE E SUPPLIES
529.37
#
TRAVE E SUPPLIES
$29.92
#
TRAVEL E EXPENSES
$6.00
#
TRAVEL E. EXPENSES
$9.2b
TRAVEL 6 EXPENSES
$4.19
TRAVEL L EXPENSES
$130.73
$331.81.
JOHN POHLMANN
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
POLLARD MOTOR COMPANY
RADIO
5123.79
$123.79
PORTABLE TOOL SALES
EQ UIPMEw T
$1v775.00
$1.775.00
POWER DYNAMICS INC.
VALVE
$354.00
5354.00
PROSAFETY
FIRST-AIU SUPPLIES
$385.57
3385.57
RAINBOW i HR PHOTO EXP.
FILL! E PROCESSING
$14.40
FILM E PROCESSING
$IO.19
FILM E PROCESSING
SIO -49
$35.08
RAINEY*S-ON-ARTHUR
PAINT
$20.75
520.75
SCOTT RILEY
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
DAVID RISTOW
TOOL ALLOWANCE
$240.00
5240.00
JAMES RORAY
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
350.00
$50.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 18
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4126/90
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
STREET DIVISION
ROSEMONT BUILDING G SUPPLY CO.
MISC ftLOG SUPPLIES
$58.64
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES
$501.60
35b0.L4
JOHN ROSSBACH
REIMB-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
'550.00
SCHUSTER EQUIPMENT COMPANY
PARTS
$12.74
$12.74
MICHAEL SCHWEIGER
RE1,43-SAFETY SHOES
$49.60
$44.60
SHEPP PEST CONTROL
SERVICE APRIL 90
$40.00
SERVICE APRIL 90
$40.00
SERVICE APRIL 90
$40.0U
SERVICE APRIL 90
$40.00
SERVICE APRIL 90
$40.00
SERVICE APRIL 90
$40.00
$140.00
JOEL STRZELCLYK
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
JOSEPH SZAFRAN
FOUL ALLOWANCE
S15.0U
$15.00
TECH SYN CORPORATION
PARTS
$17.58
PARTS
ST$.67
$96.25
CLIFF THIELITZ
REIMB-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50*00
VERMEER-ILLINOIS
PARTS
$1-9422.93
PARTS
$196.39
$1x619.32
VISU-SEWER CLEAN 6 SEAL, INC.
SEWER GROUTING
$29,700.00
52,700.00
WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS
PARTS
$107.20
PARTS
$259.87
$367.07
WEST SIDE TRACTOR SALES
PARTS
$104.89
PARTS
$9.28
PARTS
$9.50
PARTS
$61.07
$164.74
HENRY WUJTANEK
REIMB-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
STREET DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$299542.32
GENERAL FUND
3279767.32 CAPITAL
IMPRV. E REPL. FUND
$1-9775.00
VENDOR
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO.
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
KURT ASPEN
AUTOMATIC CONTROL SERVICES
BADGER METER INC
BOWMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER
BUSSE CAR WASH* INC.
CADE INDUSTRIES
JOSE CASTRO
CENTURY LABS/PRO CLEANS INC.
CHICAGO SUBURBAN TIMES NEWSPAP
CLS UNIFORM RENTALS
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
R. L. CORTY E COMPANY
FRANK DELUCA
ROBERT DOOLITTLE
E C E HAULING* INC.
G C EISENHAUER C SONS INC
THE FILM LIBRARY
H -B -K WATER METER SERVICE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT HATE 4/26/90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES 3/90
MISC BLDG SUPPLIES 3/90
LOCK SERVICE
REIMB-SAFETY SHOES
SERVICES RENDERED
MTCE SERVICE
METERS
METERS
METERS
FINAL PMT -METERS
MISC AUTO PARTS
VEH WASH
SUPPLIES
REIMB-SAFETY SHOES
TOOL ALLOWANCE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
HYDRANT FLUSHING NOTICE
UNIFORM SERVICE
UNIFORM SERVICE
UNIFORM SERVICE
UNIFURM SERVICE
BJSO-JT-23598
BH67-JT-1310-A
BBTZ-JT-5608-0
CLEANING SUPPLIES
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
DUMPING CHGS
DUMPING CHGS
INSTALL BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
SAFETY FILM
CR -MATERIAL
WATER METER LABOR
WATER METER LABOR
WATER METER -MATERIAL
INVOICE AMOUNT
1170.19
$59.35
328.21
$35.30
$222.40
$550.00
$607.50-
$456.75-
$2,4t42.50 607.50-
$456.75-
$2*442.50
$249115.00
$89.58
(29.50
$159.00
150.00
$240. 00
5425.51
(44.33
$,+8.10
179.44
$17.03
$74.95
$17.51
$59949.51
$57-04
$170.57
5440.00
$50.00
$50.00
$226.00
$165.20
139410.00
$81.00
3206.39-
E I11. 18
$222.35
5116.13
PAGE 19
TU T AL
$229.54
$28.21
$35. 30
$772.40
i
$259.493.25
$119.58
$29.50
$159.00
$290.00
$469.8f►
$49.10
1188.94
$5x949.5
3217.61
$440.00
$50.00
150.00
$391.ZU
139410.00
$81.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 2U
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4!26/90
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
WATER Mt TER LABOR
$266.82
WATERT METER -MATERIAL
$53.91
WATER METER EXCHANGE
$34.38
WATER METER LABOR
$177.88
WATER METER LABOR
$177.88
WATER METER LABOR
$266.82
WATER METER -MATERIAL
$10.66
WATER METER EXCHANGE
$412.56
WATER METER LABOR
$133.41
WATER METER LABOR
$155.65
HATER METER MATERIAL
$161.16
WATER METER LABOR
$133.41
WATER METER EXCHANGES
SZU6.28
WATER METER LABOR
$155.65
WATER METER MATERIAL
S16T.85
WATER METER EXCHANGES
$68.76
WAtER METER EXCHANGE
$34.38
WATER METER LABOR
$iI1.18
52e981.91
I.B.M. CORPORATION
MTCE-COMPUTERS C PRINTER
$189.00
MTLE AGREEMENT SVC
544.40
APRIt.-MTCE COMPUTERS
$52.00
$28i.40
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO*
424 9 15 B
$30.63
660 9 15 B
$37.04
153 9. 15 G
$17."
575 9 15 G
$16.80
303 9 3G S
526.62
338 9 15 G
$17.76
155 9 15 G
$20.46
$166.75
ILLINOIS TELEPHONE SERVICE COM
SERVICE
$499.07
$499.07
KARRISONV BYRNEs JANSEY S
ANNUAL AUDIT 4/"30/90
$3x420.00
53;420.00
LEE CAMERA SERVICE
REPAIRS -PROJECTOR
$55.00
$55.00
DONALD LEHNERT
REIMO-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
JOHN MARK
TOOL ALLOWANCE
5120.00
$120,.00
.TERRY MCINTOSH
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
550.00
$50.00
MEDICAL PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES
3111.20
$ii1:20
ISAURO MEDINA
REIMS -SAFETY SHOES
550.00
150.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 21
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4126190
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMST INC.
SUPPLIES
$136.81
$166.81
MOHAAK STAMP COMPANY♦ INC.
RUBBER $TAMP
$4.20
$4.20
MOTOROLA CELLULAR SERVICE INC
CELLULAR SERVICE MARCH 90
$28.16
$28.16
MOTOROLAv INC.
REPAIRS
$330.00
REPAIRS
$78.50
$403.50
NAPA AUTO PARTS
MISC PARTS MARCH 90
$6.39
$6.31
NATIONAL GUARDIAN SECURITY SER
ALARM SERVICE CHG
$25.00
$C'5.0f
NET MIDWEST* INC.
SERVICES RENDEREu
$102.50
SERVICES RENDERED
$10.00
3}12.50
MIKE NEURURER
REIMS SAFETY SHOES
350.00
$50.00
JIM NORDIN
REIMB-SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
1818 1/2 BONITA OR
$131.12
L17 N WAVERLY
$94.25
NS KENSINGTON 1E RAND
545.89
112 E HIGHLAND AVE
$209.07
$430.33
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
LEGAL NOTICE
$63.37
LEGAL NOTICE
$20.00
LEGAL NOTICE
$2U.OU
LEGAL NOTICE
$20.00
LEGAL NOTICE
$20.00
LEGAL NOTICE
SZO.00
LEGAL NOTICE
$20.00
$183.37
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$}05.00
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$.85
TRAVE E SUPPLIES
3.10
TRAVE & SUPPLIES
$75.67
sa
TRAVE E SUPPLIES
$5.35
s
TRAVEL E EXPENSES
$7.17
TRAVEL E EXPENSES
$13.62
TRAVEL E EXPENSES
$25.66
$233.42*
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE-WATER BILLS
$424.77
$424.77*
PROSAFETY
FIRST-AID SUPPLIES
$385.56
$385.56
JAMES RORAY
TOOL ALLOWANCE
3240.00
$240.00
STO-AWAY POWER CRANES
SUPPLIES
$11,80
SLL.30
JOSEPH SZAFRAN
TOOL ALLOWANCE
$15.00
$15.00
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
SUPPLIES
5565.00
5565.30
VENDOR
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
Z£EBELt WATER SERVICE PRODUCTS
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
WATER E SEWER FUND
VILLAGE Of MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4%26!90
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
PARTS
349*917.62
PAGE 22
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
$304.50 63(;4.50
***TOTAL** $49e91T.62
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
CADE INDUSTRIES SUPPLIES 5928.50 $923.50
COMMODORE MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS CLNG SEFVICE $140.00 $140.00
COMMONWEALTH EDISON BH66-JT-0498-A $21 67
BH66-JT- 3710-A
3H66 -JT- 52bZ-A
BH66-,JT- 5266-C
BH 68- J T- 7 498- A
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WATEtt E SEWER
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
.
$8.57
$167.35
$157.22
$21.67 5396.48
317.50 517.50
***TOTAL** $1!482.48
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
$1.4dZ.48
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$26.49
$25.49
SNAP HARDWARE* INC.
RECYCLING CARTS
5+41.40
$41.40
UNI -LABEL E TAG
LABELS
5240.02
5240.02
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION
**#fOTAL**
5307.91
VILLAGE Of MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 23
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4/Z6190
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVCLCE AMOUNT TUTAL
GENERAL FUND f,301.91
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
EDWARD J. MOLLOY AND ASSOC.LTD SERVICES RENDERED $3x015.oU $39015.UO-
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ***TOTAL** 5'31015.00
GENERAL FUND 339015.00
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
COMMONWEALTH EDISON 8G21 -JT -1838-A $53.94
OH67-JT-3858-8 322.05 $75.99
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES ***TOTAL** 575.99
GENERAL FUND $75.99
GEST SERVICE FUNDS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ft_W U LOAN INTEREST 05/l/90 $751.65
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
FLOOD LOAN PRINCIPAL D5/1190 32e892.0i 53x643.73
***TOTAL** $39643.73
VILLAGE Of MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 24
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 4fZ6I90
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TUTAL
FLOOD LOAN 8 6 I $3#643.73
ALL DEPARTMENTS TOTAL $1*254v719.56
DATE RUN 4/26/9+3 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 25
TIME RUN L5.55.37 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL LISTING IU-APPOAR
SUMfOARY BY FUND 4/Z6/9O
NO. FUND NAME
AMOUNT
1
GENERAL FUND
$455*664.03
22
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$165.00
23
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$23*666.43
24
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
319*127.33
4L
MATER E SEWER FUND
$572*294.33
46
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
E2*06L.32
49
RISS( MANAGEMENT FUND
$77*824.66
51
CAPITAL IMPRV. E REPL. FUND
$4*836.29
71
POLICE PENSION FUND
$38*815.34
72
FIREMEN•S PENSION FUND
S43:091.48
74
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND
S10*590.53
89
SSA 04 BUSSE-WILLS 8 E I
$29939.04
95
FLOOD LOAN `3 G 1
$3.643.73
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
$1*254*719.56
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, a strong, effective system of education for all
children and youth is essential to our democratic system
of government; and
WHEREAS, the United States and Illinois have made
considerable progress in the social, technological and
scientific fields due to our system of education; and
WHEREAS, much of this progress can be attributed to the
qualified and dedicated teachers entrusted with the
educational development of our children to their full
potential; and
WHEREAS, teachers should be accorded high public esteem,
reflecting the value the community places on education;
and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that teachers be recognized
for their dedication and commitment to educating their
students;
THEREFORE, I, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village of
Mount Prospect, hereby proclaim May 6-12, 1990, TEACHER
APPRECIATION WEEK in Mount Prospect, Illinois, and urge
all citizens to pay tribute to our teachers.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 1st day of May, 1990
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the State of Illinois is a leader in supporting
safety programs at rail/highway grade crossings; and
WHEREAS, 374 rail/highway grade crossing accidents over
the past year have resulted in 70 persons killed and
another 168 injured in the State of Illinois; and
WHEREAS, many of these accidents could have been
prevented by increased public awareness of crossing
dangers and applicable driving safety laws; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 1990, and throughout the year
following, all citizens ae encouraged to use added
caution when approaching grade crossings; and
WHEREAS, this important observance should lead to greater
safety awareness and a reduction in rail highway grade
crossing accidents;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village
of Mount Prospect, do hereby proclaim May 15, 1990 as
ILLINOIS OPERATION LIFESAVER AWARENESS DAY and encourage
all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the
elimination of grade crossing accidents which account for
needless injuries and loss of life.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
K1YQQ*P*1M
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this ist day of May, 1990
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it is believed that 90% of fire deaths in
Illinois could be prevented with the installation of
smoke detectors and proper home escape plans for every
residence; and
WHEREAS, to achieve that goal, the office of the State
Fire Marshal and organizations of Fire chiefs, Fire
Inspectors and Firefighters have joined together in a
state-wide program to make the public more aware of the
advantages that property placed smoke detectors can give;
and;
WHEREAS, the Mount Prospect Firefighters work diligently
to reduce those horrendous fire deaths and property
losses through prevention, public education and
suppression; and
WHEREAS, the Mount Prospect Fire Department,
Rouse/Randhurst, Inc., and neighboring fire departments
will once again host the CHILDREN'S FIRE SAFETY FESTIVAL
WEEK at the Randhurst Shopping Center May 7 through May
11, 1990, at which time children of all ages will be
encouraged to learn and participate in proper fire
survival techniques.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village
of Mount Prospect, do hereby proclaim the week of May 7
through May 13, 1990 as CHILDREN'S FIRE SAFETY FESTIVAL
WEEK.
I call upon our citizens individually, and as a
community, to actively support their firefighters in
their efforts to reduce fire deaths, -injuries and
property loss. I also urge the news media and other
public information officers to join in the recognition
and encourage participation in this event .
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 1st day of May, 1990
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the development of this nation's democracy was
recorded by conscientious Municipal clerks, a position
that has evolved with our government and continues to
exist as a vital and necessary office; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks in today's modern society act
as liasons between the people and their elected
officials; and
WHEREAS, with their roots deep in the democratic system,
Municipal clerks nationwide steadfastly meet the
challenges that lie ahead for local government; and
WHEREAS, these dedicated officials undertake a variety
of administrative, information, and human services which
are vital to an effective and responsible government at
the local level; and
WHEREAS, in their recordkeeping capacity, Municipal
Clerks are in constant close contact with the citizenry,
and their performance strongly influences the public's
image of local government; and
WHEREAS, this body is clearly aware of the vital and
comprehensive services the Municipal Clerk performs for
the citizens of the Village of Mount Prospect,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village
of Mount Prospect, do recognize the week of May 6 through
May 12, 1990 as MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK in Mount Prospect,
and further extend appreciation to all Municipal Clerks
for the vital services they perform and their exemplary
dedication to the communities they represent.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 1st day of May, 1990
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION QL413: That Subsection A of Section 13, 107 of Chapter 13 of the Village
Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by
increasing the number of Class "W' liquor licenses by one (1) (Taqueria Fiesta, 1802
South Elmhurst Road), 100 East Rand Road), so that hereafter said Subsection A of
Section 13.107 of Chapter 13 shall be and read as follows:
Section 13.107, Nimber of Licen5gs:
Three (3)
Class A Licenses
Two (2)
Class B Licenses
Ten (10)
Class C Licenses
One (1)
Class D License
Two (2)
Class E Licenses
One (1)
Class G License
One (1)
Class H License
One (1)
Class M License
Two (2)
Class P Licenses
Fifteen (15)
Class R Licenses
Eleven (11)
Class S licenses
One (1)
Class T License
Ten (10)
Class W Licenses
SEMON 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:
PASSED and APPROVED this
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
day of , 1990.
Village President
Class
Establishment
N..... umbo
A
McBride's; Midwest Liquors; Mrs. P & Me
3
B
Snuggery Pub; Ye Olde Town Inn
2
C
Bolzano liquors; Dominick's (83 & Golf);
Foremost Liquors; Gold Eagle liquors; The
Liquor Shoppe; Mt. Prospect Liquors: Osco
Drugs; Phar -Mor; Walgreens (83 and Golf);
Walgreens (Mt. Prospect Plaza)
10
D
Prospect Moose Lodge
1
E
Bristol Court Banquet Hall; Mr. Peter's
Banquet Hall
2
G
Mount Prospect Park District -Golf Course
I
H
Zanie's
1
M
Holiday Inn
1
P
Arlington Club Beverage; Shimada Shoten
2
R
Artemis; DJB Brunetti; Edwardo's; Fellini;
Giordano's; Golden Nugget; House of Szechwan;
Izakaya Sankyo; Little America; Pepe's;
Sakura; Shin Jung; Sunrise; Torishin;
Yasuke
15
S
Carlisle; Charlie Club; El Sombrero; Evans;
Jake's Pizza; Kampai; Old Orchard -Greenview;
O'Neil's Sports Cafe; Reunion; Sam's Place;
Second Dynasty
11
T
Thunderbird Lanes
1
W
Mickey's Diner; Mr. Beef & Pizza; Pete's
Sandwich Palace; Photo's Hot Dogs; Pizza Hut
(Algonquin Rd); Pizza Hut (Euclid); Rosati's
Pizza; Sizzler; Taqueria Fiesta; Wag's
10
60
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
5ECTION ONE: That Subsection A of Section 13, 107 of Chapter 13 of the Village
Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by
decreasing the number of Class "W' liquor licenses by one (1) (Sizzler Restaurant, 110
East Rand Road), so that hereafter said Subsection A of Section 13.107 of Chapter 13
shall be and read as follows:
ction 13,107, Number of Licen
Tbree (3)
Class A Licenses
Two (2)
Class B Licenses
Ten (10)
Class C Licenses
One (1)
Class D License
Two (2)
Class E Licenses
One (1)
Class G License
One (1)
Class H License
One (1)
Class M License
Two (2)
Class P Licenses
Fifteen (15)
Class R Licenses
Eleven (11)
Class S Licenses
One (1)
Class T License
Nine (9)
Class W Licenses
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in fall force and effect from and after
its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
PASSED and APPROVED this
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
day of
Village President
1990.
Class
Establishment
Number
A
McBride's; Midwest Liquors; Mrs. P & Me
3
B
Snuggery Pub; Ye Olde Town Inn
2
C
Bolzano Liquors; Dominick's (83 & Golf);
Foremost Liquors; Gold Eagle Liquors; The
Liquor Shoppe; Mt. Prospect Liquors: Osco
Drugs; Phar-Mor; Walgreens (83 and Golf);
Walgreens (Mt. Prospect Plaza)
10
D
Prospect Moose Lodge
1
E
Bristol Court Banquet Hall; Mr. Peter's
Banquet Hall
2
G
Mount Prospect Park District-Golf Course
1
H
Zanie's
1
M
Holiday Inn
1
P
Arlington Club Beverage; Shimada Shoten
2
R
Artemis; DJB Brunetti; Edwardo's; Fellini;
Giordano's; Golden Nugget; House of Szechwan;
Izakaya Sankyu; Little America; Pepe's;
Sakura; Shin Jung; Sunrise; Torishin;
Yasuke
15
S
Carlisle; Charlie Club; El Sombrero; Evans;
Jake's Pizza; Kampai; Old Orchard-Greenview;
O'Neil's Sports Cafe; Reunion; Sam's Place;
Second Dynasty
11
T
Thunderbird Lanes
1
W
Mickey's Diner; Mr. Beef & Pizza; Pete's
Sandwich Palace; Photo's Hot Dogs; Pizza Hut
(Algonquin Rd); Pizza Hut (Euclid); Rosati's
Pizza; Taqueria Fiesta, Wag's
9
59
'A] 40)11 ", ill
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SEMON ONE: That Subsection A of Section 13, 107 of Chapter 13 of the Village
Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by
decreasing the number of Class "R" liquor licenses by one (1) (Golden Nugget
Restaurant, 1800 South Elmhurst Road), so that hereafter said Subsection A of Section
13.107 of Chapter 13 shall be and read as follows:
M11 �1�11 0 - .
Three (3)
Class A Licenses
Two (2)
Class B Licenses
Ten (10)
Class C Licenses
One (1)
Class D license
Two (2)
Class E Licenses
One (1)
Class G license
One (1)
Class H License
One (1)
Class M License
Two (2)
Class P licenses
Fourteen (14)
Class R Licenses
Eleven (11)
Class S licenses
One (1)
Class T License
Nine (9)
Class W Licenses
SEC DQN 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:
111:33
PASSED and APPROVED this
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
day of
Village President
1990.
Class
Esahlishment
Number
A
McBride's; Midwest liquors; Mrs. P & Me
3
B
Snuggery Pub; Ye Olde Town Inn
2
C
Bolzano liquors; Dominick's (83 & Golf);
Foremost liquors; Gold Eagle Liquors; The
Liquor Shoppe; Mt. Prospect liquors: Osco
Drugs; Phar-Mor; Walgreens (83 and Golf);
Walgreens (Mt. Prospect Plaza)
10
D
Prospect Moose Lodge
1
E
Bristol Court Banquet Hall; Mr. Peter's
Banquet Hall
2
G
Mount Prospect Park District-Golf Course
1
H
Zanie's
1
M
Holiday Inn
1
P
Arlington Club Beverage; Shimada Shoten
2
R
Artemis; DJB, Brunetti; Edwardo's; Fellini;
Giordano's; House of Szechwan;
Izakaya Sankyu; little America; Pepe's;
Sakura; Shin Jung; Sunrise; Torishin;
Yasuke
14
S
Carlisle; Charlie Club; El Sombrero; Evans;
Jake's Pizza; Karnpai; Old Orchard-Greenview;
O'Neil's Sports Cafe; Reunion; Sam's Place;
Second Dynasty
11
T
Thunderbird Lanes
1
W
Mickey's Diner; Mr. Beef & Pizza; Pete's
Sandwich Palace; Photo's Hot Dogs; Pizza Hut
(Algonquin Rd); Pizza Hut (Euclid); Rosati's
Pizza; Taqueria Fiesta, Wag's
9
58
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION QNE-, That Subsection A of Section 13, 107 of Chapter 13 of the Village
Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended by
decreasing the number of Class "S" liquor licenses by one (1) (Charlie Club Fun &
Fitness Center, 501 Midway Drive), so that hereafter said Subsection A of Section 13.107
of Chapter 13 shall be and read as follows:
MWIDYANOTMOMM
Three (3)
Class A Licenses
Two (2)
Class B Licenses
Ten (10)
Class C Licenses
One (1)
Class D License
Two (2)
Class E Licenses
One (1)
Class G license
One (1)
Class H License
One (1)
Class M License
Two (2)
Class P licenses
Fourteen (14)
Class R Licenses
Ten (10)
Class S Licenses
One (1)
Class T License
Nine (9)
Class W Licenses
SECDON 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:
PASSED and APPROVED this
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
day of
F:
Village President
1990.
Class
Establishmen,J
Numbe
A
McBride's; Midwest Liquors; Mrs. P & Me
3
B
Snuggery Pub; Ye Olde Town Inn
2
C
Bolzano Liquors; Dominick's (83 & Golf);
Foremost Liquors; Gold Eagle Liquors; The
Liquor Shoppe; Mt. Prospect Liquors: Osco
Drugs; Phar-Mor; Walgreens (83 and Golf);
Walgreens (Mt. Prospect Plaza)
10
D
Prospect Moose Lodge
1
E
Bristol Court Banquet Hall; Mr. Peter's
Banquet Hall
2
G
Mount Prospect Park District-Golf Course
1
H
Zanie's
1
M
Holiday Inn
1
P
Arlington Club Beverage; Shimada Shoten
2
R
Artemis; DJB Brunetti; Edwardo's; Fellini;
Giordano's; House of Szechwan;
Izakaya Sankyu; Little America; Pepe's;
Sakura; Shin Jung; Sunrise; Torishin;
Yasuke
14
S
Carlisle; El Sombrero; Evans; Jake's Pizza;
Kampai; Old Orchard-Greenview; O'Neil's Sports
Cafe; Reunion; Sam's Place; Second Dynasty
10
T
Thunderbird Lanes
1
W
Mickey's Diner; Mr. Beef & Pizza; Pete's
Sandwich Palace; ,Photo's Hot Dogs; Pizza Hut
(Algonquin Rd); Pizza Hut (Euclid); Rosati's
Pizza; Taqueria Fiesta, Wag's
9
57
Village of C,_,,cunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM"
TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 23, 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CLASS .S LIQUOR LICENSE -
WILD STALLIONS CAFE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS O'NEIL'S
SPORTS CAFE), 303 EAST KENSINGTON
I met with the owner of the establishment, Mrs. Cynthia Pontarelli, who presently lives
in Harwood Heights and is contemplating moving in to the Village of Mount Prospect.
Mrs. Pontarelli indicated to me that she and her husband have 15 and 20 years
respectively experience in working in restaurants. Her husband is a chef and she has
been involved with the other operations of restaurants in the past.
They have owned restaurants in the Villages of Addison,. Roselle and Schaumburg. For
the last couple of years, they have been residing in the Phoenix area where they were
involved with raising of horses; hence the name of the new establishment.
Mrs. Pontarelli is well aware of the past history of the establishment when it was Stagger
Lee's and also O'Neil's. The main reason they are interested in this property is
the excellent price were able to pay. You will recall, this parcel had gone through
bankruptcy of Chapter 11 and had major financial problems. They have not closed on
the property as of yet but anticipate that within the next two weeks, they would be able
to close on the parcel. However, they are in the building fixing it up and cleaning it at
the present time.
O'Neil's was closed by the State the day before New Year's Day and several food items
were left in the refrigerator and freezer areas and extensive clean up had to take place
before anyone could move in to operate a restaurant. Besides the cleaning, they are also
taking out all the carpeting that is in the establishment and replacing it with new
carpeting.
The Pontarellis have indicated that they wish to open approximately mid-May. They
would have hours of 11:00 a.m. to closing time in accordance with the Liquor license
during weekdays and Saturday. They also indicated that they would attempt to open on
Sundays to see if it was worth their while. Although O'Neil's had not been opened on
Sundays in the past, they feel that their restaurant service would warrant opening on
Sunday, however, if in fact they do not have the clientele, they would not stay open on
Sundays. They were able to show me a copy of the proposed menu which has moderate
prices for dinner entree items anda number of sandwich items. They anticipate having
food available at all times in the establishment.
Mrs. Pontarelli was fully aware of the Ordinances and the use of alcohol as incidental
to a food establishment. Mrs. Pontarelli will be present at the Board meeting on May 1
should any of the Board members have any questions concerning their restaurant
experience or operations.
JOHN FULTON Ill N
JFD /rcw
attachment
a
W 6 1 ARK!, 0 =
ve xmno 10, �c POOR" Zl
.� rw�••
RENEWAL DA`1E
NEW —.,X (3150 Non -Refundable Application Fee for issuance of AM
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, . [0 1 JA , �,+A 1/1 0 AIS Ii C',
hereby makes application for a Class —5 - figuor dealer's lcense for the period ending
April 30, 19.91 , and tenders the sum of, . Zj0Qo the prescribed fee as set
forth in theTbRowing:
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL FEES FOR THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
RETAIL LIQUOR DEALERS' LICENSES (SECTION 13.106):
Annual Fee.
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
_rCLASS 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
1,000.00
EACH LICENSE TERMINATES ON THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL
Your etitioner, LI IAS+ -A 1/10&)S XNC, , doing business as
respectfully requests
permission to operate a retail liquor business at 2, Ap; 1, kA fc'x)
Mount Prospect, Illinois. /11
Description and name of premises: (L) I � -' �7�j A Ij 10 A)S
(Description must be complete as to floor area, frontage, etc.)
Is applicant owner of premises:
If not owner, does applicant have a lease? State date applicant's lease expires:
If not owner, attach copy -O—flease hereto.
Does applicant have a management contract with another person or entity for the
operation or management of the licensed premises? NO
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,=corporatio a co -partnership or an association? (Circle one)
If an individual, state your 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: q-)140
\\ .
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 MCK HELD
NSa�Pi, 9AJ-0wA
Date of Birth: --2-L:L-5,:r Social Security #3y -YY -3 Phone #
Date of Birth: Social Security # Phone #
Date of Birth: Social Security # Phone #
Additional information to be included on a senarate listinv,-1
Objects for which orgarL-- jon is formed: 0 f A g *f_
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 felony or a misdemeanor? _ W If so, explain:
If applicant is an individual, state age: Marital status: , A r * `£ A
Is applicant a citizen of, the United States?If a naturalized, citizen, state date and
place of naturalization: 41-1
How long has applicant been a resident of Mount Prospect, continuously next prior to
the filing of this application? , A t + K,s
Local address:
Telephone no.
State character or type of business of applicant heretofore:
State amount of goods, wares and merchandise on hand at this time:
So�000 O'D
How long has applicant been in this business?1
Is the applicant an elected public official?�) 0 If so, state the particulars thereof:
Is any other person directly of indirectly in applicant's place of business an elected public
official? Vo
In the case of an application for the renewal of a license, has the applicant made any
political contributions within the past 2 years?
If so, state the particulars thereof:
Does the applicant hold any law enforcement office?If so, designate title:
Cloes =the �appiicant possess a -current Federal Wagering -or -Gambling -Device Stamp?
_ j� If so, state the reasons therefor:
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? 0 p 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? �) n If so, state disposition of such
application:__
Is applicant qualified to receive State and Federal license to operate an alcoholic liquor
business? Has applicant ever had a previous license revoked by the Federal
government or by any state or subdivision thereof? �)O 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? , O
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?,. S
Does applicant currently k-ry Dram Shop Insurance coverage. 00 If 'Yes," attach
copy.,+.Fj
Ar, WO rK 1 FJ6, W'% 'to -sq ft"O F- A3 tv'rA + "' s '-'rh P- " 06t '
11� e* 6,ugc,,
If applicant is not the owner of the premises, does the owner thereof carry Dram Shop
Insurance coverage? _ (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? NO
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:
9-
q
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
Corporate Seal
(If applicant is corporation)
Who, first being duly sworn, under oath deposes and says that ;k -he are the
applicant(s) for the license requested in the foregoing application; t1hat-7s 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.
COUNTY ,0E -000K
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this )� day of AD., 1996
Notary Public
" OFFICIAL SEAL "
ROBER7A C. WINTERCORN
NOTARY PUBLIC. =SIATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 9/13/92
APPLICATION APPROVED;
Local Liquor Control Commissioner
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, acting in the
exercise of their home rule power:
SECTION 1: That paragraph A of Section 13.124 of Chapter 13
be deleted in its entirety and a new paragraph A inserted in lieu
thereof to be and read as follows:
A. After a hearing on any alleged violation, if the
Village President as Local Liquor Control
Commissioner finds that there was any violation of
the ordinances of the Village or statutes of the
State of Illinois, or any other violation
necessitating action by the Local Liquor Control
Commissioner, he may suspend or revoke any retail
liquor dealer's license; and/or fine such licensee.
1. If the Commissioner determines to
suspend such license, the term of
the suspension shall not be less
than one day nor more than thirty
(30) days.
2. If the Commissioner elects to fine
such licensee, the amount of such
fine shall not be less than fifty
dollars ($50.00) nor more than two
thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500.00).
3. If the Commissioner finds the
licensee to be guilty of any charges
against the licensee, the licensee
will be responsible for all costs
incurred for a hearing before the
Local Liquor Control commissioner,
including, but not limited to court
reporter fees, witness fees and
attorneys fees. This shall be in
addition to any other penalties
assessed against the licensee.
SECTION 2: That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3: That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner
provided by law.
PASSED: This day of 1990.
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASS:
APPROVED by me this day of , 1990.
President of the Village of Mt. Prospect
ATTESTED and FILED in the office of the Village Clerk this
day of , 1990.
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois f.
L
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY
DATE: APRIL 27, 1990,
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
I hereby nominate the following individuals to continue to serve on the following Boards
and Commissions of the Village:
EXPIRATION
BUSINESS DEVEL-QPMENT AND REDEVEL
PM NT COMMI. SSIQN,
John Eilering, 302 South Lancaster, Member 1994
FINANCE CQMMISSION:
Richard Bachhuber, 625 South Edward, Member
1994
SAFETY CQMMISSION:
Andrew Mitchell, 311 North School Street, Member 1994
SIGN,,REVIEW BOARD•
Warren Kostak, 999 North Elmhurst, Member 1992
Thomas Borrelli, 252 Wimbolton Drive, Member 1992
Other appointments remaining to be made will be made as quickly as possible.
GERALD L. FARLEY
GLF/rcw
Village of cunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM* A^
----- .......................
-- V,
TO: FILES
FROM: Engineering Coordinator
DATE: February 20, 1990
SUBJECT: Pate's Subdivision Offsite
Meeting held at Village Hall (2/14/90)
Attended by: John Fulton Dixon - Village Manager
Dave Clements - Director of P & z
Bob Pszanka - Eng. Coordinator
Jim Meyer - M.B. Meyer & Assoc.
(Engr- for Developer - Helen Pate)
Note: Lots referred to in Meeting -
Lot 1 - S.W. corner of Westgate & Wildwood
(306 N. Westgate)
Lot 2 - Reese's Subdivision (1221 WildwQod)
Lot 3 - 1219 Wildwood
Lot 4 - Unimproved lot West of Lot 3
1.) Widening of Wildwood Ln., East of Pate's Subdivision (Frontage
of Lots 1, 2, & 3).
Pavement width shall be 231 back to back of curb.
Developer's Engineer's Estimate for 382 L.F. = $38;964.00
C. Bencic's Village Estimate was 300 L.F. $29,053.00
Prorating C. Bencic's Estimate to 382 L.F. $37,000.00
Add to C. Bencic's estimate, a storm sewer at west end of
Lot 1 = $2,000.
Village cost would be $39,000. Note: figure does not
include engineering cost. Possible 10-15% or $3,900 -
$5,850.
A deduction to the Village's cost for Wildwood Ln. was to be
made by the Developer. The deduction was for the following
items: 1.) Elimination of one street light on offsite
Wildwood Ln. 2.) Shortening of pavement width from 29' B -B
to 231 B -B. In previous discussions, the figure of $6,500
was used. This figure was determined as follows: 1.) $3,500
for the street light 2.) $3,000 for pavement width
reduction. Per the Developer's Engineer, the $3,000 figure
was calculated by:
382 L.F. x (230-31) - 7,640 S.F. of pavement
Total cost = $38,964.00
A
Page 3
C.) Sanitary Services: Six services, two each for Lots 2,
3, & 4, from sever on Opus' property. Cost would include
fence and grass restoration.
D.) Cost Overruns: Not agreed to by Manager! Dependent on
nature of cost.
5.) Water Main Recapture
Main must be "looped" for Pate's Subdivision. Offsite main
must be extended across frontage of Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 to
Westgate Rd. Developer's Engineer had based his estimate on
offsite cost only.
Per Agreement at this Meeting, cost would be shared by 10
"Lots" for total water main cost from Cardinal Lane to
Westgate Road. The 10 "Lots" are Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, & 7 of
Pate's Subdivision, two "Lots" for "Lot 4", one "Lot" for "Lot
311, and two "Lots" for "Lot 211.
Final recapture cost would be based on "As -Built" contract
cost. Main would be installed by Developer's contractor.
\Vi * llage must review and approve contract, prior to
construction.
Main would consist of approximately 1100 L.F. of 8" D.I.W.M,
Class 56. One pressure connection at each end. One 811 line
valve. Three hydrants. Cardinal Lane would be open -cut at
crossing. A one -inch copper service and box would be
installed in parkway for�each of the 10 "Lots".
Estimate of cost by B. Pszanka (see attached), including
engineering would be $75,000.
NOTE: Service to Lots 4 & 5 of Pate's Subdivision will not
be included in this cost.
'Bob
Bp/m
R/EH/caf
4/27/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PRORATING THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A WATERMAIN AND STREET IN WILDWOOD LANE
IN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSP CT, ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, Helen L. Pate, 1000 Cardinal Lane, Mount Prospect,
Illinois 60056 ("Pate") has caused to be constructed and has paid
the costs of a watermain, and appurtenances thereto, in Wildwood
Lane, from Westgate west to the Pate Subdivision, a distance of
approximately . feet; and
WHEREAS, Pate has caused the street, and appurtenances thereto, in
Wildwood Lane from the East property line of Lot 4 in Walter A.
Johnson's Subdivision of Lot 12, C. A. Goelz Prospect Gardens, a
subdivision of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section
35, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal
Meridian, recorded January 6, 1949 as Document 14473989, Torrens
Document 1252929, west to the Pate Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the costs of the improvement, as completed under the plans
prepared by M. B. Meyer and Associates, Inc. dated
1990, including engineering and inspection, totals $
and
WHEREAS, Pate has paid Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and No/100s
Dollars ($11,800.00) to the Village of Mount Prospect in
consideration for the pavement reduction of the street width from
29 feet to 23 feet and the elimination of one street light; and
WHEREAS, the improvement is the property of the Village of Mount
Prospect (the Village) and as constructed can serve and directly
benefit other properties within the Village; and
WHEREAS, the property directly benefitted from the installation of
the watermain without previously bearing any costs thereof, is
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
(Watermain Benefited Property); and
WHEREAS, Pate's cash payment to the Village and the property
directly benefited from the installed street without having
previously bearing any costs thereof, are described on Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein (Street Benefited
Property).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: As a condition precedent of connecting all or any
portion of their property to the watermain, the owner of the
Watermain Benefited Property shall pay a proportionate share of the
cost of the watermain, which charge is hereby established as set
forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION TWO: As a condition of connecting all or any portion of
their property to the watermain, the owner of the Street Benefited
Property shall pay a proportionate share of the cost of the street,
which charge is hereby established as set forth on Exhibit D
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION THREE: That no person, firm or corporation owning or
interested in, nor any contractor, agent or other representative
of such owner or party interested in the Watermain Benefited
Property or the Street Benefited Property shall connect to the
watermain located on or adjacent to said property without first
having obtained a permit from the Village to make such connection.
No such permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall first pay
to the Village, for the use of Pate, her successors or assigns, the
proportionate due amount as established in Sections ONE and TWO of
this ordinance, which charge shall be in addition to any other
charges payable to the Village for making watermain connections.
In addition to the payment herein, Pate, her successors or assigns
shall be paid the statutory rate of interest on any unpaid sum
required herein from the date of completion of the improvement as
certified by the Village to and including the date of payment.
SECTION FOUR: The Village of Mount Prospect shall use its best
efforts to collect the sums due Pate, her successors or assigns
hereunder.
SECTION FIVE: Pate shall pay to the Village, in consideration of
its cost of preparation and publication of this ordinance, an
amount equal to Seventy Dollars ($70.00) per subdivided lot capable
of being served by the improvement, but no more than Two Hundred
Eighty Dollars ($280.00).
SECTION SIX: Pate does hereby agree to indemnify and hold harmless
the Village, its officers, agents, employees, successors and
assigns, from any and all claims or damages to real or personal
property, and from injuries or death suffered to any persons by
reason of said improvement, its construction or installation and
for any attempt on the part of the Village to enforce the payment
of the recapture fees herein. Pate shall not make the Village a
party to any law suit for collection of said fee.
SECTION SEVEN: The improvement is a public improvement owned by
the Village and nothing herein contained shall vest any proprietary
rights of any nature whatsoever, in the improvement in any person,
firm or corporation.
SECTION EIGHT: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
after its passage, approval and publication in the manner provided
by law, and shall be recorded with the Recorder of Deeds or, if
applicable, with the Registrar of Torrens Titles of Cook County,
Illinois, upon payment to the Village of the amount established in
SECTION FOUR of this Ordinance.
AYES:
NAYS:
Village President
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
EXHIBIT "All
Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Walter A. Johnson's Subdivision of Lot 12, C.
A. Goelz Prospect Gardens, a subdivision of the northeast 1/4 of
the southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East
of the Third Principal Meridian, recorded January 6, 1949 as
Document 14473989, Torrens Document 1252929
Lot 4 in Walter A. Johnson's Subdivision of Lot 12, C. A. Goelz
Prospect Gardens, a subdivision of the northeast 1/4 of the
southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of
the Third Principal Meridian, recorded January 6, 1949 as Document
14473989, Torrens Document 1252929
EXHIBIT "C"
The property owners of Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Walter A. Johnson's
Subdivision of Lot 12, C. A. Goelz Prospect Gardens, a
subdivision of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of
Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, recorded January 6, 1949 as Document
14473989, Torrens Document 1252929, or a part thereof, shall
have the right to connect to the water main provided that
Owners be entitled to collect the sum of one -eleventh (1/11)
of the total installed cost for each water service connection.
RiLLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPE[T
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER ty _'
NU
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.
March 29, 1990
EUCLID LAKE VILLAS
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
405 E. Euclid Ave. Suite 2
Mount Prospect EL 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:
V114P of Mount Prospect
APR 3 1990
*E C F IVE
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,
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
J 4# $now
1.TAT--
h
4
S Y y
too
N
>,
i
-it£a
.
4
t
-S
gtl-4-
i
Ry
2
#f x
And
_ 4_i
\\_l
\\
t
I N\ I
I
fr
y c� ,#O +t
J 4# $now
1.TAT--
h
Wf-
IF
P„ope�� 12Y2N. Rd.
C
Mt, t, it i�008
S Y y
too
N
Wf-
IF
P„ope�� 12Y2N. Rd.
C
Mt, t, it i�008
Village ofl..Iount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND VILLAGE BOARD
FROM: CHERYL L. PASALIC, CABLE TELEVISION ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 27, 1990
RE: RESOLUTION ON HEARING PROCEDURES
As requested by the Board, the resolution on hearing procedures for
cable violations has been placed again on the May 1 meeting agenda.
At the last meeting on April 17, Jim Mitchell of TCI requested more
time for TCI to review the proposed resolution and to make a
counter -proposal of language.. I have just received a fax from
Susan McWilliams of TCI with a counter -proposal following a
conference call between Susan, myself, and our attorney, Robin
Charleston. As you can see by my correspondence back to Susan,
there seems to be some confusion on TCI's part as to what we are
trying to accomplish. TCI would like us, it seems, to change our
franchise and Code to give them more time than is presently given
to cure violations they incur. As I pointed out, these items are
not even being addressed here, as these procedures would happen
after the period given to cure a violation.
I have incorporated a new number 4 in this resolution to address
TCIOs concern over the amount of time given to prepare for a
hearing. My recommendation is to proceed with the passage of the
proposed resolution you now have before you.
cc: Village Manager
Attorney
Faxed & hard copy sent
certified-OP069894141
Susan McWilliams
Contracts Administrator
TCI Great Lakes
111 Pfingsten Rd., Suite 400
Deerfield, IL 60015
Dear Susan,
I am in receipt of your fax that was sent today, and it appears
that there is some miscommunication with regards to what the intent
of the proposed resolution is.
Your letter references setting notice of violation provisions, but
there are already provisions in the Cable Communications Code and
the franchise agreement for notice of violation and the opportunity
to cure in Sections 6.102 E, 6.607 G 8, and 6.712 of the Code and
Sections 26 and 31 of the franchise agreement. The proposed
resolution does not address or alter those provisions in any way,
but rather supplements them with a public hearing procedure.
After review of your counter -proposal, it appears that your only
concern deals with the opportunity to cure provisions of the Cable
Communications Code and not the proposed resolution. The Code
itself is not addressed or up for review at this time.
Your letter references the negotiations with the Northwest
Municipal Cable Council communities and that this counter -proposal
is language proposed in those talks. This language differs from
the latest draft from negotiations I have received. While the
Village of Mount Prospect and TCI of Illinois are currently
discussing modification requests, no final decisions have been made
on any definite language. While these talks are slated to conclude
in late May, TCI will then enter into individual negotiations with
each of the eight municipalities in the Cable Council.
To accomodate your request during our conference call this morning
that more time be allotted for preparing for a public hearing, I
have added a provision addressing this concern to the proposed
resolution. You will find a copy enclosed.
MAV"
GERALD L FARLEY
TOMTW
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LED FLOROS
GEORGE R. VAN DEEM
THEODORE J. WATtENSERG
Village of
Mount
Prospect
VILUM MAMAS"
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAS! CLFAIK
100 S. Emerson
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
April 27,
1990
Phone: 70a / 392-6000
Fax: 706 / 392-6022
Faxed & hard copy sent
certified-OP069894141
Susan McWilliams
Contracts Administrator
TCI Great Lakes
111 Pfingsten Rd., Suite 400
Deerfield, IL 60015
Dear Susan,
I am in receipt of your fax that was sent today, and it appears
that there is some miscommunication with regards to what the intent
of the proposed resolution is.
Your letter references setting notice of violation provisions, but
there are already provisions in the Cable Communications Code and
the franchise agreement for notice of violation and the opportunity
to cure in Sections 6.102 E, 6.607 G 8, and 6.712 of the Code and
Sections 26 and 31 of the franchise agreement. The proposed
resolution does not address or alter those provisions in any way,
but rather supplements them with a public hearing procedure.
After review of your counter -proposal, it appears that your only
concern deals with the opportunity to cure provisions of the Cable
Communications Code and not the proposed resolution. The Code
itself is not addressed or up for review at this time.
Your letter references the negotiations with the Northwest
Municipal Cable Council communities and that this counter -proposal
is language proposed in those talks. This language differs from
the latest draft from negotiations I have received. While the
Village of Mount Prospect and TCI of Illinois are currently
discussing modification requests, no final decisions have been made
on any definite language. While these talks are slated to conclude
in late May, TCI will then enter into individual negotiations with
each of the eight municipalities in the Cable Council.
To accomodate your request during our conference call this morning
that more time be allotted for preparing for a public hearing, I
have added a provision addressing this concern to the proposed
resolution. You will find a copy enclosed.
As directed by the Village Board at its last meeting on April 17,
this item will be on the agenda for the May 1 meeting. The meeting
will take place at 50 S. Emerson St. at 7:30 p.m. As your
representative, Jim Mitchell, indicated at the April 17 meeting,
TCI of Illinois will be present at the meeting on May 1.
Should you have any further questions, please contact me at 392-
6000, extension 267.
Sincerely,
114
Cheryl Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
cc: Mayory
Village Board,/
Village Manager
Robin Charleston, Attorney
106)
CAM TV APR 2 7 RECD
I I -, a oAM
MORLIAT LAKESIN(C.
April 27, 1-990
Cheryl Pasalic
Cable Television Administration
Village of Mt. Prospect
100 South Emerson
Mt. Prospect, Tilinois Goose
Re: Alternate Hearing Provisions
Dear Cheryl:
We have received your facsimile dated 4,26,90. Let this letter
serve as formal notice to you and your I' � this
the
provisions set fcr'th are unacceptable. *gal r;cunsel
conversation with you Par my telephone
u and your legal counsel at 10100 a.m. this
morning, we all agree that hearing provisions may be important.
However, we are currently in negotiations with the V,21age of M"
OsPect ant seven other villagers, regarding the proposed revise which will also havead
the following hearing provision
ilicluded for the Village of It. Prospect.
TCI, in good faith, has prepared the
review. The I following dooument for your
period. na'Or change 'we have presentad is the 30-60 day cure
Please review and respond in a timely manner.
SiK'c
?rely,
-4--
/� i���l� fi�,f ���
usan McWilliams
Contracts Adn!lnistrator
SM/mm
-, cef
Municipality bel n tile event that
f th believes that the the
.e, F
terms ranQhise, it shail ae has not =MPlied witj-. the
.6 nOt4ty Franchisee in writing by
Cert'fied mail of the OxaCt OF the alleged noncompliance.
2. LKLUAip e I
shall have thirty 1,303 days from rec-C Franchisee
Para. I to (a) rispcnd to the Mun. �pt of the notioe described in
Of ncmcOM.Pliance, or (b) to -O'PalitY contesting the assertion
event t -Flat, by the natir cure such noncompliance or, in the
cannot be cured Within the thirty to sixty (30-60) day period,
initiate reasonable ste,
'a Ps to remedy such noncompliance and notify
ti
Municipality Of the steps beinq taken and the pro4eot&d date
J.
that they wi'l be completed,
3.Pubs c
respond t In the event that Franchisee fails to
the notice described in para. I
I pursuant to t.?.g
procedures set forth in Para. 2, or in the event
norcompl'an-a is not -enedi,,j within sixt that the alleged
Y (60) days after the
Franchisee is notified of the alleged n0ncO!rcPliArce pursuant to
Para. 1, the Mu-niciPdlitjl shall schedule a public meeting to
investigate the nonccmpl.6anoq. - Such public Meeting shall be held
Ft the next reguiarl
is Sch6d"Ied ata Y scheduled meeting of the Municipality which
time which 1.
therelro,n, The Municipality no less than five (5) business days
certified Y Shall
f4ed Mail Of the time and notify the Franchisee by
the Franchisee With an opportunity to be heard. '
4. the M Franchisee reserves
appeal the d�aclsj4�cn,,�, the right to
Federal cc -arts in Illinois.
*unic-ipality through .,h
.6 the State and
Phone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
April 26, 1990
Ms. Susan McWilliams
TCI Great Lakes
111 Pfingsten Rd., Ste 400
Deerfield, IL 60015
Dear Susan,
As promised, I am writing to let YOU know where things I are at with
regards to the penalty hearing procedures resolution for mount
Prospect. in our initial conversation, you were to have provided
alternative language to me yesterday, but as you indicated, were
not able to do due to other obligations. I, in turn, said I would
review the language presented by the Cable Council yesterday in our
modification talks with our counsel to see if it would be a viable
alternative. Subsequent to that meeting, I faxed you a copy of the
proposed resolution. As I indicated on my cover sheet, if you do
have alternative language to the proposed resolution, I would need
to have it as soon as possible for the Village Board to review.
After conferring with our counsel, I cannot agree to use the
language that was in the modification draft. That language would
require the Village Board of Mount Prospect to call for additional
public meetings above and beyond the posted weekly meetings that
are already held. In addition, it would require that TCI be given
between ten (10) and thirty (30) days additional notice beyond the
time given to cure a violation. It would also require the Village
to place a legal notice in the newspaper ten (10) days prior to
such a public hearing. This would cause the Village to bear the
burden of spending approximately $80 each time TCI is in violation.
This appears to be too burdensome.
Mount Prospect complies with the Illinois open Meetings Act and
federal due process by the annual posting our weekly meeting
schedule, posting and distributing the agenda, and notifying
parties of a public hearing when applicable. We have considered
these provisions and those in the Cable Communications Code when
the proposed resolution was developed.
GERALD L FAALIFY
RALP' . : W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY,t CORCORAN
LEO FLOROS
GEORGE R. VAN GEEM
THEODORE .1 MTr"EAG
Village of
Mount Prospect
VILLAUS MANAGIIIII
JOHN RATON DIXON
VILLAff CLANK
100 S. Emerson
Mount PrOsPect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A FIELDS
Phone: 706 / 392-6000
Fax: 708 / 392-6022
April 26, 1990
Ms. Susan McWilliams
TCI Great Lakes
111 Pfingsten Rd., Ste 400
Deerfield, IL 60015
Dear Susan,
As promised, I am writing to let YOU know where things I are at with
regards to the penalty hearing procedures resolution for mount
Prospect. in our initial conversation, you were to have provided
alternative language to me yesterday, but as you indicated, were
not able to do due to other obligations. I, in turn, said I would
review the language presented by the Cable Council yesterday in our
modification talks with our counsel to see if it would be a viable
alternative. Subsequent to that meeting, I faxed you a copy of the
proposed resolution. As I indicated on my cover sheet, if you do
have alternative language to the proposed resolution, I would need
to have it as soon as possible for the Village Board to review.
After conferring with our counsel, I cannot agree to use the
language that was in the modification draft. That language would
require the Village Board of Mount Prospect to call for additional
public meetings above and beyond the posted weekly meetings that
are already held. In addition, it would require that TCI be given
between ten (10) and thirty (30) days additional notice beyond the
time given to cure a violation. It would also require the Village
to place a legal notice in the newspaper ten (10) days prior to
such a public hearing. This would cause the Village to bear the
burden of spending approximately $80 each time TCI is in violation.
This appears to be too burdensome.
Mount Prospect complies with the Illinois open Meetings Act and
federal due process by the annual posting our weekly meeting
schedule, posting and distributing the agenda, and notifying
parties of a public hearing when applicable. We have considered
these provisions and those in the Cable Communications Code when
the proposed resolution was developed.
I would urge you to send me any revisions or alternative language
to the resolution as soon as possible. As stated at the April 17
meeting of the Village Board, this item will be placed on the May
1 meeting agenda. I must have any materials you wish to submit to
the Village Board by Friday, April 27 at Noon.
I can be reached by fax at (708) 392-6022. If you have any further
--questions, my phone number is (708) 392-6000, extension 267.
Sincerely,
t
Cheryl . Pasalic
Cable Television Administrator
CLP: sn
cc: Trustee Van Geem, Village Board Cable Liaison
Village Manager
Carole Stannard, NWMCC
CP/caf
4/12/90
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR HEARING
RELATIVE TO VIOLATING THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 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.
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.
If the Franchisee requests, in writing to the Cable
Administrator, a continuance of the public hearing, the
Village Board may grant such a continuance.
5. 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.
G-
Cable TV Hearing Procedures
Page 2 of 2
1
6. Franchisee will be notified in writing of the Village Board
decisions.
7. 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.
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
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, 'VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZBA-I7-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 I-1, Light
Industrial Park. Currently, this parcel is a one lot, three -unit condominium light
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. Unit, 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. Unit 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. Unit 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 Sign 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 I-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 lots 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 1 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 1986, a rezoning to I-1 and variations were granted for a one lot,
3 unit condominium. 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. kosenow, 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 Unit, 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. Unit stated that the variations being requested will
not have a negative impact on adjoining properties and that adequate light, ventilation 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. Lent 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 maybe 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 further 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:
L A 15 foot side yard he 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 staffs 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 BASNIIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
e a=
SUBJECT: ZBA-17-SU-90, ROSENOW INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
LOCATION: 2200 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1990
REQUEST
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.
"01
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 far 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.
Current Prp�posal
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; (the -smatlerDnes -are-about 2+ =res) mid -they don't create -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 Planned Vnil Developmeni 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 fine).
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 I-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 I 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 summary, the proposed change in ownership (from condominium to single lots) and the
lot sizes do not pose a problem if a M.D. is established to maintain control of signs and
maintenance and if the development of each individual lot meets standards set forth above.
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 AS 2200 SOUTH BUS,9E ROAD
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 THEM 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 (201).
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 day of 1990.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPE"T
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.E 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 14.3012.13 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 staff's
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 KCS, 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 he 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:
�W I'R . osmpvx'�-
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' frontyard building setback instead of 30'
(along Highland); Section 142002.0 to allow
a 10' rear yard building setback instead of 20';
Section 14.2002.E 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
14.3012.11 to waive the 12' X 35' loading zone
space requirement.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
ABSENT:
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 t% a 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 be believed there were too many stores
proposed for this plan and that this would generate too much traffic in the area.
Joe Mathews, 61007 Horth Maple Court, indicated a concern about the design, but stated that
the plan was better than the Kentucky Pried Chicken building. He objected to the number
of variations with the request and stated Haat 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 salve some concerns of the to nhome 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. Petrucelli asked if the loading area
could be located elsewhere on the site, and Mr. Bednar responded that it could possibly be
placedin 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. Tam, Ziegenfuss, 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 Weeder, 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 staff's 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.
OW AA - C&r�
David M. Clements,
Recording Secretary
V_AAGE OF MOUNT PROSPE,�
KANMG AND ZONING DEPARThUM
Mount Prospect, 1111nols
TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER ;:�U
SUBJECT- ZBA-21-V.", KGS INDUSTRIES
LOCATION: NWC OF HIGHLAND AND RAND ROAD (302 RAND ROAD)
DATE: MARCH 16, 19"
EM
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 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 1430123 to waive the 12' X 35' loading zone space requirement.
VILLAGE UAEE COMMEM
The following comments were submitted by various departments:
1. It is noted that the tz-Affic 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
lot -aisle in front of -the-building.
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.
Cil Basnik - Page 2
ZBA-21-V-90
6. Parking stalls should be a minimum of 9' wide by 16.5' long with a 13' overhang.
Ilk pians 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 pians 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 ZOWNG COMMENTS
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 commercial/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 Highland that would berequired today. Other commercial properties along Rand Read
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 times.
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
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 traffic 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 because 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-sbaped 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 KNOWN AS 301 EAST RAND ROAD
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 14.3012.8 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 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.A to allow a twenty-two
foot (221) front yard building setback along Highland
Avenue;
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 (101)
parking lot setback on Highland Avenue and a zero foot
(01) setback on Rand Road;
4. A variation from Section 14.3012.B 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 P1990.
Gerald L. Farley
ATTEST: Village President
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
i
ITS ?LW
YY
L-wm IT 4
'f
'It k- Zt-W
n
�i
A UAGl�ar `9"iPSD iflel. — — _ ®`
ly
41- "- Ll�id of �(iyfW4
IG °
�ita�l.A�th ,�.�t�uUtE
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.
W. W
Approved:.
David M. Clements, Director
aWI5 U�IE
svM�w •l■YATION
*All ttEYAIJON
NEW BANKING FACILITY
lbkl!laOf1��[
_ @Wbl WLf;.
O
t
.ii
ilTE PLAN ,
r
f ousts a star tnr. eu� wwrcay. aa.
-Tg
s
II
I
aYtil(R.iR�l WHatnG
` Mf I, @E Sfax (AC dlA CO&O"'i olzu t
$
BY-PASS LANE
6 LANE DRIVE -UP
3
_I ppoposE@ RE1ERn@n utEa�
mo -
TWO STORY BUILDING €
WITH BASEMENT
M.
t
---._ - fh G i @ �CNStta SiRrYrtT
FWAY wmr nw l onr'a c i e� DFEVE
1
�— FcfTe fA[ileh�
@ 74 i9 mflCi
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 22-V-90
Hearing Date: March 22, 1990
PETITIONER:
P.N.B. Financial Corporation
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
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 height of 35'6", not including the light
well, whereas 30' is the maximum allowed by
code. -
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Len Petrucelli
ABSENT:
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 orf -sur roundingpreperties. -He4ndicated that -the bank is set back substantially
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 setback requirements, 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
,.the. design. and -architectural 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
V1 , LLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEAT e CHAIRMAN
- �A
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 14, 1990
REQUEST
Park National Bank is requesting the following variations in order to construct a new
banking facility on this property.
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 COMMENTS
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.
S. 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.
PLAtLNING AND ZONING CQMMNTS
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. Ile 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 variation to•be discussed reflects the -parking lot 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.
Gil Basnik - Page 3
ZBA-22-V-90
The cul-de-sac bulb on Midway Drive does create somewhat of a hardship for providing a
required 30 foot setback along the entire stretch. The fact that the bulb projects
approximately 22 feet north towards the bank property, makes it difficult to design a
parking lot without wasting some space.
An alternative exists, whereas, the same size parking lot can be provided along with an
increased buffer along Midway Drive. The entire parking lot could be shifted further north
another 9 feet, if the drive -up exit lane was reduced in width from 24 feet to 15 feet. In
our opinion, this would be a feasible option. This option would provide a minimum 9'
setback at the cul-de-sac bulb.
The site plan also shows a 6 foot separation between the south property line and the
east/west aisle on the bank property. This separation could be increased if the 10 parking
spaces shown along this stretch were eliminated, and the east/west drive was shifted north
towards the building. These 10 spaces could be incorporated into the west end of the main
parking lot where there is ample room. It should be noted that it is important to have an
east/west drive, as shown on the plan, for fire safety reasons and good traffic flow.
The surrounding properties were developed under a different set of regulations years ago,
and therefore, have not provided 30 foot setbacks along any of the rights-of-way. Park
National Bank, now developing the parcel under the new set of rules, would be the only
development in this area having to abide by these setbacks. The bank has provided
generous setbacks in both the front and the rear yards.
The second variation addresses the building height at the entrance. This octagonal -shaped
entrance tower is shown at a 35.5 foot height. The remainder of the building meets the
30 foot maximum height. Since this entrance tower makes up only a small part of the
actual building, we have no problem with allowing the extra height.
Finally, there is a small sign parcel shown on the survey, on which the Charlie Club sign
is located. This issue may have to be reviewed by the Sign Review Board before a new
bank sign could be permitted along Elmhurst Road. Additional information regarding the
legality of this sip parcel has been requested of the applicant.
In summary, the applicants must address the feasibility of the options offered in this memo
regarding the setback along Midway Drive. As noted above, Park National Bank will be
providing much more in the way of setbacks along the perimeter of their site than any of
the surrounding properties. The building height variation for the entrance poses no
problem to us and should not have an impact upon the area. Finally, the petitioner should
make himself aware of all Village staff comments listed in this memo.
ME
'9ATaC APmPTW bUOTV (,OT) 49a3 u94 go 3[opq4as OTSTe AVM9ATap
PUP 40T bUT3[lpd P MOTTR 04 Z00VVT UOT409S MOIJ UOT4PTJPA V 'T
:bUTMOTTOJ atI4 4upab Aqaaexl 4oadsoad 4unow go
9bvTTTA 9x[4 JO saa4snal go pavog Pug 4u9PTsOad 9141 :OMI NOilDas
- 4oadsoad 4unO.W JO abPTTTA 9q4 JO
saa4snal go paeog pup 4u9PTs9Jd aq4 Aq qoej JO SbUTPUTJ SP UT6aaq
pa4paodaODUT 9aR 9AoqeUTaJ9q q4a03 gas sTP4TO9a 9q
I :RxO NoilDas
:SIONIqUI 'XINnOD XOOD '10adSOUd INnOW aO aDVIqIA alll aO SaalSnUl
do GHvO9 QKv maaIsaud alll A9 GaNIVG'dO II Hg 'aHOaaUaHJ, 'MON
'UT919q P9T3Toads
SP SUOTqPTJPA 9qq qUQlb 04 9bvTTTA 9tl'4 JO S4SaI94UT qS9q 9144 UT aq
pTnom 4T 4PI44 PUTJ a9iq4.xn3 saa4snal go papog alqq
PUP 9PO0 9bPTITA
9T44 go vT ;r94dPT40 go IA 9TOT4aV 90 909 -VT UOT409S UT 144JO3 49S
SPaUPUP4S 9144 S9T3ST4SS OMPS atj:4 4Pq4 P8UTUU9-49P axeT4 pug paqsenbea
SUOT4PT.11PA 9144 04 UOT4Pa9PTSUO0 aaq4an3 U9ATJB 9ART4
ObeITTA 9T44 90
S994snal go papou puQ 4uapTsaad aqq pup 409asOad 4unOW 90 9bPTTTA
9q4 JO sa94snal 90 PaPO9 Pug 4u9PTsBad 9q4 04 UOT4VPU9UIMO09a PUP
SbUTPUTJ s4T P944Tmqns sRq sTeaddv go papos buTuoZ aq4 'SVaUaHM
PUP !0661 'qOaPW JO APP q49 9qq UO j5Teaaff 40actsoad qunoyl 9q4 UT
PaqSTTqnd 3oaaaT44 OOT40U jadoad pup anp o4 4uvnsand '066T 'q0;1PN'
go App puzz qq4 Uo qoadsoad qunoW go 9beTTTA 9q4 go sTpaddV go
papog buTuoz aqq aaojaq 06 -A -ZZ -ON asvD vez go 4oalqns 9q4 bUTaq
paqsanbea SUOT4PT_TleA 9tJ4 uo pTatl sem bUT.TP814 DTTqnd e ISVaa*
RHM
PUP !,OE JO qqbT9q P94qTuu9d MnMTXPM 9qq
JO PP94SUT 'TT9m 4qbTT 9144 bUTPnTOUT 4OU '(,,g G[) S9T40UT XTS -4a93
9AT3-AqlTqq 90 -41qbT9lq.bUTPTTnq mnMTXPM 2V UOT409S
mOTTP 04 VOOZ' T
UIOJJ UOT41eTaPA le PUP ';DAT -TCI APMPTW bUOTP OC p9JTnbaa eiqq go
PP94SUT '(,0) 4999 oiaz go 3copq4as 9TSTP ARM9ATJP PUP 40T bUTX_v2d P
mOTTP 04 ZOOZ*VT UOT409S MO.Tj SUOT4leTjeA SX99S 19UOT4T49d , SVHHHHM
pule
STOUTITI IA4unoo 5[oo0 'uPTPT'914 TedTOUTId PaTT41 aqq JO 4SVa
'TT 9buleld '144 -ION Tip dTT4SUMO! 'CZ UOT40'9S'JO t,/ '
T 4spa iqqnos atI4
90 V/T 4sva ti4nos OT44 go (309.19144 SOUTT 4sea PUP 144aON 9lq4 04
TaTTpjpd peansvam se) 4993 GC-TC6 4spa atiq 90 4ea3 08V 14420N
9lq4 JO UOTsTATpqns 4uemqsaAui AgMtl4JON UT (bUTuuTbeq go 4uTod
;914-4 04 4a99. T.V'66 90 90UPqSTP DJP up ; -
-4a93 0 - V9 go snT
Pea
P bUTAVtj PUP t14ION OT44 04 pqX9AUO0 9UTT paAano R buoTp 4sea
q4nos PUP 4spa l4sQqT44aON qDUaq4 !4;993 96-98 ';DAT.To APMPTW
P94POTpap 9aO3O49a9T4 PTeS JO 9UTT q4ION Bq4 JO uOTsu94XB up
buOTP 4saM 90u914-4 9A -r -TCI ApmpTji pe4POTP9P 9aO3O49.1914 JO 29U-100
-4saM lq-4.ToN atI4 4v buTuUTbaq 'Z 4OU PTEs go 4avd 4pq4 moagaaaq4
bUTqdaoxe) 'BUTT VDTTe-lgd paqTaDS9p -49LI-I PTPs 04 -4s9M P9Pu;D4x9
aATJ(j AleMPTH JO OUTT ti41ON PTPs PUP 9ATa(j APMPT14 JO 9UTT
q4aON 9q4 90 q4aON buTAT Pug Z 401 PTPs 90 9uTT 4s9M Bq4 T44Tm
TaTTpapd pup go qspa '3OaJ9q4 OuTT T44aON 9q4 buOTP p9anspam
se '49;93 O*ZTZ au-rT v go qspa i5UTAT Iz -4oi go qapd 4ieiql
paqTaosep ATIPb9T I (Aqaadoad qoaCqns SP 04 P9aj939J a9q3PUT9JaT4)
PPOU 4sanqmTH q4nOS OOTZ SP UMOUN Aluourmoo Aqaedoid aoj IsTouTITJ
l4oadsoad qunol4 go OPOD abvTTTA 9144 JO vT ja4dPq0 go suoTSTA'O_Td
UTPqa9O MOaj SUOT4RTaPA JOJ UOT4VOTTddv UP P9TT3 SPq (J9UOTqTq9d
Se 04 P9aa939a 2943VUT9a9q) UOTqRao�daoz) TRTOUeUTa 'U*M*d 'SVaHHHM
a`OU ISUNM2 HInOS 00TZ SV XMONX XqNO
2UUadOHd HOa SNOIIVIUVA ONIINVIdD aDKVNIaHO NV
ON aoNVNIGHO
/avo
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.
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 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
ATTEST: Village President
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
I-ALLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
7,
FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNEi'�"
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,
:/Aning Board of Appeals,
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 pian 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.
I
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 Commission:
The applicant appeared before the Plan Commission on February 21, 1990 and again on
April 4, 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:
W444 M
David M. Clements, Director
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COYXISSION
APRIL 4, 1990
NOW47-1707iffl-
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.
PLAN COMMISSION PAGE 2
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. I
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.
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,
and 7-V-90
PETITIONER:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Hearing Date: January 25, 1990
February 1, 1990
Blue Jay Building Corporation
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:
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Lois Brothers
Ronald Cassidy
Peter Lannon
Marilyn O'May
Len Petrucelli
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: 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 corner 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
corner 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 be 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. 1 -
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,
TO:
GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD Of APPEALS CHAIRMAN
I
FROM:
PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER
SUBJECT:
ZBA-S-Z-90, ZBA4-SU-", ZBA.7.V.90
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
,"nage -from tbissite. -Eglity percent of ".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 and �wow section does ant a wt Village standards {31' width back of curb to
back of curb required). Privately owned and maintained streets would be allowed
as shown.
5. 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.
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.
ung
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 4 -he -south. -q'he one 4arge single farnily4ot 4o 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 builder 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 existing single family subdivisions to the north and east will remain. Across Rand
Road . to the west, the Christian life College undeveloped land could potentially be
developed in a number of different ways. Zoned as single family, this parcel could
undoubtedly be developed in such a manner, yet the potential for multi -family, or
commercial/office is a possibility.
Three options for redevelopment of these subject parcels are analyzed below:
1. Develogment )Mth Fidsting R-1 Zoning,
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 1201 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 286', 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.
090 . mk-= V Immularrm
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 600' 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.
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 -family 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 residential. 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.
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 Ydlage 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 113 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. z3e ",erway lengths should be-no less than 18'4,preferably.20'-) 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 Basnik . page 5
January 17, 1990
As a final summary on the application, it is important to point out that the proposed
townhome development is similar to Evergreen Woods, the Courts of SL John's, and Village
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:bg
CAF/
4/24/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OF 1981 FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOPNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have adopted an Official Comprehensive Plan for the
Village of Mount Prospect as a guideline for development within the
Village; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have determined that a need exists to amend the
official Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Mount Prospect
adopted April 8, 1981 from time to time; and
WHEREAS, it has been deemed that in order for the Official
Comprehensive Plan to reflect multi -family dwelling units
(townhomes) as the use of property generally located on the north
side of Rand Road approximately 101 feet south of Highland Avenue,
commonly known as 400 East Rand Road (to be known as Orchard Field
Townhomes), said Official Comprehensive Plan should be changed to
reflect the multi -family (townhomes) residential use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 11-12-7 of the Illinois
Revised Statutes, the Plan Commission of the Village of Mount
Prospect held Public Hearings on February 21, 1990, and April 4,
1990, pursuant to proper legal notice being published in the Mount
Prospect Herald on January 23, 1990 and February 10, 1990, to
consider the proposed change in the Official Comprehensive Plan as
specified hereinabove; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees have considered the
proposed change in the Official Comprehensive Plan and have
determined that the best interests of the Village would be served
by amending the Official Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Mount
Prospect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect do hereby amend the Official Comprehensive Plan
of the Village of Mount Prospect with respect to property located
on the north side of Rand Road approximately 101 feet south of
Highland Avenue, generally known as 400 East Rand Road (Orchard
Field Townhomes) from General Commercial/Office to Multi -Family
Residential/Low Density.
SECTION TWO: The Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect
is hereby authorized and directed to file notice of the amendment
to the Official Comprehensive Plan of the village of Mount Prospect
with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, as provided by the Statutes
of the State of Illinois.
SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect
is hereby directed to published, in pamphlet form, said
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
400 East Rand Road
Page 2 of 2
Official Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Mount Prospect with
the amendment specified herein, pursuant to the Statutes of the
State of Illinois made and provided.
SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1990.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
CAF/
4/27/90
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 16
ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR KNOWN AS ORCHARD FIELD TOWNHOMES
GENERALLOCATED 400EAST RAND ROA
WHEREAS, Blue Jay Building Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner) has requested modifications from the Development Code
(Chapter 16) of the Village of Mount for property generally known
as the orchard Field Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as
Subject Property) and legally described as follows:
That part of the North 110 feet of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E.
1/4 of Section 34, Townsip 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, lying west of the east 400 feet and
east of the center line of Rand Road, in Cook County, Illinois
also
South 88 feet of the north 198 feet (measured along aline
parallel to the east line of Section 34, Township 42 North,
Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian) of that part
of the Southesast quarter of the northeast quarter of Meridian
34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal
Meridian, lying Northeast of Rand Road (except the East 400
feet thereof) in Cook County, Illinois
WIN
WHEREAS, the Petitioner is requesting a modification from the
Development Code to permit a detention basin as close as ten feet
(101) from the proposed buildings, rather than the required 75
feet; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect did
consider the proposed modification from the Development Code
(Chapter 16) for the Subject Property at their regular meetings on
February 21,1990 and April 4, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has forwarded its recommendation
relative to the modification requested herein to the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, and the
President and Board of Trustees have determined that the best
interests of the Village would be served in granting the
modifications requested herein.
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
incorporate herein as findings of fact by the President and Board
of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: That the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a modification from the
Development Code (Chapter 16) to the Subject Property to permit a
detention basin ten feet (10') -from the proposed townhouses being
developed as orchard Field Townhomes.
SECTION THREE: Except for the modification from the Development
Code granted herein, all other requirements of said Development
Code shall apply to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
V11
Modification from r-apter 16
Orchard Field
Page 2 of 2
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
CAF/
4/26/90
DOS 03 ozhl ZEN 20 ZCGIR
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH
RESPECT TO THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM
R-1 TO R-3 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ORCMED FIELD TOWNHOMES
WHEREAS, Blue Jay Builders (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) ,
has filed an application to rezone the property commonly known as
400 East Rand Road and generally located 101 feet south of Highland
Avenue (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property) , legally
described as follows:
That part of the North 110 feet of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E.
1/4 of Section 34, Townsip 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, lying west of the east 400 feet and
east of the center line of Rand Road, in Cook County, Illinois
also
South 88 feet of the north 198 feet (measured along aline
parallel to the east line of Section 34, Township 42 North,
Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian) of that part
of the Southesast quarter of the northeast quarter of Meridian
34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal
Meridian, lying Northeast of Rand Road (except the East 400
feet thereof) in Cook County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned
from R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to R-3 (Multi -family
Residential) District; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for rezoning
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 5-Z-90) before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of
January, 1990 and February 1, 1990 pursuant to due and proper
notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Herald
on the 9th day of January, 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
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have considered the request being the subject of ZBA
5-Z-90 and have determined that the best interests of the village
of Mount Prospect would be served by granting said request.
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: The official zoning map of the Village of Mount
Prospect, Illinois, as amended, is hereby further amended by
reclassifying the property being the subject of this Ordinance to
an R-3 (Multi -Family Residential) District.
SE9'TIQN FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
ZBA 5-Z-90
Page 2 of 2
from and after its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1990.
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
CAF/
4/27/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY
KNOWN AS 400 EAST RAND ROAD AND GENERALLY
LQCATED 101 FEET SOUTH QF HIGHLAND AV UE
WHEREAS, Blue Jay Builders (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner)
has filed a petition for a Special Use with respect to property
commonly known as 400 East Rand Road and generally located
approximately 101 feet south of Highland Avenue (hereinafter
referred to as the Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows:
That part of the North 110 feet of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E.
1/4 of Section 34, Townsip 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, lying west of the east 400 feet and
east of the center line of Rand Road, in Cook County, Illinois
also
South 88 feet of the north 198 feet (measured along aline
parallel to the east line of Section 34, Township 42 North,
Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian) of that part
of the Southesast quarter of the northeast quarter of Meridian
34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal
Meridian, lying Northeast of Rand Road (except the East 400
feet thereof) in Cook County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for Special Use
(designated as ZBA Case No. 6 -SU -90) before the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of
January, 1990 and February 1, 1990, pursuant to proper legal notice
having been published in the Mount Prospect Herald on the 9th day
of January, 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:
SECTIO 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 the Planned Unit Development being the subject
of this Ordinance herein shall be constructed pursuant to the site
plan dated 2/14/90, a copy of said Site Plan is attached hereto
and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
SECTION THREE: That the Planned Unit Development being the subject
of this Ordinance permits the construction of 22 townhomes,
resulting in 8.8 dwelling units per acre.
SECTION FOUR: That development of the Planned Unit Development is
0
ZBA 6 -SU -90
Page 2 of 2
subject to the following:
1. Engineering plans approved by the Village Engineer.
2. Sidewalks to be installed on both sides of the street.
3. Revised landscape plan to include more plantings on the north
and east sides and tree preservation plan approved by Village
staff.
4. A six foot (61) high wood fence along the east property line,
to be installed after public improvements are completed,prior
to issuance of any building permits.
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 eighteen feet (181) for driveway lengths.
8. A brick facade required for the buildings.
9. Formation of a Homeowner's Association.
10. A ten foot (101) setback from the cul de sac bulb to the
property line.
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
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
. 1990.
EH/CAF
4/11/90
4/26/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 10 OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUN OgjPB
-T PR
-CT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Article IV entitled "Revocation or Denial" of
Chapter 10 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is
hereby further amended in its entirety; so that hereinafter said
Article IV of Chapter 10 shall be and read as follows:
ARTICLE IV
REVOCATION OR DENIAL
Sec. 10.401. Procedure
Sec. 10.402. Notice of Action
For Hearing
Sec. 10.403. Appeal Procedure
Sec. 10.401. Procedure.
Against License, Procedure
Any such license contemplated or issued under Article I of
this Chapter may be suspended up to sixty (60) days or revoked
by the Village Manager, or an application for issuance of
renewal of such license may be refused by the Village Clerk,
if either determines:
A. That the application of the applicant or license holder
contains any false, fraudulent or misleading material
statement; or
B. That the applicant or license holder has made any false,
fraudulent or misleading material statement, or has been
convicted of perpetrating a fraud upon any person,
whether or not such fraud was perpetrated in the course
of conducting any business in the Village, or that the
applicant or license holder has committed a felony; or
C. That the applicant or license holder has conducted any
activities directly related to his business in the
Village in an unlawful manner or in such a manner as to
constitute a breach of the peace or a menace to the
health, safety or general welfare of the public.
D. That the applicant or license holder has suffered a
revocation or refusal to issue or renew such license by
any state, municipality or licensing authority.
Sec. 10.402. Notice of Action Against License, Procedure
for Hearing.
A. Notification. The applicant or licensee shall be
notified of a determination to revoke or refuse issuance
or renewal of a license by the Village Manager. This
notice shall inform the applicant of the right to request
a hearing before the Village Manager regarding the
proposed action.
EEEEEM�l
&A
Chapter 10
Page 2 of
Additionally, the notice shall contain the reasons for
the revocation, suspension or refusal to issue or renew.
Such notice shall be personally served or mailed, postage
prepaid, to the applicant or license holder, as the case
may be, at his last known address and shall provide such
applicant with the right to request a hearing before the
Village Manager involved within eight (8) days following
the date such notice was personally delivered or placed
in the mail. If no such request for a hearing is
received the Village Manager's determination shall become
final.
B. Setting of Hearing. The Village Manager shall set a
place and date for the hearing and shall notify the
applicant or license holder of said place and date of
said hearing. The initial date for hearing shall be no
more than twenty-one (21) days after the written request
for a hearing is made.
C. Right to Counsel. The applicant or license holder shall
have the right to be represented at such hearing by legal
counsel.
D. Decision of village Manager. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Village Manager shall issue a written
decision and findings of fact and shall mail same to the
applicant or license holder. The decision and findings
of fact shall be mailed within five (5) days following
the conclusion of the hearing or the receipt of any
transcript thereof, whichever is the latest to occur.
Sec. 10.403. Appeal Procedure.
Any applicant or license holder aggrieved by the action of the
Village Manager in refusing to issue any license subject to
this Article or in suspending or revoking any license already
issued shall have the right to appeal to the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village.
A. Such appeal shall be made to the Village Board, or
designated person, within seven (7) days after the notice
of said decision of the Village Manager has been mailed.
The appeal shall contain a written statement setting
forth the grounds for appeal. No applicant or license
holder may appeal to the Village Board unless a timely
request for a hearing before the Village Manager, as set
forth in Sec. 10.402, has been made by said applicant or
license holder.
B. The President and Board of Trustees of the village shall
set a time and place for a hearing on such appeal and
notice of such hearing shall be given to the appellant
in the manner provide in Section 10.402.
C. The appellant shall have the right to be represented at
such hearing by legal counsel.
D. The decision and Or(Ter of the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village following such appeal shall be
final and conclusive.
E. No license shall be revoked:
1. During the pendency of an appeals before the
President and Board of Trustees of the Village, nor
Chapter 10
Page 3 of 3
2. while litigation is pending in any court challenging
the decision of the President and Board of Trustees,
nor
3. While any appeal is pending from any court's action,
overriding or reversing the Board's action, nor
4. During the time within which such appeals from a
court's action can lawfully be taken. 11
SECTION TWO: That all Ordinances and Resolutions or parts thereof
which are in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are, to
the extent of such conflict, expressly repealed.
SECTION THREE: 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
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
EH/CAF
4/5/90
4/11/90
4/26/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 11.102.B entitled "Rules and
Definitions" of Article I of Chapter 11 (Merchants, Businesses,
Occupations and Amusements) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect,
as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto in proper
alphabetical sequence the following; so that hereinafter said
Section 11.102.5 shall include the following:
TOBACCO PRODUCTS: Any substance containing tobacco leaf,
including, but not limited to, cigarettes,
cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing
tobacco, or dipping tobacco.
VENDING MACHINE: Any mechanical, electric, or electronic,
self-serving device which, upon insertion
of money, tokens, or any other form of
payment, dispenses tobacco products. 11
SECTION TWO: That Chapter 11 entitled "Merchants, Businesses,
Occupations and Amusements" of the Village Code of Mount Prospect,
as amended, is hereby further amended by creating an entirely new
Article XXXVII entitled "Sale of Tobacco Products"; so that
hereinafter Article XXXVII of Chapter 11 shall be and read as
follows:
it ARTICLE XXXVII
MINOJAI�C*"- x4PEC,
Sec. 11.3701. License Required
Sec. 11.3702. Application
Sec. 11.3703. License Fee
Sec. 11.3704. Prohibited Sales or Delivery
Sec. 11.3705. Signage Prohibiting Sales to Minors
Sec. 11.3706. Purchase By Minors Prohibited
Sec. 11.3707. Possession By Minors Prohibited
Sec. 11.3708 Certain Distributions Prohibited
Sec. 11.3709. Vending Machine
Sec. 11.3710. Responsibility for Agents and Employees
Sec. 11.3711. Suspension; Revocation of License, Fines, Costs
Sec. 11.3712. Use of Premises After Revocation
Sec. 11.3713. Penalties
Sec. 11.3701. License Required. It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm or corporation to sell, give away,
deliver, possess with intent to sell at wholesale or retail,
possess with intent to give away or deliver for promotional
purposes, either retail or wholesale, any tobacco products
within the Village without first having obtained a license
therefore from the Village Clerk of the Village in the manner
provided in Chapter 10 of this Village Code.
Chapter 11
Page 2 of
See. 11.3702. Application. A written application for a
license hereunder shall be made in writing to
the Village Clerk and shall be processed in accordance with
the requirements set forth in Chapter 10 of this Village Code.
Sec. 11.3703. License Fee. The license fee for a tobacco
dealer's license shall be as set forth in
Section 11.3410 of this Chapter.
Sec.11.3704. Prohibited Sales or Delivery. It shall be
unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell,
offer for sale, give away, or deliver tobacco products to any
person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age.
Sec. 11.3705. Signage Prohibiting sales to minors. Signs
informing the public of the age restrictions
provided in this Article XXXVII shall be posted by every
licensee within one foot (11) of every display of tobacco
products, on every vending machine which offers tobacco
products for sale and at each cash register or other point of
purchase on the premises. Each such sign shall state:
'THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER
EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED BY LAW'
Said sign(s) shall be plainly visible and shall measure at
least eight and one-half inches (8-1/211) in height and eleven
inches (1111) in width. Lettering on said sign shall be at
least one inch (111) in height. Said signs shall also inform
the public of the appropriate Village agency to contact should
the law be violated.
Sec. 11.3706. Purchase By Minors Prohibited. It shall be
unlawful for any person under eighteen (18)
years of age to purchase tobacco products, to misrepresent
their identity or age, or to use false or altered
identification for the purpose of purchase tobacco products.
See. 11.3707. Possession By Minors Prohibited. It shall be
unlawful for any resident of the Village of
Mount Prospect under eighteen (18) years of age to possess any
tobacco products within the Village of Mount Prospect.
Sec. 11.3708. Certain Distributions Prohibited. It shall
be unlawful for any licensee or any person in
the business of selling or otherwise distributing, promoting
or advertising tobacco products, or any employee or agent of
any such licensee or person in the course of such licensee's
business, to deliver tobacco products to any person on any
right-of-way, playground, park, or other property owned by the
Village, any school district, any park district, or any public
library.
Sec. 11.3709. Vending Machines.
A. It shall be unlawful for any licensee to sell or offer
for sale, give away, deliver or to keep tobacco products
with the intention of selling, giving away, or delivering
such products by use of a vending machine, unless the
vending machine is fully within the sight of an employee
at all times. The vending machine must be equipped with
a manual, electric, or electronic locking device
controlled by the licensee for the purpose of preventing
its operation by persons under eighteen (18) years of age
when the licensee or an employee observes such attempted
operation. It is the obligation of the licensee to
assure that the vending machine is within sight of any
Chapter 11
Page 3 of
employee at all times. If a person under the age of
eighteen (18) years of age purchases a tobacco product
from a vending machine on the licensed premises, the
licensee shall be deemed guilty of prohibited sale or
delivery under Section 11.3707 of this Article.
B. The following premises are exempt from Section 11.3711.A:
1. Those premises including taverns and cocktail
lounges where access by persons under eighteen (18)
years of age is prohibited by law.
2. Premises where the public is generally not permitted
and where vending machines are strictly for the use
of employees of a business located at such premises.
Sec. 11.3710. Responsibility for Agents and Employees. Every
act or omission of whatsoever nature
constituting a violation of any of the provisions of this
Article by any officer, director, manager, or other agent or
employee of any licensee, shall be deemed and held to be the
act of such licensee; and such licensee shall be punished in
the same manner as if such act or omission had been done or
omitted by the licensee personally.
Sec. 11.3711. Suspension, Revocation of License, Pines,
costs.
A. The Village President shall be charged with the
administration of this Article. The Village President
may suspend or revoke any license according to the
procedures set forth in Article IV of Chapter 10 of this
Village Code providing for license suspensions and
revocations by the Village President. In lieu of
suspension or revocation of a license, the Village
President may levy a fine of the licensee. The fine
imposed shall be not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor
more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each
violation. Each day on which a violation continues shall
constitute a ' separate violation. A licensee may appeal
a fine on the same manner as a revocation or suspension
in the same conditions set forth in Article IV of Chapter
10 of this Village Code.
B. Any licensee who requests a hearing on a violation of
this Article, and for which the Village President upholds
the finding of a violation, shall pay to the Village the
costs of the hearing on such violation. The Village
President shall determine the costs incurred by the
Village for said hearing, including, but not limited to:
court reporter's fees, the cost of transcripts or
records, attorney's fees, the cost of preparing and
mailing notices and orders, and all other miscellaneous
expenses incurred by the Village. These costs shall be
in addition to any fine assessed against the licensee.
C. The licensee shall pay said costs to the Village within
thirty (30) days of notification of the costs by the
Village President. .. Failure to pay said costs within
thirty (30) days of notification shall be cause for
immediate revocation of the license. No hearing as set
forth in this Article shall be necessary for revocation
for failure to pay hearing costs.
Chapter 11
Page 4 of
See. 11.3712. Use of Premises After Revocation. When any
license shall have been revoked for any cause,
no subsequent license shall be granted to said licensee for
a period of six (6) months thereafter for the conduct of the
business of selling tobacco products as defined in this
Chapter in the premises in the revoked license.
See. 11.3713. Penalties. Nothing herein shall prevent the
Village from proceeding against a licensee in
the Circuit Court in lieu of administrative proceedings. Any
person found guilty of violating any provisions of this
Article shall be fined not less than fifty dollars ($50.00)
nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each
offense."
SECTION TWO: That all Ordinances and Resolutions or parts thereof
which are in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are, to
the extent of such conflict, expressly repealed.
SECTION THREE: 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
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
CAF
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 19
ENTITLED "HEALTH REGULATIONS" OF THE VILLAGE CODE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Article III of Chapter 19 of the Village Code
of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by
inserting thereto a new Section 19.307 "Feeding of Animals", by
renumbering Sections 19.307, 19.308, 18.309 and 19.310; so that
hereinafter said Article III Chapter 19 shall include the
following:
to Sec. 19.307. Feeding of Animals. It shall be unlawful for
any person to conduct any activity or create a condition on any
property, that attracts animals including birds and insects, in a
manner or in numbers that causes damage to the property of others
or a hazard to the public health.
Sec. 19.308. Spitting. It shall be unlawful to spit or
expectorate on any public sidewalk or other public place, or on the
floor or walls of any store, theater, hall, public vehicle or other
place frequented by the public or to which the public is invited.
See. 19.309. Prohibited Acts. It shall be unlawful to commit
or do any act which endangers the public health or results in
annoyance or discomfort to the public.
See. 19.310. Nuisances. Abatement. It shall be unlawful for
any person to permit or maintain the existence of any nuisance on
any property under his, her or its control. The Chief of Police
and the Health Officer are each hereby authorized to abate any such
nuisance existing in the Village, whether such nuisance is
specifically recognized by Ordinance or not.
Sec. 19.311. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of
this Article shall be fined not less that fifty dollars ($50.00)
nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and
a separate offense shall be deemed committed on each and every day
during or on which a violation occurs or is permitted to continue."
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1990.
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
`PILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPLCt
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: MICHAEL E. SIMS, PLANNER 15—
DATE: APRIL 25, 1990
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - MT. PROSPECT SENIOR CENTER ASBESTOS
The Village of Mount Prospect has requested bids from qualified asbestos abatement
contractors for the removal of asbestos material in specific areas of the Senior Center. In
particular, the work shall include the removal of carpeting and asbestos containing vinyl tile
and mastic from the social room, removal of vinyl tile in the corridors, the removal of
asbestos containing material on the boiler flue, from the boiler header to the chimney and
the removal of asbestos insulation on elbows, tee joints and fittings located in the boiler
room.
A separate contract for the replacement of the floor tiles of under $4,000 will be presented
to the Village Manager for his approval.
A notice to bidders was published in the Mount Prospect Herald on April 6, 1990
identifying the scope of the work and a bid opening date of April 25, 1990. Seven
contractors submitted bids for the April 25 bid opening. The following is a summary of
those bids:
FIRM BID
J. V.I. $20,757.00
American Disposal, Inc. $24,820.00
M. & O. Abatement Company $26,050.00
MARS, Inc. $26,570.00
Gardean Environmental Company $37,000.00
Brennan's Peb & Associates $39,770.00
All American Asbestos Abatement, Inc. $49,762.00
L. J. Michaels, Ltd. $53,965.00
Staff and our consultant have determined that the lowest and best proposal is from J.V.I.
in the amount of $20,757.00. Our asbestos consultant, ALEX, Inc., has reviewed the J.V.I.
bid, reviewed the work with J.V.I. and has recommended approval of their bid. Staff
concurs with the opinion of our consultant.
This project is being funded from the Village's Community Development Block Grant
Program using Account #23-062-05-6466. This account currently has a balance of $27,500.
Approved:
David M. Clements, Director
/e.
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
it it• MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
DATE: April 19, 1990
RE: Bid results - Compact stations wagons
Sealed bids were opened at 10:00 AM on April 19, 1990 for the proposed
purchase of two compact station wagons. These are repalcement vehicles
intended for use by Village inspectors and administrative staff. The
old vehicles were not offered as trade in, but will be declared surplus
and offered for sale at the Northwest Municipal Auction this coming
fall. Ten invitational bid forms were sent out in addition to required
advertising. Bid tabulations as follows:
BIDDER MAKE/MODEL DELIVERY TOTAL BID
2 VEHICLES
Lattof Chevrolet, Inc. Chevrolet IJC35 5-9 weeks $18,706.60
"Cavalier"
Tom Todd Chevrolet, Inc. Chevrolet 60-90 days $18,980.60
"Cavalier"
Hoskins Chevrolet, Inc. Chevrolet 6-8 weeks $19,280.00
"Cavalier"
Woodfield Ford Ford 45 days $19,398.00
"Escort"
Under account codes 48-077-93-8251 and 48-077-93-8252 there is
$22,000.00 allocated for this proposed purchase. I recommend
acceptance of the lowest bid of 18,706.60 as submitted by Lattof
Chevrolet, Inc. for two 1990 Chevrolet "Cavalier" station wagons.
-ZJ 1 � & Ll a a)
Hefbert L. We6ks
Director of Public Works
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
TM aTT ta
•r MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director of Public works
DATE: April 19, 1990
RE: Bid Results - 3/4 ton pickup truck
Sealed bids were opened at 10:00 AM on April 19, 1990 for the proposed
purchase of one 3/4 ton, two wheel drive pickup truck. This is a
replacement unit for the Public Works fleet, the old vehicle will be
declared surplus and offered for sale in the fall Northwest Municipal
Conference Auction. Ten invitational bid forms were sent out in
addition to required advertising. Bid tabulations as follow:
BIDDER MAKE/MODEL BID
Lattof Chevrolet Chevrolet $13,218.05
CC20903-E63-C6P
Tom Todd Chevrolet, Inc. Chevrolet $13,351.63
C2500 2WD HD
Woodfield Ford Ford $13,529.00
F250 HD
GMC Chicago Truck Center GMC $13,670.16
TC20903
Elmhurst Ford Ford $13,880.00
F250
Northwest Ford Truck Center, Inc. Ford $14,900.00
F250 HD
Under account code 48-077-93-8241 there is $22,000.00 allocated for
this proposed purchase. I recommend acceptance of the lowest bid of
$13,218.05 as submitted by Lattof Chevrolet, Inc. for one Chevrolet 3/4
ton pickup truck.
Herbert L. Weeks
Director of Public Works
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM imarytu
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
DATE: April 19, 1990
RE: Bid results - one ton truck cab/chassis
Sealed bids were opened at 10:00 AM on April 19, 1990 for the proposed
purchase of one - one (1) ton, two wheel drive truck chassis with dual
rear wheels. This is a replacement unit for the Public Works fleet,
the old vehicle will be declared surplus and offered for sale in the
fall Northwest Municipal Conference Auction. Ten invitational bid
forms were sent out in addition to required advertising. Bid
tabulations as follows:
BIDDER MAKE/MODEL DELIVERY BID
Lattof Chevrolet, Inc. Chevrolet 6-10 weeks $12,497.67
CC31003-2WD
Tom Todd Chevrolet, Inc. Chevrolet 8-10 weeks $12,898.12
C3500-2WD-HD
GMC Chicago Truck Center, Inc. GMC 60 days $13,079.19
TC31003
Elmhurst Ford Ford 60-90 days $13,700.00
F350
Northwest Ford Truck Center, Inc. Ford --- $14,650.00
F350
Woodfield Ford Sales, Inc. Ford 45 days $16,899.00
F350
Under account code 48-077-93-8302 there is $32,000.00 allocated for
this replacement vehicle. It should be noted this vehicle is being
purchased less body. Once we have approval to purchase the chassis a
second bid will be let for a special utility body and hydraulic
systems. I recommend acceptance of the lowest bid of $12,497.67 as
submitted by Lattof Chevrolet, Inc. for one, Chevrolet one ton truck
cab/chassis per specifications.
44&:IL-ae4l —
'Irerbert L. Weeks
Director of Public Works
Mount"Prospect Public Works Uiepartment
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE: April 25, 1990
SUBJECT: Parkway.Restoration Bids
Sealed bids were opened on April 19, 1990. Bid tabulations as
follows:
Cost per
Sq. Yd. Total
Classic Landscape Ltd.
Koch and Son
Ingram Enterprises
$ 2.50 $ 2,325
10.44 9,657
19.98 18,546
The apparent low bid, as submitted by Classic Landscape Ltd.,
did not include a bid bond as required; also, this bidder had a
notice on the bid sheet which stated, "Sod to be field measured
for final cost." This is contrary to our specifications. Appar-
ently, the price submitted by Classic Landscape is for sod only
and does not include any excavation or preparation work. 1,
therefore, recommend refusing their bid and awarding the con-
tract to the next lowest bidder, Koch and Son.
When this bid was originally prepared, we had a known quantity
of areas that needed restoration. That quantity was the basis
for the landscapers' bids. Since our original inspections and
preparation for the bid, we have added several more areas to the
landscaping list. I therefore recommend that Koch and Son be
awarded the restoration contract in an amount not to exceed
$10.44/sq.yd., up to a maximum of $15,000
Funds for this contractual work are listed in the 1990-91 budg-
et, page 178, account codes 41-072-05-6250 and 41-072-05-7329.
HLW/td
ntaik76'.� i
Mount ""Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE: April 25, 1990
SUBJECT: CatchBasin/Inlet Repair Bid
On April 24, 1990, sealed bids were opened for contractual catch
basin/inlet repair work. Tabulation of bid results is at-
tached. Funds for this proposed work are included on page 155
of 1990-91 budget, account code 1-071-07-6260.
I recommend that the low bid, as submitted by Artley Paving, in
the amount of $28,430 be approved. I further recommend that
authorization be given to increase this contract, if necessary,
up to the maximum budget amount of $30,000. There are unknown
variables, such as sidewalk and curb removal and replacement,
which could affect the final price of this work.
Herbert L. Weeks
HLW/td
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director.17-
DATE: April 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Rate Study for Flood Control User Charge
Whenever a major Village project is being considered, one of the essential issues
that must be addressed is the question of financing. Sometimes the nature of
the project will determine the sources of financing and sometimes the
beneficiaries of the project will help to resolve this question; however, there
are other times when the answers to the financing question are not readily
apparent. A number of these issues have surfaced over the past ten years and
have resulted in some unique and innovative responses to the financing methods
actually used.
The financing of the acquisition of Lake Michigan water through participation
in the Joint Action Water Agency is one of these examples. In an attempt to keep
the basic water rate at a reasonable level, it was determined that a portion of
the financing should be through property taxes. However, because only about 75%
of the Village would be the beneficiaries, it was not fair to use general
property taxes so a special service district was created. This approach has
resulted in a moderate tax rate and a reasonable water rate.
Other examples are special service districts formed to acquire private water
companies (1 & 2) and to make street improvements (3, 4 & 6). TIF financing is
being used for Downtown Redevelopment, The Prospect Meadows Sewer Project has
used a combination of a sewer surcharge, water revenues, and grant monies to
achieve an equitable financing arrangement. And the financing of the new Public
Works Facility included a combination of capital improvement funds, water
revenues, and property taxes to arrive at an appropriate financing solution.
One of the possible methods of at least partially funding a major Flood Control
Project is through a Flood Control User Charge. This is an approach whereby
property owners would be charged on the basis of their property's contribution
to stormwater problems. The concept of a user charge for financing these types
of improvements is relatively new and is not common in Illinois. However, it
is being used in other parts of the country and indications are that it will
become more common in the future.
The reasons for considering this approach are that it is not clear if all
properties in the Village will benefit in the same ratio as their equalized
John Fulton Dixon
Page 2
Rate Study for Flood Control User Charge
assessed valuation, and a user charge would reduce pressure on property taxes.
Additionally, a Flood Control User Charge could produce a sizeable amount of
revenue at a relatively low rate. our preliminary projections show that a user
charge of $2.00 per month for a single-family residence along with a
proportionally higher charge for commercial, multi -family, industrial, and
institutional property would fund a $4 to $5 million bond issue.
Because a Flood Control User Charge is a new concept and we do not have a basis
for developing an appropriate rate structure, I believe we need a rate study to
consider a fee of this type.
I contacted the Illinois Government Finance Officers Association to get some
names of firms who provide rate studies. I was told that usually any medium-
sized engineering firm can provide these services, and specifically that RJN of
Wheaton, IL is a firm which had done a number of recent studies. In the Chicago
area, they have provided sewer user charge studies for Hoffman Estates,
Streamwood, Winnetka, Villa Park, Northfield and Chicago Ridge. Because RJN has
been selected to perform the flood study for the Village, I asked them for a
proposal to conduct a rate study for a Flood Control User Charge.
Specifically their proposal includes an evaluation of alternative rate structures
for stormwater user charges and an assessment of the feasibility of
implementation in the Village of Mount Prospect. I did not contact any other
Engineering firms regarding a rate study because I believe it would be beneficial
to the Village to coordinate this work with the engineering studies of the
flooding problems. Their proposal calls for a fee not to exceed $19,000 and
would take approximately 12 weeks to complete. A copy of their proposal is
attached.
I believe a rate study is necessary if we are to consider a Flood Control User
Charge, and under the circumstances I believe it is in our best interests to
coordinate a rate study with the current engineering studies. It is my
recommendation that we accept the proposal from RJN Environmental Associates,
Inc.
DCJ/sm
Enc
RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
March 29, 1990
Mr. David Jepson
Finance Director
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Subject: Proposal for Engineering Services
Feasibility Study for Stormwater
Management User Charge System
Dear Mr. Jepson:
In response to your request, RJN Environmental is pleased to
submit this proposal to develop a user charge system to finance
stormwater management improvements in the Village of Mount
Prospect.
We understand that the Village desires to explore alternate
methods of generating revenue to fund the stormwater
improvements that are anticipated by the stormwater management
studies currently being performed by RJN Environmental. The
method which will be evaluated is a "user charge" system where
property owners are charged on the basis of their property's
contribution to stormwater management needs. In effect, a
stormwater management utility is created by the Village to
provide the service of stormwater management and the user charge
is in proportion to the amount of runoff generated by the
property. The user charge is collected to repay the cost of
revenue bonds that will be sold to finance capital and/or
operations and maintenance costs for stormwater control.
The concept of a user charge system for financing stormwater
improvements is relatively new and not particularly common in
Illinois. It is likely, however, that this source of funding
will increase in popularity in the near future. Accordingly,
the proposed project will include detailed review of literature
related to other municipalities who have chosen this type of
funding mechanism. This research will provide the Village with
a comparison between the proposed user charge developed for the
Village and other municipalities.
202 W. FRONT STREET
WHEATON, ILLINOIS 60187
(708) 682-4777
Mr. David Jepson
March 29, 1990
Page Two
Scope of Services
The scope of services recommended by RJN Environmental to
develop a stormwater user charge system for the Village of Mount
Prospect is outlined below:
1. meet with Village staff to collect existing
information and discuss current practices and
procedures regarding utility billing for sewer and
water.
2. Review existing village ordinances related to utility
system charges.
3. Perform a literature review related to application of
municipal stormwater management utilities. Compare
government agencies who have developed successful
stormwater user charge systems with the Village of
Mount Prospect to identify key similarities and
differences.
4. Evaluate alternative rate structures for stormwater
user charges and assess feasibility for implementation
in Village of Mount Prospect. Consideration will be
given to rate factors based on percentage of
impervious cover, intensity of development, on-site
stormwater detention facilities, and land use
characteristics. This approach will ensure that the
user charges developed will be equitable to all
property owners as the cost will correlate to the
amount of stormwater contributed by each property. It
is anticipated that a flat rate will be developed for
typical residential properties and a variable rate
formula will be developed for office, commercial,
industrial, and multi -family properties.
Evaluation criteria for comparison of rate structures
would include the correlation between charges and the
amount of runoff from each type of property and the
relative complexity of implementing each alternative.
Mr. David Jepson
March 29, 1990
Page Three
Prepare a project report to summarize the alternatives
investigated and present the recommended user charge
system. The various alternative rate structures would
be presented with advantages and disadvantages of each
cited. Typical examples of the fee charged to various
classifications of properties would be developed based
on anticipated costs for stormwater improvements. A
plan delineating the required steps for implementing
the recommended alternative would be included.
6. Present the results of the study to Village staff and
the Village Board. Provide consultation and follow-up
in response to questions.
The scope of work does not include services for implementing the
user charge system or for conducting a public information
program to explain the stormwater user charge to residents. We
understand that the tasks would be performed by the Village or
under a separate agreement.
SCHEDULE AND COMPENSATION
RJN Environmental is available to initiate the project
immediately. It is anticipated that approximately twelve (12)
weeks will be required to complete the study and submit the
-draft report.
Engineering cost for the user charge study is proposed on a time
and expense basis with a maximum not -to -exceed limit of $19,000.
Actual compensation will be based on manpower utilization and
expenses incurred. Payments to RJN Environmental shall be made
monthly upon receipt of a combined status report and invoice to
be submitted to the Village by RJN Environmental. Invoices
shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of each
billing.
We trust this proposal meets with your approval. If acceptable,
one fully executed copy of this proposal will authorize us to
proceed with the work.
Mr. David Jepson
March 29, 1990
Page Four
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look
forward to further discussions on this project. Should you have
any questions, or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
7�0" 117r,
John M. Nardozzi, P.E.
Business Development Manager
ff WrINAKM
ACCEPTED FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Name
Title
Date
0
FILE MAKE: KT PRSPT.WKl
RJM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
COST ESTIMATE
FOR
STORMWATER KAKAGEMEMT USER CHARGE STUDY
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DIRECT HOURS
3/29/90
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Travel 3 Trips @ 40 Kiles @ $0.255/aile $30
Printing $250
SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $280
GRAND TOTAL $18,650
Project Director
PD
$95.00 /hour
Project Manager
PH
$67.00 /hour
Project Engineer
TOTAL
TOTAL
WORK TASKS
PD
PK
PE
DP
FT
OT/CL
HOURS
PRICE
1. Project Initiation/Meetings
4
12
12
0
0
4
32
$1,968
2. Review Ordinances/Utility
0
4
14
0
0
0
18
$1,080
Billing system
3. Literature Review/
0
6
20
0
0
0
26
$1,562
Rate Comparisons
4. Data Collection
0
8
50
0
0
0
58
$3,436
5. Evaluate Alternative
4
16
60
0
0
0
80
$4,932
Rate Structures
6. Report and Recommendations
8
16
24
8
0
8
64
$3,736
7. Presentations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
8
12
8
0
4
32
$1,656
SUBTOTAL
16
70
192
16
0
16
310
$18,370
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Travel 3 Trips @ 40 Kiles @ $0.255/aile $30
Printing $250
SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $280
GRAND TOTAL $18,650
Project Director
PD
$95.00 /hour
Project Manager
PH
$67.00 /hour
Project Engineer
PE
$58.00 /hour
Draftsperson
DP
$42.00 /hour
Field Technician
FT
$32.00 /hour
Office Technician/Clerical
OT/CL
$22.00 /hour
BU
Municipalities / Stormwater
Management
ndcr the 1987 Clean Water Act
Amendments, EPA wi11 soon prom-
ulgate lanai rules requiring municipah-
ties to develop and implement stormwater
management programs to control non -
point source pollution. Cities with popu-
lations of 100.000 or more will be
required to obtain National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for their storm sewer systems, and
they will have to manage stormwater
runoffto control water-quabry impacts to
receiving waters.
Perm r applications are due 2 years from
the rule's publication date, which is ex-
pected to be in late July.
These stormwater management re-
quirements come at a time when federal
grant assistance for water pollution con-
trol projects has been replaced by the State
Revoking Fund (SRF) Loan Program. Al-
though the SRF program
makes loans available at
below-market rates and
extends eligibility to
projects to control non -
point source pollution,
local governments must
still bear full financial
responsibility for their
stormwater management
programs. One financing
option that some com-
munities are already im-
plementing is the storm -
water udht , which reties
on user fees rather than
traditional tax revenues to
fund stormvratcr manage-
ment.
DEVELOPING A
USER -FEE SYSTEM
Like a wastewarer or
water utility, the storm -
water utiliry is user-on-
cnted, with costs allo-
cated according to the
serices received. Charges
are related to the runoff
from a given parcel of
land (after a storm) in
excess of that contributed
in the parcel's natural
state. Thus, each parcel of
land within a local gc,,,-
ernment's jurisdiction is
assessed a fee based on its
runoff characteristics.
The fee structure is gencrall' based on
an equivalent residential unit tERU),
which is the average imperious area for
all dwelling units (single family, multi-
family, condominiums, and mobile
homes) in the utiliry senice area. The
runoff potential for parcels in all other
land -use categories is then assessed by the
number of ERUs equal to the imperious
area contained on each parcel. Typical
monthly charges range from S2 to S3 per
ERU.
The user -fee system must be tailored
to each community, calibrated to local
conditions such as soil tape, depth to
groundwater, land use, and financial
needs.
THE WESTERN EXPERIENCE
The stormwater utiliry concept is not
new in the western U.S., although it offers
new advantages in light of the proposed
stormwarer management regulations.
Since 1974, Boulder, Colo., has fi-
nanced its stormwarer management pro-
gram through a stormwater utility. By the
early 1980s, user -fee sstems were also
operating in Denver and Aurora, Colo.;
Tacoma, Bellevue, Vancouver, and Clark
County, Wash.; and Portland and Corval-
lis, Oreg.
More recently, Loveland, Colo., imple-
menred a stormwater utility in 1988 to
fund ongoing operations and maintenance
as well as capital improvements in its 58-
5q mile drainage area. The city generates
about $600,000 peryear in user fees. "We
identified about 100 projects for imme-
diare improvements," notes Don Carlson,
an engineer in the city's Environmental
Resources Division. "We are concentrat-
ing on solving many ofthe local nuisance
problems to foster public acceptance of
the utiliry concept." Before the unlit}
program was implemented, a 2 -year pub-
lic information effort was conducted to
gain public support.
Increased interest in stormwater man-
agement is expected as states complete
their nonpoint source water -quality assess-
ments and management plans required by
Section 319 ofthc Clean
9 Water Act. This will allow
municipalities to apply for
SRF loans for capital
improvement projects to
control nonpoint source
pollution. To meet the
proposed NPDES storm -
water permitting require-
ments, however, munici-
palities will also have to
establish a continuing
revenue source for their
stormwater management
programs.
Recognizing the immi-
nent need for increased
funding to comply with
new stormwater manage-
ment rules, the Texas
legislature enacted the
Municipal Drainage
Utilitv Svstcros Act in
September 1989, ena-
bling cities to implement
stormwater utilities. The
Tcxas Watcr Commission
is strongly promoting the
stormwater utility con-
ccpt because there will
not be enough SRF loan
money to support mu-
nicipal stormwater man-
agement needs.
Gty sheets, bemuse of polluted
conditions and r* runoff, often
contribute to stormwatei problems.
April 1990 19
UTILITIES TAKE OFF IN FLORIDA
-*AW11ffihk.1L0
The Surface Water Im-
provement and Management
Act of 1987 (SWIM) was
enacted in Florida to control;
warer-quality impacts from
,
nonpoint source pollution.
The 1989 amendments to
�I r
f
this stormwater legislation
recommended that local'
governments consider a
stormwater utiliry structure
ra,r,'"
to finance compliance meas-
ures. By the time this recom-
mendation was made, several
"
Florida communities faced
ttll
with rapid development de-
mands and general revenue
constraints had already irri-
plemented utility systems,
and many more are expected
to follow.
The first stormwater util-
ity system in Florida was
developed for the city ofTal-
lahassee. Billing began in
October 1986, generating
revenue to increase the cirv's
stormwater management op-
erations and maintenance
program as we]] as fund a
stormwater master -planning
project through the North-
west Florida Water Manage-
ment District. Since then,
more :han 25 Florida com-
munities have followed Tallahassee's lead.
Faced with a stormwater master plan
that identified roughly $267 million _n
stormwater improvements, the city of
Miami initiated its stormwater utility in
September 1988. According to Jim lay,
the city's assistant director ofpublic-worlrs,
"We felt the utility was a reasonable way
to help fund our capital improvements and
maintenance needs. And we wanted to be
certain of an ongoing source of funds to
implement the upcoming federal water-
qualiry requirements for stormwater dis-
charges."
Miami's utility collects an estimated
iii
downtown redevelopment drainage mas-
ter plan that will quickly demonstrate to
residents how their 52/ERU monthly
tier fees are being spent for needed storm -
water improvements.
Financing stormwater management
through user fees instead of taxes has
proven to be an equitable funding
method. This steady revenue source en-
sures that funds will be available to sup-
port proper planning, construction, and
operation of sa,rrnvater management
systems to compir with the requirements
to control nonperinr source pollution in
the Clean Rater Act.
$5.3 trillion annually. Thus far, the city
has used these funds to implement sey-
eral local drainage projects and support a
large-scale maintenance program. It has
also qualified for $2 million in marching
funds from the state SWIM program for
projects to protect water quality.
The city of Ocala began its stormyvatcr
utility system in October 1988. "We ane
generating about $1 million per year.
About one-third goes to maintenance of
existing facilities," notes B. William Ten -
Brock, city engineer. "The rest is bcin_,
used to fund the engineering and con-
struction of basin -wide improvements to
upgrade the entire city for a 100 -'year
storm." The city has also dc%chrped a
L
otattlt *Wow prableaas
art n itim a to ww- mnm does
have inowoded um has to provide
wWW furls.
CAF/
4/27/90
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect has deemed that the best interests of the Village would
be served by entering into Intergovernmental Agreements; and
WHEREAS, it has determined that the best interest of the Village
would be served by entering into an Agreement with the Northeastern
Metropolitan Enforcement Group.
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 Mayor and Board of Trustees do hereby
authorize entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Northeastern Metropolitan Enforcement Group, a copy of said
Agreement is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
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
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
0
1990.