HomeMy WebLinkAbout4525_001VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
Next Ordinance No. 4453
Next Resolution No. 26-92
A Q E N D A
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
0 R D E R 0 F 3 U a I N E 8 S
REGULAR MEETING
Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time:
Meeting ROOM, 1st Floor Tuesday
Senior Citizen Center August 4, 1992
50 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. X.
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald "Skip" Parley
Trustee Mark Busse Trustee Leo Floros
Trustee George cloves Trustee Paul Hoefert
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Irvana Wilke
III. INVOCATION - Trustee Busse
IV. APPROVE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, July 21, 1992
V. APPROVAL OF BILLS
VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
VII. MAYOR'S REPORT
A. PROCLAMATION: SCHOOL'S OPEN, DRIVE SAFELY
B. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
Consideration of this Ordinance, increasing the
number of Class 11R11 liquor licenses for
Wonderful Restaurant, 1839 W. Algonquin Road
has been continued to the August 18th meeting
in order to give the applicant time to comply
with various Building Codes relating to
this restaurant.
C. Request to create one additional Class•lvwlf
liquor license for Annals Polish Restaurant,
2 West Busse Avenue.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. ZBA 37-V-92, 430 Lakeview Court
1. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN
THE KENSINGTON CENTER SUBDIVISION NO. 29
This Ordinance grants a variation to allow
an I -I (Light Industrial District) lot
of approximately 3.16 acres within the
Kensington Center for Business, rather than
the required 14 acres. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting this request
by a vote of 7-0.
ALL
(Exhibit A)
2. Kensington Center Plat of Subdivision No. 29
The Plan Commission recommends approval of
this subdivision creating 2 lots of record.
3. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
MODIFICATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
(CHAPTER 16) FOR PROEPRTY GENERALLY
KNOW AS 430 LAKEVIEW COURT
This Ordinance grants a modification to
allow a structure 25 feet from a storm
water detention pond, rather than the
required 751. The Plan Commission
recommends approval of this request. (Exhibit A-1)
B. ZBA 39 -SU -92, Randhurst Shopping Center
2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW A GAME ROOM WITHIN
THE RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER
This Ordinance grants a Special Use to
allow a Game Room/Party Zone. The Zoning
Board of Appeals recommended granting this
request by a vote of 6-1. (Exhibit B)
C. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
MODIFICATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
(CHAPTER 16) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance grants a modification to allow
a 321 wide driveway apron in the parkway
at property located at 1110 West Central
Road. The Plan Commission recommended
granting this request by a vote of 7-0. (Exhibit C)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Recommendations of the Safety Commission
1. By a vote of 6-0 the Safety Commission
recommends granting the request of
residents and reduce the speed limit on
Haven Street from 30 mph to 25.
2. By a vote of 6-0, the Safety Commission
recommended the Speed Limit section of
Chapter 18 (Traffic Code) be amended to
reflect the signs posted throughout the
Village.
B. ZBA 36-V-92, 800 Ironwood Drive
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to
allow a 240 square foot accessory building,
rather than the 120 square feet permitted.
Due to the•fact that the motion of the
Zoning Board of Appeals (3-1) did not
receive the 4 votes required for passage,
the recommendation is to deny this request.
C. ZBA 44-V-92, 214 North Wille street
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to
allow an accessory structure 1.91 feet from
the side yard, rather than the required 51.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting this request by a vote of 4-0.
D. ZBA 45-V-92, 104 North Eastwood
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to
allow an addition to the existing principle
structure resulting in a minimum setback of
5.5 feet from an accessory structure, rather
that the required 10'. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting this request by
a vote of 4-0.
E. ZBA 46-V-92, 15 South Wa Pella
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to
allow a detached accessory building to have
4 foot sideyard setback and 6 inch rear
yard setback. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting these requests by a
vote of 4-0.
F. ZBA 49 -SU -92, 400 East Gregory Street
The Petitioner, Christian Life Church, is
requesting a Special Use in the nature of
a Planned Unit Development and related
variations to allow a proposed addition and
future library for the Church and College.
By a vote of 5-0, The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting the requests
with conditions.
G. ZBA Petitioner
999 North Elmhurst Road P
The etitioner is requesting an amendment
to the Planned Unit Development, Ordinance
No. 3604, to allow the construction of a
new Jewel Food Store at a new location. By
a vote of 3 Nays, 1 Ayes and I Pass, the
motion to approve failed, due to the fact that
it did not received the required 4 votes.
H. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO. 4341
GOVERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 503 S. ELMHURST ROAD
The original variation granted permits a circular
driveway. (Exhibit D)
I. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE
OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT (Exhibit E)
X. VILLAGE MANAGERIS REPORT
A. Request to authorize additional funds to pay
for units in the July 4th parade.
B. Request to authorize installation of a water
line under Can Dota, while under construction,
which will provide the water line for the
sprinkling system in the proposed Lincoln Jr.
High School Auditorium.
C. Status Report
X1. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MAYOR AND BOARD OP'TRUSTRES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
JULY 21, 1992
CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present upon roll call: Mayor Gerald Farley
Trustee Mark Busse
Trustee George Clowes
Trustee Timothy Corcoran, arrived late
Trustee Leo Floros
Trustee Irvana Wilks
Absent: Trustee Paul Hoefert
INVOCATION
$.898,969
The invocation was given by Trustee Wilks.
INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Wilks,
APPROVE
moved to approve the
minutes of the regular
MINUTES
meeting,of the Mayor
and Board of Trustees
held July 7, 1992.
Parking System Revenue Fund
Upon roll call: Ayes:
Busse, Clowes, Floros,
54,600
Wilks
Nays:
None
Motion carried.
Capital Improvement, Repl. or
Rep.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Busse,
APPROVE
moved to approve the
following list of bills:
BILLS
General Fund
$.898,969
Refusal Disposal Fund
216,309
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
63,422
Community Development Block Grant Fund
5,360
Illinois Municipal Retirement
Fund
15,175
Water & Sewer Fund
484,568
Parking System Revenue Fund
4,856
Risk Management Fund
54,600
Vehicle Replacement Fund
8,903
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
-
Capital Improvement, Repl. or
Rep.
1,842
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund
349
Fire & Police Building Const.
119,280
Flood Control Revenue Fund
-
Corporate Purpose Improvement
1990
-
Debt Service Funds
475
Flexcomp Trust Fund
7,152
Escrow Deposit Fund
91,395
Police Pension Fund
-
Firemen's Pension Fund
-
Benefit Trust Fund
2,167
$1,974,822
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse,
Clowes,
Floros,
Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved FINANCIAL
to accept the financial report for the period REPORT
June 1, 1992 through June 30, subject to audit.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Floros,
Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
OWNERSHIP CHANGE A request was presented from the new owners of Pete's
PETE'S SANDWICH
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS, CIT12ENS TO BE HEARD
PRESENTATION:
Mayor Farley presented the Tom Abrams July 4th Parade
712 E.NW HWY
trophy to Fairview School Cub Scout Pack 151. This
CLASS "W"
trophy is presented to the parade participant showing
the most community involvement. Pack 151 constructed
their own float, involving the participation of the
entire Pack, the leaders and parents.
Patrick Breen complimented the Village on
acknowledging the efforts of Pack 151, noting that
this type of community involvement will help guide our
youth in future. years.
Richard Hendricks, 1537 East Emmerson Lane, asked when
ZBA 28 -SU -92
the Village Board would be discussing signs,
specifically the newly installed sign at Courtesy Home
Center on RandRoad. Mr. Hendricks expressed his
belief that the sign should not have been allowed as
installed.
MAYOR'S REPORT
CLASS "R"
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
LIQUOR
would increase the number of Class "R" liquor licenses
LICENSE:
by one for the Wonderful Restaurant, 1839 West
WONDERFUL
Algonquin Road.
RESTAURANT
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved for
This Ordinance will be presented for second reading at
the next meeting on August 4th.
OWNERSHIP CHANGE A request was presented from the new owners of Pete's
PETE'S SANDWICH
Sandwich Palace to continue operation under the
PALACE:
existing Class "W" liquor license.
712 E.NW HWY
CLASS "W"
Trustee Floros seconded by Trustee Busse, moved to
approve the new owners of Pete's Sandwich Palace to
continue operations -under the existing Class "W"
liquor license.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes', Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Corcoran arrived at this point.
OLD BUSINESS
ZBA 28 -SU -92
ZBA 28 -SU -92, 1500 South Elmhurst Road
An Ordinance was presented for second reading that
would grant a Special Use to allow the installation of
a roof -mounted' satellite antenna' fgr`the regional
office of Payless Shoe Stores. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of
6-0.
Following discussion, it was determined by a majority
of the members of the Village Board that the proposed
roof -mounted satellite antenna should be screened.
ORD.NO. 4450
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved for
passage of Ordinance No. 4450
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE FOR
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE LOCATED AT
1500 SOUTH ELMHURST ROAD
Upon roll calls Ayes: Busse, Floros, Wilks, Farley
Nays:' Clowes
Motion carried.'
Page 2 - July 21, 1992
Trustee Clowes stated that he did not think screening
was necessary therefore voted no on this Ordinance.
ZBA 32 -SU -92, 1000 East Central Road ZBA 32 -SU -92
An Ordinance was presented for second reading that 1000 E. CENTRAL
would grant a Special Use to allow a wall -mounted
satellite dish. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended approval of a roof -mounted, rather
than wall -mounted, satellite antenna by a vote
of 5-1.
It was noted that the Petitioner has installed
a wall -mounted satellite antenna and the proposed
Ordinance provides for the wall -mounted dish to
be replaced with a roof -mounted satellite antenna
within 60 days following the passage of the Ordinance.
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved ORD.NO. 4451
for passage of Ordinance No. 4451
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIALUSE FOR
T J MARX, LOCATED AT 1000 EAST CENTRAL ROAD
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floras, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ZBA 35 -SU -92, Randhurst Shopping Center ZBA 35 -SU -92
An Ordinance was presented for second reading that RANDHURST
would amend the existing Planned Unit Development SHOPPING CENTER
to allow expansion of an approved 5,000 square
foot restaurant to 7,540 square feet. The Zoning
Board of Appeals recommended granting this Special
Use by a vote of 6-0.
There was considerable discussion by members of
the Village Board as to whether the proposed
"Hooters" Restaurant would be a benefit to the
Village.
Pastor Furreboe of St. Mark Lutheran Church and
Richard Hendricks expressed their opposition to
allowing a "Hooters" Restaurant to open in
Mount Prospect.
Janet Hansen, representing the Chamber of Commerce
and resident Patrick Breen expressed their support
for the proposed restaurant.
Michelle Skowron, member of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, stated that while the request received
a favorable vote from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
she did not feel all the facts of relative to
the restaurant were made clear.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved
for passage of Ordinance No. 4452
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3604
GOVERNING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS RANDHURST
SHOPPING CENTER
Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Corcoran
Nays: Busse, Floras, Wilks
Motion failed.
Page 3 - July 21, 1992
It was noted that 4 votes are required to declare a
motion passed.
It was noted that inasmuch as Trustee Hoefert was
absent from this meeting, he would have the right to
ask for reconsideration of this item if so desired.
ZBA 26-A-92 ZBA 26-A-92, Text Amendment
AMEND CH. 14 An Ordinance was presented for second reading
COMMERCIAL that would amend the text of Chapter 14 (Zoning)
VEHICLES IN to allow commercial vehicles over 8,000 lbs.
RESIDENTIAL to park in residential garages as a Special Use.
GARAGES The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this
request by a vote of 5-1.
Attorney Dors, representing the Charlie Club,
explained that the Charlie Club is located on Midway
Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Elmhurst Road.
Page 4 - July 21, 1992
It was noted that while the proposed text amendment
allows a commercial vehicle over 8,000 lbs to be
parked in a residential garage. Members of the Board
expressed concern relative to the size of the garage
door that would be permitted. Staff recommended the
size of the garage door be set forth in the Building
Code (Chapter 21), which is currently being revised.
ORD.NO. 4452
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved for
passage of Ordinance No. 4452
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN ARTICLES
OF CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VILLAGE
CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Upon roll calla• Ayes: Busse, Floros, Wilks, Farley
Nays: Clowes, Corcoran
Motion carried.
ZBA 37-V-92
ZBA 37-V-92, 430 Lakeview Court
430 LAKEVIEW CT
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
would; grant ,a variation to allow a lot size of
approximately 3.16 acres, rather than the required 4
acres. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting this request by a vote of 7-0.
This Ordinance will be presented for second reading
at the next regular meeting of the Village Board
on August 4th.:
ZBA 39 -SU -92
ZBA 39 -SU -92, Randhurst Shopping Center
RANDHURST
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
GAME ROOM/
would grant a Special Use to allow a Game Room within
PARTY ZONE
the Randhurst Shopping Center. The Zoning Board
Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this
request by a vote of 6-1.
This Ordinance will be presented August 4th for
second reading.
SIGN REVIEW CASE
Sign Review Board Case No. 24-92
No. 24-92
The Petitioner, Charlie Club, is requesting
OFF PREMISE SIGNS
a text amendment to the Sign Ordinance to create a
Special Use category which would permit off -premise
signs. The Sign, Review Board recommended denying this
request by a vote of 4-1.
Attorney Dors, representing the Charlie Club,
explained that the Charlie Club is located on Midway
Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Elmhurst Road.
Page 4 - July 21, 1992
The Charlie Club has an easement on what is
now the Park National Bank property, where the
sign for the Charlie Club has been since 1980.
The Sign Code was adopted in i982 giving non-
conforming signs 10 years to comply with the
new regulations, however, the Sign Code does
not permit off -premise signs. The sign Code
also restricts property to one sign and since
the Charlie Club had its sign on the easement
the Park National Bank could not have a pole
sign on their Elmhurst Road frontage.
The Charlie Club is requesting a text amendment
to allow their sign on the easement at the
northwest corner of Elmhurst Road and Midway
Drive.
Members of the Village Board asked if Park
National Bank and Charlie Club could share
a sign. Representatives of the bank stated
that'they would like to have their own
individual sign and stated that it was their
understanding that the Charlie Club would be
required to remove their sign in 1992
therefore allowing their sign to be installed.
It was stated by members of the Village Board
that Charlie Club once owned the land now occupied
by Park National Bank and that when that
property was sold the Charlie Club should have
retained enough land to allow for a sign
fronting Elmhurst Road.
Mr. Dorst explained that the Charlie Club had
never owned that land and perhaps this mis-
information may caused confusion affecting
the recommendation of the Sign Review Board.
Mayor Farley stated that the minutes of the
Sign Review Board did address the question
of former ownership of the bank property
and since that information may have had a
bearing on the recommendation of the sign
Review Board, he would like that Board to
hear evidence based on new accurate
information.
The Village Board asked the parties to work
together in order to resolve this situation
in order to eliminate the possibility of
litigation.
Mayor Farley remanded this case back to the
Sign Review Board.
A Resolution was presented that would authorize
an Agreement between the Village and the Suburban
Primary Health Care Program.
It was noted that there are specific guidelines
established determining qualifications for
anyone participating in this program.
Page 5 - July 21, 1992
PRIMARY HEALTH
CARE AGREEMENT
RES.NO. 25-92 Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Corcoran,
moved for passage of Resolution No. 25-92
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AN AGREEMENT; BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT AND THE SUBURBAN PRIMARY HEALTH
CARE COUNCIL PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.'
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA'40-V-92 ZBA 40-V-92, 1001 East Cardinal Lane
1001 CARDINAL IN The Petitioner is requesting variations to allow an
existing structure with the following variations: to
allow a zero foot sideyard setback, instead of the
required 5 feet; to allow a driveway with a maximum
width of 34 feet, instead, of 24 feet. The Zoning
Board of Appeals recommended denying these requests.
Staff informed the Village Board that this case had
been withdrawn by the Petitioner.
MODIFICATION
A request was presented for a modification from the
FROM DEVELOPMENT
Development Code (Chapter 16) to allow a 32 feet
CODE (CH. 16):
wide driveway apron for property.located at
1110 W. CENTRAL
1110 West Central Road. The Plan Commission
recommended granting this request by.a vote of 7-0.
Trustee -Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Plan Commission
and grant the modification from the Development Code
requested.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.'
An Ordinance :will be presented for first reading at
the next meeting of the Village Board on August 4th.
ZBA 38-V-92
ZBA 38-V-92, 13 South Maple Street
13 S.MAPLE
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to permit a
6' high fence. The Zoning Board of Appeals
recommended granting this request by a vote of 4-3.
It was noted that while the Zoning Board of Appeals is
final with respect to fence heights, an appeal process
exists giving neighbors an opportunity to appeal the
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which appeal
is presented to the Village. Board for determination.
An appeal was filed and therefore this matter was
brought to the Village Board for final decision.
The Petitionerexplained that she would like to
install the b", high fence on the south side of her
property in order to provide privacy. She noted that
due to the face that she was almost 6 feet tall, the
higher fence would be more desirable.
Mr. Mobus, 15 South Maple, stated that he objects to
a 6' high fence'.
Page 6 -';July 21, 1992
Several members of the Village Board stated that
they were opposed to 61 fences in the Village.
Members of the Village Board noted that there
appears to be a neighbor dispute and encouraged
the parties to resolve their differences.
Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Corcoran,
moved to override the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals and deny the request for a
61 fence.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Floros, Wilks
Farley
Nays: Busse, Clowes
Motion carried.
The request for the 61 fence was denied on appeal.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager, Michael E. Janonis, presented
BID:
the following bid results for the reconstruction
RECONSTRUCT
of Bittersweet Lane:
BITTERSWEET
Bidder Amount
Arrow Road Construction $159,228.00
J. A. Johnson Paving 184,468.75
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the
administration and accept the low bid submitted by
Arrow Road Construction in the amount of $159,228.00
for the reconstruction of Bittersweet Lane
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilks
Nayp: None
Motion carried.
A request was presented from the administration to
AMEND CONTRACT:
amend the contract with National Sewer and Water,
NATIONAL SEWER
Inc., for'the Can Dota sewer improvement, by
increasing the dollar amount by $47,000.00 to
provide for the replacement of water service
lines to specified homes along the improvement
route.
It was noted that while the existing water
service lines meet the standards established
governing lead pipes, it would be appropriate
the replace these lines while construction is
underway.
Also requested is an amendment to the contract
with SEC Donohue covering the cost of inspections.
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved
to amend the contract with National Sewer and
Water, Inc. by increasing the contract cost by
an amount not to exceed $47,000.00 to allow for
replacing the water service lines.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 7 - July 21, 1992
SEC DONOHUE
RE -AUTHORIZE
VEHICLE PURCHASE:
FIRE DEPT.
YARD MATERIAL
DECAL PURCHASE
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to
amend the contract with SEC Donohue,to increase the
amount of that contract for inspecting the Can Dota
sewer improvement by $2,000 to cover the additional
inspections involved with replacing the water service
lines in this area.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.,
A request was presented tore -authorize the purchase
a vehicle to be used by the Fire Department staff. It
was noted that the Village Board authorized purchase
of this vehicle at the July 7th meeting of the Board
in an amount not to exceed $15,032.76 from Cellozi-
Ettleson Chevrolet. Since the time authorization was
given, staff found that the vehicle quoted by Cellozi-
Ettleson was no longer available. Staff contacted
other dealers participating in the State Purchase
program and Miles Chevrolet had a vehicle with
additional equipment and upgraded radio for
$15,127.87, approximately $100 more than originally
authorized.
Village Manager Jandnis requested the Village Board to
authorize the purchase of a vehicle for the Fire
Department from Miles Chevrolet at a cost not to
exceed $15,127.87.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilke
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Mr. Janonis requested the Board to consider an item not
listed on the agenda, specifically the purchase of
yard material decals, which purchase exceeded the
authorized amount without bid of $4,000. It was noted
that the cost of the decals was $1.18 for the purchase
of 3,000 and $.91 each for 5,000 or more. The order
was received with 5,500 decals, which include an over
run of 500. In order to reduce the cost, an order was
placed for 5,000 with the cost totalling $5,043.54.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to
consider an item not listed on the -agenda,
specifically the purchase of yard material decals.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 8 - July 21, 1992
I
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved
to waive the bidding procedure relative to the
purchase of yard waste decals.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Clowes,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved MIDWEST DECALS
to authorize the purchase of 5,500 yard waste decals
from Midwest Decals at a cost of $5,043.54.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Clowes,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Farley expressed the sympathy of the Village
Board on the recent passing of Mrs. John Engle.
It was noted that there is a wall mounted satellite
antenna'on the Enterprise Rent-A-Car facility
on South Elmhurst Road and asked if a permit
had been obtained.
Trustee Clowes stated that notice was received that
the Village will be receiving the State surcharge
he asked that the Village Manager schedule future
discussions of those items that were being
considered for deletion from the current budget
in the event the State surcharge wasn't received.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved EXECUTIVE
for the Board to meet in Executive Session for the SESSION
purpose of discussing land acquisition and
litigation.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Clowes,
Floros, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
The Village Board reconvened at 12:22 A.M.
Present upon roll call: Mayor Farley
Trustee Busse
Trustee Corcoran
Trustee Clowes
Trustee Floros
Trustee Wilks
ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before
the Village Board, Mayor Farley declared the
meeting adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:22 A.M.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Page 9 - July 21, 1992
N N r -m 8
GM
-
11 11-4
V'h
00 � ?
00
69
Vf
eC
O
Q64
ti
O
U
N N r -m 8
GM
-
11 11-4
V'h
00 � ?
00
69
Vf
4
i en 00 m 14 hV7 Rt C"-00 E m t- i!;p � 00
" en
en fn t- VII V V kn tl- m V
N
Vf
i en 00 m 14 hV7 Rt C"-00 E m t- i!;p � 00
" en
en fn t- VII V V kn tl- m V
N
VENDOR
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
A & E GRAPHIC SIGN
ALL AROUND CONSTRUCTION
ALTER DESIGN BUILDERS
ARTFIELD-RIVER WEST DEV. CORP.
HOLLY BARGER
BLUE JAY CORP.
BRIAN PROPERTIES
BRIAN'S SERVICE & REPAIR INC.
JOHN CAGLE SEWER
CITIBANK, N.A.
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
COMM. ON ACCREDITATION FOR LAW
COMP USA
NICK D'ALESSANDRO
DEJAGER CONSTRUCTION
DISBURSEMENT ACCT
DUNFIELD BUILDERS
C. R. DURHAM
DUROPAVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
JAMES D. FIALA PAVING CO., INC
FISHER CONSTRUCTION CO.
JOSEPH FLORIO
HEATHER FRANCEK
SALVATORE FURLIN
MARIO GAMBINO LANDSCAPING INC
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 1
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7130192
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
1577 A & E GRAPHICS
$100.00
$100.00
C11143 ALL AROUND CONST
$100.00
$100.00
1403 ALTER DESIGN BLDRS
$75.00
$75.00
C10154 ARTFIELD RIVER WEST
$75.00
C10155 ARTFIELD RIVER WEST
$100.00
C10156 ARTFIELD RIVER WEST
$100.00
$275.00
REFUND TRANSFER STICKER
$2.00
$2.00
C10194 BLUE JAY BLDG
$450.00
$450.00
0801 BRIAN PROPERTIES
$225.00
$225.00
1575 BRIANS SERVICE
$75.00
$75.00
C6978 CAGLE SEWER
$75.00
$75..00
PMT INSURANCE CLAIMS GAB
$4,605.23
PMT INSURANCE CLAIMS -GAB
$9$224.25
$14,518.48*
920723BPMT P/R 7J23
$224.25
COMPUTER SUPPLIESS
$150.00
$150.00
COMPUTER SUPPLIES
$528.93
CREDIT
$292.99 -
CREDIT
$45.01-
$190.93
RESIDENT RE TR TAX REBATE
$362.00
$362.00
C10935 DEJAGER CONST
$500.00
$500.00
P/R ENDING 7/23/92
$438,
P1R ENDING 7123/92
234.05
P1R ENDING 7123/92
$758.70
P/R ENDING 7123192
$40,254.82
PJR ENDING 712 392
$1,734.14
$482,164.14*
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$21.90
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2.20
$24.10
REFUND STICKER
$30.00
$30.00
C11157 DUROPAVE
$100.00
$100.00
920518 FIALA PAVING
$17.95
$17.95
C10816 FISHER CONST
$100.00
$100.00
RESIDENT RE TR TAX REBATE
$486.00
$486.00
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2.50
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$.25
$2.75
C11193 FURLIN SALVATORE
$35.00
$35.00
C11084 GAMBINO
$100.00
VENDOR
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
MARY ALICE GENGLER
THOMAS GEORGE
HEWLETT PACKARD
DANIEL R. HOURIGAN CONSTR.
IMRF VOLUNTARY LIFE
MARC JENSEN
YONG MOK JUN
ANDREA JUSZCZYK
KAUSHAGEN CONST
MICHELLE KELLY
JOHN KOVAC
WM. L. KUNKEL & CO.
LAKE -COOK FARM SUPPLY COMPANY
DAVID LOCKARD
ANDREW MADAY
VINCENT MANGANELLO
MOTOROLA, INC.
NATIONAL SIGNS INC.
NBD BANK MOUNT PROSPECT, N.A.
NORTHWEST HEATING & AIR CONDIT
NOVAK ELECTRIC SIGN CO.
PARVIN CLAUSS SIGN CO.
PENSION DISBURSEMENTS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 2
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7130/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
C11127 GAMBINO
$100.00
C11128 GAMBINO
$100.00
$300.00
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$67.84
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$6.84
$74.68
C10250 GEORGE TOM
$950.00
C10250 GEORGE TOM
$475.00
$1,425.00
SERVICE
$387.00
SERVICE
$46.00
$433.00
C11067 D.R.HOURIGAN
$100.00
$100.00
9207000PR AUG 92
$225.00
$225.00
C10805 JENSEN MARC
$75.00
$75.00
C10898 YONG MOK JUN
$100.00
$100.00
920723APMT R 7/23
$254.00
$254.00*
C10349 KAUSPGEN CONST
$500.00
$500.00
REFUND HLTH INS CONTR
$6.50
$6.50
C7747 KOVAC JOHN
$300.00
$300.00
1568 WM L KUNKEL&CO
$100.00
$100.00
THERMOLENE
$5 667.31
$5,667.31
C11123 LOCKARD DAVE
100.00
$100.00
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$4.76
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$.48
$5.24
C10461 MANGANELLO VINCE
$350.00
$350.00
EQUIPMENT
$1,055.00
$1,055.00
'1537 NATIONAL SIGNS
$100.00
$100.00
9207000SAVINGS BONDS
$450.00
DUE TO FED DEP P/R 23
32.56
$1$115.23
DUE TO FED DEP PZR 7/23
DUE TO FED DEP P/R 7/23
$93.34
DUE TO FED DEP P/R 7/23
$13,553.20
DUE TO FED DEP P/R 7/23
$3,037.64
DUE TO FED DEP PZR 7/23
$57.59
$18,689.56-
C11267 NORTHWEST HTG
$100.00
$100.00
1542 NOVAK ELECTRIC SIGN
$100.00
$100.00
1576 PARVIN CLAUSS
$100.00
$100.00
JULY FIRE PENSION DISB
$48,853.38
JULY POLICE PENSION DISB
$41,521.80
$90,375.18*
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7130192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
DARIUS PFEIFER
REFUND HLTH INS CONTR
$13.00
$13.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE STAMPS
$580.00
$580.00*
RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
$6,628.23
$6,628.23
MARIO SADA
C11100 MARIO SAJA
$75.00
$75.00
THERESA SAURIOL
C11107 SAURIOL THERESA
$100.00
$100.00
SIGALARM
WARNING SYSTEM
$2,203.63
$2,203.63
SPEEDY SIGN-A-RAMA, U.S.A.
1571 SPEEDY SIGN-A-RAMA
$100.00
1578 SPEEDY SIGN-A-RAMA
$100.00
$200.00
STATE OF ILLINOIS
LIQUOR APF CK PETESJANNAS
$70.00
$70.00*
SURE LIGHT SIGNS
1523 SURE LIGHT SIIGN
$200.00
$200.00
TAREY D'S RESTAURANT INC.
C9378 TAREY D'S
$400.00
$400.00
THIRD DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT
920721 BOND MONEY
$775.00
JY6 BOND MONEY
$4,489.00
JY7 BOND MONEY
$3,825.00
$9,089.00*
TOKYO SEAT COMPANY
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$10.84
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.09
$11.93
CARLOS E. VARGAS
REIMB WATER USAGE
$82.50
$82.50
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
920518 FIALA WATER
$82.05
$82.05
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
C10154 ARTFIELD RIVER WEST
$25.00
C10194 BLUE JAY BLDRS
$50.00
C10250 TOM GEORGE
$25.00
C10272 GUARANTEED HOME IMP
$15.00
C10429 LORENS RODDING
$100.00
C10461 MANGANELLO
$150.00
C10805 JENSEN
$25.00
011100 SAJA
$25.00
C5186 JOHN MARSHALL CONST
$100.00
C6801 CUSTOM SEWER
$100.00
C6978 CAGLE SEWER
$25.00
C9378 BOUDROSITAREYS
$100.00
0801 COUNTRYSSIDE COURT
$25.00
1403 ALTER DESIGN
$25.00
1575 BRIANS SERVICE
$25.00
$815.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
0791 M-K SIGNS
$25.00
Al VARIOUS ACCOUNTS
$2,300.00
00000 OLD ACCOUNTS
$1,644.50
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 4
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7130192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
0577 ACME-WILEY CORP
$25.00
0735 M -K SIGNS
$25.00
0755 M -K SIGNS
$25.00
0792 M -K SIGNS
$25.00
$4,069.50
VINCENT SIGN SERVICE
1552 VINCENT SIGN CO
$100.00
$100.00
WOLF AND COMPANY
1991192 AUDIT
$4,100.00
1991192 AUDIT
$1,500.00
1991 92 AUDIT
$4,100.00
$9,700.00
WORKMASTERS
C111 0 WORKMASTERS INC
$100.00
$100.00
THOMAS WRAIGHT
REIMB WATER USAGE
$60.50
$60.50
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
***TOTAL**
$655,398.41
GENERAL FUND
$460,398.09 REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
$1,849.37
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$2,827.39 ILL. MUNICIPAL
RETIREMENT FUND
$13,553.20
WATER & SEWER FUND
$47,654.16 PARKING SYSTEM
REVENUE FUND
$816.29
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
14,537.98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
$1,055.00
POLICE PENSION FUND
41,521.80 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
$48,853.38
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND
$22,331.75
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
DONATION-ENGEL MEMORY
$50.00
$50.00*
CRYSTAL CATERING, INC.
RECEPTION-JANONIS
$293.77
$293.77
HOMAN REFRESHMENT SYSTEMS
COFFEE
$54.85
$54.85
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
***TOTAL**
$398.62
GENERAL FUND
$398.62
********************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
AT&T
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
$993.71
PAGE 5
EDWARD FRANCE
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
$25.00
$25.00
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
$30.63
$30.63
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
COMM ASST ZNG BD APPEALS
$25.00
$25.00
CERTIFIED REPORTING COMPANY
SERVICES RENDERED
$1,342.20
$1,342.20
HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL
PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL YORK
$258.00
$258.00
ICMA
PAMPHLETS COUNCIL MGR PLAN
$8.50
$8.50
ILLINOIS CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOC
DUES M. JANONIS
$202.50
$202.50
ILLINOIS GFOA
REGISTER WIDMER
$150.00
$150.00
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS,I
SEMINARS
$1,925.00
$1 925.00
RONALD W. PAVLOCK
EXPENSES
$293.48
293.48
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
EXPENSES
$46.66
EXPENSES
$25.10
EXPENSES.37
$82.13
PETTY CASH - FIRE DEPT.
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$75.18
$75.18*
V & G PRINTERS INC.
NOTE PADS CLINGER
$70.00
NOTE SHEETS RUSSEL/JANONIS
$132.00
BUSINESS CARDS JANONIS
$39.00
$241.00
VON BRIESEN AND PURTELL, S.C.
LEGAL SERVICES
$448.20
$448.20
XEROX CORPORATION
MICE AGR -1048 COPIER
$225.38
$225.38
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
***TOTAL**
$5,251.57
GENERAL FUND
$5,251.57
********************************************************************************************************
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
AT&T
016 089 7465 001
$993.71
$993.71
EDWARD FRANCE
COMM ASST BD MTG
$25.00
$25.00
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVICE
$30.63
$30.63
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
EXPENSES.94
$24,94*
JONNA SHOUB
COMM ASST ZNG BD APPEALS
$25.00
$25.00
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$1,099.28
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 6
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7130192
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $1,099.28
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
ENGEL MEMORY DONATION
$50.00
$50.00*
COFFEE BREAK, INC.
COFFEE
$40.45
$40.45
COOK COUNTY CLERK
NOTARY COMMISSION FEE
$10.00
$10.00
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS A.
BUDGET AWARD PROGRAM
$200.00
$200.00*
ILLINOIS CPA SOCIETY
ANNUAL DUES
$125.00
$125.00
ILLINOIS GFOA
REGISTER JEPSON
$150.00
$150.00
ILLINOIS PAPER CO.
PAPER
$940.75
$940.75
MACRO COMPUTER SYSTEMS
ON SITE SERVICE CALL
$150.00
$150.00
MENDELSON ELECTRONICS CO., INC
2 IBM PS/2 BUS CARD
$12.07
$12.07
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
EXPENSES
$6.10
EXPENSES
$14.81
EXPENSES
$.90
$21.81*
XEROX CORPORATION
MICE AGR -1048 COPIER
$225.38
1090 COPIER -JUNE
$1,550.00.
$1,775.38
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
***TOTAL**
$3,475.46
GENERAL FUND
$3,475.46
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
CHICAGO SUBURBAN TIMES NEWSPAP
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
$50.76
$50.76
ELEK-TEK, INC.
COLOR MONITOR
$349.00
$349.00
MENDELSON ELECTRONICS CO., INC
2 IBM PS/2 BUS CARD
$12.07
$12.07
MIGHTY MITES AWARDS & SONS
PLAQUES
$28.41
$28.41
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
LEGAL PAGE
$68.57
LEGAL PAGE
$68.57
********************************************************************************************************
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AMERICAN LIVER FOUNDATION
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
$14.00
PAGE 7
BROOKFIELD
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
25,80
PAYMENT DATE 7/30192
$4, 76.98
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
LIFE INSURANCE AU 92
$2,134.98
$2,134.98
HMO ILLINOIS
LEGAL PAGE
$63.30
$8,569.05
ILLINOIS DIRECTOR OF EMPL SEC.
LEGAL PAGE
$63.30
$1,116.00
LGMG PHYSICIAN SERVICES
LEGAL PAGE
$65.93
$45.00
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.
LEGAL PAGE
$60.66
LEGAL PAGE
$60.66
$450.99
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
SERVICES/MAUER
***TOTAL**
$891.23
GENERAL FUND
$891.23
***TOTAL**
$54,301.63
********************************************************************************************************
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AMERICAN LIVER FOUNDATION
PAMPHLETS
$14.00
$14.00
BROOKFIELD
JUNE PPO SERVICE FEE
25,80
AUGUST ADMIN FEES
$4, 76.98
MED CLAIMS THRU 7422
$33,628.32
$38,031.10*
FORT DEARBORN LIFE INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE AU 92
$2,134.98
$2,134.98
HMO ILLINOIS
HEALTH INS AUGUST
$8,569.05
$8,569.05
ILLINOIS DIRECTOR OF EMPL SEC.
UNEMPLOYMENT BUBLITZ
$1,116.00
$1,116.00
LGMG PHYSICIAN SERVICES
SVCS MAUER
145.00
$45.00
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.
SVCS 7004123772-X
$219.00
9002047389-X
$161.00
$380.00
NORTHWEST RADIOLOGY ASSOC.S.C.
SERVICES/MAUER
$11.54
$11.50
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
***TOTAL**
$54,301.63
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$50,301.63
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INSPECTION SERVICES
ANDERSON PEST CONTROL
BUILDING PERMITS LAW BULLETIN
ELEK-TEK, INC.
MARIO GAMBINO LANDSCAPING INC
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
THE SIDWELL COMPANY
SOIL & MATERIAL CONSULTANTS, I
TOPCON MIDWEST
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS
XEROX CORPORATION
INSPECTION SERVICES
GENERAL FUND
SEWER BAITING
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
CREDIT
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
SERVICES RENDERED
EXPENSES.
EXPENSES
EXPENSES
EXPENSES
COOK COUNTY LEASE ATLAS
1992 STREET RESURFACING
1992 STREET IMPROVEMENT
SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MICE AGR -2510 COPIER
MTCE AGR -1035 COPIER
MTCE AGR -1048 COPIER
$2,040.27 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
INVOICE AMOUNT
$260.00
$59.78
$75.00-
$75.00
$79.99
$350.00
$14.81
$24.90
$2.48
$22.10
$399.00
$285.00
$892.50
$75.50
$294.09
$75.00
$157.25
$225.37
***TOTAL**
PAGE 8
TOTAL
$260.00
$59.78
$79.99
$350.00*
*
*
$64.29*
$399.00
$1,177.50
$75.50
$294.09
$457.62
$3,217.77
$1,177.50
********************************************************************************************************
POLICE DEPARTMENT
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
PARTS
$56.07
PARTS
$49.32
$105.39
COMPUSERVE, INC
COMPUSERVE INFO SERVICE
$10.00
$10.00
COMPUTERLAND
FLOPPY DISK DRIVE
$170.00
$170.00
CURTIS 1000 INCORPORATED
ENVELOPES
$67.30
ENVELOPES
$322.95
$390.25
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 9
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
BLAZER P16 SHAMPOO
$15.00
JUNE
412.
$00
$427.00
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
FRONT9WHEELHES
ALIGNMENT
$39.
$39.00
TIRES
$171.32
FRONT END ALIGNMENT
$39.00
TIRES
$102.96
$352.28
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
SUPPLIES
$111.45
$111.45
HANSEN ASSOCIATES
MTCE & COPIES
$94.08
MTCE & COPIES
$119.76
MTCE & COPIES
$148.54
$362.38
HOSKINS CHEVROLET, INC.
PARTS
$92.25
PARTS
$12.11
PARTS
$93.50
$197.86
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVICE
$150.38
$150.38
ILLINOIS PAPER CO.
PAPER
$174.38
$174.38
KALE UNIFORMS, INC.
1 NAVY JACKET
$110.00
$110.00
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$63.25
$63.25
PETTY CASH - POLICE DEPT.
EXPENSES
$108.57
EXPENSES
$31.00
EXPENSES
$7.40
EXPENSES
$5.00
EXPENSES
$8.90
EXPENSES
$14.00
$8.58
$183.45*
PREMIER MOTORING ACCESS., INC.
MTCENSES SUPPLIES
$185.85
$185.85
PROSPECT BOARDING KENNEL
JUNE 92 STRAYS
$433.00
$433.00
ROLLING MEADOWS HLTH CARE FAC.
BLOOD LEAD LEVEL TEST
$30.00
BLOOD LEAD LEVET TEST
$30.00
BLOOD LEAD LEVEL TEST
$30.00
$90.00
SAVE-A-FET
JUNE 92 STRAYS
$245.00
$245.00
VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
MAY 92 FOOD & LOCKUP
$52.15
$52.15
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
IL LAW & PROCEDURE BOOKS
$155.40
$155.40
POLICE DEPARTMENT
***TOTAL**
$3,969.47
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 10
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $3,969.47
********************************************************************************************************
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
KEYS
$75.00
$75.00
DON ANDERSON
SUPPLIES
$47.11$47.11
EX
$36.10
$83.21
BIOSAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.
40PP2SHIRISKPLIES
$798.00
$ .00
ANDY BROUSEAU
EXPENSES
$50 .00
$50
50 .00
$50
$
BUSSE CAR WASH, INC.
INTERIOR SHAMPOO
$93.90
$93.90
CELLULAR ONE - CHICAGO
SERVICE CREDIT
$40.25-
$40.25
CHICAGO COMM. SERVICE, INC.
SERVICE
$125.50
SERVICE
$35.00
$160.50
CITY OF DES PLAINES
BROUSSEAU%PHENAGAR
$400.00
$400.00
CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS CO.,INC.
2 WATER COOLERS
$93.44
$93.44
KENNETH DIX
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
ELEK-TEK, INC.
CARTRIDGES
$138.00
$138.00
MARK FEDOR
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
FIRE SERVICE LABOR MONTHLY
SUBSCRIPTION
$89.00
$89.00
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
JUNE 92 WASHES
$24.00
$24.00
GIUSEPPE'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT
ESDA PERSONNEL/DINNERS
$88.40
$88.40
W. W. GRAINGER INC.
EQUIPMENT
$100.91
$100.91
H R HART PHOTO
PHOTO SUPPLIES
$120.10
$120.10
HANSEN ASSOCIATES
MICE & COPIES
$94.08
MTCE & COPIES
$119.76
MTCE & COPIES
$148.53
$362.37
JOHN D. HANSEN
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
I.F.C.F.
REGISTER WERNER
$125.00
$125.00
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVICE
$192.14
SERVICE
$75.08
SERVICE
$104.19
SERVICE
$22.76
SERVICE
$21.42
$415.59
ILLINOIS PAPER CO.
PAPER
$174.37
$174.37
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REGISTER ULREICH
$280.00
$280.00
VENDOR
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
STEVEN KAMPSCHROER
MAC'S FIRE AND SAFETY, INC.
MICHAEL MANGIAMELE
JAMES MAUER
METROMEDIA PAGING SERVICES
NOVAK & PARKER INC.
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
PETTY CASH - FIRE DEPT.
R. SCHMITT
SCOTT SLAASTED
JAMES SUGRUE
TECH SYN CORPORATION
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
STEVEN THOMPSON
TRAVEL ADVENTURES, LTD.
MARIO TRISTAN
GREG WEIBEL
RICHARD WELLS
WOLF CAMERA AND VIDEO
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 11
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
EQUIPMENT
$143.93
$143.93
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
SERVICES
$523.39
$523.39
REFRIGERATOR
$705.00
$705.00
EXPENSES
$53.00
$53.00*
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$17.45
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$18.95
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$11.70
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$5.90
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$18.07
MEETING•SUPPLIES TRNG
$20.00
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$15.11
MEETING SUPPLIES TRNG
$14.08
$121.26*
SUPPLIES.
$575.00
$575.00
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
HYDRAULIC HOSE ASSEMBLY
$118.18
$118.18
2 CUTTING WELD TIPS
$24.81
$24.81
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
AIRFARE-KORDECKI
$267.00
$267.00
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
BATTERIES
$9.07$9.07
MONROE FIRE SCHOOL
$120.78
$120.78
AUTO FLASH/BATTERY
$161.02
$161.02
***TOTAL**
$7,661.78
$6,687.13 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND
$974.65
VENDOR
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICES
NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYS
CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICES
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7130/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
AUGUST SERVICES RENDERED
$29,484.50
PAGE 12
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
$29,484.50 $29,484.50
***TOTAL** $29,484.50
********************************************************************************************************
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT. EXPENSES $15.99
EXPENSES $48.45 $64.44*
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION ***TOTAL** $64.44
GENERAL FUND
$64.44
********************************************************************************************************
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ALBAR PRODUCTS, INC.
GEORGE GRIVAS ASSOCIATES, LTD.
KASPER CONSTRUCTION CO.
MICHAEL J. MORAN
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
XEROX CORPORATION
CDBG 315 S MAIN
SERVICES
CDBG 917 WEGO TRAIL
SERVICES RENDERED
LEGAL PAGE
EXPENSES
MTCE AGR -1048 COPIER
$6,221.00
$6,221.00
$930.00
$930.00
$399.50
$399.50
$690.00
$690.00
$36.92
$36.92
$12.13
$12.13*
$225.37
$225.37
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ***TOTAL** $8,514.92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
PAGE 13
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $1,167.50 COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $7,347.42
STREET DIVISION
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
PARTS
$78.72
PARTS
$15.33
PARTS
$9.36
PARTS
$185.51
PARTS
$64.16
PARTS
$139.54
$492.62
ALEXANDER LUMBER CO.
1 FLUSH PARTICLE DOOR
$576.38
$576.38
ALLIED ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY
MATERIALS
$98.40
MATERIALS
$852.70
MATERIALS
$106.80
MATERIALS
$358.70
MATERIALS
$423.45
MATERIALS
$347.40
MATERIALS
$437.88
$2,625.33
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
DOOR CLOSER
$34.23
$34.23
MELVYN BOTH
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
$34.24
$34.24
BUSSE HARDWARE
SUPPLIES
$34.00
SUPPLIES
$4.69
SUPPLIES
$.69
$39.38
CADE INDUSTRIES
SUPPLIES
$222.92
SUPPLIES
$222.92
SUPPLIES
$222.92
SUPPLIES
$222.92
SUPPLIES
$222.92
SUPPLIES
$222.90
$1,337.50
CELLULAR ONE - CHICAGO
JUNE 92 CELLULAR SERVICE
$130.99
$130.99
CHEM RITE PRODUCTS COMPANY
SUPPLIES
$400.74
SUPPLIES
$107.50
SUPPLIES
$40.40
$548.64
R. COLLINS.
S/C SIDEWALK
$56.00
$56.00
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
COMMODORE MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
DUPAGE TOPSOIL INC.
ENGINEMASTERS, INC.
FINE PRODUCTS COMPANY
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC.
FRIES AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
G & K SERVICES
THE GLIDDEN COMPANY
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
W. W. GRAINGER INC.
FRANK GUERRERO
H & H ELECTRIC CO.
HOSKINS CHEVROLET, INC.
ITEC
NELS J. JOHNSON
LAND AND LAKES CO
LATTOF LEASING AND RENTAL, INC
LEWIS EQUIPMENT CO.
DONALD LOSEY
MILLER SALES, INC.
MT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
PROSAFETY
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 14
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
AUGUST JANITORIAL SERVICES
$3,592.00
$3,592.00
BJ80-JT-23212
$137.81
$137.81
JUNE 92 TOPSOIL
$420.00
$420.00
MTCE SUPPLIES
$5.96
MICE SUPPLIES
$8.14
$14.10
MICE SUPPLIES$583.62
583.62
SUPPLIES
$133.76
8133.76
$65.00
$65.00
JUNE 92 WASHES
$20.00
$20.00
UNIFORM RENTAL
$151.70
UNIFORM SERVICES
$151.69
$303.39
1 GAL IND YELLOW
$33
$33,49
1 GAL IND YELLOW
$33.49
1 GAL YELLOW IND ENAMEL
$33.49
$100.47
TIRES
$309.66
$309.66
SUPPLIES
$324.72
$324.72
REIMB SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MTCE
$1,232.00
$1,232.00
PARTS
$29.44
$29.44
SERVICE CALL
$93.00
$93.00
CORRECT STORM DAMAGE
$18,927.25
$18,927.25
REFUSE DISPOSAL
$238.00
$238.00
CAR RENTALS
$2,245.00
$2,245.00
MICE SUPPLIES
$47.85
$47.85
S C SIDEWALK
$140.00
$140.00
R PAIR PARTS
$54.19
$54.19
STORM DEBRIS HELP
$1,756.98
$1,756.98
1830 E KENSINGTON
$117.50
$117.50
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$26.01
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$19.45
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$34.26
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$31.70
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$19.49
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$14.44
$145.35
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
$33.25
$33.25
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$135.63
$135.63
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
QUALITY LIGHTING
R.A. PETERSON CO.
ROBERT RANDOLPH
REXFORD RAND CORPORATION
ALAN SCHWANDT
SHEPP PEST CONTROL
SOUTH SIDE CONTROL COMPANY
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
STANDARD PIPE & SUPPLY INC.
STANDARD TANK INSTALL. CO.,INC
STAUBER HARDWARE
GERALD STONE
THE TEXWIPE COMPANY
TRI STATE ELECTRONIC CORPORATI
VALIQUET INC.
VERMEER-ILLINOIS
VHF COMMUNICATIONS INC.
VILLAGE OF ELK GROVE VILLAGE
JOEL VILLARREAL
DAVID WALKER
WEARGUARD
WINKELMANS RADIATOR CO.
ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS, INC.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 15
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7130/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
SUPPLIES
$53.37
$53.37
R/R LOTS SEALED
$2,317.44
$2,317.44
S/C SIDEWALK
$84.00
$84.00
GRRAAFIX REMOVAL COMPOUND
$69.10
GRAFIX REMOVAL COMPOUND
$69.09
$138.19
REIMB SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
JULY 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
JULY 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
JULY 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
JULY 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
JULY 92 PEST CONTROL
$40.00
JULY 92 PEST CONTROL$40.00
$240.00
ANTISCALE TABLETS
$35.12
$35.12
PUMP
$467.00
$467.00
2 BOILER BRAIN
$10.46
$10.46
SUPPLIES
$111.33
SUPPLIES
$228.90
$340.23
DOOR FRAME
$144.00
$144.00
REFUND S/C SIDEWALK
$320.00
$320.00
KEYBOARD WESTWABS
$58.06
$58.06
SUPPLIES
$2.56
$2.56
KNIVES SHARPENED
$78,80
$78,80
PARTS
$262.95
PARTS
$433.95
$696.90
REPAIR RECEIVER
$39.00
$39.00
STORM CLEAN UP HELP
$2,479.36
$2,479.36
REIMB SAFETY SHOES
$50.00
$50.00
SfC SIDEWALK
$112.00
$112.00
MPP PUBLIC WORKS SHIRTS
$474.64
$474.64
REPAIR RADIATOR$75.00
$75.00
SUPPLIES
$1,224.00
$1,224.00
STREET DIVISION ***TOTAL** $46,615.41
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 16
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7/30%92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $45,383.41 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND $1,232.00
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
ACTIVE ALARM COMPANY, INC.
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
GLEN ANDLER
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS FORD
ARMOR SYSTEMS CORPORATION
BADGER METER INC
BERRY BEARING CO
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
DEL -PAR SERVICES
DRIVE TRAIN SERVICE & COMP.INC
ECONO FREEZE
FLOW -TECHNICS
FREDRIKSEN & SONS
FULLER'S CARWASH DES PLAINES
G & K SERVICES
4 HEAT DETECTORS
$80.00
$80.00
PARTS
$215.04
PARTS
$1.62
PARTS
$8.22
PARTS
$54.60
$279.48
PADLOCKS
$79.80
$79.80
REIMB EXPENSES
$175.20
$175.20
PARTS
$113.84
PARTS
$71.47
PARTS
$3.44
PARTS
$38.04
$226.79
COLLECTION FEES
$75.63
$75.63*
WATER METERS
$1,485,00_
WATER METERS
$975.00
WATER METERS
$762.00
WATER METERS
$4,083.60
WATER METERS
$3,200.60
$10,506.20
BUSHINGS
$36.96
BUSHINGS
$18.48
MICE SUPPLIES
$21.24
$76.68
BJ80-JT-23598
$4,472.79
$4,472.79
BH67-JT-1310-A
$115.33
$115.33
REPAIR FILL VALVE
$631.45
$631.45
SHAFT ASSY
$315.91
$315.91
2 8' HIGH PRESSURE HOSES
$60.00
$60.00
PUMP
$2,208.63
$2,208.63
EXTINGUISHER SERVICE
$20.00
$20.00
JUNE 92 WASHES
$12.00
$12.00
UNIFORM RENTAL
$151.69
UNIFORM SERVICES
$151.70
$303.39
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 17
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30%92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO.
SUPPLIES
$60.18
SUPPLIES
$497.04
SUPPLIES
$38.82
$596.04
H -B -K WATER METER SERVICE
WATER METER LABOR
$594.75
WATER METERS
$570.96
WATER LABOR
$47530.80
$1,641.51
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVICEETER
$30.20
SERVICE
$203.83
SERVICE
$533.12
SERVICE
$33
$36.52
SERVICE
$30.63
SERVICE
$30.63
SERVICE
$61.25
SERVICE
$30.63
SERVICE
$97.23
SERVICE
$17.81
SERVICE
$17.17
SERVICE
$22.53
ICE
$19.87
$1,$37.42
INMAC
DB9SERVDIRECT CONNECT
$37.05
$37.05
LAND AND LAKES CO
REFUSE DISPOSAL
$335.00
$335.00
LATTOF LEASING AND RENTAL, INC
CAR RENTALS
$1,.00
$1,010.00
LEGEND ELECTRICAL SALES
SUPPLIES
$24
$24.40
LAMP BULBS
$22.00
$46.40
MARSH-MCBIRNEY, INC.
DESICCANT ASSEMBLY
$101.67
$101.67
MATCO TOOLS
SUPPLIES
$49.50
$49.50
MCMASTER-CARR
MICE SUPPLIES
$56.43
$56.43
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL -FILM L
SAFETY FILM HEAT ILLNESS
$83.00
$83.00
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
NS E KENSINGTON lE RAND
$15.31
ORR SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
112 E HIGHLAND%EMMERSON
MICE SUPPLIES%LABOR
$28.50
$43.81
$255.00
$255.00
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$3.70
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$5.54
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$2.00
$11.24
PROSAFETY
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
$33.25
$33.25
RAINBOW 1 HR PHOTO EXP.
FILM PROCESSING
$17.68
.VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
ROSEMONT BUILDING & SUPPLY CO.
STANNARD POWER EQUIP. COMPANY
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
TRI STATE ELECTRONIC CORPORATI
WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS
WEARGUARD
WESTERN DETROIT DIESEL -ALLISON
ZIEBART
ZIEBELL WATER SERVICE PRODUCTS
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
WATER & SEWER FUND
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
FILM PROCESSING
FILM PROCESSING
SUPPLIES
PARTS
MICE SUPPLIES
VISORS
MIGWIRE
OXYGEN/ACETYLENE CYLINDERS
LIGHTERR FLINT
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
BARRICADES -AMBER LENS
MP PUBLIC WORKS SHIRTS
SERVICE MANUAL
BRONCO II INTERIOR DETAIL
MTCE SUPPLIES
MTCE & SUPPLIES
$26,854.90
INVOICE AMOUNT
$7.05
$7.05
$67.26
$247.62
$107.10
$32.99
$34.68
$38.60
$3.05
$4.80
$3.85
$356.40
$474.64
$24.19
$50.00
$152.40
$154.94
***TOTAL**
PAGE 18
TOTAL
$31.78
$67.26
$354.72
$109.32
$8.65
$356.40
$474.64
$24.19
$50.00
$307.34
$26,854.90
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
BH66-JT-0498-A
$22.50
BH66-JT-3710-A
$9.03
BH66-JT-5262-A
$155.63
BH66-JT-5266-C
$152.84
BH68-JT-7498-A
$22.50
$362.50
STRAND ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING SERVICES
$551.74
$551.74
WESTMONT BUILDING PROD.CO.,INC
5 PARKING BUMPERS
$160.00
$160.00
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$1,074.24
VENDOR
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION
MIDWEST DECAL
POSTMASTER
REFUSE DISPOSAL DIVISION
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ACTON MOBILE INDUSTRIES, INC.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COURTESY HOME CENTER
DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
THE FIRST CHICAGO BANK OF M.P.
FREUND INTERNATIONAL
I.B.M. CORPORATION - BC5
MILES CHEVROLET -NISSAN
MOUNT PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOCI
RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES
SEC DONOHUE INC.
SWIDERSKI ELECTRONICS INC.
VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
$1,074.24
VINYL RECYCLING LABELS
REIMB POSTAGE DUE ACCT
$5,063.54
INVOICE AMOUNT
$5,043.54
$20.00
***TOTAL**
FIELD OFFICE TRAILER
$230.00
FIELD OFFICE TRAILER
$230.00
FIELD OFFICE TRAILER
$200.00
13H66 -JT -5388-C
$283.16
CEILING TILE
$59.80
SERVICE DOOR
$2,580.00
AUGUST RENT
$2,600.00
2 INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS
$37,134.02
2 INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS
$37,134.02
MODEM
$1,214.10
STAFF AUTO
$15,127.87
HISTORICAL SOCIETY REPAIRS
$4,957.19
ENGINEERING SERVICES
$18,607.19
ENGINEERING SERVICES
$7,846.51
SERVICES RENDERED
$3,24.9.06
SERVICES RENDERED
$4,480.00
MAY 92 FOOD & LOCKUP
$50.00
***TOTAL**
PAGE 19
TOTAL
$5,043.54
$20.00*
$5,063.54
$660.00
$283.16
$59.80
$2,580.00
$2,600.00
+
$74,268.04*
$1,214.10
$15,127.87
$4,957.19
$18,607.19
$11,095.57
$4,480.00
$50.00
$135,982.92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 20
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
,PAYMENT DATE 7/30/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $89,395.91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND $7,880.15
POLICE & FIRE BOND PROCEEDS $12,253.16 FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991 $26,453.70
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
DUO -FAST
INDUSTRIAL LADDER & SUPPLY CO.
MOUNT PROSPECT LIONS CLUB
MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE EXPLORER
NELSON-HARKINS INDUSTRIES
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
GENERAL FUND
BG21-JT-1838-A
$51.69
BH67-JT-3858-B
$27.55
$79.24
SUPPLIES
$86.96
$86.96
2 STEP UPGRADE 6'
$194.00
$194.00
FIREWORKS BUDGET ALLOC
$2,500.00
$2 500.00
EXPLORER CARNIVAL DETAIL
$270.00
270.00
PLAQUE
$186.00
$186.00
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$30.00
$30.00
JULY 4TH BARRICADES
$798.00
$798.00
$4,144.20
***TOTAL** $4,144.20
ALL DEPARTMENTS TOTAL $989,464.29
DATE RUN 7130%92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 21
TIME RUN 10.41.59
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL
LISTING ID-APPBAR
SUMMARY BY FUND 7130192
NO.
FUND NAME
AMOUNT
1
GENERAL FUND
$564,455.17
21
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
$6,912.91
22
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$2,409.50
23
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$10,174.81
24
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
$13,553.20
41
WATER & SEWER FUND
$74,509.06
46
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
$1,890.53
48
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
$89,395.91
49
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$64,839.61
51
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
$9,909.80
53
POLICE & FIRE BOND PROCEEDS
$12,253.16
58
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991
$26,453.70
71
POLICE PENSION FUND
$41,521.80
72
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
$48,853.38
74
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND
$22,331.75
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $989,464.29
xxxxxx*xx**,t*x**x*xxxxxxxxx***xxxx**x**x**xx*******�*x*x**x,t�xxxx*xxxx*xx**xx***xx**x**xx+r*x*xx**xx***xx
P R 0 C L A M A T 1 0 N
SCHOOL'S OPEN SAFETY WEEK
}i AUGUST 24 - 28, 1992
WHEREAS, the coming fall season brings another school year,
and School Safety Patrol Members prepare for the task of
guarding busy intersections near schools; and
WHEREAS, the School Safety Patrol organization, having been
established by the AAA -Chicago Motor Club in 1920, has grown
to be a valuable asset, serving the public nationally and
internationally; and
WHEREAS, Safety Patrol members take pride in having saved
countless lives and prevented many injuries in their line of
duty, and soon will be guiding classmates across busy streets
and crowded intersections; and
WHEREAS, all motorists should watch for children at crossings,
drive responsibly with seat belts buckled on all riders, obey
the rules of the road, and cooperate with Safety Patrol
members in order to assist them as they help students cross
the streets;
NOW, THEREFORE I, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village of
Mount Prospect proclaim AUGUST 24 through 28, 1992, as
SCHOOL'S OPEN SAFETY WEEK in the Village of Mount Prospect and
I encourage all motorists to join the School Safety Patrol in
making this a safe year for all students throughout the
Village of Mount Prospect.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 4th day of August, 1992.
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 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
increasing the number of Class "R" liquor licenses by one (1) (Wonderful Restaurant,
1839 West Algonquin Road), so that hereafter said Subsection A of Section 13.107 of
Chapter 13 shall be and read as follows:
Section 13.1.0.7, Number of Licenses:
Two (2)
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
One (1)
Class P License
Twenty-two (22)
Class R Licenses
Eight (8)
Class S licenses
One (1)
Class T license
Six (6)
Class W licenses
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
Village President
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
1992.
Q=
Establishment
Number
A
Midwest liquors; Mrs. P & Me
2
B
Dumas Walker's; Ye Olde Town Inn
2
C
Alvee's Liquors; Bolzano Liquors; Dominick's
(83 & Golf); Gold Eagle Liquors; Jay Liquors;
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
Shimada, Shoten
1
R
Artemis; Boo M; DJB Brunetti; Chungkiwa Restaurant;
Dragon City; Edwardo's; Fellini; Giordano's
(Rand Road); Giordano's (Elmhurst Road);
House of Szechwan; Izakaya Sankyu; little America;
Magic Dragon Restaurant; Nina Restaurant; Pepe's;
Sakura; Shin Jung; Sunrise; Tedino's; Torishin;
Wonderful: Yasuke
22
S
El Sombrero; Emerson House; Jake's Pizza;
Jameson's Charhouse; Kampai; Old Orchard Country
Club Restaurant; Sam's Place; Wild Stallions Cafe
8
T
Thunderbird Lanes
1
W
Mr. Beef & Pizza; Pete's Sandwich Palace;
Photo's Hot Dogs; Pizza Hut; Rosati's Pizza;
Taqueria Fiesta
6
58
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VII LAGE MANAGER
DATE: JULY 24, 1992
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CLASS W LIQUOR LICENSE
ANNA'S POLISH RESTAURANT, TWO WEST BUSSE AVENUE
On Friday, July 24, the Village Manager met with Mr. and Mrs. Hrycenko regarding their
request for a Class W Liquor License. The Class W License designation provides for
consumption of beer and wine only and only at dining tables.
Mr. Hrycenko indicated that he and his wife opened the restaurant approximately six
weeks ago. This is the culmination of a long-standing desire to showcase
Mrs. Hrycenko's cooking talents. The Hrycenkos are twelve-year residents of the Village.
They indicate the restaurant is meeting with moderate success and beginning to draw
patrons from distant communities.
Their request for a Liquor License arises from the fact that many of their customers
have been requesting beer and wine as an accompaniment to their meals. The
Hrycenkos feel that this amenity would clearly improve the success of their establishment.
The Hrycenkos have on Tile with the Village a completed application. All fees have
been paid and they have submitted to finger printing and appropriate background checks.
The Hrycenkos currently lease the establishment and have indicated that they are
currently negotiating an option to purchase the building. A copy of the current lease is
on file. The business is being operated as a corporation with Mr. and Mrs. Hrycenko
the sole and equal stockholders.
The Hrycenkos indicated that they have no previous restaurant experience nor do they
have any previous experience with the running or management of an establishment with
a liquor license. However, they indicated that they have, as an advisor, an acquaintance
with extensive restaurant experience. They have also received a copy of the Village's
Liquor Code and have indicated they are familiar with the requirements of the Code and
they understand the Village's philosophy regarding the sale and consumption of liquor
in Village establishments.
The Hrycenkos will be in attendance at the August 4 Board meeting and will be
available to answer any questions you may have.
MI L . AN S
MEJ/rcc
attachment
a lawrox WORMIESIMM
0A
10) IF4161
a 0074rcoru Ila I P -Mi Eel
OWNED M.. -M
RENEWAL DAM _1�(, Z.
NEW __,&_�($150 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, 41 I l t 40 14f,' ,Ie
hereby makes application for a Class W 11quor dealer's license for the period ending
April 30, 19 ,3 , and tenders the sumo TS the prescribed fee as set
forth in the To—flowing:
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL FEES FOR THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
RETAIL LIQUOR DEALERS' LICENSES (SECTION
13.106):
Annual Fe
CLASS A:
Retail package and consumption on premises
$ 2,500.00
CLASS B:
Consumption on premises only
2,000.00
CLASS C:
Retail package only
2,000.00
CLASS D:
Non-profit private clubs, civic or fraternal
organizations; consumption on premises only
750.00
CLASS E:
Caterer's license
2,000.00
CLASS G:
Park District Golf Course; beer and wine;
limited number of special events to include
full service bar facilities; consumption on
premises only
00.00
CLASS H:
Supper Club; offering live entertainment
2,000.00
CLASS M:
Hotels, motels, motor inns, motor lodges;
retail package and consumption on premises
2,500.00
CLASS P:
Retail package - refrigerated and non -
refrigerated beer and wine only - no
consumption on premises
1,750.00
CLASS R:
Restaurant - consumption at dining tables only
2,000.00
CLASS S:
Restaurant with a lounge
2,500.00
CLASS T:
Bowling Alley
2,500.00
CLASS V:
Retail package - wine only
1,500.00
CLASS W:
Restaurant - consumption of beer or wine only
and at dining tables only
1,500.00
SURETY BOND REQUIRED
1,000.00
EACH LICENSE
TERMINATES ON THE 30TH DAY OF
Yourpetitioner,
doing business as
0' 7;- respectfully requests
permission to operate
a re ail liquor business at
Mount Prospect, Illinois.
Description and name of premises: PbLh fiesMk
(Description must be complete as to floor area, frontage, etc.)
Is applicant owger of premises: e
If not owner, does applicant have a lease? VeS State date applicant's lease expires:
If not owner, attach copy o -lease hereto.
Does applicant have a management contract with another person or entity for the
operation or management of the licensed premises? N_
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, a rporation, 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: .1 U-1 rU O
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 ADDR"``t STS HELD
Date of Birth: �; - -`(" Social Security #' ;= J — l "G�/O Phone # SS
Date of Birth: -/ -/ui "' Social Security # 3 Phone #
Date of Birth: Social Security # Phone #
. Objects for which organization is formed:
If an individual, a co -partnership, a corporation or an association, has the applicant or
any of the partners, incorporators, directors, 9ffi-;ers, agents or stockholders ever been
convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor? & () If so, explain:
If applicant is an individual, state age: q2-6 Marital status: AJt k—
Is applicant a citizen of the United States?-,,, , If a naturalized, citizen, state date and
place of naturalization:
How long has applicant been a resident of Mount Prospect, continuously next prior to
the filing of this application? ILA
Local address'. Telephone no. (4 7 0
State character or type of business of applicant heretofore:
4, C7
State amount of goods, wares and merchandise on hand at this time:
How long has applicant been in this business? 6 " 4- (,,�-21 k <3
Is the applicant an elected public official? 'j4,C If so, state the particulars thereof:
Is any other person directly or indirectly in applicant's place of business an elected public
official? --}L
In the case of an application for the renewal of a license, has the applicant made any
political contributions within the past 2 years? %LC
If so, state the particulars thereof:
Does the applicant hold arty law enforcement office? If so, designate title:
Does the applicant possess a current Federal Wagering or Gambling Device Stamp?
—
If so, state the reasons therefor -`)t-o
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 prescribedon 28-3 of
the "Criminal Code of 1961" as heretofore or hereafter amended?"C�ti 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? 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? 'aLC 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? ---41L—
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?
Does applicant currently carry Dram Shop Insurance coverage? If "Yes,* attach
copy.
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 issuj—
Does Surety Bond required by Ordinance accompany this application at the time of
filing?
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:
I )
6 -
SIGNATURE OF APPLJCAMT�
C,
Corporate Seal
(If applicant is corporation)
Who, first being duly sworn, under oath deposes and says that -he !�ipare the
applicant(s) for the license requested in the foregoing application; thit—�He <-jiyare 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 OF COOK
Subscribed and Sworn to before me thisZ-1 day of A.D., 199 2
APPLICATION APPROVED,
Notary Public
L OFFICIAL SEAL
RoBER-TA C. WINTERCORN
" 0 ILLINOIS
JE F
MOIAR-Y PUBLIC swE OF ILLINOIS
PIR a g/1
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES g/13/92
Coa Liquor Contrdfr6m—mwioner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
& -
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONI VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 16, 1992
SUBJECT: KENSINGTON CENTER RESUBDIVISION 29 AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATION -DETENTION FACILITIES
The applicant is requesting approval of this resubdivision in order to enlarge the current Lot
508 to provide an adequate site for a NBD Bank processing center. The site is zoned I-
1 and is part of the Kensington Center for Business Planned Unit Development. The lot
sizes were discussed with the related Zoning Board case.
The applicant is also seeking approval of a Development Code modification to permit the
proposed expansion of the existing building to be 25 feet from storm water detention
facilities.
The Plan Commission heard these items during their regular meeting on July 15, 1992 and
voted 8-0 with one pass to recommend approval of the resubdivision plat and 8-0 with one
pass in favor of approving a 25 foot distance between storm water facilities and the
proposed expansion of the building on Lot 510. Staff had no objections to this resubdivision
or approval of the storm water detention Development Code modification request.
MES:hg
CENTER TI
-*5101) OF LOT5 SOO AWO 509 IM K151461MGTOM CUTER RE`" WDNISION TWBM SEVEN, A REST;
---l--=-:7,-TI4EA5T 1/4 OF SEtTlOkl 35,TOWM6141P 42 MORTM, RAMGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRIMCIPAL �
FLAT THEREOF FILED FOR RECORD )kl T"E OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OW JP
Us. LR 38 52 8251) ALL IM COOK 00OUTY, ILLIMOIS.
(0
c*.
do-
5TATE OF I" lkx6l's
5
COUWT\� OF COOK
zn, hereby tc+ 'P Ap d by +4,
0�� MOU4
- —rurveyed,
i 7. and por-
— P, D, 19!n2-
t' and
�A
a+4
V
STATE OF 8LLI7,i0tS
RATM),
CO ukiTY OF COOK
I Vind no de5mr
-.narnrs are
asesssrnerr's due -
4J
i
Dc
i
79
—'verddthe
as 1hd
STATE OF ILLIWOISss
Ets and
COUKITY OF COOK
,A-b19Dz
Approvcd by +4 -ie
-oszc IM nots, a+ a
A. D i
ct o
o
c
a
r.
—rmom:tnere
7, b e d hereon
x
o,i4i as
A.D. 19 lk
tia
Area z 7,56" Acs
LOT
day or —'A
I
cl
�A
a+4
V
STATE OF 8LLI7,i0tS
CO ukiTY OF COOK
I Vind no de5mr
asesssrnerr's due -
Dc
79
STATE OF ILLIWOISss
COUKITY OF COOK
Approvcd by +4 -ie
-oszc IM nots, a+ a
A. D i
btt 4 E-nt +.j!#7el4.Co
V-
ts.'4-H in
&A.15 A.—*
LO*T
151%
Rf� aid
STATE OF tLLlW(Sj,',
COUIJTY OF COOK
Approved
CAF
7/14/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION OF LOT SIZE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN KENSINGTON CENTER RESUBL)IVISION O. 29
WHEREAS, Opus North Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner) has filed an application for a variation from Chapter
14 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois, for property
located within the Kensington Center Resubdivision No. 29 generally
located on Lakeview Court (hereinafter referred to as Subject
Property), legally described as:
Lot 509 in Kensington Center -Resubdivision Twenty -Seven,
being a resubdivision of Lots 505 and 507 in Kensington
Center -Resubdivision Twenty -Six, a resubdivision in part
of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 42 North,
Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according
to the plat of said Kensington Center -Resubdivision
Twenty -Seven filed in the Registrar of Titles on January
10, 1990 as Document IR 38 52 829, in Cook County,
Illinois;
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks a variation from Section 14.2203 to allow
an I-1 (Light Industrial) District lot size of 3.16 acres, instead
of the required 4 acre minimum; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variation requested being
the subject of ZBA Case No. 37-V-92 before the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of June,
1992, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published in the
Mount Prosoect Herald on the 9th day of June, 1992; 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 variation
being the subject of ZBA 37-V-92 and have determined that the best
interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by
,granting said variation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated
herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees
of the Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect hereby grant to the Subject Property a variation
from Section 14.2203 to allow an I-1 (Light Industrial) District
lot size of 3.16 acres.
SECTION THREE: Except for the variation 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 variation granted herein
I
ZBA 37-V-92
Page 2 of 2
shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction
begins within one (1) year from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 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
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
,1992.
CAF/
7/30/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A MODIFICATION FROM
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (CHAPTER 16) FOR
PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS 430 LAKEVIEW COURT
WHEREAS, Opus Corporation North (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner) has requested a modification from the Development Code
(Chapter 16) of the Village of Mount for property commonly known as
430 Lakeview Court (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property)
and legally described as follows:
Kensington Center - Resubdivision Twenty Nine, being a
resubdivision of Lots 508 and 509 in Kensington Center -
Resubdivision Twenty Seven, a Resubdivision in part ' of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East
of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof
filed for record in the office of the Registrar of Titles on
January 10, 1990 as Document No. LR 38-52-829, all in Cook
County, Illinois,
Mor.
WHEREAS, the Petitioner is requesting a modification from the
Development Code, in conjunction with the creation of the
Kensington Center Subdivision No. 29 to permit the expansion of an
existing building to be twenty-five feet (251) from the storm water
detention facilities, rather than the required 75 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect did
consider the proposed modifications from the Development Code
(Chapter 16) for the subject Property at their regular meeting on
July 15, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has forwarded its recommendations
relative to the modifications requested herein to the President and
Board of Trustees 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: 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 permit a structure.to be located
twenty-five feet (251) from the storm water detention facility.
SECTION THREE: 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 1992.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields, Village ClerkA
CAF/
7/14/92
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE FOR
SPACE NO. 2000 LOCATED WITHIN THE
RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER TO PERMIT A GAME ROOM
WHEREAS, Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, Inc. and Edison Brothers
Mall Entertainment, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners)
have filed a petition for a Special Use with respect to property
located within the Randhurst Shopping Center (hereinafter referred
to as the Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows:
Space #2000 located within the Randhurst Shopping Center,
being Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Randhurst Shopping center
Resubdivision No. 1, being a resubdivision of Lot 1 in
Randhurst Center, being a subdivision of part of the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11
East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County,
Illinois;
and
WHEREAS, Petitioners seek a Special Use to permit the operation of
a Party Zone game room within the Randhurst Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for Special Use,
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 39 -SU -92, before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of
June, 1992, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published
in the out Prospect Herald on the 9th day of June, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings
and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in
support of the requests being the subject of ZBA 39 -SU -92; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated
as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Special Use to the subject
property to operate a Party Zone game room subject to the following
conditions:
1. Security personnel in police type uniforms shall be on duty
from 6:00 P.M. on Friday through Sunday closing, as well as
those times determined necessary by the Mount Prospect Police
Chief.
2. The layout of the Party Zone shall conform substantially in
the same manner as indicated on the Site Plan dated May 19,
1992 with any modifications from the Site Plan shall be
subject to the approval of the village Manager.
3. Personnel shall be presented in the facility at all times and
at least one member of the Party Zone staff shall be a minimum
of 21 years of age.
won
FAJ
ZBA 39 -SU -92
Page 2 of 2
4. If at any time the Police Department and/or Village Manager
determines the Party Zone does not meet the original intent
as outlined by the Petitioner, the Special Use granted herein
shall be brought before the Village Board for review.
SECTION THREE: 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.
41V**jF
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PIANMNG DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER V4
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JUNE 22, 1992
SUBJECT: RICHARD SCRIMA, 1110 WEST CENTRAL ROAD
DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATION - DRIVEWAY APRON WIDTH
The applicant is requesting this Development Code modification in order to provide
adequate access to his existing driveway. The driveway serves as an access point to a two -
car garage and a driveway pad to the side of the garage. The owner intends to replace the
driveway and would like to have an adequate driveway apron to serve the entire width of
his driveway. Staff noted that, during our review of the driveway the sidewalk from the
driveway apron north to the property line has raised sections and needs to be replaced.
The Plan Commission met on Wednesday, June 17, 1992, and voted 7-0 in favor of
recommending approval of the Development Code modification for a driveway width not
to exceed 32 feet. This approval was made subject to the applicant also removing and
replacing the curb and gutter in front of the driveway apron according to Village Code, and
replacing the sidewalk in front of the driveway and extending north to the property line.
MES:hg
7 �p.•� r'rvr��� j
't
,04e,fc '
iL
�! !' h.tt ,tiP����R"�'t t,�\,�
('i•!Q•f...'�I� •�
�
�
.i
QR
\ ti
� Q
_ �..
�!� +r
�
h
wrN
�
4
[
,}
:,'k •, /first}"
•
,•
F
44
fY
Q
i
r
CAF/
7/30/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING MODIFICATIONS FROM
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (CHAPTER 16) FOR
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1110 WEST CENTRAL ROAD
WHEREAS, Richard Scrima (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has
requested a modification from the Development Code (Chapter 16) of
the Village of Mount for property commonly known as 1110 West
Central Road (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property) and
legally described as follows:
Lot 14 in Centralwood subdivision in the West Half of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 42, Range 11,
East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County,
Illinois
and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner is requesting a modification from the
Development Code to allow a driveway apron in the public right-of-
way not to exceed thirty-two feet (321); and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect did
consider the requested modifications from the Development Code
(Chapter 16) for the subject Property at their regular meeting on
June 17, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has forwarded its recommendations
relative to the modification requested herein to the President and
Board of Trustees 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; 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
driveway apron not to exceed thirty-two feet (321).
SECTION THREE: 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.
%T2&*1F
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields, Village Clerk
nmra_�
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
FROM:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
DAVID NL CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
-- b f+-4
DATE:
JULY 24, 1992
SUBJECT-
ZBA-36-V-92, ROLAND H. BRACHER
LOCATION:
800 IRONWOOD DRIVE
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Roland Bracher. The applicant is requesting a variation to
Section 14.102 to allow a 240 square foot accessory building instead of the maximum
allowed 120 square foot.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of July 23, 1992. At
the meeting, Roland Bracher explained that the larger shed is needed because they have no
basement and they need the storage area. Mr. Bracher indicated that the shed was located
behind his garage and there was mature landscaping to the rear,
Ray Forsythe, Planner, stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 120 square
feet for a storage shed. He noted that this shed was located to the rear of the existing
garage and that there is mature landscaping along the rear property line and the proposed
location meets the Zoning Ordinance for setbacks.
Ms. Diane Gear of 709 Hackberry indicated that her property abuts the subject property
to the rear, and she indicated her objection to the request. Her objection is based on the
potential for increased storm water run-off on her property.
The Zoning Board members generally discussed the request. By a vote of 3-1, the Zoning
Board forwards this application to the Village Board without a recommendation, as four
votes are necessary for a recommendation.
RPF:hg
(ut�.X2v.;lQ�
c� C'AP-Pev-Tzie- T E°'
Y
'(eve,
C
r
` a Aw
/82
,
07
r w
+..0
�f o �
ry
r
�4 s
ca r e
ONWO
F
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 36-V-92
Hearing Date: July 23, 1992
PETITIONER:
Roland Bracher
suBjEcr PROPERTY:
800 Ironwood Drive
PUBLICATION DATE:
June 9, 1992
REQUEST:
Variation to Section 14.102 to allow a 240
square foot accessory building instead of the
maximum allowed 120 square foot.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT: Robert Brettrager
Gilbert Basnik
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Diane Gear, 709 Hackberry
Vice Chairman Cassidy introduced this case as a request for a variation to Section 14.102
of the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance to allow a 240 square foot accessory building
instead of the maximum allowed 120 square feet This case was continued from the June
25, 1992 Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing. -
Roland Bracher introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a petitioner, and
stated that he would like to construct a 240 square foot shed behind the existing garage in
the same location of his existing 120 square foot shed. Mr. Bracher explained that the
larger shed was needed for storage. He indicated that his home had no basement and they
would like to be able to park vehicles in their garage. Mr. Bracher felt that the shed would
be adequately screened by the existing fence, mature landscaping and the existing garage.
Mr. Ray Forsythe, Planner, then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Mr. Forsythe stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 120 square
feet for a storage shed. He noted that this shed was located to the rear of the existing
garage and that there is mature landscaping along the rear property line and the proposed
location meets the Zoning Ordinance for setbacks.
Ms. Diane Gear, 709 Hackberry, objected to the variation based on concern about
stormwater run-off.
ZBA-36-V-92
Page 2
The Zoning Board of Appeals then discussed the request. The members felt that the shed
location was such that it would not be a hinderance to the neighboring properties and would
actually be an improvement to the existing condition. The Zoning Board also noted that
the shed is exactly behind the garage, which minimizes site impact for Ms Gear.
Accordingly, Mr. Pratt moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend that the
Village Board approve a variation to allowa 240 square foot shed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lannon.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Saviano, and Pratt
NAYS: Cassidy
The request was denied because a minimum of 4 votes is required for a positive
recommendation.
ay nand P. Forsytl
Planner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNK CHAIRMAN
wl-
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JUNE 17, 1992
CASE NO.: ZBA-36-V.92
APPLICANT: ROLAND H. BRACHER
ADDRESS: 800 IRONWOOD DRIVE
LOCATION MAP:
GREENWOOD
do CT if7 h MG n 0 r, 'M N
" � NO'
P
O 0 0
9O5
04 'Ir to QD C4
0 0 0 0 0 0 00+
r, r, r, p 0
HACKBERRY
0 0 0 a 0
to w - qQ
903
00 C"
0 0 0 0
901 rn
IRONWOOD DR
10 0 0
= CO M
F) 0 0 0 0 7-1-- -
801
I I "S 1 -0 1 -0F1 11.0 M -OO 7801. -
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
LOT SIZE: 8,750
% COVERAGE: 36% (37.46 proposed)
F -A -R.: N/A
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
A variation to Section 14.102 to allow a 240 square foot accessory building instead of the
maximum allowed 120 square foot.
z0v
Summary of application: The petitioner has indicated that he would like to replace his
existing shed with a larger 12' x 20' shed (240 square feet). The application indicates that
the additional size is requested due to lack of storage space. The application also indicates
that the shed will be screened by the existing garage and mature landscaping.
Impact on Surrounding Properties: The proposed shed is located 3 feet to the rear of the
existing two -car garage approximately 5 feet from the side property line and 6 feet from the
rear property line. There is a dense row of mature lane caping and a fence along the rear
property line and a cyclone fence along the side lot line. The shed will be approximately
40 feet from the east property line. The existing lot coverage is 36% and the proposed lot
coverage is 37,46%.
Oft"A"ROAZI210TOW19. t
There were no objections from other departments. Inspection Services and Engineering
would like the petitioner to be reminded that existing drainage is to remain and should the
shed be approved, a building permit is required.
The petitioner has indicated a need for a larger shed and has proposed the shed in a
location that will not, in staffs opinion, have a negative impact on the surrounding
properties. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of an accessory structure which is
240 square feet in area instead of the maximum allowed 120 square feet.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE MANAGER
q�L
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 24, 1992
SUBJECT: ZBA46-V.92, EDWIN AND SUSAN BOUNDY
LOCATION: 15 SOUTH WA-PELLA AVENUE
0
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Edwin and Susan Boundy. The applicant is requesting a
variance to Section 14.102.B.2 to allow a detached accessory building to have an interior
minimum lot line setback of 4 feet and a rear yard setback of 0.5 ft. (6") instead of the
required 5 feet.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of July 23, 1992. At
the meeting, Susan Boundy indicated that they were requesting to rebuild a shed on a
concrete slab which previously had a shed on it She indicated that the cost of removing and
repaving the concrete was cost prohibitive.
Becky Maroot, Planning Intern, indicated that this is an area with large lots and there had
been a shed on the property in this location. There were letters of support submitted by all
the neighbors who would be directly impacted by the shed.
The Zoning Board members generally discussed the request. By a vote of 4-0, the Zoning
Board recommends approval of the variance request to allow an accessory structure to be
built 4 feet from the interior lot line and 0.5 ft. (6") from the rear yard lot line.
DMC:hg
WA - PEZ A
A P NVE
� � ♦ I
}
h y
OZUh
Soli
Y
cZ
♦7<
SY... ..iY .. ...i t.r
,}I../'k' ,.py'M.Y
Jk
.vrr lJ).N/a.a ,tr •iwlf l..N
�y��. � �:
+� ♦ w .
�� .."4"
,1..
dw
�
YlI
4" C'
x
M.
L' Q
3t fh4
i !
25 Rt'I
SE
s
c'
�Swl
2
all
2 BIZ
a
c�i 2sa?�IL
SOW,
4, �
nfiln <rnf ..irci ,♦�
k� a <y.J.... i rrc
C 1
f'C
♦ �
b
♦
�
c} i
L �
M/II�II�W�WWMNMMIIMMN �
;
3
11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO ' .46-V-92
Hearing Date: July 23, 1992
PETITIONER:
Edwin & Susan Boundy
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
15 South WaPella Avenue
PUBLICATION DATE:
July 7, 1992
REQUEST.
A variation from Section 14.102.8.2 of the
Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance to allow, a
detached accessory building to have an interior
minimum lot line setback of 4 feet to the side
lot line and .5 feet to the rear lot line instead
of the minimum 5 feet.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano,
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Vice Chairman Cassidy introduced this case as a request for a variation to allow a detached
accessory building to have an interior lot line setback of 4 feet and a rear yard setback of
6 inches instead of the required 5 feet at 15 South WaPilla Avenue.
Susan Boundy introduced herself to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a petitioner and stated
that she would like to replace the old metal shed with a new wood shed on an existing piece
of concrete stab.
Becky Maroot, Planning Intern, then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Ms. Maroot stated the petitioner is requesting a variation to allow a .5 ft. (6") rear
setback and a 4 foot sideyard setback for a shed, instead of the minimum '; foot required
by Code. She stated the petitioner„ would like to construct a new shed on an existing 10' x
12' cement slab in their rear yard. Ms. Maroot stated that the surrounding area consisted
of a 3 ft, chain-link fence and a raw of dense, 5 foot tan hedges. She also stated that the
petitioner and the surrounding neighbors have large lots and a shed would not crate an
adverse impact on the neighbor's property. Ms. Maroot concluded her summary by stating
that staff would note that the fi
staff supports the minimum re
location and the neighbors not
Mr. Peter Lannon asked if the
Vice Chairman Cassidy then as]
Dennis Saviano stated that the
neighbors. Mr. Cassidy read of
then stated several names of of
There being no further discus
ZBA=46-V-42
Page 2
ner metal shed did not have any impact on the area and
setback, only on the basis of the former shed at this
rjecting.
oposed shed will be same size as the existing shed.
A for comments from members of the Zoning Board. Mr.
;titioner did a good job receiving' letters of support from
letter of support from an adjoining property owner. He
man Cassidy asked for a motion on the
I of Appeals approve a detached a � ssory
tback of 4 feet and rear yard setback of 6
inches instead of the required S feet at 15 South WaPella Avenue. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Saviano.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Dannon, Saviano, and Cassidy
NAYS: None
The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration
Becky Maroot,
Planning Intern
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 14, 1992
CASE NO.:
ZBA-46-V-92
APPLICANT:
EDWIN AND SUSAN BOUNDY
ADDRESS:
15 SOUTH WA-PELLA AVENUE
LOCATION MAP:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
LOT SIZE: 7,780.5 sq. ft.
% COVERAGE: 29%
FA -R.: N/A
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioner is requesting a variation from Section 14.102.8.2 to allow a 0.5 ft. (6") rear
setback and a 4 ft. sideyard setback for a shed instead of the minimum 5 ft. required by
Code.
Summary of application: The petitioners would like to construct a new shed on an existing
slab in their rear yard. The slab is 6" from the rear lot line and 4 ft. from the side lot line.
The applicant is requesting a variation to construct their wooden shed on the 10' x 12'
cement slab to avoid removing and replacing the existing concrete. A deteriorated metal
shed has been removed from the slab.
Impact on Surrounding Properties: In the surrounding area there is a 3 ft. chain-link fence
and a row of dense, 5 ft, tall hedges on the side lot line. The adjacent neighbors have an
existing shed that is directly in the back of the proposed shed. The petitioner and the
surrounding neighbors have large lots and a shed would not create an adverse impact on
the neighbor's property. Several neighbors indicate no objection to the request.
The inspection Services Department commented on keeping the existing drainage pattern
as it currently exists. Both Engineering and Inspection Services Departments recommend
that the petitioners do not add any additional fill around the rear or side property line.
Staff would note that the former metal shed did not have any impact on the area, as
neighbors support the application for the new shed. Since the shed is screened to the side
lot line with 5 ft. dense hedges, impact is reduced. Concerning the minimum rear setback,
staff supports this only on the basis of the former shed at this location, and the neighbors
not objecting. Staff reminds the petitioner that if the variations are approved, the
appropriate permit procedures will need to be followed.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PIANNMG DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
Toi
LAGE MANAGER
MICHAEL E. JANON Dr
�& 4ro
gl'4
111�e4
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 27, 1992
SUBJECT:
ZBA44-V-92, MARTIN AND RENATA SOBEY
LOCATION:
214 NORTH WILLE STREET
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Martin and Renata Sobey. The applicant is requesting a
variance to Section 14.102.B.2 to allow an accessory structure to be constructed with a
minimum side yard setback of 1.91 feet instead of the required five feet.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of July 23, 1992. At
the meeting, Martin Sobey indicated that they are proposing to build a new two -car garage
on their property to replace a one -car garage that they will remove. The garage will be built
approximately 1.91 feet from the side yard which is the same setback of the existing garage,
in order to maintain as much useable rear yard space as possible.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, indicated that the lot is 55 feet wide which is a narrow lot, and that
the standards in the Zoning Ordinance are designed for a 65 foot wide lot. Mr. Forsythe
also noted that other lots in this area are improved with garages which are close to the lot
line.
The Zoning Board members generally discussed the request. By a vote of 4-0, the Zoning
Board recommends approval of the variance request to allow an accessory structure with a
setback of 1.91 feet.
DMC:hg
z PLAT OF SURVEY -
Sy
SIEVERTSEN SURVEY SERVICE ,INC.
21S SOUTH RIDGE AVENUE
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS. ILLINOIS $0005
OE
4 In Blovk 7 in liillcrc.,st, belng 9 R,dlvkIlCn In the Nr,ilhe,st !/I. ,.' th-
ept the North 2-718 Aerelt thereof) Of �P' r.1"M !qi, 7wrmhip 6, t4-lth, HAnwe 11
third Principal HerldtFin, al,,;o the N,Irth ACI,!; of th, ,, "h-, t 1/', of -w,
(ex,-ept the West 291,1 Fr,ot of the I Feat lvillp N"rl!l of rho -Oh A
k -,t ,/? of the 9outhert 1/4 7r ll',t„n "/, thereof) n11 1, ,*,,-k r murky, T I I In—,
Stmop, 6t no”,
couniv .1 C."
1. EA*wd AL Skvtd—. a Rooybt—d 116—k
td
rr, LWOK PAGE --45a— hrk* ctrOy 0.1 t b.- .�.d th.
944 im t%6 P,w ZOO v -w 4AWt abaerac 1 r "Mr -cod of a" above. ftW " OK pW aho.n I— is
v Wort otirtkn any ftoul-4016V tttil uIllots 11 im,'-qatotiowd should aI *#Ad survey.
he farad, report arm to orr office a tt0000:c Bram liv%otoo mW
A��`DAV�
oNy wlvrrerAeyarwracorslHir tie oamr:odrrwir Mer to yew TMS F
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 44-V-92
Hearing Date: July 23, 1992
PETITIONER:
Martin & Renata Sobey
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
214 North Wille Street
PUBLICATION DATE:
July 7, 1992
REQUEST:
A variation to Section 14.102.8.2 of the Mount
Prospect Zoning Ordinance to allow an
accessory structure to be constructed with a
minimum side yard setback of 1.91 feet instead
of the required five feet.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
None
Vice Chairman Cassidy introduced this case as a request for a variation to Section
14.102.B.2 to allow an accessory structure to be constructed with a minimum sideyard
setback of 1.91 feet instead of the required 5 feet.
Martin Sobey introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated that the
application was filed so that a new two -car garage could be biiilt on the property with a
similar setback to the existing one -or garage. He stated he hoped to maintain a more
usable rear yard by maintaining the same setba&
Ray Forsythe, Planner, summarized the staff report. He indicated that the lot is 55 feet
wide which is a narrow lot, and that the standards in the Zoning Ordinance are designed
for a 65 foot wide lot. Mr. Forsythe also noted that other lots in this area are improved
with garages which are close to the lot line.
The Zoning Board of Appeals briefly discussed the request. Peter Lannon questioned the
Inspection Services suggestion that 5/8" Class X drywall be added to the garage for fire
safety. Mr. Sobey agreed to the condition.
ZBA-44-V-92
Page 2
Accordingly, Vice Chairman Cassidy asked for a motion on the request. Mr. Lannon moved
that a variation be recommended to allow a minimum sideyard setback of 1.91 feet so that
a two -car garage can be constructed on the property. Mr. Pratt seconded the motion.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Lannon, Saviano and Cassidy
NAYS: None
This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board.
Raymond P. Forsythe,
Planner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 15, 1992
CASE NO.:
ZBA44-V-92
APPLICANT-
MARTIN AND RENATA SOBEY
ADDRESS:
214 NORTH WILLE STREET
LOCATION MAP:
HIS
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
LOT SIZE: 7,252.30
% COVERAGE: 37% (eidsting) 42% (proposed)
F -A -R. : N/A
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.102.B.2 to allow an accessory structure
to be constructed with a minimum side yard setback of 1.91 ft. instead of the required 5 feet.
Summary of application: The applicants hope to construct a new detached two -car garage
in the rear yard 1.91 feet from the side lot line, and approximately 18 feet from the rear
property line. An existing one -car garage is located 1.81 fL from the side yard and over 30
feet from the rear lot line, and the petitioners would like to maintain the same side yard
setback. The existing garage will be demolished. The proposed garage is proposed further
back on the lot than the existing garage. A new driveway will be constructed for access to
the garage. -
Impact on Surrounding Properties: The applicants' lot is only 55 feet wide and they want
to maximize the amount of open space in the rear yard. Staff notes that garages in this area
of the Village are close to the side lot lines. Staff believes that the narrow lot width does
impose a hardship since the setback standards relate to the standard 65 foot lot width. The
lot coverage is less than the maximum allowed.
MIER DEEAMENTAL' COMNZM
Inspection Services recommends that 5/8" Class X drywall be used on the interior of the
garage since it is proposed less than 5 feet from the property line. Also drainage patterns
shall not be altered with the new garage.
SOMMUMECOMMENDIATION
Staff notes that the lot is narrow and under -sized, which contributes to the need for a
variation and would recommend that the request be approved subject to the condition that
5/8" Class X drywall be used on the interior of the garage.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Walter Szymczak. The applicant is requesting a variation to
Section 14.102 to allow an addition to the principal structure which would result in a
minimum setback of 5.5 ft. from an accessory structure instead of .10 ft. as required.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of July 23, 1992. At
the meeting, Mr. Szymczak stated that they have an existing entrance with an open porch
that is not used and in need of repair. Mr. Szymczak indicated that they wanted to construct
an addition to their kitchen to allow room for an eating area.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, indicated that the existing dwelling is within 10 feet of the garage,
however, the addition increases the non -conformity which requires a variation. He also
stated that the addition maintains the same vertical wall as the house and all required
sideyard setbacks are maintained.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the request. By a vote of 4-0, the Zoning Board
recommends approval of the variance request to allow an addition to the principal structure
which would result in a minimum setback of 5.5 feet from an accessory structure.
SU901
T(i
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
Wt1-
'11�
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 27, 1992
SUBJECT:
ZBA45-V-92, WALTER J. SZYMCZAK
LOCATION:
104 NORTH EASTWOOD AVENUE
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
a variance application filed by Walter Szymczak. The applicant is requesting a variation to
Section 14.102 to allow an addition to the principal structure which would result in a
minimum setback of 5.5 ft. from an accessory structure instead of .10 ft. as required.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of July 23, 1992. At
the meeting, Mr. Szymczak stated that they have an existing entrance with an open porch
that is not used and in need of repair. Mr. Szymczak indicated that they wanted to construct
an addition to their kitchen to allow room for an eating area.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, indicated that the existing dwelling is within 10 feet of the garage,
however, the addition increases the non -conformity which requires a variation. He also
stated that the addition maintains the same vertical wall as the house and all required
sideyard setbacks are maintained.
The Zoning Board generally discussed the request. By a vote of 4-0, the Zoning Board
recommends approval of the variance request to allow an addition to the principal structure
which would result in a minimum setback of 5.5 feet from an accessory structure.
SU901
4 5.�« a so t E J
t
it IQ
Ir' !fi#,. \e NtW ` CONctfrE �p OR ✓flv #YF�
41 iT
1 � ,cvonrt � aamr raX N � j t �
Is
ij
tel! o � .✓e. ioa *
J7.'FO 4 ,BCaMJ
y J
r v
I� L
0
at 10 I�f
•u
r u
b
Survey brought up to date to Mor iii
r
impraremeets on'�(+�j�'t� � 19 9z
Registered fib a ofv4yor iF 3
$urver bteugM up to date to at.. oil
e �.
k
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 45-V-92
Hearing Date: July 23, 1992
PETITIONER:
Walter J. Szymczak
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
104 North Eastwood Avenue
PUBLICATION DATE:
July 7, 1992
REQUEST:
A variation from Section 14.102 of the Mount
Prospect Zoning Ordinance to allow an addition
to the existing principle structure which would
result in a minimum setback of 55 feet from
an accessory structure instead of 10 feet as
required.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None
Vice Chairman Cassidy introduced Case ZBA-45-V-92 as being an application filed by
Walter Szymczak at 104 North Eastwood Avenue, in order to allow an addition to the
existing principal structure which would result in a minimum setback of 5.5 feet from an
accessory structure instead of 10 feet as required.
Mr. Szymczak introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals and explained that he
would like to construct a 6'6" x 9'4" kitchen addition to the side and rear of the existing
house to allow a seating area. He explained that the steps and porch are in need of repair
and are unused because of another rear entrance to the home.
Mr. Forsythe then summarized the staff report. He indicated that the• existing dwelling is
already within 10 feet of the accessory structure, however, the addition increases the non-
conformity which requires the variation. Mr. Forsythe stated that the addition should
present no impact to the neighbors because the additional maintains the same vertical wall
as the house and all sideyard setbacks are to be maintained. Mr. Forsythe indicated that
ZBA45-V-92
Page 2
the Inspection Services Department recommends that 5/8" Class X drywall be added to the
garage for fire protection,
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. Mr. Lannon questioned the
petitioner on the possible condition of adding the drywall. Mr. , Szymczak stated no
objection
Vice Chairman Cassidy asked for a motion on the request. Mr. Lannon moved that a
variation is recommended to allow an addition to the existing principal structure which
would result in a 5.5 foot setback from an accessory structure. Mr. Saviano seconded the
motion,
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Lannon, Saviano and Cassidy
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 40. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration.
Raym nd P. Forkythe
Planner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 15, 1992
CASE NO.:
ZBA45-V-92
APPLICANT:
WALTER J. SZYMCZAK
ADDRESS:
104 NORTH EASTWOOD AVENUE
LOCATION MAP:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
FAR.:
R-1 Single Family Residential
7,253.80
54% (existing) 54% (proposed)
.27 (existing) 18 (proposed)
Gil Basnik, chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
REQLM
The applicant is requesting a variation to Section 14.104 to allow an addition to the existing
principal structure which would result in a minimum setback of 5.5 ft. from an accessory
structure instead of 10 ft. as required.
I!LANNING AND Z!QNING CQMMEM AND CONCERNS
Summary of application: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6'6" x 9'4" kitchen
addition to the side and rear of the existing house. The addition is to be placed in an area
which is currently paved, therefore, the existing lot coverage is not being increased.
Impact on Surrounding Properties: The existing garage is located near the house which
contributes to the need for the variation. The addition will replace an existing side porch
and stairs which are currently within 10 feet of the garage. The kitchen addition is larger
than the porch and steps it replaces, so non -conformity is increased with this request. The
location of the room addition should have no impact on the adjoining property, as the
addition maintains the same vertical wall as the house. A 15 ft. setback from the interior
lot line is shown on the site plan.
No major concerns were expressed by other Village staff. However, Inspection Services
suggests that 5/8" Class X drywall be installed on the interior of the existing garage for fire
protection.
Staff has no objection to this request but suggests that approval be conditioned on
fireproofing the existing garage with 519" Class X drywall, as suggested by Inspection
Services. The kitchen addition fits nicely into an existing off -set at the rear of the house,
so the proposal is compatible with the home.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER $
FROM: DAVID M. CLEME S, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 27, 1992
SUBJECT: ° ZBA49-SU-92, CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH AND COLLEGE
LOCATION: 400 EAST GREGORY
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation of a
Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow an addition and future library
for Christian Life Church and College.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their meeting of July 23, 1992. At
the meeting, Rev. Daryl Merrill gave a history of the Christian Life Church and College.
He indicated that 8 acres of their property was recently sold to the Park District.
Rev. Harry Schmidt then gave an overview of the proposed additions. He described the
proposed 700 seat sanctuary and related office space, and a future library addition. He
indicated that they had held a neighborhood meeting on July 20, 1992 to inform the
neighbors and get their input on the plan.
Architect Richard Keilor then gave specific information on the building additions and
indicated that the materials and design to be used matches the existing structure.
Ray Forsythe, Planner, stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows a church in an R-1
Residential District but doesn't specifically include a College. He indicated that the PUD
request includes the College, the proposed additions, as well as the following variations:
1. A variation to allow a reduction in the required parking spaces from 365 to
332.
2. A variation to allow approximately 47.75% lot coverage instead of the 45%
maximum allowed.
Mr. Forsythe indicated that all setbacks meet ordinance requirements and that the parking
and lot coverage variations were minimal and should not pose an impact. .
Mr. John Korn, 301 N. William, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the traffic
impact from the church on his street is minimal compared to the traffic from the Kensington
Center. Mr. Korn asked that the construction traffic be brought off of Rand Road and not
through the residential area.
Michael E. Janonis
Page Two
July 27, 1992
Mr. George Pepe, 318 North Owen, was concerned with the access drives along Gregory
Street and the locations of the north/south streets.
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. By a vote of 5-0, the Zoning
Board of Appeals recommends approval of a Special Use permit for a Planned Unit
Development for Christian Life Church and College with the following conditions:
1. The landbanked parking and future parking shall only be built upon the
approval of the Planning Director.
2. The landscape plan shall be redesigned and submitted to the, Planning
Department for approval. At a minimum, the items listed on Page 3 of the
staff report must be complied with.
3. All outstanding issues and concerns of Engineer, Inspection Services and
Public Works shall be addressed and resolved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
DMC:hg
r-
1
l - Q -1Z
�Na
IJ�Hrtr�+p aA+TbJ�.
4t/�
v>M 'n Et 70 iF
Ci►Tf-
7iT[i
G 6r'"Iv2 r'IaOLG S
;�rti � Q�dCy+AT,ta�HloN ITUnY >nu 4, auv ��
'rr' IG (^cLO� rYIU AT�nrfnL Swa � �Y. a�+ai�+�.Lstet.i a� sP
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 49 -SU -92
Hearing Date: July 23, 1992
PETITIONER:
Christian life Church
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
400 East Gregory Street
PUBLICATION DATE:
July 7, 1992
REQUEST:
A Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development along with any necessary
variations as required under Section 14.2502 and
14.1101 to allow a proposed addition and future
library for Christian Life Church and College.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: John Korn, 301 William
George Pepe, 318 North Owen
Vice Chairman Cassidy introduced the next agenda item being a request for a Special Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow an addition and future library for Christian
Life Church and College.
Rev. Daryl Merrill introduced himself and gave a history of Christian life Church and
College. Rev. Merrill concluded the history by indicating that approximately 8 acres of their
property had been sold off to the Mount Prospect Park District He then introduced Rev.
Harry Schmidt who gave an overview of the process used to determine the size of the
additions and needs of the congregation and students. Rev. Schmidt indicated that they
were very sensitive to the residential neighbors in their planning of the additions. He stated
that the church held a neighborhood meeting on Monday, July 20, 1992 to discuss their
proposal.
Rev. Schmidt then introduced the Project Architect, Richard Keiler, who gave an overview
of the specific project. He indicated that they designed additions which were low profile
and fit in with the residential area, while matching the existing structure in detail --and
materials.
ZBA49-SU-92
Page 2
Ray Forsythe, Planner, then summarized the staff report indicating that the P.U.D. request
in
included allowing a college ,the 'R -l" Single Family District as it is not specifically listed
as a permitted use, Mr. Forsythe then discussed the variations which are requested for the
P.U.D. They are:
1. A variation to allow a reduction in the required parkingspaces; from 365 to 332.
2. A variation to allow approximately47.75% lot coverage instead of the maximum
45% allowed.
Mr. Forsythe indicated that the proposed building setbacks met all requirements and tha.
staff felt the variations requested were minimal and would have no impact to the
surrounding areas.
Mr, John Korn, 301 William, spoke in support of the project. He 'posed a question
regarding construction traffic for the project. He suggested that a temporary access off of
Rand Road be approved in order to keep the large trucks off of the residential streets. Mr.
Clements indicated that staff would also support this request.
Mr. George Pepe, 318 North Owen, questioned Whether the driveways could be designed
so that they line up with the streets in which they abut. Rev. Schmidt indicated that they
would work with staff so that the issues could be resolved.
Mr. Saviano questioned whether any objections were raised at the neighborhood meeting.
Rev. Merrill indicated that no outstanding objections or concerns were raised at the
meeting.
Mr. Cassidy questioned the amount of traffic generated on a typical Sunday. Rev. Merrill
indicated approximately 500. Mr. Cassidy asked a neighbor to discuss this question. Mr.
Korn indicated that the traffic on Sundays was minimal compared` to the weekday traffic
from Kensington Business Center,
Mr. Cassidy then read the standards for a Special Use Permit and the Zoning Board of
Appeals generally discussed the request.
There being no further questions,, Vice Chairman Cassidy asked for a motion on the request.
Mr. Brettrager moved the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of a Special Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Christian Life Church and College with the
following variations:
1. A variation to the required parking spaces of 365 to allow 332.
2. A variation to allow a lot coverage of 47.75% instead of the maximum allowed
45%.
ZBA-49-SU-92
Page 3
These variations are subject to the following conditions:
1. The landbanked parking and future parking shall only be built upon the agreement
of the Planning Director.
2. The landscape plan should be redesigned and submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. At a minimum, the items fist on Page 3 of the staff
report must be complied with.
3. All outstanding issued and concerns of Engineering, Inspection Services and public
Works shall be addressed and resolved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Pratt
Upon Roll Call: AYES:, Pratt, Lannon, Brettrager, Saviano, and Cassidy
NAYS: None
This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration.
-'-Raym rad P. For
Planner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 14, 1992
CASE NO.:
ZBA49-SU-92
APPLICANT:
CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH AND COLLEGE
ADDRESS:
400 EAST GREGORY
LOCATION MAP:
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
Locatim and Size:
The property is located at the northwest intersection of Gregory Street and Rand
Road (Route 12), commonly known as 400 East Gregory Street. The property
consists of 7.13 acres.
Zoning and Land Use;
The property is currently zoned "R -l" Single Family and is improved with a 33,000
square foot brick building occupied by Christian Life Church and College.
Surrounding Zoning andd Land Uw,
North: "R-1" Single Family; Mount Prospect Park District property - Vacant
East: "R -l" Single Family; residences
South: "R -l" Single Family; residences
West: "R -l" Single Family; residences
Current: 30%
Proposed: 47.75%
The petitioners are requesting a Planned Unit Development to allow the addition of a
Sanctuary Auditorium and a future library to the existing Christian Life Church and College.
Included in the addition is a lobby, restrooms, book and prayer rooms, offices, chapel with
a seating capacity of 200, and a kitchen to support the church and ministry.
W *1.1 kvk I P, M,
The petitioners are seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the
property located west of Rand Road and north of Gregory Street. Specifically, the P.U.D.
requests a two-story addition of 19,500 square feet and a future two-story library of 10,000
square feet with accessory parking to accommodate the additions.
The site is currently improved with a 33,000 square foot brick structure which houses
Christian life Church and College. The Zoning Ordinance allows a church in an
"R-1" zoned area, however, it does not specifically allow a college. Therefore, the
request includes the listing of a college as part of the P.U.D. . I
The petitioners have met the setback requirements for the building and parking lot.
Where the property directly abuts single family residences, the petitioners have
maintained a 110 foot setback from the property line for the future library and 100
feet for the nearest parking area.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 3
There are three access drives off of Gregory which are in excess of 200 feet apart.
The driveways serve 311 parking spaces with 18 parking spaces landbanked and 20
future spaces to be constructed with the future library. The Zoning Ordinance
requires 332 spaces based upon the number of seats in the auditorium, the existing
building as well as the future library. The P.U.D. Ordinance requires 10% additional
parking spaces than normally required. This requirement brings the total needed
to 365. This is 19 spaces more than the pian currently provides. Staff would
recommend that these additional parking spaces be waived due to the nature of this
use. The additional spaces requested in the P.U.D. Ordinance are targeted to a
mixed use facility which would have a variety of uses. Staff feels that the
preservation of open space is more important in this case. Staff would also
recommend that the landbanked parking and future library parking be constructed
only as demand warrants. Staff would encourage the open space be left as grass or
landscaping until the Planning Director deems construction necessary.
Loot Coverage:
The "R-1" Single Family District allows a maximum of 45% lot coverage. The site
plan as submitted indicates a total lot coverage of 47.75% which is 2.75% greater
than the ordinance allows. Staff does not object to this because the future parking
and landbanked parking will not be constructed until demand warrants, therefore,
the total lot coverage will be below the required 45%.
The following comments are provided to the petitioners so that the proposed
landscaping can be brought in compliance with the minimum requirements of the
Ordinance:
1. Additional landscaping shall be added to the interior of the parking lot so that
a minimum of 5% can be obtained. There is currently approximately 3.5%
landscaping provided.
2. A continuous 3 ft. hedge of landscaping shall be added along East Gregory
Street as well as along Rand Road.
3. Additional landscaping along the west property line to include:
a. Shade trees shall be provided at the equivalent of 75 ft. apart along the
property line.
b. Other landscaping materials, including berms, trees, evergreen, shrubbery,
hedges, and/or other- live planting materials.
The petitioners have included floor plans and elevations for review. The proposed
addition will match the existing structure in style and material. Staff would
recommend that the future library also match the existing structure.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4
MGM
&][kJpJ;rkI'-'4 M I aa rn Ireimmt
EngineedhV
1. Are three entrances necessary? The center one may have conflict with turning
maneuvers from Owen Street. How will access be made to the lot to the
north?
2. The size of the existing sanitary service must be verified and proven adequate
for the building addition.
3. Will storm sewer need to be extended for future parking? Grade declines to
west; will storm sewer be deep enough? Release from storm system must take
into account unrestricted release from north and west.
4. Is detention adequate for future lots? Sump is necessary on release pipe since
connection is to combined sewer. Drainage swale shall be constructed now
est lot line.
5. Detention basin must meet State requirement (6:1) on distance from Rand
Road to high water level side slopes on detention pond.
6. Building to be sprinkled.
Insnection Senices;
1. Check with I.D.O.T. on excavation limits adjacent to State roadways. Location
of detention basin may be affected.
2. There are existing sanitary manholes in center of Gregory at School and Owen
Streets.
3. If existing sewer on Gregory is a combined sewer, discharge from detention
basin will require a trap.
4. Additional detention may be required for new impervious areas on west
portion of property.
5. There is an existing 8" watermain on the south side of Gregory and North
side of Gregory west of School Street.
6. Check with Fire Prevention Bureau if additional hydrants may be required
around the building. .
Publig _W_Qrks-,
1. The landscaping plan should show the correct location of all existing parkway
trees on Gregory and on Rand Road; currently, only some of these trees are
shown.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5
2. Construction equipment must be kept out of the root zone of all existing
parkway trees.
3. Developer should pay fees for the planting of three new parkway trees.
The petitioners are seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development which would allow the
existing Christian Life Church and College as well as allow two additions to the existing
structure. Included within the P.U.D. are the following variations:
1. A reduction in the required 10% additional parking required in the P.U.D.
Ordinance from 365 parking spaces to the proposed 332 parking spaces.
2. A variation to allow approximately 47.75% lot coverage instead of the 45%
maximum in an "R-1" Single Family District.
Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development as requested by
Christian Life Church and School with the following conditions:
1. The landbanked parking and future parking shall only be built upon the
approval of the Planning Director.
2. The landscape plan shall be redesigned and submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. At a minimum, the items listed on Page 3 of this
staff report must be complied with.
3. . AN outstanding issues and concerns of Engineering, Inspection Services and
Public Works shall -be addressed and resolved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANOWILIAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 30, 1992
SUBJECT: PROPOSED JEWEL STORE - REVISED PLAN
Attached please find a revised site plan for the proposed Jewel Store at Randhurst Shopping
Center. This revised plan is submitted to the Village Board as a response to issues raised
at the July 23 Zoning Board meeting.
Jewel is proposing to increase the Euclid Avenue setback from 4 ft. on the east side of the
building to 15 ft, and from 12 ft. to 22.5 ft. on the west side of the building. I believe this
revision helps address comments from Zoning Board members concerning the minimal
Euclid setback on the initial plan.
This revised setback is sufficient to provide a landscape plan that can help the appearance
of the Euclid Avenue frontage. Staff will work with Rouse/Randhurst on the final
landscape plan.
Based on this revised plan, I would recommend approval of the P.U.D. amendment to
permit construction of the new Jewel Store.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PL4NNWG DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
-B4 A rc►
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
NW,
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 27, 1992
SUBJECT: ZBA-50-SU-92, JEWEL/OSCO
ADDRESS: RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER, 999 NORTH ELMH"IJRST ROAD
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for your consideration their recommendation for
an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 3604 as adopted on
February 4, 1986 to allow the relocation and reconstruction of the existing Jewel/Osco.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the request at their regular meeting of July 23,
1992. At the meeting, Bob Brown, representing Jewel/Osco, indicated that the planning
process had started approximately two years ago and that there have been many constraints
to the redevelopment of the site. Mr. Brown stated that he believed the proposal that was
before the Zoning Board members is the best plan they can offer based on the constraints
of the site, Jewel Management and Rouse-Randhurst.
Mr. Jerry Aulisio then gave an overview of the changes proposed on the site. He provided
a color rendering of the proposed building and discussed the changes to the ring -road.
Dave Clements, Planning Director, discussed the concerns staff has with the minimal setback
provided along Euclid. Mr. Clements also explained the constraints of moving the building
or changing the dimensions. Mr. Clements provided a graphic which indicated the reduced
site line of the property to the east from Euclid Avenue. He then summarized the traffic
study which stated that the proposed road network is adequate. Mr. Clements concluded
his report by stating that staff is disappointed with the proposed setbacks, however, staff
supports the redevelopment of the store. He stated that advantages of the new Jewel Store
are greater than the disadvantages of the reduced Euclid setback.
Mr. Cary Chickerneo, an attorney representing the property owner of the restaurant and
shopping center to the east of the Jewel site, indicated their concern over relocating East
Drive and the severe encroachment into the 30 foot setback along Euclid. He indicated
their concern with having the dumpsters and loading areas so close to the east property line,
and submitted a petition with 230 signatures stating their objection to the site plan as
submitted.
Michael E. Jannis
Page Two
July 28, 1992
The Zoning Board members asked several questions regarding the building placement and
constraints and truck deliveries. The members also asked about the possibility of seeking
permission from the tenants of Randhurst to locate the store closer to the Mall, in order to
increase the Euclid setback.
Mr. Scott Ball, Vice President and General Manager of Randhurst Shopping Center, stated
that Rouse believed it was unlikely that major anchors would approve a site plan that
located the Jewel Store inside any portion of the existing ring road, and based on this,
Rouse would not approach the anchors on the matter. Mr. Ball stated that Rouse would
let Jewel look elsewhere for a new location rather than negotiate with the anchors at the
Mall.
Mr. Brown and Mr. Jim Thomas of Jewel Stores, then gave a summary of the prototype
store and fixtures required for a new Jewel/Osco. They indicated that it would take a
significant amount of time to redesign the proposed store, provided the management of
Jewel would even consider a new design for this location.
The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. The members were
concerned with the minimum front setback on Euclid, and the fact that no accommodation
could be made to increase the setback.
A motion to approve the request resulted in a 1-3 vote, with on pass.
DMC:hg
_-- —` _= s
--- -
--
--- - - - - -
— Uta AvL:. p 1
I
77
[� PROPOSED JEMEUOSCO BUILOINO � f
' I I
I I I {t r
E X I S T f1VG 13 NFA 7f
�t I
z {
MINUTES OF TILE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 50 -SU -92
Hearing Date: July 23, 1992
PETITIONER:
The Rouse Company
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
999 North Elmhurst Road
PUBLICATION DATE:
July 7, 1992
REQUEST:
The petitioners are requesting an amendment
to Planned Unit Development Ordinance 3604
as adopted on February 4, 1986 to allow the
relocation and reconstruction of the existing
Jewel Food Store.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman
Robert Brettrager
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Dennis Saviano
ABSENT:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Michaele Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES:
Approximately 15 persons
Vice Chairman Cassidy then introduced the next agenda item being a request by
Rouse/Randhurst to amend Planned Unit Development site plan of Ordinance #3604 to
allow the relocation of the existing Jewel Store.
Mr. Cassidy asked for representation from the petitioner and Attorney Kevin Rielley from
Rudnick & Wolfe introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Rielley stated
that several persons will be providing testimony and available for questions.
Mr. Cassidy then swore the following individuals prior to their testimony and comments.
Mr. Bob Brown, Director of Real Estate for American Stores; Mr. Jerry Aulisio and Mr.
Scott Ball representing Randhurst Shopping Center; Mr. Terry Miller, Traffic Engineer; Mr.
Peter Theodore, Project Architect; and Jim Thompson, Design Manager for American
Stores.
Mr. Rielley then began his presentation and stated that Rouse/Randhurst had been working
very closely with the parent compady of Jewel Food Stores, American Properties, in order
to allow the construction of a larger Jewel prototype at Randhurst Shopping Center. He
stated that the existing Jewel Store is 42,000 square feet and that the proposed Jewel Store
is a current prototype of 65,000 square feet. Mr. Rielley described the site plan that
depicted the new Jewel Sto
East Drive with the main
location is necessary in or(
to encroach on the location
Mr. Rielley stated that su
shopping center anchors.
Mr. Bob Brown then introduc(
Jewel has always been a part c
store located in the original A
constructed, and that at this th
to stay competitive in this part,
to maintain growth for the com
last two years with Rouse on
Randhurst Shopping Center, al
for the store and issues involvec
stated that it is necessary to ke
location, as proposed, accompli
has with shopping center lease%
the site plan is that the prig
substantially, and he concluded
this fall or in early 1993.
Mr. Jerry Aulisio then introduc
a planning consultant workin8
continued an overview of the si
store from the properties to th
new store on those adjoining 1
store.
Mr. Aulisio also described hoy
mounted exhibit showed how E
of the theatre bring-ine all the
Euclid.
Mr: Lannon asked for more spe
how far the proposed building
Jewel Store is approximately
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 2
le of the property at the location of the existing
store facing west. Mr. Rielley stated that this
zisting Jewel Store in operation, and so as not
ng road to the south with the new grocery store.
nent to the south would require approval by
:the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated that
urst Shopping Center beginning in 1962 with a
plained that in 1970 the existing building was
zany needs to construct a large prototype store
n. He explained that the upgrade is.necessary
Jhurst, and that Jewel has been working for the
�He indicated that Jewel wants to stay at the
iad worked hard discussing several alternatives
anon that had finally been selected. Mr. Brown
ig store open during construction, and that the
I and also meets the constraints that Randhurst
cors. Mr. Brown stated that one key feature of
,- parking in front of the store is increased
it the company would like to begin construction
� the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated he is
'dcused on the landscaping and buffering of the
ularly the multi -family areas in Boxwood. He
s the farther south it goes, and provides a wider
,, He stated that this area would be planted with
around screening and reduce the impact of the
le also presented a rendering of the proposed
is being relocated with this site plan, and on a
being looped from its present location to south
traffic to the stop light near the theatre. He
hat it would require all traffic to use signalized
okoblems that exist presently at East Drive and
location of the ring road and Mr. Cassidy asked
.,ast property line. Mr. Aulisio stated that the
the property line, and again sum ' marized the
road. Mr. Aulisio also described the location
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 3
Mr. Cassidy asked if the type of colors represented on the rendering would be the same as
proposed for construction, and Mr. Aulisio stated that this color of brick and roof shingle
would be the same. Mr. Peter Theodore, Project Architect, briefly distributed some
photographs of other new Jewel prototype stores which confirm the brick color and color
of roof tiles.
Mr. Clements then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr.
Clements explained that the particular action requested from the Zoning Board is to amend
the P.U.D. site plan from Randhurst Shopping Center. He explained that the site plan of
the P.U.D. was approved when the Bank was proposed for Randhurst along with Spiess and
Main Street Department Stores. He stated that the existing Jewel and the location of East
Drive are part of the approved P.U.D. site plan. He stated that the Zoning Board of
Appeals action is site plan approval of the new; store location on the approved P.U.D. plan,
Mr. Clements stated that the Zoning Board needs to review the site plan for appropriate
compliance with our Zoning Ordinance in considering this request.
As to that compliance, Mr. Clements then described the site plan and demonstrated how
the proposed Jewel Store set back 4 feet to 12 feet from the north property line on Euclid.
Mr. Clements explained that the minimum setback in the Zoning Ordinance is 30 feet, and
that staff had ret several times with the petitioners, and they had indicated there are
several constraints that prohibit placing the store at a setback that meets the Ordinance.
Mr. Clements confirmed that lease agreements exist with all tenants in the shopping center
which prohibit the construction of any structure inside the location of the existing ring road.
Mr. Clements stated that moving the Jewel/Osco Store to the south would place the
structure inside the existing ring road, and require Rouse to obtain tenant approval from
major anchors. Mr. Clements stated that Rouse indicates that this would be time consuming
and difficult. Mr. Clements suggested that representatives of Rouse speak further on this
matter.
With a mounted site plan, Mr. Clements showed the location of the existing ring road, and
how the building set back as proposed, matches the bine of the ring road. With this exhibit
Mr. Clements showed how moving the building to the south would encroach on this line
which would then require Rouse to obtain tenant approval for the construction.
Mr. Clements also pointed out that staff had suggested that Jewel modify their prototype
store to reduce the north/south dimension and increase east/west dimension in order to
open up the setback on Euclid. Mr. Clements stated that Jewel had advised him that they
have a .requirement for a certain number of packing spaces directly in front of the store, and
they have certain fixture requirements for aisle widths, and that modifying the prototype to
help increase the 30 foot setback on Euclid was impossible for them to do and still keep
their prototype store. Mr. Clements stated that a number of upgrades are necessary to meet
the landscape ordinance, and pointed out that the perimeter parking lot landscaping needs
to be upgraded. Mr. Clements also noted that the new parking lot on Euclid is proposed
to meet the 30 foot setback requirements.
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 4
Mr. Clements then summarized the traffic study that was submitted by the petitioner, and
stated that as the traffic report',suggested, the proposed road network is adequate. Mr.
Clements stated that Village staff believes there are advantages to bringing East Drive
traffic to the signalized intersection at Euclid, However, he noted that the City of Prospect
Heights is concerned about the realignment of East Drive and the potential of increased cut -
through traffic through their residential neighborhood to the north. Mr. Clements explained
that Prospect Heights had subrditted a letter to the public hearing file stating that they
would support the plan based on a condition that Rouse/Randhurst construct a curbed
barrier at the signalized intersection to prohibit cut -through traffic.
Mr. Clements also stated that staff had been concerned with the fact that the proposed store
blocks the line of sight to the restaurant and the shopping center to the east of Randburst,
and that the owner of these commercial properties had approached staff and pointed out
that he believed visibility of the;stores is greatly diminished by the Jewel. Mr. Clements
stated his staff had prepared a,,/,sight line exhibit that shows the line of sight around the
proposed Jewel Store, and that depicts the increased sight line that results from moving the
Jewel Store to a 30 foot setback., Mr. Clements stated that the sight line exhibit shows that
the line of sight increases 85 feet, along Euclid when a 30 foot setback is maintained. Mr.
Clements stated, while the sight -line is improved by moving the building to a greater
setback, he believed that this is relatively minor considering the speed of traffic along Euclid
Road.
Mr. Clements concluded his statements and summarized that there are a number of
constraints that have made it difficult to design the site plan to meet the Village's setback
requirements. Mr. Clements indicated that several of these are man-made issues and that
he believes the advantages to, a new Jewel Store are greater for the Village than
disadvantages of an inadequate Euclid setbacL Mr. Clements stated that staff had worked
to provide as attractive a plan as,possible in all other areas, but that virtually no setback on
Euclid is a design flaw that is difficult to overcome. Mr. Clements indicated that staff
believes that the plan is adequate, but not up to normal Village standards for setback and
open space -
Mr. Cassidy then asked for comments from the audience. Attorney Cary Chickerneo
introduced himself to the Zonin"
,g Board and stated that he represents the owner of the
commercial property to the east. Mr. Cbickerneo stated that his client objects to the
location of the Jewel Store, and stated that the proposed location with no setback on Euclid
virtually blocks visibility of the commercial restaurant to the east. Mr. Chickerneo presented
a letter from real estate appraiser Vincent Solano that indicates the location of the Jewel
Store would have an adverse impact on the property to the east. Mr. Chickerneo also
presented a petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The petition contained the names of
238 persons who objected to the relocation 'of the Jewel Store in= that it would create a
negative impact on the properties to the east. Mr. Chickerneo stated that he could find no
precedent in Zoning Board records to approve such a major setback reduction for a
commercial building, and also noted that the traffic study did not address the locations of
the commercial driveways to the vast. He noted that the truck docks abutting the restaurant
would be a nuisance and suggested that the Jewel Store be re -oriented so that the front of
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 5
the property faces Euclid. Mr. Chickerneo stated that his client believes it is important that
Jewel be able to construct a larger building, but that he did not believe the location as
proposed was the best solution.
Mr. Lannon asked Mr. Chickerneo the name of his client. Mr. Chickerneo stated his client
is Mr. Paul Demetrious of 1600 Greenwood in Mount Prospect.
Mr. Cassidy then asked for comments by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
began by stating he was concerned about the Euclid setback and the large variation
requested. He stated that the proposed wall is 220 feet in length and that this is too much
of a structure so close to the street. Mr. Cassidy stated that he believed that Randhurst has
done their best to protect their interest in not having to approach shopping center anchors
for lease approvals, but that Randhurst did not make any attempt to meet the setback
requirements of the Village. He concurred that landscape improvements were needed at
the store and questioned the one-way entrance from Euclid for the truck docks.
Mr. Pratt stated he had a concern about safety and security behind the building and believed
that there could be security problems in the Boxwood area in this location behind the
building. He believed that staff could work through the location of the ring road and make
sure that the concerns of Prospect Heights were addressed.
Mr. Lannon questioned why Jewel had to only build their prototype at this location, and why
the company could not specifically design a store to fit the constraints of the location. Mr.
Lannon stated that Rouse had indicated a preference not to approach the shopping center
anchors for tenant approval of the Jewel plan, and believed that it might have been better
for the Zoning Board members to know that the shopping center ownership had made some
attempt on this issue.
Attorney in Rielley stated that the principal concern seemed to be the lack of Euclid
setback, and that by pushing the building back does open up some type of minimal open
space. However, he explained that this minor advantage would be difficult to achieve and
noted that the Rouse Company has significant experience in dealing with issues such as this
with shopping center anchors. He believed that Rouse would have an insurmountable
problem in getting a store approved in a location inside the existing ring road. He further
explained that several of the anchors are in bankruptcy, and that obtaining approval from
the trustees of the bankrupt stores would make it tougher and perhaps longer.
Scott Ball then introduced himself to the Zoning Board as the Manager of the Randhurst
Shopping Center, and stated that the significant issues were the timing of the tenant
approval and the financial concessions that might have to be made by Rouse to gain this
approval. He concurred with Mr. Rielley that Rouse has significant experience with this
type of problem, and that these can be expensive, lengthy negotiations. Mr. Ball stated that
Rouse would walk away from the proposed Jewel Store rather than negotiate with the
anchor stores as suggested by the Zoning Board.
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 6
Mr. Saviano asked if Rouse had considered placing the new Jewel Store at the location of
the vacated Child World, and Mr. Ball stated that this location did not offer enough traffic
and visibility for the grocer.
Mr. Cassidy asked why timing is such an issue now if the Jewel had been working with
Randhurst for two years on this subject. Mr. Ball stated that Jewel needs to get started with
the new store as soon as possible,, and that he believes Jewel needs to make some decisions
soon so they'll know what their timing is for bringing a larger store to this market.
Mr. Brown stated that Jewel has" a concern about the minimum setback and traffic at the
location, but stated that this plan was the best design that could be arrived at by house and
Jewel: 'Mr. Brown explained that,the prototype Jewel Stores are now getting larger, and that
newerprototypes provide expansion room for future `growth. Mr. Brown stated that Jewel
is very committed to the Randhui'st location and as such, has gone with a prototype building
that does not provide for expansion area. Mr. Brown stated that the width to depth ratio
of the store is important and that<is why the building size cannot be changed to increase the
Euclid setback. Mr. Brown stated it was important that Jewel have a desirable finished
product in a reasonable time, and again emphasized their commitment to the location.
Mr. Lannon asked why the building 'could not be placed with the main elevation facing
north, and Mr. Brown stated that placing the building facing Euclid would result in an
insufficient amount of parking fit front of the store.
Mr. Jim Thomas from Jewel introduced himself as manager' of design, and stated that this
is the smallest prototype store that Jewel is constructing at this time, and that if the store
size was to be changed, the company would 'constructing
coompletely redesign the store and that
this would be difficult for theta to undertake and complete in a timely fashion.
Mr. Cassidy asked if Jewel could reduce the store by an appropriate dimension to provide
a 20 foot setback. Mr. Brettrager stated that the company could reduce the length and
make` the store wider,' or ask them if they were not willing to compromise on the issue. Mr.
Brown and Mr. Thomas stated that there is a specific fixture plan and aisle width that have
to be designed into a prototype'store, and that these items are important for customer
convenience, and that any revised store dimensions would have to keep these requisite
requirements in mind. Mr. Brown also stated that he was not the individual that could
negotiate revised dimensions with the Zoning Board and stated that corporate management
believes that this building at this location, at this, point in time was the best solution for
Jewel and Rouse. Mr. Brown stated he would have to go back to management for any
changes in the plan.' He believed the question really put to the Zoning Board is whether
this plan will work with the constraints as described.
Mr. Saviano believed it was unportant that Jewel compromise on the Euclid setback and
consider changing dimensions on the building. Mr. Brown stated that his company could
work with Rouse to discuss alternatives and report back to their corporate decision makers,
but he believed that this was the best plan for the company at this time.
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 7
Mr. Saviano stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has a major concern about the
minimal setback on Euclid and is disappointed that the final plan required such significant
variations. Mr. Saviano also indicated an interest in revenue projections from the proposed
store.
Mr. Cassidy concluded Zoning Board comments by stating that the Jewel Store is important
for the Village, but that he has reservations about this specific plan. Mr. Cassidy stated that
all the comments by the petitioner were good in helping to lay an understanding of all the
issues, and only hope that a revised plan could be presented to help address comments from
the Zoning Board. With that Mr. Cassidy stated he assumed the petitioner would like a
vote from the Zoning Board of Appeals on the request as proposed, and Mr. Rielley
concurred that the petitioner would request a vote on the plan as submitted.
Mr. Cassidy then summarized the Special Use standards from the Zoning Ordinance and
the Zoning Board generally discussed those standards with emphasis on the Jewel site plan.
Mr. Cassidy then asked for a motion on the request.
Mr. Lannon moved, seconded by Mr. Brettrager, that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve
an amendment to the Randburst P.U.D. site plan to allow a new Jewel Store.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager
NAYS: Pratt, Lannon and Cassidy
PASS: Saviano
Mr. Saviano stated that his vote to pass on the request was due to the lack of financial
information to help him understand the impacts of the Jewel Store.
Mr. Cassidy then stated this item would be referred to' the Village Board for their meeting
of August 4.
& M. D"4;�L
David M. Clements,
Director of Planning
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
q
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTSRECTOR
, OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 14, 1992
CASE NO.: ZBA-50-SU-92
APPLICANT. ROUSE-RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
ADDRESS: 9" NORTH ELMHURST ROAD
LOCATION MAP:
a
OWN
m
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 2
Location and Size-,
The proposed Jewel/Osco is to be located at the northeast comer of the Randhurst
Center. The proposed building will be approximately 65,000 square feet and located
approximately 70 feet from the east property line and 4 feet from the north property
line.
Sur, roundine-Zoning and Land Use"
North: Village of Prospect Heights; residences and vacant
West: "B-3" Business Retail and Service; Randhurst Shopping Center, Theater
South: "B-3" Business Retail and Service; Parking for the existing Jewel/Osco
as well as for the shopping center
East: "R -X" Single Family; Multi -Family Apartments and Condominiums
The petitioners are seeking to amend the Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 3604
as adopted on February 4, 1986, to allow the construction of a new Jewel Food Store. This
also includes the relocation of the ring -road and the reconfiguration of the parking areas
which will be effected by the new Jewel/Osco and the ring -road.
90.11rbw
4
The petitioners are seeking an amendment to the Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.) which was approved in 1986. As part of the P.U.D. Ordinance, the existing
Jewel/Osco site and parking as well as the location of the ring -road were approved.
Because the petitioners are seeking to construct a new larger building on the site, a
P.U.D. amendment is necessary.
The Site Plan indicates a 65,000 square foot brick building in the northeast comer
of the Randhurst property. The store is proposed to be approximately 70 feet from
the east property line and 4 feet to 12 feet from the north property line. The parking
is proposed to be built to the front (west) and side (South) of the new building. Also
proposed is the relocation of the ring -road which includes relocating East Drive from
its current location to bring traffic traveling north on East Drive to south of the
Jewel/Osco, and the existing theater and brought to Euclid Avenue at the controlled
stop light. The truck loading areas are behind and to the south side of the building.
There is a one-way access drive for trucks to get to the loading/unloading areas from
Euclid Avenue.
GH Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 3
The existing Jewel Store maintains a similar setback to the proposed store. Typically,
when a new proposal is submitted for review, staff attempts to obtain the required
setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Jewel/Osco is set back 4 feet to
12 feet from the property line. The minimum setback in the Zoning Ordinance is 30
feet. Staff has had several meetings with the petitioners and it has been indicated
that there are several constraints prohibiting placing the store in an area which meets
the Ordinance. Rouse-Randhurst has lease agreements with all tenants in the
shopping center. Included in the agreements with the major department stores is a
clause which prohibits any structures from being built inside the existing ring -road.
Any proposed construction that encroaches on the ring -road requires approval of the
shopping center anchors. The purpose of this lease restriction is to maintain
adequate site lines to the department stores, and not to impact the "field of parking"
near these large stores. In the case of the Jewel/Osco Store, moving the building
further to the south would require agreement of the major tenants, as a conforming
30 ft. setback would place the south edge of the building into the area of the existing
ring -road. It is the opinion of the Rouse Company that seeking this approval will be
both time consuming and may be difficult to obtain. Related to this, the new parking
lot along Euclid is proposed to meet the 30 ft. required setback.
Another constraint of the site are the site 'standards required by Jewel/Osco. These
constraints include the minimum number of parking spaces directly adjacent to the
store, the exact size and dimensions needed to place the "prototype" store they are
requesting, as well as, the visibility from adjacent streets. It is the opinion of
Jewel/Osco and the Rouse Company that the proposed site plan is the best
alternative to meet their specific needs.
The petitioners have submitted elevations for review. The building is proposed to
be faced with brick which includes two horizontal bands which run completely around
the building, The front of the store also has a shingled roof to give a more distinctive
look. The roof -mounted heating and cooling equipment is screened with a board -
on -board fence which is to be stained to match the brick face. The dumpster and
compactor locations are screened by a brick wall as well as the loading docks along
the rear of the building.
Included in the submittal is a landscape plan dated July 10, 1992. The following is
a list of additions required to eliminate deficiencies in the proposed landscape plan
as submitted:
1. The 30 foot landscape setback for the parking lot needs to indicate trees with
a 40 ft. spacing, and a.better variety and number of flowering bushes.
2. Interior landscaping in all new parking areas must contain a minimum of 5%
plantings• Staff would suggest additional plantings in the center of the rows
to accomplish this requirement. Staff would also request that the appropriate
number of handicap spaces be added to the plan and also the location of the
cart corrals.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 4
3. Landscaping on the exterior of the parking areas seems monotonous with a
continuous 3 foot hedge. Staff would recommend that the line of trees which
follows the ring -road be extended along the parking lot between the theater
and Jewel/Osco.
4. Additional landscaping materials, including berms, ornamental trees,
evergreens, shrubbery, hedges and/or other live planting materials shall be
provided along the east property to screen and break-up the monotony of the
area between the Center and the adjacent property, as well as along the north
property edge along the parking lot.
The petitioners have submitted a traffic study dated June 9, 1992. The study was
done on the existing conditions as well as the proposed changes to the site, including
redirecting traffic to the signaled traffic light at Euclid. The results of the traffic
study indicate that the proposed road network and the expansion and relocation of
the Jewel/Osco Store will cause no decrease in the level of operations at the signaled
entrance at Euclid Avenue. The Jewel/Osco access drive intersection with Euclid
Avenue will operate similar to the current access to the existing store. The study also
indicated that cut-througb traffic will decrease significantly by eliminating the East
Drive at Euclid Avenue access: In summary, the traffic report suggests that the
proposed road network is adequate as proposed. It should be noted that the City of
Prospect Heights is concerned about the realignment of East Drive, and bringing all
East Drive traffic to the signal near the theater. Prospect Heights has concerns about
additional cut -through traffic impacting their residential area to the north.
i OULMLVIVIX6111d -
A county permit is necessary for work on Euclid. Truck loading area should
be made one-way southbound to prevent people from cutting through. Aisle
and access point in front of store is dangerous for pedestrians, as well as for
turning movements onto Euclid. There could be a pedestrian conflict with
turning traffic from Prospect Heights (School Lane).
2. Re-routing of East Drive will cause changes in traffic and parking on interior.
A MWRD permit is necessary.
4. The building must be sprinkled for fire protection.
Need handicap stalls. A curb is required around the lot. Need complete
engineering plans.
6. Stalls in the southwest corner of the proposed parking lot look awkward to
exit or enter.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 5
1. A right -turn lane should be provided for the main Jewel entrance off of
Euclid. There is also some concern for the Jewel entrance being offset with
the residential street on the north side of Euclid, slightly west.
2. There is concern about proximity of truck loading area to residential. There
are existing complaints of trucks parked along East Drive - exhaust and noise.
3. Details on sanitary service need to be submitted.
4. Storm sewer plans shall be included with engineering/site plans.
5. Grading plan shall be included with engineering plan.
6. As per previous agreement, watermain system is to be "looped" as part of
Jewel plans.
7. Check with Fire Prevention Bureau on hydrant locations and fire lane on
south side of Jewel.
8. All Building Code and Development Code requirements shall be met including
all improvements along Euclid.
1. Fees for 12 trees to be planted by Village along Euclid Avenue should be
paid.
Staff has received comments from the surrounding property owners as well as the City of
Prospect Heights. The owner of the commercial property to the east of the proposed
Jewel/Osco feel that moving the store closer to the east property line so near Euclid will
greatly diminish visibility of their stores by vehicles traveling east. Staff agrees that this is
an important issue that the petitioner should address.
lu �� I: •.r � t„ rr.
While redevelopment of a site which has existing constraints due to location, lot size, as well
as man-made issues is difficult, staff feels that the proposed Jewel/Osco expansion is
important for the Village. Because the combination of Jewel Corporate requirements and
Rouse lease restrictions impede the placement of the building at a 30 ft. setback, staff has
attempted to have all other elements of the plan designed to provide as an attractive plan
as possible. Unfortunately, providing virtually no setback from Euclid is a design flaw that
is difficult to overcome. Staff feels the site plan with the upgrades indicated in this staff
report, can only be considered adequate, and not up to normal Village standards for setback
and open space.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 6
The following items are recommended by staff to be added to any approval of the P.U.D.
request:
1. The landscape plan shall be redesigned and submitted to the Planning Department
for approval. At a minimum, Items 1-4 on pages 3 and 4 of this report shall be
added to the plan.
2. All outstanding issues and concerns of Engineering, Inspection Services, and Public
Works shall be addressed and resolved prior to any permits being issued.
3. Signage shall be added to prohibit traffic exiting onto Euclid Avenue from the access
drive to the rear of the building.
4. A new parking lot plan shall be submitted which includes the Jewel/Osco parking lot
and the theater parking lot. This plan should include all required handicap parking,
cart corrals and the increased landscaping as required by the Landscape Ordinance.
5. Management of the Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center as well as management of the
Jewel/Osco Store must regulate truck deliveries and parking. Should the Village
receive complaints on this issue, the Village Manager will have the authority to
eliminate or regulate the hours of deliveries.
DMC:hg
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 16, 1992
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARING
As directed by. the Village Board, the Mount Prospect Plan Commission held a new public
hearing to receive comments regarding revisions to the current Comprehensive Plan. A
legal notice was placed in the Mount Prospect Herald on June 23, 1992 inviting interested
individuals to comment on the plan. After closing the hearing, the Plan Commission voted
9-0 to approve the Village Board's additional changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The
Commission then voted 9-0 in favor of recommending approval of the entire Comprehensive
Plan and that the Plan be forwarded to the Village Board for its consideration. The Plan
includes all the appropriate revisions as requested by the Village Board.
DMC:hg
CAF/
6/12/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT IN ITS ENTIRETY
WHEREAS, Chapter 24, Article 11-12-6 of the Illinois Revised
Statutes, permits municipalties to create, adopt and modify a
official Comprehensive Plan and map for its corporate boundaries
and unincorporated areas within one and one half miles of said
boundary; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has, from time to time,
adopted Comprehensive Plans and Generalized Land Use maps; and
WHEREAS, as authorized under Chapter 24, Article 11-12-7 of the
Illinois Revised Statutes and pursuant to proper legal notice
having been published in the Mount Prospect Herald on June 23,
1992, the Plan Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect did
conduct a public hearing. on July 15, 1992, for the purpose of
considering the adoption of a newly revised official Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has submitted its recommendations
relative to the newly revised Comprehensive Plan 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 recommendations of the Plan
Commision relative to the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the
Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That the Official Comprehensive Plan of the Village
of Mount Prospect, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby
made a part hereof, is hereby adopted.
SECTION TWO: That the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount
Prospect is hereby directed to file a copy of this comprehensive
Plan for the Village of Mount Prospect with the Cook County
Recorder of Deeds, as provied by the Statutues of the State of
Illinois.
SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount
Prospect is hereby directed to publish, in pamphlet form, the
Official Comprehensive Plan being the subjec of this ordinance.
SECTION FOUR: That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this _ day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields, Village Clerk
t:::.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Adopted 1992
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REVISED
1"2
Gerald L "Skip" Farley
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Mark W. Busse Leo Floros
George A. Clowes Paul Wm. Hoefert
Timothy J. Corcoran Irvana K Wilks
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Jannis
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
David M. Clements, AICP
PLANNER
Michael E. Sims
PLAN COMMISSION
Donald Weibel, Chairman
Elizabeth A. Luxern
Lynn Kloster, Secretary
Thomas McGovern
Frank W. Boege
William Navigato
Thomas L. Borrelli
Carol Tortorello
Louie Velasco
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REVISED
APRIL 8, 1981
MAYOR
Carolyn H. Krause
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Gerald "Skip" Farley Leo Floros
Edward J. Miller Norma J. Murauskis
E. F. Richardson Theodore J. Wattenberg
VILLAGE MANAGER
Terrance L Burghard
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I W R.W
Kenneth H. Fritz
Harold Ross, Chairman
Marie Caylor
J. C. Busenhart, Secretary
Cornelius Drinkwaard
Lynn Kloster
Lennart Lorenson
Thomas McGovern
Louie Velasco
Donald Weibel
Martin Schaer
POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mayor and Board of Trustees
Vince Najdowsld
Gilbert Basnik
Marilyn O'May
J. C. Busenhart
Harold Predovich
Marie Caylor
Harold Ross
Anita S. Cutts
Martin Schaer
Dolores Haugh
Michaele Skowron
Lennart Lorenson
Louie Velasco
Marion Lorenz
Marvin Weiss
William Maloney
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION
Page
The Comprehensive Planning Update Process ......................... 1
The Planning Strategy .......................................... 2
Benefits of the Planning Program .................................. 3
2.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Village Identity ..... ........................................ 4
Housing and Residential Areas ............. .............. , .. 5
Commercial Development ................. . ..................... 6
Industrial Development ......................................... 6
Transportation...............................................7
Community Facilities and Services ... . .. . .. . .......... . ............ 8
Parks and Recreation .............................. . ... . ........ 9
3.
LONG-RANGE PLAN
Residential................................................. 11
Commercial.................................................13
Industrial ................................................... 16
Central Business District ....................................... 18
Transportation ............................................. 27
Community Facilities ....... .... .... . ........... . .......... 35
Village of Mount Prospect Facilities and Utilities ..................... 43
4.
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ZoningOrdinance ............................................ 47
CapitalImprovements Program . . .... . ........................... 48
Citizen Involvement ............... . ........................... 48
Review and Revision..........................................48
Development Program ............... . ......................... 48
Annexation.................................................55
APPENDIX I
Development Sites and Areas .................................... .55
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures Page
1. Downtown Plan..............................................20
2. Tax Increment Financing Boundary Map ........................... 23
3. Thoroughfare Plan ............................................ 28
4. Bike Route Map ............................................. 34
5. Community Facilities Plan ...................................... 36
6. Development Areas and Sites .................................... 56
Tables
A. Proposed Functional Classification of Area Street ..................... 31
1. Existing Public Recreational Areas in Mount Prospect ................. 38
2. Inventory of Schools in Mount Prospect ............................ 41
3. Inventory of Existing Public Buildings in Mount Prospect ............... 45
RESPONSIBILITY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and coordination of planning development
within Mount Prospect rests with the Plan Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect.
The Plan Commission is established under authority granted by Article VII of the Illinois
Constitution (concerning Home Rule, adopted 1970) and by Chapter 24, Division 12, of
the Illinois Municipal Code, which reads in part as follows:
"fbe Plan Commission is authorized (1) to prepare and recommend to the future
development or redevelopment of the municipality. Such plan may be adopted in
whole or in separate geographical or functional parts, each of which, when adopted,
shall be the official comprehensive plan, or part thereof, of the municipality. The
Plan as recommended by the Plan Commission and as adopted in any municipality
in the state, may be made applicable by the terms thereof, to land situated within
the corporate limits and contiguous territory not more than one and one-half miles
beyond the corporate limits and not included in any municipality. Such plan may
be implemented by ordinances (a) establishing reasonable standards of design for
subdivision or resubdivision of unimproved land (b) to redevelopment in respect to
public improvements and..(c) may designate land suitable for annexation to the
municipality and the recommended zoning classification for such land upon
annexation. (2) To recommend changes, from time to time, in the official
Comprehensive Plan. (3) To prepare and recommend to the corporate authorities,
from time to time, plans for specific improvements in pursuance of the official
Comprehensive Plan. (4) To give aid to the Municipal officials charged with the
direction of projects for improvements embraced within the official plan, to further
the making of these projects, and, generally, to promote the realization of the
official Comprehensive plan...:'
INTRODUCTION
Mount Prospect has a strong history of community planning, with three major
comprehensive planning programs being undertaken since the late 1950's. These prior
planning programs were completed during periods of rapid growth and development within
the Village and greater northwestern suburban area. From 1950 to 1990, Mount Prospect
grew from a small residential community of approximately 4,000 in a somewhat rural
setting,to an established and diversified community with an estimated population of 53,170'
in an urban environment.
Mount Prospect is fast approaching maximum development. While little vacant land
remains to be developed, small portions or limited areas of the community are beginning
to show signs of age, and others are characterized by under -utilization and may have
potential for redevelopment.
This document represents an update of the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Mount
Prospect, Illinois. The original plan was revised on April 8, 1981 and updated in 1984,
1988 and 1992. It had originally been prepared by the Village with the assistance of a
planning consulting firm. It responds to a critical need to guide and coordinate local
development and improvement actions. It includes long-range planning recommendations
for land -use, transportation, and community facilities, and an action -oriented
implementation program.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION PROCESS UTILIZED IN 1981
The plan and implementation program represents a significant commitment by Mount,
Prospect to guide and control its future. It is based on several months of intense effort by
local residents, officials, and staff to review improvement needs and development
requirements. It reflects strong local consensus concerning what the Village should become
in the future. Key steps in the local planning process are outlined below:
Study Initiation. The overall study began in July, 1980, when Mount Prospect entered
into a contract with a consulting firm for the preparation of a plan and development
program. Early discussions with Village officials focused on the overall planning process
and the identification of major planning issues.
Community Planning Advisory Committee. To maximize direct local input into the
program, a 23 -member Community planning Commission was established to participate
in the process on a regular basis. Appointment included members of the Village Board,
Plan Commission, representatives of the business community, and other residents
representing various groups and neighborhood areas. This committee met regularly for
the duration of the program, and worked closely with Village staff and the consultant
team.
11990 U. S. Census
- 1 -
Neighborhood Workshops. During the first weeks of the program, a series of
neighborhood dialogue workshops were conducted to discuss the planning process with
local reside -- and to solicit their views about local issues, problems, and aspirations.
The workshops were undertaken prior to extensive analyses of community conditions
so that residents' views could set the tone and direction of subsequent investigations.
Background Studies. A series of background studies were then prepared by the
consultant and Village staff dealing with various aspects of the community, including
existing land -use, building conditions, community facilities, utilities, traffic circulation,
and economic and population characteristics. These were discussed in detail with the
planning committee and were documented in several background work papers.
Needs and Opportunities. Based on the findings and conclusions from neighborhood
meetings, background studies, and working sessions with the Plan Commission and
Comprehensive Planning Committee, community needs and opportunities were
identified and evaluated.
Goals and Objectives. Based on the conclusions of all previous work activities, a
preliminary list of planning goals and objectives was prepared dealing with various
component parts of the community. These goals and objectives began to define what
kind of community Mount Prospect should be in the future, and provided important
guidelines for planning evaluation and decisions.
Community Questionnaire. A comprehensive community questionnaire was prepared
by the Village and distributed to all households in Mount Prospect, soliciting opinions
on a range of planning and development issues. Approximately 2,700 survey forms were
returned. Responses were tabulated and analyzed by various subject areas, and the
subject areas of consensus and conflicts were identified.
Concept Plans and Strategies. Alternative concept plans and strategies for guiding
future growth and development were prepared and evaluated., The process of evaluation
involved several meetings with and direct participation by the Plan Commission and
Comprehensive Planning Committee members.
Plan and Program Preparation. Based on preliminary consensus reached on preferred
concepts and strategies, draft plan maps and text were prepared and delivered to the
plan Commission, Comprehensive Plan Committee and other governmental
organizations in December, 1980.
THE PLANNING STRATEGY
The Mount Prospect Comprehensive Plan is characterized by a dual focus: a long-range
plan for guiding overall Village development and short-range action plan for implementing
specific high-priority projects and programs.
The long-range plan indicates a general framework for change over the next 20 to 25 years.
-2-
It is general in nature and is open to modification and refinement. Its purpose is to
establish long-term targets for development and redevelopment as interpreted at this time.
It can help guide and coordinate day-to-day decisions facing the Village, without precluding
action on unforeseen opportunities or possibilities.
The short-range plan is specific. It designates projects and programs which can be
accomplished during the next five years. It should be perceived as the starting point for
implementation of long-range recommendations. At the end of five years, a second
short-range action plan should be prepared, reflecting local aspirations and priorities at
that time. The Comprehensive Plan is to be updated annually by a sub -committee of the
Plan Commission in cooperation with the Village Planning staff.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS FOR 1992
The update process began during the summer of 1991 with the video taping of all vacant
parcels and potential redevelopment sites in the Village and adjacent unincorporated areas
in Cook County. The video was used with zoning and Sidwell maps and other tools to aid
the Comprehensive Plan Committee and staff in evaluating the appropriate use of each
property.
Data was also gathered from school and park districts, the public library and other
institutions in order to update data and incorporate their plans with those of the Village.
A public hearing was hearing on January 8, 1992 to receive public comments. The Village
believes that citizen input is extremely valuable and essential in the development of a well
thought out and feasible plan.
BENEFITS OF THE PLANNING PROGRAM
The overall comprehensive planning program should result in a number of benefits for the
Mount Prospect Community.
For the first time, a wide range of data and materials on local conditions was assembled
and recorded in 1980. The process has encouraged. local residents to consider the future
of their community more directly and to actively discuss future options and alternatives.
It has resulted in a plan for future growth and development which represents strong local
consensus.
The plan promotes a balanced and orderly future development pattern which should
enhance the local living environment. It establishes an overall framework for coordinating
both public and private development. It provides guidelines by which the Plan
Commission and Village Board can review and evaluate individual development proposals.
It provides a guide for public investments and can help ensure that local public dollars are
spent wisely for community facilities and services. It clarifies long-range Village policies
so that individual property owners and developers can prepare and coordinate their own
development plans. Most important, the updated Comprehensive Plan is evident of the
Village's commitment to planning for its future on a continuing basis.
-3-
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
To be effective, the Mount Prospect planning program must respond to the special needs,
values and desires of local residents. Goals and objectives provide this specialized guidance.
In essence, these transform collective community values into operational statements which
can be used as guidelines for the planning program.
Goals and objectives each have a distinct and different purpose in the planning process:
-GOALS describe desired end situations toward which planning efforts should be
directed. They are broad and long-range. They represent an end to be sought, although
they may never actually be fully attained.
-OBJECTIVES describe more specific purposes which should be sought in order to
advance toward the overall goals. They provide more precise and measurable guidelines
for planning action.
Collectively, goals and objectives indicate where a community wants to go or what it wants
to become in the future.
The following pages present a listing of goals and objectives in several general categories:
identity, housing and residential areas, commercial development, and parks and recreation.
VILLAGE IDENTITY
Goal
The goal is to provide a strong and positive Village image and identity through distinct
Village features, facilities, and programs.
Objectives
1. Maintain the attractive appearance of existing, residential neighborhoods, while
applying standards to assure the long-term stability of the neighborhoods.
2. Improve the character and appearance of the commercial environment, with
particular emphasis on the downtown area as the center of the Village.
3. Institute a community -wide beautification program including distinctive approach
routes and entrance areas, special boundary features between various land -use districts,
a series of strategically located focal points and open spaces; and improvement in the
condition and appearance of all rights-of-way.
4. Expand programs of cultural and community activities which set a high standard for
such activity and which can be enjoyed by all Village residents.
-4-
5. Establish a program of Village events which contribute to the Village's goals and
which contribute to its image and aspirations.
HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Goal
A housing inventory and living environment which supports the local population,
accommodates a reasonable level of growth, and maintains the overall character of the
Village.
Objectives
1. Maintain the predominant single-family image and character of the Village.
2. Maintain the attractive quality of existing single-family and multi -family -residential
neighborhoods and establish a Village -wide program of resident involvement to achieve
this objective.
3. Protect residential areas from encroachment by land -uses which are incompatible
or which may create adverse impacts.
4. Promote the improvement and rehabilitation of deteriorating housing properties.
5. Promote new residential development designed to have a variety of housing types
and prices.
6. Promote new housing for the elderly which is convenient to shopping, Village
facilities and services, and transportation.
7. Facilitate the affordable housing needs of low- and moderate- income residents of
the Village.
8. Encourage the development of programs providing housing opportunities for first-
time low-income homebuyers utilizing the new federal HOME Program.
9. Promote a financial rental assistance program throughout the Village for low-income
residents.
10. Assist in locating financial resources for the rehabilitation of housing for the
mentally ill.
11. Ensure adequacy of property maintenance standards to prevent deterioration in
existing multi -family areas.
12. Encourage low and moderate density multi -family housing to avoid large
concentrations of higher density housing.
-5-
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Goal
A system of commercial development which secures the Village's regional significance
as a retail center while providing the local residents with adequate local or neighborhood
retail facilities..
Objectives
1. Maintain Village services and facilities which assure the long-term economic strength
of the various commercial centers and areas within the Village.
2. Maintain and expand retail and commercial services in the Village.
3. Ensure that all retail, office and commercial activities are concentrated within or near
areas of similar or compatible use.
4. Initiate programs to encourage improvement of the condition of older existing
commercial buildings and areas.
S. Provide convenient access to, and adequate employee and patron parldng in all
shopping areas.
6. Promote new commercial development which will further strengthen and expand the
Village's tax and economic base.
7. Promote redevelopment within select locations along Rand Road and along Northwest
Highway.
8. Minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the downtown area.
9. Define more specific functional roles for the various commercial areas within the
Village.
10. Further implement a comprehensive revitalization program in the downtown area.
11. Design and implement strategies for attracting commercial and industrial
opportunities to Mount Prospect.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Goal
To develop an industrial base which assures a diversified economy and which
complements other types of local development.
-6-
Objectives
1. Promote industrial development near major transportation facilities.
2. Provide for the orderly expansion of existing industrial areas and activities.
3. Promote the corrective maintenance of industrial properties in poor condition.
4. Ensure that all new industrial development is concentrated in areas of similar or
compatible use.
5. Minimize the negative impact of industrial activities on neighboring land -uses.
6. Require all industries to meet performance standards for noise, air, odor and other
forms of environmental pollution.
7. Formulate special design and development standards to ensure that new industrial
development complements the overall character of the Village.
8. Encourage the development of new industry that maximizes use of the local labor
force.
9. Promote the Cook County 6A and 6B Property Tax Incentive Program.
TRANSPORTATION
Goal
To provide a balanced transportation system which provides for safe and efficient
movement of vehicles and pedestrians, reinforces surrounding land development and
enhances regional transportation facilities.
Objectives
1. Reduce congestion on all major arterial streets.
2. Correct localized traffic operational problems.
3. Minimize non -local traffic within residential neighborhoods.
4. Provide for safe bicycle movement within the Village through the development of
bicycle routes and other facilities.
5. Promote and encourage safe and convenient public transportation within the Village
and to other adjacent and nearby communities and destinations.
-7-
6. Monitor and maintain commuter parking facilities to serve METRA and Northwestern
Railroad (C & NW).
7. Reduce congestion at and around the METRA and C & NW Station.
8. Increase pedestrian safety throughout the Village.
9. Encourage the development of commuter parking facilities in outlying locations within
the Village and in adjacent communities, and the provision of improved transit service
to and from such facilities and the METRA and C & NW Station.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Goal
To provide a system of community facilities which provides for efficient and effective
delivery of public services required by Village residents.
Objectives
1. To assure an adequate level of fire and police protection throughout the Village.
2. Encourage the availability of high-quality primary and secondary education.
3. Maintain adequate public water supply, sanitary and storm sewer systems.
4. Maintain adequate sites for Village facilities.
5. Improve facilities and services for senior citizens and other residents needing
assistance.
6. Promote the viable re -use of schools or other public buildings that may be closed in
the future for other uses such as day care centers, pre-school, teen activity, senior citizens
centers and other similar facilities.
7. Increase the Village's ability to plan for and program public improvements.
8. Encourage the development of a commuter rail service on the Wisconsin Central
Railroad line as identified in the 2010 Regional Transportation Plan.
9. Encourage the implementation of the 2010 Regional Transportation Plan in Mount
Prospect.
10. Prepare a five-year public facilities improvement plan for infra -structure and asset
improvements and for bringing recently annexed areas up to Development Code
standards.
-8-
PARKS AND RECREATION
Goal
To provide an open -space system which satisfies the recreational and leisure -time needs
of Village residents.
Objectives
1. Work with the Park Districts to maintain a local park system which complements the
regional recreational opportunities available in adjacent forest preserves.
2. Develop new recreational facilities and programs which respond to specific desires
of Village residents.
3. Provide small new park sites in neighborhoods where there is insufficient park space.
4. Ensure that parks and recreational facilities are easily accessible from residential
areas and are available at times which coincide with the available leisure time of
residents.
5. Utilize existing park and recreational facilities to the maximum.
b. Ensure that adequate sites for future parks are set aside as a part of new residential
developments.
7. Promote continued cooperation between park and school districts in the provision
of recreational services.
8. Promote development of recreational facilities as part of large scale planned
developments.
LONG-RANGE PLAN
The Long -Range Plan provides a general framework for improvement and development in
Mount Prospect over the next 20 to 25 years. It establishes long-term targets for key aspects
of the Village consistent with the community's overall goals and objectives. It is specific
enough to guide day-to-day development decisions, yet flexible enough to allow modification
and continuous refinement.
The Long -Range Plan contains three primary components: land -use, transportation, and
community facilities. Planning recommendations for each of these components are
discussed below. Detailed information on existing conditions, issues and alternatives are
covered in the background work papers prepared as a part of the Comprehensive Planning
Program.
-9-
LAND -USE
The Village of Mount Prospect covers an area of approximately ten square miles located
22 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. It is bordered on the north by Wheeling and
Prospect Heights, on the east by the Cook County Forest Preserve and Des Plaines, on the
south by Des Plaines and Elk Grove Village, and on the west by Arlington Heights. The
Village is bisected by several major transportation corridors; the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad, which runs diagonally through the Village from a southeast to a northwest
direction, Northwest Highway (Route 14), which runs parallel to the Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad, Rand Road (Route 12), which also runs diagonally through the
Village from a southeast to a northwest direction in the north half of the Village, and
Elmhurst Road (Route 83), which runs north and south through the center of the Village,
Mount Prospect is an established, essentially built-up community, with relatively new
residential and commercial development occupying the major portion of the Village. Since
most of the community is already committed in terms of land -use, the existing development
pattern significantly influences the type and extent of new development which will be
possible, and the extent to which redevelopment will be appropriate.
This section presents recommendations for specific land -use areas within the Village.
Plan Recommendations
The Generalized Land -Use Plan provides a guide for future land -use development
decisions within the Village. It identifies which lands should be utilized for residential,
commercial, industrial, and public land -use activities. The Pian also describes
interrelationships between various land -use areas, and the types of projects and
improvements desirable within each area.
The Land -Use Plan is based on several overall principles and standards for improvement
and development. These principles, which provide the overall framework for specific
land -use recommendations, include the following:
Mount Prospect is essentially an established, built-up community. Land -use
recommendations should be focused on strengthening existing functional areas and on
promoting desirable new development in selected areas.
The strong residential image and character of Mount Prospect would be maintained and
reinforced. New residential development should reflect quality of design and construction
and should be in harmony with existing development. While housing types and densities
may vary, the overall image of the Village should continue to be that of a single-family
residential community.
The important role of Mount Prospect as a commercial focal point for the surrounding
area should be reinforced. Areas for various types of commercial development, including
community, highway oriented, and neighborhood convenience commercial should be
clearly identified and standards established to guide their development.
-10-
The Village should strive to capitalize on opportunities for capturing new office research
and industrial development in highly accessible locations, particularly in the southwestern
area.
Recommendations for land -use areas are presented below. A detailed, parcel -by -parcel
description of land -use recommendations for specific areas subject to change or
intensification is included in Appendix I.
Residential Areas
Mount Prospect has traditionally been a strong and desirable residential community. While
the local commercial and industrial sectors have experienced rapid growth in recent years,
existing residential neighborhoods still represent one of the Village's most important assets.
The Land -Use Plan attempts to strengthen and reinforce existing residential areas and
promote quality new residential development in select locations.
bincipigs and Standards
Several general principles and standards should guide improvement and development within
residential areas:
Existing single-family residential neighborhoods should be maintained and protected and
neighborhood quality must be preserved. Overall environmental and public service
improvements should be undertaken where necessary, and the negative impact of traffic and
non-residential uses on neighborhoods should be minimized.
Existing residential areas showing initial signs of decline should be targeted for corrective
actions.
New multi -family housing should be developed in selected areas along major streets,
adjacent to major shopping areas, or adjoining existing multi -family development. In special
cases, new multi -family development could also be appropriate adjacent to public parks or
other significant features.
New multi -family areas should be developed as overall, planned residential environments.
Within large development areas, a range of housing types should be promoted with each
area sharing a common character and unified environment.
New housing areas should be served by a safe and convenient circulation system with streets
and roadways relating to and connecting with existing streets in adjacent areas. However,
residential access should be separated from nonresidential traffic wherever possible.
Any significant new multi -family development should include a new public park site
designed to meet the needs of the new residents.
Mi f!
New multi -family development should include a distinctive landscaping and open space
system as an integral part of the overall site design.
Small-scale "infill' residential development should be compatible and in character with
surrounding existing development.
Landscaping or other buffering techniques should be used to screen residential areas from
adjacent non-residential uses.
Special planning and design incentives should be developed to ensure that new residential
areas include a wide range of amenities.
Planning and design innovations in both housing structures and land development should
be actively encouraged through careful use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
technique.
Planned Unit Developments should be encouraged in and near the Downtown.
Special attention should be focused on maintaining older residential areas. Of particular
immediate concern should be addressing the blighting private property and street conditions
throughout Census neighborhoods 9, 10 and 13. Neighborhood 9 is bounded by Golf Road,
Busse Road, the Northwest Tollway, and the western municipal boundary of the Village.
Neighborhood 10 boundaries are Golf Road, Linneman Road and Cottonwood Drive to the
north, Elmhurst Avenue to the east, the municipal boundaries to the south, and Busse Road
to the west. Neighborhood 13 is the area between Wheeling Road, Euclid Avenue, East
Drive and Kensington Road. These and other areas are good, stable neighborhoods for
affordable housing and starter homes and special efforts should be made at increasing their
desirability.
The Land -Use Plan indicates three residential categories:
Single-family idential develWmenj would continue to be the predominant land -use within
the Village. This development, essentially in place today, would be concentrated in several
large residential neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods vary in terms of character and
density, and were developed at different points in time by different developers. Earlier
single-family homes were constructed in the central portion of the Village, conforming to
the basic grid pattern of streets, at an overall density of five to eight units per net acre.
(Net acre as used throughout this Plan refers to the average number of dwelling units on
a building site. Streets, alleys, and common drives, etc. are not included.) Newer
single-family homes were developed on somewhat larger lots in the northern and western
portions of the Village primarily at densities of three to five units per acre, with
neighborhoods characterized by curvilinear street patterns.
All existing single-family neighborhoods should be strengthened through a range of
community facility and support service improvements, including expanded park and
-12-
recreational facilities where needed. Transportation projects would help reduce through -
traffic within certain neighborhoods, as well as improve operational conditions at problem
intersections in other neighborhoods. Boundaries between neighborhoods and commercial
and industrial areas should be clarified and strengthened, and incompatible land -uses either
eliminated or screened and buffered.
Since all single-family neighborhoods are essentially built-up, few new single-family homes
will be constructed in the Village, except on scattered vacant lots within established
neighborhoods. Infill development on these lots should be of a scale and character similar
to existing homes in the immediate area.
developmen would be located at certain locations
along major streets and near other activity centers. Existing multi -family development,
reflecting a density of 6 to 16 units per net acre, is located near the intersection of Foundry
Road and Des Plaines River Road, adjacent to the Old Orchard Country Club, and along
the western edge of Boxwood adjacent to Randhurst Shopping Center. Additional
low-density Multi -family development exists at several scattered locations near the Rand
Road corridor, Northwest Highway, and in the southwest portion of the Village.
Low-density residential development may accommodate a range of housing types, including
duplex, townhouse, and two- and three-story apartment buildings.
developmentMgdium-density multi -family residential would be located near major activity
centers within the Village. Existing medium -density multi -family development,
predominantly reflecting densities between 16 and 25 units per net acre, exist at scattered
locations near Rand, Central, and Golf Roads, and in larger concentrations in the
southwestern portion of the Village.
Several areas are recommended for new medium -density multi -family residential
development in the future. The largest includes approximately 16 acres located between
Dempster and Algonquin, West of Elmhurst Road, adjacent to existing multi -family
development, as well as commercial and light industrial uses. These lots are shown on
Figure 6 as Lots C and D in Area 6. One smaller vacant area is located adjacent to
existing medium -density multi -family development on the north side of Algonquin Road
west of Prospect Commons Apartments.
The design and development of new medium -density development should be carefully
controlled to ensure a compatibility with surrounding uses, adequate screening and
buffering, and a high-quality living environment.
C911eyl Areas
The Land -Use Plan strives to strengthen and reinforce the role and function of existing
commercial areas in the Village and promote viable new commercial development in
selected locations. The plan includes two general types of commercial areas, each with
different characteristics and requirements: community commercial areas, which contain a
wide range of retail and shoppers goods establishments, and which include Randhurst,
Mount Prospect Plaza, other shopping centers, and the downtown; and general business
-13-
areas, which contain a range of office, business, and commercial service establishments,
including the Rand Road and Northwest Highway corridors, proposed development along
Elmhurst Road, and several small neighborhood convenience centers which provide for the
day-to-day shopping needs of surrounding residents.
Principles and Standgrds
Several general principles and standards should guide improvement and development within
commercial areas:
In general, new commercial development should complement and relate to major
commercial uses already located in the surrounding area. Increased interaction and
support between uses should be encouraged, particularly in the downtown and community
commercial areas.
Since most commercial areas are located along major thoroughfares, access to
commercial properties should be carefully designed to minimize conflicts with traffic
movement. The consolidation of access for several individual properties should be
encouraged.
Further "strip" commercial development within the Village should be discouraged. Where
possible, new commercial uses along major arterial should be clustered in small groupings
with shared parking areas, common access drives, and related design and appearance.
Overall environmental conditions within existing commercial areas should be improved.
The general condition of commercial buildings, grounds, and parking areas should be
improved, especially in several areas along Northwest Highway and Rand Road. -Curbs
and sidewalks in certain areas should be repaired.
The relationship between adjoining commercial and residential areas should be improved.
Small neighborhood convenience centers, including food, drugs, and personal service
businesses, should provide for the day-to-day needs of nearby residents. Spillover
commercial traffic and parking on adjacent residential streets should be eliminated.
The overall maintenance and "housekeeping" along alleys and the rear portions of
commercial blocks, particularly along Northwest Highway, should be improved.
Special standards and guidelines for major commercial areas should be observed for
landscaping, setbacks; sign control, etc., to help ensure the highest possible quality of
design and development.
Landscaping and other buffering techniques should be used to screen commercial areas
from adjacent residential neighborhoods in accordance with the Village Landscape
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Developers of major commercial areas are required to provide thorough market studies
relating to growth trends, shopping habits and disposable income.
-14-
Plan RecommendatiQns
The Lard -Use Plan indicates two basic types of commercial areas, including community
commercial areas and general business areas. Land -Use recommendations for these areas
are presented below.
contain a wide range of retail and shopper goods
establishments, and include the larger concentrations of commercial activities such as
Randhurst, Mount Prospect Plaza, and the downtown. Randhurst is an established
regional shopping center, and Mount Prospect Plazaa functions as a smaller, community
shopping center. Both centers should be continually upgraded in physical condition,
appearance, and tenant mix to maintain their competitive positions in the region and
community and to assure their continued economic contribution to the Village. Plan
recommendations are focused on strengthening and reinforcing existing community
commercial areas, including environmental improvements and transportation and public
service projects which could directly or indirectly benefit these important focal points.
No major land -use changes are recommended within most community commercial areas,
and little currently vacant land is indicated for community commercial development in
the future. A strategy for attracting new commercial ventures, utilizing available
resources when appropriate and upgrading existing businesses should be created and
implemented.
The Land -Use Plan recommends more significant changes within the downtown area.
The plan recommends that the Downtown be strengthened and improved as a focal point
for the community. The Downtown should be reinforced as a multi -use area with
expanded office and convenience shopping districts, key public and semi-public facilities,
and new close -in townhouse and condominium development. Specific land -use
recommendations for Downtown are included in a following section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
General business areas contain a range of office, business, and commercial service
establishments, and include primarily linear developments along the Rand Road,
Northwest Highway, and Elmhurst Road corridors. Several functional and operational
problems are present in these three corridors. Small pockets of residential uses still
exist within the commercial strips and are not compatible with surrounding uses.
Residential uses also abut the rear of commercial properties along each corridor. Land
for commercial development or expansion is quite limited. Many commercial uses
provide small on-site parking lots which result in numerous curb -cuts along heavily
traveled streets and promote conflicts between through traffic and vehicles using the
small parking areas. The plan strives to correct a number of these problem conditions,
and strengthen and improve existing commercial corridors in the future.
Rand Road would continue to accommodate a wide range of commercial, office,. and
business service activities, as well as several important public land uses. The plan calls
for eventual development and redevelopment of several currently vacant and
under-utilized land parcels scattered along the street. In general, land -use
recommendations tend to reinforce and strengthen the commercial and office function
-15-
of the corridor, while maintaining sound clusters of residential development and public
uses in certain locations. In addition, the plan strives to ensure a compatible relationship
between commercial activities and adjacent residential areas.
The Northwest Highway corridor would also continue to accommodate a wide range of
commercial and office activities, although land for commercial expansion is quite limited.
No major land -use changes are recommended, except in the downtown area. However,
a number of operational improvements should be undertaken, including the consolidation
of vehicular access drives off Northwest Highway, the redesign and possible expansion
of off-street parking areas, and overall appearance and "housekeeping" improvements.
Alleys and the rear portions of buildings should be better maintained, and curbs and
sidewalks should also be improved in several areas.
Elmhurst Road, south of Golf Road, is a major corridor for highway oriented commercial
uses. Plan recommendations tend to reinforce this function, and several vacant land
areas south of Dempster in Lake Center Plaza are designated for general business -
industrial and office research development in the future. The, scale and intensity of
development should be similar to uses already existing along Elmhurst Road, and new
uses which are related to and supportive of existing activities should be encouraged.
Development areas are of sufficient size to allow for several larger, freestanding facilities,
or the clustering of numerous smaller buildings. Commercial development should be
guided by an overall site plan to ensure coordinated development of buildings, access
drives, internal circulation, and parking facilities. Screening and buffering should be
provided between .this area and residential development recommended to the west.
Industrial and Office Research Areas
Industrial and office research development, as characterized by the Kensington Center
for Business, represents a significant land -use component within the Village. Several
land areas in the southwestern portion of the Village have potential for similar
development in the future. If carefully designed and developed, industrial and office
research uses could create a strong new identity for this area.
Principles and Standards
Several principles and standards should guide improvement and development of industrial
and office research areas within the Village:
"Planned" industrial and office research development should be encouraged wherever
possible to help ensure coordinated lot configuration, building design, access and parking,
and overall environmental features, as well as compatible relationships between new and
existing development.
Within industrial, and office research areas, individual sites should be reasonably level,
well -drained parcels of land capable of supporting large industrial facilities.
-16-
All industrial and office research areas should have direct access to a major arterial street,
but access roads should not disrupt the flow of traffic on the arterial.
Internal streets within industrial areas should be functional and easy to perceive and use.
Industrial and office research areas should be designed to allow maximum flexibility, with
larger land areas capable of being subdivided and developed according to specific market
demand.
Individual lots should be relatively regular in size and shape, with depths greater than
widths.
Adequate water supply and waste disposal facilities should be available in all industrial
and office research areas.
Available resources should be used to encourage industrial and office/research
development.
Adequate off-street parking and loading facilities should be provided within all industrial
and office research areas. The consolidation of parking and loading facilities for two or
more individual uses should be encouraged.
Landscaping, lighting, and signage should be used to provide a visually pleasing environment
and help create a distinct image and identity for industrial and office research areas.
All industrial uses should be required to meet performance standards for noise, odor,
smoke, heat, air and water pollution, and other potentially harmful impacts.
Special care should be taken to screen and buffer industrial areas from other nearby
land -use areas and to ensure that industrial traffic and other related conditioners do not
adversely impact surrounding areas.
Plan Recommendations
The Land -Use Plan differentiates between two basic types of industrial uses: light industrial
and office research activities, which could include a wide range of office, warehousing, and
light manufacturing uses; and general industrial activities, which would include heavy
industrial and manufacturing uses.
Ugbt industrial loffice research activities would be concentrated in three primary areas:
(1) The Kensington Center area, situated between Rand Road and Wolf Road, just south
of Foundry Road. This area would be focused around the 300 -acre Kensington Center
planned industrial park. Careful screening, buffering, and site design will be needed in
theses areas to ensure that new development is compatible with nearby residential areas.
(2) The area along the south side of METRA and C & NW, both northwest and
-17-
southeast of the downtown area. Several smaller office and light industrial operations
are already located in this area, and these should be maintained and monitored to ensure
continued compatibility with adjoining residential areas. It is also recommended that the
five -acre triangular land parcel north of Central Road and east of Lancaster Street, which
is currently vacant, be developed for light industry in the future. Access to this parcel
should be from the south, and special screening and buffering should be used between
this area and the single-family neighborhood to the west.
(3) The southwestern portion of the Village, along Dempster and Algonquin Roads.
This area already includes the United Airlines Service and Training Center, the
Coca-Cola complex, and several smaller industrial and office research operations.
Several other vacant sites have excellent access and visibility characteristics and have
potential for similar development in the future. It is recommended that each of these
areas be developed as part of planned industrial subdivisions to help ensure quality
development and the most effective use of remaining available land. In total,
approximately 40 acres in this area could be developed for light industrial/office research
operations in the future.
General Industa would be limited to the far southwestern portion of the Village, generally
south of Algonquin Road. This area currently contains the large Mount Prospect Fuel
Storage Terminal and several smaller general industrial operations. It is recommended
that remaining vacant land be used for light industrial activities in the future. Existing
residential uses, including the mobile home park along Oakton and low -intensity commercial
uses, are not compatible with the industrial character of this area, and it is recommended
that these be phased out in the future to allow for more appropriate new development. As
in light industrial areas, new development should be in planned subdivisions to ensure
efficient and effective use of remaining land. In total, 106 acres could be made available
for general industry in this area.
Downtown
The Mount Prospect downtown area includes a wide mixture of retail, convenience
commercial, office, municipal, auto -oriented, and residential land -uses. The
Downtown -Development Plan, prepared in 1976 under the leadership of the Business
District Development and Redevelopment Commission, reviewed existing problem
conditions and future potentials, and presented a long-range plan for improvement and
redevelopment within the area.
The 1976 plan contains two primary components: The overall planning framework for
guiding downtown development and high priority planning projects which should be
undertaken in the short-term future. The planning framework provides overall guidelines
for long-range growth and development. It establishes basic standards and requirements
for key parts of the downtown environment, including land -use, movement systems, parking
areas, and pedestrian and open space facilities. Planning projects are more specific
development actions which should be undertaken to revitalize the downtown area.
-18-
The basic recommendations of the 1976 Downtown Plan have been reviewed and evaluated
as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. In general, these basic concepts have
been endorsed and reconfirmed. The overall land -use recommendations for downtown are
still valid and still appear to reflect local aspirations regarding the downtown area.
However, several changes have been made in this Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan organizes downtown into several compact land -use districts (see
Figure 1). Each district would be generally homogeneous in terms of intensity, scale,
character, and the relationship between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Each would
contain similar, compatible, and mutually supportive activities.
The system is anchored by two primary activity centers -- the office district/governmental
district and the mixed use—commercial/residential center-- -- located east and west of Main
Street. These would be the most intensely developed parts of downtown. Primary vehicular
circulation would be around the periphery of these districts. Each would contain a compact
grouping of related activities focused around an interior pedestrian oriented environment.
Coordinated multi-purpose development would be encouraged within each area, with unified
parking areas, access points, pedestrian facilities, and beautification improvements. These
two primary centers would be surrounded by other land -use districts, including commercial
services, commuter facilities, and multi -family housing. These improvements have already
begun and should be continued.
The special characteristics of each land -use district are discussed below.
OfficeZGovemmental District,
The office/governmental district should be strengthened and consolidated as a major
new activity center between Northwest Highway, Main, Central, and Maple Streets. It
should contain a range of governmental, professional, and other office activities, plus
parking and support services.
New office development, especially small professional, representing one of downtown's
most promising market opportunities, should be strongly promoted and recruited for this
area. Adequate sites should be made available north of Busse on the east side of
Emerson. The District contains the new Police and Fire Headquarters constructed in
1992/1993. Commercial and office uses are being examined as potential redevelopment
for the highly visible frontage along Northwest Highway and Main Street.
Primary vehicular circulation should be located on the periphery of the district with
internal streets providing access to individual sites. New pedestrian facilities, landscaping,
and streetscape improvements should be emphasized.
Mixed Use - ResidentiallCommercial District
The Area bordered by Main, Central, and Northwest Highway should be strengthened
and improved as Mount Prospect's Town Center District. It is recognized that the
majority of any new commercial development should be focused in this triangle area.
-19-
EE vic
RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
GENERALIZED LAND USES
F�46PIT-RESIDE"
ESIDE I-
_ EIgHBo R-
-1---
CENTRAL RD
E USEFn
LtAXMEClAkA- ESDE tAL�-�
I R S1D; TI
I NEIGHBORHOOD
Q
RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
Primary uses in this area would be a mix of commercial and residential uses strengthened
by a strong, convenient, attractive and consumer oriented environment. However, since
market opportunities change or may be limited, development of this district must be
carefully phased.
Initial efforts should encourage the consolidation of commercial activities. Actions
should be undertaken which could strengthen and support existing businesses.
Residential units should be given greater emphasis in this district. The variety of
lifestyles should include new household formations as well as young adults, empty nesters
and senior housing options. New and improved short-term parking should be made
available both within and adjacent to this district. Sidewalk and pedestrian facilities
should be improved to encourage pedestrian movement and shopping within the area.
Strong connections should be created to link land -use areas to complement and support
town center activities. Landscaping, lighting, graphics, and other streetscape projects
should be utilized to visually unite the area. Building facades and storefront
improvements should be continued in order to improve the overall appearance of the
area. These improvements should be continued as resources permit.
As downtown development activity increases, commercial operations in other parts of
downtown should be encouraged to relocate within this district. A compact grouping of
commercial - retail and residential activities could work together as a unit and provide
mutual support for each other. The group would generate a larger number of total
shopping trips and all stores could benefit.
As new office and housing development takes place, and the existing shopping environment
improves, opportunities for new retail and commercial development may arise. If so, new
commercial development should occur within this district. In the long-range, the district
should function as a small cluster of shopping facilities with primary vehicular circulation
around the periphery. Stores should be so oriented to create a small open -space area, and
with strong pedestrian connections across Main Street to new office and housing areas.
Ecospegi A.ver►�mmgr al District
Convenience commercial activities along Prospect Avenue south of the railroad have
developed as a relatively distinct district. This district provides important convenience
services to adjacent residents to the south. Existing businesses should be protected and
preserved as important central area economic assets. Improved parking areas, building
facade improvements, improved sidewalks and pedestrian facilities, and new landscaping
should be continued to complete the upgrade of the district's overall environment. Future
right-of-way improvements should include the block from Route 83 (Main Street) to Wille
Street in order to complete the street and sidewalk and lighting improvements. Future
actions for private development should focus on maintaining the existing commercial and
service businesses.
-21-
New high-quality central area housing could add significant new life and vitality to the
downtown and help create a built=in market for commercial activities. It is critical that any
new housing around downtown be carefully monitored and controlled to ensure a high
quality development. Development should complement and be in keeping with adjacent
neighborhoods, with quaiity materials and construction and extensively landscaped and
buffered sites. The areas should provide for unique new housing opportunities not now
available in the Village.
Tax Increment Finance District and Triangle Rdevelopment Areas
A range of coordinated public and private actions will be required to revitalize the
downtown area and attract new investment. The creation of the first Tax Increment Finance
District (TIF) adopted by the Village Board action in August, 1985 put in place one of the
primary tools required to carry out physical redevelopment and expansion of the economic
base of Mount Prospect.
In creating the TIF District, the Village took action to create the preconditions required
to attract new private investment. Future projects should focus on correcting key problems
which hamper downtown operations. These should include correcting blighting conditions
throughout the Downtown, which TIF and other studies have identified. Public projects
should improve vehicular access, relieve traffic congestion, and provide adequate and
convenient parking facilities. Public actions should also improve the overall image and
appearance of the area, and make the area more attractive and convenient for people. In
addition, the Village should also help make lands available for new activities and tailor new
zoning and regulatory measures to fit the special needs of a downtown center and thereby
directly encourage new private development. In the Fall of 1988, the TIF District was
expanded to include the majority of the block bounded by Central, Busse Avenue, Wille,
and Main Street as the first phase for potential commercial/residential redevelopment as
a part of the larger triangle bounded by Main, Central and Northwest Highway. The Tax
Increment Financing Boundary Map (Figure 2) identifies the specific areas in this district.
The Village has adopted development objectives which will serve as a guide for
redevelopment of these areas.
OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Development Objective
1. Create an innovative development that encourages a suburban scale mixed use project
that explores all market potentials, is harmonious with the surrounding residential area
and can attract residents of the Northwest Cook County area.
2. Create a development that can stimulate other private sector investment in the
triangle and adjoining areas, including new construction, expansion and rehabilitation.
3. Provide a development that can yield the highest possible real estate and sales tax to
-22-
sr-
#�e "
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING;
` a
BOUNDARY MAP
..e /- -- -r ---- MAIN -- t • a gi
!h• ___ W c
�C �,r 4 � a� h a+♦ W w v
sr
+., • . Ma L
1
1 f � a w y,r , e• .1 r+ .. a.
�XMA sr
w
��� +{( . p '�5 , a '• .r �` � it a.
K a`
4
I—V
:1 1 M -; n m • r
•r ' 1
¢r"ti^*♦ktkkx�ww..wly,M
�
Figure 2
- 23 -
the Village consistent with other downtown development objectives. A financial analysis
should be submitted so that revenue figures can be examined.
4. Protect and enhance the present retail and service businesses in the Downtown Area.
5. The redevelopment project shall serve to improve the image of the Downtown Area
recognizing its potential as the town center.
Land Use
1. A full range of retail and service commercial uses together with select professional
office space and residential should be encouraged. The concept of mixed commercial
and residential and/or office space should be examined.
2. Residential development may be multi -family units with a building height not to
exceed 6. stories.
3. Commercial development should focus on retail and service businesses. Specialty
shops and convenience commercial are to be encouraged. An anchor user should be
encouraged to attract a broad customer base to the redevelopment area.
4. Office space should be designed for professional office users.
5. A portion of the site should be dedicated to a centrally located public open space,
sufficient for gatherings and community activities. This should serve as a major focal
point in the Downtown Area.
6. A cultural arts facility should be encouraged.
Development Character
1. New construction should be compatible with the existing character in the downtown
area.
2. Taller buildings should be located in such fashion as to lessen the impact to
surrounding residential uses.
Design Guidelines
1. Provide attractive, well landscaped frontages along all public streets, and adequate
screening and buffering around parking and loading areas.
2. An integrated site plan should reflect no physical barriers between land uses.
3. Brick construction is preferred for all buildings. No exposed block walls should be
allowed on any building elevation.
-24-
4. The redevelopment area should include unified streetscape elements, including
lighting, benches, graphics and brick paver sidewalks. Signage should blend with the
development and complement its architectural character.
Parking -
1. Sufficient off-street parking should be provided to meet the demand of the proposed
land uses.
2. Parking should be located in areas easily accessible from adjoining streets.
3. Parking should be assembled into unified lots or structures, with adequate provisions
for short-term customer parking and long-term employee parking.
4. Underground parking for residential units is encouraged.
5. The use of shared parking utilizing off-peak operating hours should be encouraged.
Pedestrian Movement
1. Pedestrian access and movement through the site should be an important part of the
plan. Public and private pedestrian sidewalks should be provided, and conflicts with
automobile traffic should be minimized on-site.
2. The redevelopments should provide direct pedestrian connections from the
redevelopment area to adjoining areas to encourage pedestrian movement to or from
other adjacent commercial areas.
Village Participation
1. The Village owns the 2.26 acre site on Pine Street. The municipality should consider
flexible and innovative methods to convey this parcel to the selected developer.
2. The municipality should consider economic incentives proposed by the selected
developer.
3. The Village should consider appropriate use of condemnation and land clearance of
properties in order to implement redevelopment.
4. Vacation of existing public streets and alleys may be considered for the appropriate
plan.
5. The Village may assemble property to the extent feasible.
Primary among sites being considered for redevelopment is the former Public Works
Garage on Pine Street together with adjacent associated properties and the north half of the
block bounded by Main, Wille, Central and Busse Avenue.
-25-
KIMM no =• ► .
Downtown improvement projects outlined for action in the 1976 Downtown Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan of 1981 that should be undertaken include:
Prospect Avenue, Main to Wille
Emerson - Northwest Hwy. to Busse
Specific Imomv men[
Brick sidewalks, street trees, street lights,
benches, curb, gutter and street
resurfacing
Brick sidewalks, street trees, street lights
2.;F-gcade Improvement Programs - To date, over sixty-five storefronts have been
improved through use of HUD Block Grant Program, Village local funds and private
property owners. Architectural design services were provided by a private consultant at
no cost to the property owner. The program has been administered by the Business
District Development and Redevelopment Commission and Economic Development
Coordinator. Facade improvements should be continued in the downtown and all along
Northwest Highway.
3. Land Agemblage. in TIF Are - The expanded TIF area west of Main Street (Route 83)
should be purchased by the Village and its preferred developer in a coordinated manner.
Acquisition in the TIF development sites is a high priority of the Village.
4. Ppljgg and Fire Headqua ers - A new Police and Fire Headquarters is being erected on
the present site at the Northwest corner of Maple and Northwest Highway providing up-
to-date space for fire and police activities, including administration and fire prevention.
Once completed in 1993, the old Public Works Garage facility on Pine Street between
Central and Northwest Highway will become available for redevelopment as part of a
larger program being considered by the Village.
Develo2ment Incentives,The Village should continue to play a major role in stimulating
new development. Downtown beautification projects have helped stimulate interest in the
broader scope projects of redevelopment aided by Tax Increment Financing.
-26-
Public and Semi -Public Areas
Public and semi-public land areas, including public and private schools, municipal facilities
and churches are distributed throughout the Village. Most of these are in good condition
and are well located to serve the community. Park and recreational areas are also scattered
throughout the community. In general, most areas are adequately served by park land,
although several deficiencies do exist, and not all park sites are yet fully developed. The
park districts serving Mount Prospect were surveyed and none indicated any areas that are
inadequately served by park land. Recommendations for additional park facilities are
included in the Community Facilities Section.
The Village also has several other public land resources. Cook County Forest Preserve land
borders the Village on the northeast and is a significant visual and recreational resource
available to Village residents. Additionally, there are numerous golf courses in and adjacent
to the Village and several others within a short driving distance.
Recommendations related to public and semi-public areas are included in the Community
Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan.
TRANSPORTATION
The Village should continue to develop plans for mass transportation and traffic circulation.
The transportation system consists of various categories of streets, parking facilities, and
public transit services. The overall system provides for access to Mount Prospect from the
surrounding area and movement of people and vehicles within and around the Village.
The efficiency and convenience of this system significantly affects the quality of life within
the community.
This section presents recommendations for improvement of the thoroughfare system (see
Figure 3). Recommendations are based on review of available information on the physical
characteristics of the existing transportation and traffic data, observations of the impact of
traffic volumes and patterns on the existing street system, and application of accepted
transportation and traffic planning principles and standards. Recommendations have not
been included for changes in mass transportation service to and within the community, since
a thorough analysis of needs has not been undertaken at this time.
Eun ional Classification of Stregts
The major street system in Mount Prospect is well defined, but little hierarchy is apparent
on certain other streets in the Village. A functional classification of all streets is a necessary
step in identifying problem areas and prescribing improvements.
Streets and related traffic control devices must all be considered as elements of an
inter -related system. This approach requires that the decision to install traffic engineering
measures (e.g., street closure, left turn restrictions, traffic signals, etc.) be considered in
terms of their impact on adjacent streets, intersections, and neighborhoods. Without a
IRE
FuTuRE
EXTENSION
THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNTF r, IL
OUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
OAATON ST
Figure 3
- 10 -
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
MAJOR ARTERIAL
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR STREET
systematic approach to this problem, the result is a mixture of traffic control devices, policies
and operational practices which creates confusion, inconvenience, accidents, and a myriad
of other secondary problems.
The currently accepted approach to "sorting out" the complex inter -relationship between
these elements is first to classify each street in the Village according to the function it
should perform. Each street should fit into a category or functional classification. Decisions
regarding traffic control devices and restrictive measures can then be prescribed in a
relatively straightforward manner to assure that the functions are achieved. In addition, this
procedure permits the identification of deficiencies in the street system and facilitates the
analysis of street system needs.
Four separate street classifications are identified below. The titles given these classifications
describe the orientation of traffic expected to use the streets.
Major Arterial Streets
A major arterial street is intended to serve vehicle trips oriented beyond the Village
boundaries and adjacent communities. The section of the street within the Village should
serve a significant portion of trips generated by land -uses within the Village. This type of
street has regional importance because of its alignment, continuity, capacity, and its
connection with other regional traffic carriers.
Secondary Arterial Streets
A secondary arterial street is intended to serve vehicle trips generated by land -uses within
the Village and within adjacent communities. This type of street should not serve
long-distance trips (i.e., greater than five miles), but has community importance in terms
of traffic capacity and serving abutting land -use.
Collector Streets
A collector street is intended to serve only vehicle trips generated to and from the
neighborhood it serves. The function of this type of street is to collect and distribute traffic
between the neighborhoods and community and regional streets.
Local Streets
All other streets within the Village could be classified as local streets. A local street is
intended to serve only vehicle trips generated by land -use abutting the street. The function
of this type of street is local access within a neighborhood.
One of the primary benefits derived from creating a functionally classified street system is
that it is then possible to designate "neighborhoods" inside the areas of the network of
major and secondary arterial streets. If these streets are properly designed with adequate
capacity and proper traffic control devices, the traffic in the neighborhood "cells" can be
controlled to exclude through traffic.
-29-
In determining the functional classification of streets within the Village, the following factors
were considered:
Length which the street extends continuously beyond the Village boundaries.
Width of pavement.
Type and density of abutting land -use.
Spacing relative to the prevailing grid network of streets in the surrounding communities.
The functional classification of the proposed street system is presented in Table 1. In
general, the desired design characteristics for the streets should reflect these classifications.
The major arterial streets should have the highest design standards (normally four -lane
divided roadways with separate turn lanes at intersections) and should have priority in
terms of traffic control over the other streets in the system. The secondary arterial streets
also require high design standards and should usually have four lanes for travel. A median
may be necessary on some community streets if the volume of traffic is anticipated to be
significant because of the intensity of abutting development or the condition of parallel
streets. Collector streets will usually provide satisfactory service as two-lane facilities unless
they provide primary access to high traffic generating land -uses.
-30-
TABLE 1
Functional Classification of Area Streets
Classification Street
Major Arterial Algonquin Road
Central Road
Des Plaines/River Road
Elmhurst Road/Main Street
Euclid Avenue
Golf Road
Northwest Highway
Oakton Street
Rand Road
Wolf Road
Secondary Arterial Busse Road
Camp McDonald Road
Dempster Street
Kensington Road
Mount Prospect Road
Collector Arthur Street
Burning Bush Lane (from Seminole to Kensington
Road)
Business Center Drive
Cardinal Lane (from Eric to Westgate)
Council Trail
Elmhurst Ave. (from Central to Kensington)
Emerson (from Golf to Central)
Feehanville Drive
Goebbert Road (from Algonquin to Golf)
Gregory Street (east to Owen Street)
Huntington Commons Dr. (from Elmhurst to Linneman)
Lincoln Street
Linneman Road
Lorinquist (east to Emerson)
Meier Road
Owen Street (from Central to Gregory)
Prospect Avenue
Schoenbeck Road (from Rand to Camp McDonald)
See-Gwun Avenue
Seminole Lane
Westgate (from Cardinal Lane to Central)
Westgate Road (from Kensington Road to Euclid)
Wheeling Road (from Kensington Road to Rand
William Street (from Golf to Prospect)
Willow Lane
-31-
Problems and Issues
Several transportation related features within Mount Prospect have been identified as
needing improvement, including problem intersections, localized traffic congestion, street
discontinuities, community oriented mass transportation, and parking.
Problem Intersections
Several intersections within the Village are characterized by traffic operational problems.
Intersectional problems exist where north -south major arterial streets intersect with east -west
major arterial streets and where Rand Road and Northwest Highway intersect with
north -south and east -west major arterial streets. The most serious problems exist at the
Northwest Highway intersection with Main Street, Rand Road intersection with Kensington
Road and Elmhurst Road, and at the Mount Prospect Road intersection with Rand and
Central Roads.
Traffic Congestion
Peak -hour traffic is quite heavy on several street segments in Mount Prospect, and certain
operational problems along these streets are resulting in congestion. Although all major
and secondary arterial streets carry heavy traffic volumes, the commercial corridor streets
of Rand Road, Northwest Highway and Elmhurst Road need traffic operational
improvements to reduce conflicts between different types of traffic and to adequately serve
peak -hour volumes.
Street Discontinuity
Several important streets in Mount Prospect either lack continuity in alignment or are not
fully improved to facilitate efficient traffic flow. Busse Road carries heavy traffic volumes
from the Village limits on the south to Central Road on the north. Although this street
functions as a secondary arterial for its entire length within the Village, only the section
of street south of Golf Road has been upgraded to four lane design standard. The
upgrading of the section of Busse Road between Golf and Central, and Mount Prospect
Road between Northwest HIghway and Central Road should be top priorities.
Through Traffic on Local Streets
A local street is intended only to serve vehicle trips generated by land -use abutting the
street and by circulation from adjacent local streets. The use of local streets by through
traffic is a problem condition in the greater central section of the community where a
uniform grid pattern of streets exist in the immediate vicinity of principal intersections.
During peak traffic periods, through traffic will use local streets to bypass congested
intersections.
-32-
Mass Transportation
The Village is served by PACE, a regional bus line and by the METRA and C & NW
Railway commuter service. PACE Bus Lines serve Randburst Shopping Center, Mount
Prospect Train Station, Downtown Des Plaines, Roosevelt University, Woodfield Mall,
United Air Lines Headquarters, Harper College and other destinations. Although rail
service in Mount Prospect is good, it has some negative effects. Train activity at the many
at -grade crossings disrupts traffic flow on the arterial system. This is most prevalent during
the morning and evening peak traffic periods when both vehicular volumes and train activity
are at their highest.
Parking
Provision of parking to service businesses is of greatest concern in the downtown area
where patrons, employees, and commuters all compete for available spaces. In general,
downtown does not have an overall coordinated parking system. Parking is also a problem
along the built-up sections of Northwest Highway where numerous small, inefficient parking
facilities have been provided by business establishments on a scattered basis.
Bicycle Routes
Currently the Village has a variety of existing and planned bikeway facilities. In the
southern portion of the Village, along the east -west section of the Commonwealth Edison
Right -of -Way, there is an off-street bike path which is approximately a mile and
three-quarter long. An eight (8) mile on -street bike route spans from the northeast comer
of the Village to the southwest comer connecting Prospect Heights with Des Plaines. The
route intersects the Central Business District, and ties together most of the major civic,
shopping and park facilities.
There are various improvements that could be implemented on current bicycle route
facilities. Bicycle racks in the Central Business District need better distribution to allow for
safe bicycle lock-up throughout the downtown area.
Recommended Street System Modifications
The major traffic movement problems within Mount Prospect are related to the overall
system of streets serving the community, the operational characteristics and constraints of
the major arterial streets, the discontinuity of community arterials, and the type of
intersection traffic control in use on the community arterials. Recommendations to alleviate
these problems are summarized below.
Several streets previously identified as collector streets should be reclassified as local streets.
These include Highland Street, Westgate Road (south of Kensington Center), Lorinquist,
Boulevard (east of Emerson Street), and Gregory Street (from Owen Street to Rand).
These streets lack continuity and direct connection to either major or secondary arterial
streets.
-33-
art„_
-
_ �r1
ioRt
"1► . ii °°gyp w00
BIKE ROUTE
� _ � : ';� �'; ��► �, IIIIIII11111�1111111111
w�
--www wwwww► wr
. gam . MSam
+�►�” �wiw +irk �� IAIw�
wrwws sr rwsrwu� ...� �wig� Mwl
+ �� it
# � �w.sr �• 11 1 mrte
Iww° +rwM� wr
wswrr . =11MM mMMM
wiwa'�iw ter, �r�ii. w.w.�� �� Ili •�
as
as
rag as
.... 1 ri
.s
-- "it► � pe 1111 raS
Busse Road from Golf Road to Central Road, and Mount Prospect Road from Central
to Northwest Highway should be upgraded to four lanes. Implementation of this
intermediate improvement will provide the Village with an improved and increased
capacity roadway between the northern and southern sections of the Village, and provide
traffic, not destined for the Village, with an alternate route for north -south movement.
Meier Road should function as a collector street serving the west side neighborhood in
the Village. This street is currently terminated mid -way between Lincoln Street and
Central Road. The construction of a roadway extension to collector street standards
from the current point of termination to Central Road is recommended.
Business Center Drive between Wolf Road and Rand Road will serve as a major access
road within the Kensington Center area and should be classified as collector street.
Feehanville Drive should also be considered as a major access road.
In general, the intersections of arterial streets should include separate left -turn lanes, and
where warranted a separate traffic signal phase.
All non -local streets should be upgraded to a uniform width along their entire length,
wherever feasible.
DCO)Mi�[IO11t!'L L 91
Community facilities and services are important parts of the Mount Prospect community.
They provide for many of the day-to-day needs of local residents. They include services
which affect the health, safety and well-being of area residents, businesses, and institutions.
Some are an absolute necessity, while others are highly desirable. It is critical that these
be adequately and effectively provided for in the future.
i
This chapter reviews existing community facilities located within the Village, summarizes
key issues involved in planning for the future, and presents the recommended Community
Facilities Plan (see Figure 5).
Parks and Recreational_Faeilities
The parks and recreational system consists of sites, facilities, and programs which perform
several important functions. The most basic function is the provision of recreational services
to local residents; and effective', system can create opportunities for a wide range of leisure
time experiences. The system can also help define and delineate neighborhood areas, and
be an important visual feature in the community. An effective parks and recreation system
is particularly important in a traditionally strong residential community like Mount Prospect.
Existing Facilities
Mount Prospect is primarily served by two park districts. The Mount Prospect District,
which serves the area between Kensington, Touhy, Mount Prospect Road, and Meier Road;
and the River Trails Park District, which serves the area between Palatine, Kensington,
-35-
THE VILLAGE •
PROSPECT,IMOUNT
L=
FIGURE 5
�.o
Wheeling, and River Road. The Mount Prospect Park District operates 28 park sites of
which 21 are within Village boundaries. River Trails Park District operates 7 parks in
Mount Prospect. In addition, in Mount Prospect, the Prospect Heights Park District
maintains two park sites, and the Des Plaines Park District maintains one park site. The
total acreage of parks within Mount Prospect is approximately 502 acres. Table 2 indicates
all current park sites within the Village. Residents living in the far western portion of the
Village are served by the Arlington Heights Park District, although this district has no sites
within Mount Prospect. The Commonwealth Edison easement on the southwest side of the
Village is now maintained for recreation purposes by the Mount Prospect Park District
under a lease agreement. The Park District is also operating recreational facilities on
MWRD property on West Central Road. Known as Melas Park, the 70 acre tract is
operating jointly with adjacent Arlington Heights Park District on a 20 year lease. To date,
approximately 12 to 15 acres have been developed for recreation.
In many communities, public schools also play an important role in providing local
recreational services. School grounds are often available to surrounding residents for active
recreation. Of the total 32 parks in Mount Prospect, five are located adjacent to public
schools.
Cook County Forest Preserve land, which represents a valuable asset for the Village, is
located to the south and west of the community, and east of River Road. While forest
preserves contain few developed facilities, the wooded areas, trails and bicycle paths provide
a number of leisure time services.
In addition to the public recreational resources, private recreational facilities also play a key
role in Mount Prospect. The Village contains numerous privately operated swimming pools,
tennis courts, club rooms, and playgrounds which help supplement the public system.
Recommended Improvements
In order to maintain its tradition as a strong residential community, Mount Prospect should
strive to maintain quality park and recreational services. While the existing system of sites
and facilities is generally very good, certain improvements should be made in the future.
For instance, Lions Park should be more oriented toward entertainment for adults. Site
options could be developed to include a bandshell, cultural arts center, nature center and
garden.
Since there are few remaining vacant land parcels suitable for recreation, the existing park
system must be used most effectively. The use of certain existing parks should be
intensified. New facilities should be developed on existing sites and program offerings could
be expanded. In particular, consideration should be given to the expressed need for teen
and adult social centers.
More extensive use might also be made of public school sites and facilities. The Mount
Prospect Park District has expressed the desire to utilize school facilities more extensively
in the future, especially gymnasiums for day -time recreation programs. The district has
received grants to purchase school sites in the district and should continue to purchase
WYAE
Table 2
EXISTING PUBLIC RECREATIONAL AREAS IN MOUNT PROSPECT
Name Location Park Type Site Playground BaBOeld Basketball Tennis Swimming Shelter Community Passive Ice Bike Football Golf Open
size Center Rec. Skating Path Course Space
(Acres)
and
Paths
Busse
Owen and Henry
Neighborhood
7.12
X
X
X ,
Clearwater
Golf and Busse
Community
18.11
X
X
4 X
Countryside
South Emerson Street
Neighborhood
2.70
X
X -
Emerson
Gregory & Emerson
Neighborhood
2.30
X
X
Fairview'
Gregory & Fairview
Neighborhood
3.00
X
X
Kopp/Rec. Plex
Dempster West of Hwy. 83Community
27.04
X
2
X X X
Lions Memorial
411 South Maple
Community
24.70
X
2
X 8 X X
Meadows
Northwest Hwy.& Gregory Community
17.00
X
3
X X
I Mt. Prospect Golf Course
and Comm. Ctr.
o'
Shabonee, W. of Hwy 83
Urban
115.00
X X
Owens
Busse and Owens
Neighborhood
2.30
X
X
I
Prospect Meadows
Forest and Euclid
Neighborhood
3.50
X
X
X X
Robert Frost'
Linorman Rd. & Frost Dr, Neighborhood
3.00
X
X
Sunrise
Lonnquist & Louis
Neighborhood
11.00
X
X
Sunset
Lonnquist & Wapella
Neighborhood
1.00
X
X
Wego
Lancaster & Wego Trail
Neighborhood
1.30
X
X
Weller Creek
Weller Cr & Council Tr
Neighborhood
12.00
X
X
'Parti and School
=Proposed
'Administrative Offices
4Cross Country Skiing
X
X
X2 X
X
X
X
X
X4
X
X
X
Table 2 (cont'd)
EXISTING PUBLIC RECREATIONAL AREAS IN MOUNT PROSPECT
Name
Location
Park Type
Site
Playground Ballfield
Basketball Tennis Swimming Shcher
Community Passive
Ice Bike
Football Golf Open
sizeCenter
Rec.
Skating Path
Course Space
(Acres)
and
Paths
Commonwealth Edison
South Comm. Ed. ROW
Community
78.70
X
X
X
X
Hill Street
Hill near Rand
Nature Trail
2.2
X
X
X
WestBrook'
Central and Weiler
Neighborhood
1.0
X
X
Gregory
Gregory and Rand
Neighborhood
8.0
X
Melas
Central and Busse
Community
70.0
X
X
X
River Tr i6 P rk District
Aspen Trails
Maya & Burning Bush
Neighborhood
4.00
X
2
X 2
X
X X
X
Burning Bush Trails'
Burning Bush & Euclid
Neighborhood
1090
X
2
3 4
X X
Sycamore Trails
Wolf & Kensington
Neighborhood
9.30
X
X
X 4
X
X
X
Tamarack Trails
Burning Bush/Kensington
Neighborhood
4.90
X
X
X 2
X
Woodland Trails
Wolf & Euclid
Community
48.30
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
Evergreen Trails
Boxwood & Dogwood
Neighborhood
0.43
X
X
X
Maple Trails
Feehanviile & Business
Commercial/
Pfaines Pari Diuriti
Center Drive
Neighborhood
2.00
X
X X
X
X
X
Bluett Park
Thayer & Horner
Neighborhood
4.22
X
2
X
X
Prosnea Hcj" Park District
East Wedgewood Park
Oxford Street
Piayw
0.50
X
West Wedgewood Park
Rand Road
Neighborhood
1.50
X
X
'Park and School
unused and under-utilized properties. It is strongly recommended that playground and
recreational areas be maintained for public use at school sites recently closed or to be
closed in the future. Even if certain of these schools are reused for non-public activities
in the future, small park sites should be retained.
Other existing land resources with recreational potential should continue to be exploited.
The Commonwealth Edison easement, which in the southwestern portion of the Village, is
providing new recreational opportunities for the large-scale multi -family development in this
area.
Finally, the acquisition by park districts of small new park sites in the future should be
considered to help offset park deficiencies in certain areas. The following sites have been
identified as possible future park sites:
A small three -acre site at the northwest comer of Elmhurst and Euclid which, is currently
Village owned. A small park in this location could help serve multi -family development
around the country club, if not used for low density multi -family housing similar to that
on Wimbolton Drive.
Any new significant multi -family development should include the provision of new public
park land. The area between Algonquin and Dempster, should include a small five -acre
park site in the future.
Schools
Schools are among the most critical public facilities, especially in predominantly residential
communities such as Mount Prospect. They not only provide educational services, but also
play key cultural, recreational and social roles in residential neighborhoods.
Conditions have begun to change in local school districts during the past few years, and the
implications of these changes must be considered in the planning and community
development program.
Existing Facilities
Mount Prospect is served by four elementary school districts (Wheeling Township District
No. 21, River Trails School District No. 26, School District No. 57, and School District
No. 59), one public high school district (Township High School District 214), and five
parochial schools. A detailed inventory of all schools located within the Village is presented
in Table 3. Schools Districts 25 and 23 also serve small portions of the Village, although
they have no school sites in Mount Prospect.
Trends in Local School Districts
Conditions within each of the public school districts serving the Village are similar. School
buildings themselves are in very good structural condition. However, some building
improvements or additions may be needed in the near future to accommodate new
-40-
Table 3
INVENTORY OF SCHOOLS IN MOUNT PROSPECT'
Rivet Trails School
Euclid
Distrix. No. 26
1962 ,1991
Remaining
30
Available
Number
21
Adequacy
Location in
Capa- Adequacy
Adequacy
Very Good Very Good
Very Good
' Good
Useful
Site
Recreation
of
Current
of
Regulation
bility of
of Off.
of
Date-
Building
Life
Size
Area
Class-
Enroll-
School Site
to Service
for Recreational
Street
Environ -
Name Built
Condition
(Years)
(Acres)
(Acres)
rooms
mend
Capacity Size
Area
Expansion Area
Parking
ment
34
627
750
Good
Very Good
Good Very Good
Very Good
Excellent
Middle School
1972, 1991
Town{hio High School Diuri: 214
Prospect H. S. 1957
Goad
26
40
20
92
1,557
2,500 Adequate
Excellent
Good Good
Good
Excellent
Rivet Trails School
Euclid
Distrix. No. 26
1962 ,1991
Excellent
30
8.5
7.7
21
433
550
Excellent
Very Good
Very Good Very Good
Very Good
' Good
Indian Grove
1964, 1965, ,
Very Good
25
8.8
8.0
20
399
550
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent Excellent
Good
Excellent
1970, 1991
River Trails
1965, 1967
Very Good
30
8.0
6.2
34
627
750
Good
Very Good
Good Very Good
Very Good
Excellent
Middle School
1972, 1991
t Nipper
1974
Excellent
40
5.0
4.3
Open Space 75
125
Excellent
Excellent
Fair Very Good
Very Good
Good
Vacant Lot
t�
Undeveloped
3.3
r
Schout D €rim, No_
Fairview
57 tElemeaWl
1952, 1955
Good
30
6.36
5.01
22
322
450
Adequate
Good
Good Adequate
Adequate
Good
1958, 1973
Lions Park
1955,19A 1962
Very Good
40
2.85
1.01
25
342
450
Adequate
Good
Poor Excellent
Adequate
Good
Westbrook
1963,1%4
Very Good
40
11.05
9.0
25
314
450
Adequate
Good
Good Adequate
Adequate
Good
Lincoln
1949, 1953, 1956
Very Good
40
19.38
16.0
41
506
'750
Adequate
Good
Good Adequate
Adequate
Good
1960, 1970, 1991
Schual District No.
Robert Frost
21 [Etcmentarvl
1961
Excellent
80
6.0
5
30
623
708
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good Very Good
Very Good
VeryGood
'Adjacent to Park District land
Table 3
Y OF SCHOOLS IN MOUNT PROSPECT
Name
Date
Built
Building
Condition
Rt rommng
Useful
Life
(Years)
Site
Size
(Acres)
Available
Recreation
Area
(Acres)
Num r
of
Class-
rooms
Current
Enroll-
me nt
School
Capacity
A
of
Site
Sze
_U"um in
Regulation
to Service
Area
Capa-
bility
for
Expansiou
Adequacy
of
Recreational
Area
A u
of Off-
Street
Parking
of
Environ -
ment
School Di=c!rict No.
Forest View
59 (Elementaryl
1962
Very Good
50
11.31
9
21
343
550
Excellent
Very Goad
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Robert Frost
1964, 1987
Very Good
50
3.75
2
18
310
450
Good
Excellent
Good
Good
Good
Good
John Jay
1967
Very Good
50
6.1
4
18
432
550
Good
Excellent
Good
Very Good
Good
VeryGood
Holmes Junior
High School
1966
Very Good
50
5.3
3
27
575
700
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Good
Excellent
Private Schools
St. Emily Catholic 1961
St. Alphonsus
1955, 1957
Catholic School
A
437
St. John Lutheran
1973
t St. Paul Lutheran
1990
St. Raymond
1953, 1954
Catholic School
1957
Christian Ule College
1963, 1997
Winona Photo School
1975
Excellent 50
Excellent 50
Excellent 50
Excellent 70
Excellent 50
Good 40
Very Good 40
11.2
1.6
24
437
800
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good Very Good
Very Good
VayGood
20.0
8
10
220
350
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
17.20 "
10
Open Area 75
125
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
12
281
330
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
24
571
1,250
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
14.9
13.0
13
Closed
15
10
3
18W yr.
2900 yr.
Adequate
Good
Good
Adequate
Adequate
Good
programs and/or increased enrollment. School facilities are generally well distributed
throughout the Village, and most neighborhoods are within convenient distance of an
elementary school. Enrollment in most districts has been growing slightly.
It is essential that the Village keep abreast of development within each district and
cooperate with district officials to ensure continued high quality educational services. The
Village should work with district officials to find viable new uses for vacant school facilities
which can be of maximum benefit to the community. Similarly, school boards should be
encouraged to consider the re -use of vacant schools for public use, rather than sale for
private use, which may be in harmony with the surrounding area.
As indicated in the Land -Use Plan, it would be most desirable to retain both the land and
buildings of vacant schools as a public use. Other communities have successfully
transformed schools into community centers, cultural facilities, special educational centers,
or offices for municipal or other governmental agencies. Examples of reuse potentials are
summarized below.
Christian l - This property was closed by Elementary School District 57
because of declining enrollments in the District and has since been purchased by
Christian Life Church. The Park District purchased approximately eight acres of this site
for open space/recreation purposes.
Park View ,Scher was closed by River Trails School District 26 because of declining
enrollments in the district. The school facility, constructed in 1966, is in good structural
condition and is located on a 7.3 -acre site. The school is currently being used as a
Montessori School and for administrative offices and bus maintenance for School District
26. It should continue to be used for school use.
Busse School. This facility is owned by the Mount Prospect Park District which now rents
the facility to the Creative Children's Academy and the Suzuki School of Music.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FACILITIES AND UTILITIES
Fire Department
The Mount Prospect Fire Department has a Class II rating and a combination force
consisting of 66 uniformed firefighters, 32 of whom are also paramedics. They are
supplemented by 20 on-call volunteers. The Department maintains six pumpers, one ladder
truck, two squad vehicles, one chemical fire fighting unit, four ambulances and a disaster
services vehicle. Replacement for the equipment is based on a 20 -year plan. The Village's
Emergency Services Disaster Program is administered through the Fire Department.
The Fire Department normally maintains three facilities: Station No. 13, which serves as
the headquarters, is located at 112 East Northwest Highway; Station No. 12, at 1601 West
Golf Road; and Station No. 14, at 2000 East Kensington. Station No. 13 has been
demolished and will be replaced with a new, expanded, state of the art facility at the same
location. The new building should be up and operational in 1993. All existing fire station
-43-
facilities are in good condition. In addition, department officials indicate that two additional
stalls for vehicle maintenance activities would be desirable at Station No. 14 (see Table 4).
Existing fire stations provide adequate protection coverage for the Village at the present
time. However, the Village should continue to monitor conditions in high-value commercial
and industrial areas. It is recommended that a fourth facility be built in the northwest area
of the Village to adequately respond to potential calls from the Randhurst Shopping Center
and Kensington Center areas. The station should be near the intersection of Rand Road
and Kensington Road. Similarly, when significant new office and industrial development
occurs in the southwestern portion of the Village, station relocation or construction may also
become desirable in this area. Adequate sites could be made available.
Police De2artment
The Village of Mount Prospect Police Department currently employs 100 persons, including
70 sworn personnel and 30 civilians.
A new Police and Fire Headquarters is being built on the same site as the prior building
and will serve all the needs of the Departments.
1k1g8 .tC�0M_T
This department now maintains a staff of 55 full time employees, 27 part-time employees
(this includes seasonal part-time employees), and is responsible for maintaining public
grounds, buildings and properties within the Village. The department also maintains all
Village vehicles, except for the Fire Department, which maintains its own.
The Village has constructed a new Public Works facility at the Melas Park site on Central
Road. This facility was planned to meet the long-range Public Work needs of the Village.
The water tower, if feasible and necessary, should also be moved to Melas Park.
Most Village administrative offices are located in the Village Hall at 100 South Emerson.
Although this facility is in good structural condition, and is adequate in terms of overall
size, certain internal operational problems do exist. Several offices and departments which
would operate most efficiently in close proximity are now physically separated. For example,
the Planning Department and Engineering Division, which often require close working
relationships, are now located on different floors. Several other offices which could benefit
from close proximity are also currently separated. However, Village officials feel that
internal space reorganization and reallocation could improve operations but will not
eliminate space needs.
Public Library
The Mount Prospect Public Library, whose service area is coterminous with Village
boundaries, has been a tax supported institution since 1943. The present facility, located
-44-
Table 4
aNVENTORY OF FJt7S11NG PUBLIC BURDWGS IN MOUNT PROSPECT
Senior Citizen Center Administrative offices, senior 1950 Good 10 .76 Yes Yes Yes
citizen facilities; Health
Department on 2nd Floor
Uwlad
SkC
siac
L.Icafim
P -A
Name
Building Function
Hut Condition
uk&%)
Size
Adequate
Satisfactney
Adequate
Comments
Police and Fire
Administrative and Operational
1993 Face at
lormite
1.03y
Yes
Yes
Yes
Under construction at adoption of this Pian
Headquarters (Fire
Station No. 13)
Fire Station No, 12
Housing for equipment and manpower
1964 Good
lafmite
.88
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fire Station No. 14
Housing for equipment and manpower
1967 Good
infinite
.78
No
Yes
Yes
More stalls needed for vehicle maintenance
Public Works
Offices, equipment, and material
19 Excellent
talbrite
7.00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Headquarters
storage
Mount Prospect Library
Library services
1976 Excellent
30
2.34
Yes
Yes
Yes
Village Hall
Village adminisirative offices
Good
10
.78
Yes
Yes
Yes
Someofficessliouldbe localediocloserproxi�
mitt' to others
Senior Citizen Center Administrative offices, senior 1950 Good 10 .76 Yes Yes Yes
citizen facilities; Health
Department on 2nd Floor
at 10 South Emerson, was built in 1976 and is in good condition. Operation and
administration of the library is governed by a seven -member board of elected officials.
Currently 243,485 volumes are maintained in the Mount Prospect Public Library. The
American Library Association's minimum recommended standard is 3,500 volumes per
1,000 population. Mount Prospect has 4,576 volumes per 1,000 in population.
In addition to providing traditional library services, it also provides audio-visual software
and hardware, adult education programs, tours, bus trips and feature length films for adults
and children, talking books for the blind and physically handicapped, a Telecommunications
Devise for the Deaf (TDD) for the hearing impaired, consumer education information, and
reading room facilities.
low'r-401TIN-VP PrRT
The Human Services Division offices are in the Senior Citizen Center, located at the
northwest corner of Busse and Emerson. The building, which previously housed the Mount
Prospect Library, was recently remodelled and is now in good condition. The senior citizen
facility's administration offices, meeting rooms and support facilities are located on the first
floor, with Village Cable Television offices on the second floor. The facility is adequate but
a small addition was determined to be needed in fiscal year 1992 to add needed office
space. However, the Village should closely monitor changing local social and demographic
characteristics to ensure that special needs of our residents, especially the elderly, disabled,
disadvantaged and low income continue to be provided for in the future.
Public Utilities
The public utility systems serving the Village are generally good, and no serious deficiencies
have been identified. However, as growth and development continue, it is essential that
utility needs continue to be adequately met in the future.
Water System
The Village operated water system obtains all of its water from Lake Michigan. Prior to
1986, its source for water was wells. Some wells may be kept to provide a reserve source
of water. Even with Lake Michigan water, the Village has had to continue to enforce its
ordinance restricting the use of water because of Illinois Department of Transportation,
Division of Waterways requirements.
Citizen Utilities provides water and sewer services to 3,572 households in the northeastern
section of the Village. This private utility also provides services to a small area in the
southern section of the community.
Sewer System
The need for storm sewer improvements in certain areas of the Village have been identified
by the Village and were confirmed by a private engineering firm in 1990. Plans have been
-46-
prepared and adopted for correcting many of these problems.
The existing sewer system throughout the Village, including both sanitary and storm sewer
facilities, is owned by two utility districts. The separate districts are Citizens Utilities and
the Village of Mount Prospect. Treatment of effluent from the sanitary sewers occurs in
a treatment plant located near Oakton and Elmhurst and also a plant in Stickney, Illinois.
Citizen Utilities stormwater and sanitary sewers are totally separated, whereas, Mount
Prospect has approximately one-third of their sewers on a combined system.
Retention ponds and creeks throughout the Village provide an additional source of drainage
of storm water during heavy rainfall periods. Flooding and infiltration into the sanitary
system occurs during heavy rainfall periods. Occasionally during exceptional heavy rainfall,
the Des Plaines River also overflows into this area.
In order to alleviate this problem in the near future, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District (MWRD) recently completed a deep tunnel for increased storm water
r flows and
capacity. Additional needed improvements include the rehabilitation of sewers where
infiltration of storm water is an on-going problem. It is also recommended that as
development occurs on the perimeter of the Village and on currently undeveloped land
within the community, appropriate storm and sanitary sewers along with retention facilities
be constructed in order to alleviate future problems.
Street Lig"
Street lighting throughout the Village is currently limited to light fixtures on utility poles
along major thoroughfares and residential streets. Street lighting is installed in new
developments as required by the Development Code. In areas where the Village identifies
street lighting as deficient, such areas should be upgraded to current 'standards.
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
This Chapter presents the key elements of an overall program for implementing the
Comprehensive Plan. It outlines the basic elements of an ongoing planning process and
program, and includes a listing of projects and actions which should be undertaken during
the next few years to strengthen and improve the local living and working environment.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Zoning is one of the most common regulatory measures used by governmental units to
implement planning policies. It consists of a zoning district map and supporting ordinance
text. The map divides a community into a series of zoning districts, and the text describes
regulations for the use of land within these districts including permitted uses, lot sizes,
setback, density standards, etc. Mount Prospect has a zoning ordinance text and zoning
district map. One of the most important next steps is to update and refine these zoning
regulations to implement and enforce the contents and guidelines of the Comprehensive
Plan.
-47-
The Village Board has authorized the Planning Department to revise the Zoning Ordinance
during Fiscal Year 1991-1992.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
A potential tool for implementing the plan is the capital improvement program which
establishes schedules and priorities for all public improvements projects within a five-year
period.
This process requires participation of all Village departments and includes identification
of public improvements that will be required in the next five years, including transportation
and community facility projects. All projects are reviewed on the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan, priorities are assigned, cost estimates prepared, and potential funding
sources identified.
Mount Prospect's financial resources will always be limited, and public dollars must be
spent wisely. The capital improvements program would allow the Village to provide the
most critical public improvements, yet stay within budget constraints. It could help avoid
costly mistakes and promote maximum community benefits from all public investment.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
The planning and community development processes have established a healthy dialogue
among local residents concerning the future of Mount Prospect. Wide publicity should be
given to the plan, and citizens should be further involved in planning discussions. This
active citizen involvement should become standard policy. The planning process will affect
everyone in the community, and everyone should contribute to planning decisions.
REVIEW AND REVISION
The Comprehensive Plan is not a static document. The planning process in Mount Prospect
must be continuous. The plan should be monitored and updated when necessary. If
community attitudes change or new issues arise which are beyond the scope of the current
plan, the plan document should be reviewed and updated. From time to time, certain
changes to the plan document will be required. The Plan Commission and Village Board
should carefully review proposed changes and their implications and actively seek citizen
comment on such proposals. If changes are found appropriate, they should be formally
added to the plan by legal amendment. Also, at five-year or ten-year intervals, the entire
plan document should be reviewed and if necessary modified to ensure that it continues to
be an up-to-date expression of community goals and intentions.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The following listing is a general indication of how various projects and actions should be
undertaken during the next few years. Projects and actions are divided into two broad
categories: (1) local administrative actions and decisions, including actions which are
dependent on the availability of regular revenue sources; and (2) actions which would
.48.
require special funding assistance or commitment to use of new techniques for
implementation.
Administrative Actions
These are all high-priority, early -action projects which essentially entail a public policy or
administrative decision. They do not require a significant new allocation of funds, and they
all should be undertaken as soon as possible. These actions relate primarily to escalating
Village efforts in recruiting and promoting desired improvement and development, to
encourage more active participation by individual property owners and businessmen in
overall improvement efforts, and to revise and update local codes, ordinances and
regulations so that they are more supportive of community development objectives.
-Housing-
Closely monitor building conditions in all neighborhoods within the Village:
Utilize the zoning ordinance to prevent expansion of residential uses in areas most suited
to industrial and/or commercial development.
Revise existing zoning regulations to ensure the protection of sound existing development,
to reduce adverse influences, and to establish setback and buffering requirements for new
nonresidential development.
Utilize the Land -Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance to establish firm boundaries between
residential and non-residential areas.
Utilize the Land -Use Plan to guide the location, type and amount of multi -family housing.
Review and revise the zoning ordinance to support the desired policy regarding
multi -family housing. This should include special planning and design incentives to
ensure that new development includes a wide range of amenities, and encourages a range
of housing types.
Continue the systematic housing code enforcement program.
Continue to act as a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information about
funding sources and assistance available to homeowners for home improvement.
Initiate a program to actively encourage property owners to undertake home repairs and
preventive maintenance.
-Commercial Development -
Revise the zoning map to reflect new commercial area designations, and to establish
firm boundaries between commercial and residential areas.
-49-
Utilize zoning regulations to gradually phase out obsolete non-commercial uses within
commercial areas.
Utilize zoning regulations to encourage new commercial development on a planned
basis, including standards and incentives for shared parking, common access drives,
landscaping, setbacks, etc., to help ensure the highest possible quality of design and
development. Under special situations, mixed use developments should be considered
where appropriate.
Continue to enforce special sign control regulations in commercial areas.
Continue those programs that actively recruit desired types of new commercial
development.
Continue to implement a financial assistance program for the rehabilitation of
commercial buildings. The Downtown Facade Improvement Program should continue
to be part of this assistance.
Develop a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information about funding
sources and assistance available to businesses.
-Industrial Development -
Review and revise the zoning map to reflect new industrial area designations and to
establish firm boundaries between industrial and non -industrial areas.
Utilize zoning regulations to gradually phase out obsolete non -industrial uses within
industrial areas.
Review and revise zoning regulations to establish standards and incentives designed to
encourage planned industrial and office research development wherever possible.
Provisions should encourage coordinated lot configuration, building design, access and
parking, and overall environmental features, as well as compatible relationships between
existing and new development.
Continue programs to actively promote and recruit desired types of industry.
Continue a program to actively encourage local industries to undertake repairs and
corrective maintenance.
Undertake more strict building code enforcement in industrial areas.
-Community Facilities -
Maintain close contact and continue to cooperate and help all local school districts to
ensure that the needs of Mount Prospect students continue to be met.
-50-
Monitor development intensity within high-value commercial and industrial areas to
ensure that adequate fire protection continues to be provided in the future.
-Parks and Recreation-
Maintain close contact and continue to cooperate and help all local park districts to
ensure that the recreational needs of Mount Prospect residents continue to be met.
Actively support efforts by the local Park Districts to secure funds for the purchase or
lease of open space and recently closed school facilities for recreational use.
Develop standards and requirements which will ensure that small new park sites are
provided by the park district as part of any significant new multi-family development
within the Village.
-Transportation-
Continue to monitor changes to the designated street system and report them to the
Illinois Department of Transportation. All arterial roadways and collector streets not
designated as a Federal-Aid Primary or Federal-Aid Secondary Roadway should be
designated as part of the Federal Aid Urban System.
Implement a plan to update traffic control devices in accordance with the Thoroughfare
Plan. This step includes the removal of installation of stop signs and the possible re-
timing of traffic signals.
-A i
Numerous Other actions identified in the planning and community development study will
require additional study and analysis to determine the most appropriate and feasible method
of implementation. Many of these projects involve relatively high costs, and others are
characterized by a variety of complex inter-relationships that will require careful.
coordination and management. Certain projects would require that the Village initiate a
new program or technique not now being utilized locally, or may require outside funding
assistance from State or Federal sources. Each of these projects must be assessed on an
individual basis, and their ultimate timing should be based on the availability of funding and
the overall acceptability of certain implementation techniques to the Village.
-Housing-
Promote new housing for the elderly which is convenient to shopping, Village facilities
and services and transportation.
Continue to implement a locally funded and administered low-interest rehabilitation loan
program for low- and moderate-income families. A locally funded and administered low
interest rehabilitation loan program for single family detached homes and a 50% rebate
program for multi-family residential buildings should continue to be a part of the
-51-
Village's housing program for low- and moderate -income families.
Implement a first-time homebuyers program, utilizing federal HOME funds, to assist
moderate income households in acquiring a home.
Encourage and promote the use of rental assistance programs throughout the Village,
especially for low income residents.
Provide financial assistance and the purchase or rehabilitation of housing for the mentally
ill.
-Commercial Development - Downtown -
The Downtown Plan for Mount Prospect prepared in 1976 identified a wide range of public
and private improvement and development projects required to revitalize this important
area of the Village. The plan identified sites to be assembled for new development and
off-street parking, changes to the vehicular access and circulation system, and improvements
required to provide a more attractive and pleasant environment for shoppers and others
visiting or conducting business in the area. These improvements should continue to receive
high priority consideration for implementation.
While many of the recommended projects could be accomplished with local revenues on
a one -at -a -time basis, further consideration should be given to the feasibility of utilizing
special techniques and assistance sources for all or a major portion of the downtown area
as a single, coordinated, revitalization program. Special Service Districts and Tax Increment
Financing together with local revenues should be carefully considered for use in
implementing the following types of projects and actions on a unified plan and program
basis.
Acquisition of under-utilized buildings and sites for new commercial development.
Acquisition of sites for development of off-street parking facilities.
Construction of needed street improvements to facilitate access to and circulation in the
greater downtown area.
Construction of new sidewalks and provision of landscaping and other beautification
features and amenities.
-Commercial Development -Rand Road and Northwest Highway Corridors -
The following preliminary listing of projects and actions has been identified as being needed
within the commercial corridors. While many of these could be accomplished with local
revenues, consideration should also be given to the possibility of utilizing special techniques
and assistance sources as part of an overall commercial area improvement plan and
program The local potential of special service districts and tax increment financing should
all be carefully considered.
-52-
Develop a rehabilitation program for older commercial buildings.
Encourage the redevelopment of residential and other under-utilized properties along
commercial corridors, and make these sites available for new development.
Construct new sidewalks and other pedestrian conveniences to improve pedestrian
shopping in certain locations.
Plant trees and undertake other beautification projects to improve the appearance of
commercial corridors.
Undertake public projects, such as new off-street parking lots and pedestrian
improvements, which could stimulate new private investment and development in
commercial areas.
Consolidate access points to parking areas along commercial corridors.
-Community Facilities -
Several existing Village facilities and services may require expansion or relocation in the
future as planned and new development occurs. The need for additional fire stations
should be closely monitored and evaluated on a regular basis. When determined to be
needed and funding is available, the following actions should be considered:
The existing Public Works facility in the downtown should be demolished so it can be
made available for development in accordance with the Downtown Plan.
-Parks and Recreation -
The following projects and actions will involve cooperative efforts between the Village and
Park Districts to secure funding required for lease or purchase and development of
additional park and recreational facilities to serve Mount Prospect residents.
Maintain permission to use the Commonwealth Edison Company Easement, in the
southwestern portion of the Village.
Maintain cooperative agreements for using the MWRD property on the western edge
of the Village for recreational purposes, and develop the land area for playgrounds, field
games and other informal active recreational activities.
The site at the northwest comer of Elmhurst and Euclid, which is currently owned by
the Village, should be developed as a small park to serve residents in the immediate
area.
Encourage agreements for continued recreational use of a portion of the facility sites at
Christian Life College, Fairview School and any sites that may be available.
-53-
-Transportation-
Short-rano include projects that will improve existing streets to
relieve congestion, provide for more efficient traffic movement in and 'through Mount
Prospect, and reduce the number of accidents. Improvements included are to:
Provide separate left-turn lanes on all approaches at arterial-with-arterial intersections.
Interconnect traffic signals along Northwest Highway, Rand Road, Illinois Route 83 and
Central Road to provide a coordinated signal system in the Village.
Provide a continuous five-lane section (two through lanes in each direction plus a
left-turn lane) along Central Road from Emerson Street to WaPella Avenue.
Remove-the traffic signal from the intersection of Central Road and Prospect Avenue;
Prospect Avenue should be controlled by a stop sign.
If warranted by traffic conditions, install a traffic signal at the intersection of Central
Road and WaPella Avenue.
Widen all secondary arterials to provide for at least four lanes of traffic.
Widen Lonnquist Boulevard to collector street standards in existing section that is not
complete.
Widen Busse Road from Central to Golf; and Mount Prospect Road from Central to
Northwest Highway to four lanes.
i n recommendations include improvements that require major funding
support from the Illinois Department of Transportation or another regional, state, or federal
agency or require cooperation of other political jurisdictions. These improvements are to:
Extend Meier Road as a collector street from Lincoln Street to Central Road. This
project will require new right-of-way and road construction north of Connie Lane. This
northern section of the roadway is along the Village limit adjacent to Arlington Heights.
A study should be conducted to determine if commuter trains on the Chicago, and
Northwestern. Railroad create unsatisfactory street congestion at Emerson and Route 83
and if so, whether moving the stopping points of the commuter trains would adequately
reduce the level of train blocking of these streets. The study should also include an
evaluation of the potential for other grade crossings along Northwest Highway.
Encourage creating a passenger service on the Wisconsin Central line as identified in the
2010 Plan.
-54-
._k1►1D ,_._ M_ $ _►I
Several unincorporated areas currently exist in locations adjacent to the Village and should
be evaluated as to suitability and feasibility of annexation to the Village. A brief description
of each of these areas follows:
1. The area bounded by Dempster Street on the north, Elmhurst Road on the east,
Oakton Street on the south, and the Commonwealth Edison Company easement (west
of Busse Road) on the west. Portions of this area are already within the current Village
boundary. The unincorporated portion of this area is bordered on all sides by the Village
of Mount Prospect, and is partially built up with predominantly industrial and office uses.
This area is already within the Village's natural growth pattern and early consideration
should be given to initiating annexation procedures.
2. The residential subdivision located south of Kensington Road (Foundry) and east of
the Wisconsin Central Railroad. This area could be considered a reasonable extension
of either Mount Prospect or Des Plaines. This area does not appear to be suitable for
annexing to the Village at the present time. Further consideration in the future must
include a detailed evaluation of the need for and estimated cost of street and utility
improvements required to meet minimum standards of the Village.
3. The area south of Oakton Street, west of Elmhurst Road and north of the Northwest
Tollway consists of primarily small industrial uses. This area should be reviewed for
possible annexation. It is recommended that it be continued to be used for light industry.
4. The parcel of property south of Kensington Road between Wolf Road and the
Wisconsin Central Railroad Right -Of -Way is currently vacant and should be considered
for possible annexation. The property has an approximate depth of 200 feet and care
should be taken to ensure that proper development takes place in spite of the physical
constraints of the property.,
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT SITES AND AREAS
This section presents land -use recommendations for specific parcels within the Village
which may be subject to change or intensification in the future. For the purpose of
presenting plan recommendations, the Village has been divided into six basic geographical
areas, and land -use changes and modifications for specific parcels within each of these
areas are summarized below. Areas and parcels are illustrated in Figure 6.
AREA 1
Area 1 includes the northeastern portion of the Village, generally north and east of the
Rand Road corridor. It is primarily an established, built-up area anchored by several strong
and well maintained residential neighborhoods. Area 1 also contains several existing
am
Wit
68
6A
6B
6F
THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
moor-"
": W.": , 1,
em
. 61
SK
it
2A
2B
2C
2D
2 ca
2
21 1
CL
2J
2M -
2L
2K.
2N
20
IA
FIGURE 6
- 56 -
multi -family areas, including Boxwood, the area around Old Orchard Country Club, and
smaller clusters near the intersections of Kensington and Des Plaines River Road, and
Westlake Road and Cardinal Lane. Several important non-residential uses are also located
in Area 1, including Randhurst Shopping Center, the Kensington Center for Business and
various park and school sites. The plan attempts to strengthen and reinforce this established
land -use pattern.
Except for Kensington Center, which is currently 90% developed, very little vacant land
remains. Land -use recommendations for specific parcels subject to change are summarized
below.
Parcel A is an isolated vacant parcel still remaining in the residential neighborhood on
the south side of Seminole Lane, between Park Avenue and River Road. It is
recommended that these parcels be developed for single-family residential use in a style and
character compatible with existing homes in the area in Mount Prospect.
Parcel a is approximately 12,500 square feet located at the intersection of Camp
McDonald Road and Des Plaines River Road. It is recommended that this site be
redeveloped for commercial use, preferably for convenience commercial which could help
serve the day-to-day needs of surrounding residents. Small-scale cluster development should
be encouraged, with consolidated vehicular access from Camp McDonald or River Road.
Care should be taken to ensure that commercial development is adequately screened and
buffered from surrounding residential uses to the south and west.
Parcel C is a single vacant site located near the northwest comer of River Road and
Euclid Avenue and on Euclid Avenue. This property should be developed with one or two
small stores due to the small lot size, parking and access should be closely watched.
Parcel D includes a small vacant parcel at the intersection of Euclid and Elmhurst Road.
It is recommended that this parcel be used for a small community park or residential use
in a style and character compatible with similar development already present in the area.
Parcel E involves three vacant parcels located on the west side of Elmhurst Road
between Oxford Place and Meadow Lane. It is recommended that they be used for
scattered single family residential or low density residential use, with special landscaping to
the rear of the properties to provide a buffer for the single family homes to the west of the
site. Access onto State Route 83 should be limited.
AREA 2
Area 2 includes the Rand Road corridor between Central and Euclid. This corridor
includes a wide range of commercial, office, and business service activities, as well as several
public land -uses. Residential neighborhoods abut Rand Road in certain locations and
several individual homes front the arterial in the northern portion of the corridor. In
addition, established residential neighborhoods adjoin commercial uses on both sides of
the corridor throughout its length. Several vacant and under-utilized parcels are scattered
-57-
along the Rand Road corridor. In general, land-use recommendations tend to reinforce
and strengthen the commercial and office function of the corridor, while maintaining sound
clusters of residential development and ensure a compatible relationship between
commercial activities and adjacent residential areas. Land-use recommendations for specific
parcels subject to change are summarized below.
Parcels A. and JQ include existing single -family homes directly fronting Rand Road in the
northwestern comer of the corridor. While several reuse possibilities for these areas have
been considered, it is recommended that they be maintained in a single -family use for the
near future. In general, existing homes are in good condition and are adequately screened
and buffered from arterial traffic. In addition, the rear of these properties also abut other
single -family lots and are not separated by alleys. Isolated conversion or redevelopment of
one or two of these lots for office or commercial use would have major impact on other
homes along this strip and should not be permitted. Numerous other parcels along Rand
Road and in other parts of the Village are both more appropriate and more readily
available for office and commercial use.
Parcel C includes the small 1.5-acre West Wedgewood Park operated by the Prospect
Heights Park District, which fronts Rand Road north of Wedgewood Lane. In conjunction
with nearby residential properties, reuse possibilities for this site were also considered.
However, it is recommended that this parcel fronting Rand Road remain.
Parcel D is an existing single vacant lot on the northwest corner of Wedgewood and
Rand Road. While reuse possibilities were considered, it is recommended that the lot be
utilized for single -family use in the near future.
Parcels., F, and G are located adjacent to each other between Kensington and Rand
Road. Parcel E includes a batting range, miniature golf course and adjacent parking lots
which front Rand Road, while Parcels F and G are vacant sites on Kensington Road. In
general, existing uses represent an under-utilization of prime frontage, and it is
recommended that the area be redeveloped for office/commercial use. Together, these
parcels total approximately 6.4 acres. Cluster development should be encouraged with
consolidated vehicular access off Rand and Kensington, and shared parking areas.
Development similar in character to the existing Talman Federal Savings facility would be
preferred. Special site design standards should be employed, especially along Kensington,
to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing neighborhood to the south.
Parcel H. and are scattered vacant commercial properties along Rand Road. It is
recommended that each of these parcels be reused for general commercial activities. In
some cases, existing buildings may be conducive to conversion, although redevelopment
similar to surrounding uses should be encouraged. The possibility of consolidating vehicular
access and parking facilities with adjacent existing uses should be explored.
Parcel J is a mixed-use commercial area on the east side of Rand Road south of
Kensington which includes the Holiday Inn, Goodyear Tire, and several other commercial
uses. While existing activities appear viable and no change in use is suggested, a range of
overall environmental improvements should be undertaken like consolidation of vehicular
-58-
access off Rand Road redesign and possible consolidation of parking areas, commercial
signage improvement, etc. Lot consolidation should be encouraged for better utilization of
the properties between the Holiday Inn and the single family homes to the east.
Parcels K L and M include mixed residential, commercial, and vacant parcels on the
east side of Rand Road between Highland and Business Center Drive. It is recommended
that as much of this area as possible be assembled to allow for planned and coordinated
development. Parcel K, which consists of four lots, should be developed in a consolidated
manner, with no more than two driveways accessing Rand Road. Special screening and
buffering should be provided between future commercial activities in Parcels K and L and
neighborhoods to the east. Lot M should be developed for townhomes and roadways
connected to the townhome development to the north.
Parcel N is a 2.43 -acre vacant parcel located on the west side of Rand Road, north of
Thayer Street. It is recommended that this area be developed for general commercial use,
with development focused toward Rand Road, away from neighborhoods to the west, with
the general guidelines for clustering, access, parking, and screening and buffering to be
applied.
Parcel Q includes several vacant parcels still remaining in the residential neighborhood
east of the commercial corridor and north of Central Avenue. It is recommended that
these parcels be developed for single-family residential use in a style and character
compatible with existing homes in the area.
AREA 3
Area 3 includes the central portion of the Village, generally located between the Rand
Road and Northwest Highway corridors. It is an established, built-up area consisting of
several strong and well maintained residential neighborhoods. This area also includes
several public school sites, including Prospect High School and various other public and
semi-public areas. No vacant land remains within these neighborhoods, and no land -use
changes are recommended in Area 3.
AREA 4
Area 4 includes the Northwest Highway corridor between Mount Prospect Road and the
western Village limits. This corridor includes a range 'of convenience commercial, office
and business service activities, the downtown area, and several small light industrial uses
located south of the METRA and C & NW Railroad. Whereas the depth of commercial
properties along Rand Road is great enough to accommodate large-scale commercial
operations, the depth of properties along the Northwest Highway corridor is quite limited,
except in the downtown area. Residential neighborhoods directly abut commercial uses on
both sides of the corridor for most of its length, and several single-family homes front
Northwest Highway in the northern portion of the corridor.
Little vacant land remains within Area 4. However, several areas, particularly in the
downtown, may be subject to reuse and redevelopment in the future. Land -use
-59-
recommendations attempt to reinforce the existing functional groupings along the corridor,
strengthen the multiple-use role of downtown as a community-wide focal point, and ensure
a compatible relationship between commercial activities and adjacent neighborhoods.
Areas in the downtown should be developed in the following priority order: 1) Triangle
Redevelopment Area, between Main, Central and Northwest Highway; 2) Emerson Street
- Busse to Central; and 3) Scattered lots - Busse Avenue.
Land-use recommendations for specific parcels subject to change are summarized below.
Parcel A includes a 5.6-acre vacant parcel on the south side of the METRA and C & NW
Railroad, east of Lancaster Street. This site is bordered on the east and south by existing
industrial operations and on the west by residential/office uses. It is recommended that this
site be used for light industrial activity. Vehicular access should be provided from Central
Avenue, and a new access street would have to be constructed along the edge of one of the
existing industrial properties. Access to the site should not be through the residential
neighborhood to the west, Special screening and buffering should be provided on the
western edge of the site between industrial and residential uses.
�I3 is a narrow strip of mixed office and commercial uses along the north side of
Northwest Highway and Central Road, between Forest and Elmhurst Avenues . It is
recommended that this area be maintained as a commercial service strip with no major land
use changes. However, a number of operational improvements should be undertaken,
including the consolidation of vehicular access drives off Northwest Highway, the redesign
and possible expansion of off-street parking areas, and overall appearance and
"housekeeping" improvements. Alleys and the rear portions of buildings should be better
maintained, and curbs and sidewalks should also be improved in several areas.
Parcel C includes Mount Prospect's downtown area. The Land-Use Plan recommends
that the downtown be strengthened and improved as a focal point for the community. The
downtown should be reinforced as a multi-use area with expanded office and convenience
shopping districts, key public and semi-public facilities, and new close-in townhouses and
multi-family development. Specific land-use recommendations for the ;downtown are
included in Chapter 3 of the Plan Report.
Parcel D is a narrow strip of mixed office and commercial uses along the north side of
Northwest Highway between Mount Prospect Road and downtown. It is recommended that
this area be maintained as a mixed commercial district, providing sites for various office,
personal service, business service, and auto-related commercial activities. Because of the
condition of buildings and the narrow depth of commercial frontages, no major land-use
changes are recommended. However, a number of operational improvements should be
undertaken, including the consolidation of vehicular access drives off Northwest
Highway, the redesign and possible expansions of off-street parking areas, and overall
appearance and "housekeeping' improvements. Alley and the rear portions of buildings
should be better maintained, and curbs and sidewalks should also be improved in several
areas.
-60-
Parcel E is an existing industrial block bounded by Prospect Avenue, Maple Street, and
Lincoln Street. No land -use changes are recommended. The one remaining vacant lot
in the southern part of this block should be used for either industrial expansion or parking.
Screening and buffering should be improved along the residential edges of this parcel.
_P_d are blocks which currently contain primarily multi -family housing,
although an industrial use is located in the corner of each block. It is recommended that
these blocks be maintained in their present use. However, these areas should be monitored
to ensure that the existing industrial uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential
areas. If the existing industrial uses are phased out in the future, these sites should be
reused for residential development.
Parcelice- is a commercial shopping center area north of Central Road on the west side
of Main Street. It is recommended that the site be planned for commercial- residential
mixed-use, in order to capitalize on its positive location for residential commuters and add
to the shopping center market.'
Parcel_I and J. These small parcels are zoned for business and are vacant. Because of
their size, they should be developed carefully and perhaps in conjunction with the
redevelopment of adjacent property for commercial/residential mixed use. These sites are
located east and south of Mrs. P and Me Restaurant .'
I\. 9
Area 5 includes the south-central portion of the Village, generally located between the
Northwest Highway corridor and Dempster Street. This area primarily consists of
single-family residential neighborhoods and numerous public uses including public and
private schools and parks and recreational areas. Several multi -family residential areas are
also located within this area, including a large concentration north of Dempster Street and
smaller clusters along Golf Road and Central Road. Very few vacant land parcels or
under-utilized properties are located in this area.
Parcel A is a 3.77 acre vacant site located east and south of the intersection of Church
and Linneman Roads. It is bounded on the east, south and west by multi -family residential
developments and on the north by St. John Lutheran Church and School. This area is
planned for the expansion of the Church/School Complex.
Parcel_ is a small strip of vacant land located adjacent to existing multi -family housing
development in the south-western comer of the Village. It is recommended that the 2.2
acre Algonquin Road site be developed for multi -family residential use with a density of 8
units per acre.
AREA 6
Area 6 includes the far southwestern portion of the Village generally bounded by Dempster,
Elmhurst, Oakton, and Busse Road. The area presently contains a range of land -uses,
including light industrial activities along Dempster, Algonquin, and Busse Road; heavy
-61-
industry south of Algonquin; and mixed commercial and business uses along the Elmhurst
Road frontage. Multi -family housing is located near the intersection of Algonquin and
Busse, Dempster and Elmhurst, and Elmhurst and Oakton. A mobile home park is located
in the southwestern corner of this area, and a small cluster of single-family homes exist
along Dempster west of Elmhurst Road.
Area 6 offers some of the Village's most significant opportunities for new development.
This area has excellent accessibility from major arterial streets and the tollway and is highly
visible from these key routes. Several relatively large vacant land parcels are scattered
throughout the area and certain other parcels could undergo development intensification.
The Land -use Plan attempts to capitalize on this area's potential for major new
office/commercial and industrial development, offering a range of development sites for
both large and small-scale operations. In general, office/commercial activities are promoted
along the Dempster and Elmhurst Road frontages as well as along the north side of
Algonquin. Industrial development is recommended primarily south of Algonquin. In
addition, new multi -family residential development is suggested adjacent to commercial
activities west of Elmhurst and north of Algonquin. A large amount of this areas has
recently been annexed into the Village. The Village should take action to bring the entire
Area 6 up to Village Codes. Land -use recommendations for specific parcels subject to
change are summarized below.
Parce15 A. 13. and C are vacant land areas located along the south side of Dempster.
Several alternatives were evaluated for these sites, including office/commercial, multi -family
housing, general business, and light industry. Based on accessibility, locational
considerations and surrounding uses, it is recommended that each of these parcels be
developed for office/light industrial use in the future. The United Airlines facility provides
a strong focal point for this area, and similar or related development should be encouraged.
Parcels are large enough to allow for large, single -tenant facilities or several smaller
buildings in cluster arrangement. Vehicular access should be provided off Dempster, and
parking areas and building sites should be attractively landscaped to help create a strong
visual image for the corridor.
Because of its location at the intersection of Dempster and Busse, Parcel A could be
further developed for general commercial development. High quality guidelines and
standards should be employed to ensure an attractive and complementary use to those
currently on the site and surrounding area.
Parcel D is a vacant land area on the north side of Algonquin, east of Linneman Road.
It is recommended that these parcels be developed for light industrial/office use. The sites
could accommodate one or two larger facilities or a cluster of smaller uses similar to those
along Malmo Road to the east.
Parcel E includes five single-family homes located on relatively deep lots fronting
Dempster west of Elmhurst Road. Single-family homes are not compatible with the intense
office and industrial character beginning to emerge in this area and should eventually be
phased out. Based on an evaluation of several reuse possibilities for this parcel, it is
recommended that this area be redeveloped for multi -family housing in the future. New
housing should be focused inward, away from Dempster.
-62-
Parcels F, G. H and I are small, scattered, vacant, and under-utilized land areas south
of Algonquin Road. Several low intensity commercial and industrial properties may be
subject to redevelopment. It is recommended that all of these parcels be developed for
general industrial use. Since these areas have irregular shapes and some have limited
access, site development plans should be prepared for each area to determine possible
industrial lot configuration, access streets, and internal circulation systems. If possible,
vacant areas should be combined with adjacent developed areas to create overall industrial
subdivisions offering maximum development flexibility. Special site design standards should
be considered to help give the area a more consistent image and appearance, particularly
around the periphery.
Parcels is vacant land just west of the Park National Bank building off of Elmhurst
Road south of Algonquin. It is recommended that this area be developed for commercial
or office use. The scale and intensity of development should be similar to uses already
located along the corridor, and new uses which are related to and supportive of existing
activities should be encouraged. Screening and buffering should be provided between
commercial parcels and existing multi -family housing to the south.
Parcel K includes the existing mobile home park on the north side of Oakton. It is
recommended that this area eventually be redeveloped for general industrial activities in
keeping with the overall scale and character of this area. The same general principles
described above for Parcels P, G, H and I should also be employed in this area.
Parcel includes the area of Oakton Road, north of the Northwest Tollway and west
of the Des Plaines corporate limits. This site is comprised primarily of small industrial
firms. It is recommended that this area should be considered for future annexation at the
appropriate time and continued to be used for Light Industry.
Parcel M is a vacant triangular parcel at the northwest comer of Busse Road and the
Northwest Tollway. It is recommended that this parcel be utilized for industrial use.
Driveway access should be via a single roadway and carefully located for maximum visibility
and minimum conflict with other roadways onto Busse Road.
-b3-
MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT
SAFETY COMMISSION
JULY 6. 1992
I—CALL TO ORDER JUL 1992
The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was
called to order at 7:35 P.M.
Present upon roll call:
Absent:
Others in Attendance:
Uff4 11 F: VIIJ *4 xl• ., 91 a 1 M1 rk 71A W
Lee Beening,
Chris Lanz,
Art Coy,
Del Ulreich,
Tom Daley,
Fred Tennyson,
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Fire Department
Police Department
Engineering, Dept.
Andy Mitchell, Commissioner
Irvana Wilks,
Trustee
Sandy Clark
Forestry, Public Works
Chuck Bencic,
Inspection Services
Rich Benson,
Resident
Ira Goode,
Resident
Chris Lanz, seconded by Art Coy, moved to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on March 2, 1992.
A. Review Request for Stop Sign at Autumn Lane and Neil Avenue.
Mr. Rich Benson, President of Harvest Heights Homeowners Association
presented the Safety Commission the original petition and discussed the need
for a STOP SIGN at the above location. Tom Daley described the
procedures the police have followed to enforce speed limits in the area.
Consensus of opinion by the Commission was to not recommend installing a
STOP SIGN. However, the Safety Commission did recommend installing
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs. and CURVE AHEAD sign on Autumn
Lane at locations to be determined by the Traffic Engineer. The Traffic
Engineer will perform a traffic count on the weekend to determine if traffic
is greater than during the week.
i
Page 2
Safety Commission Meeting
July 6, 1992 j
i
j
y
B. Proposed fight Clbsitruction Ordinance
f
Irvana Wilks pr ented a 5 mintite video on sight,pbstructions and parkway
hazards through,", t town. Follo*ing the video presentation the Commission
ii
began to discuss detain sections of the Ordinance. Commissioner Art Coy
brought up quer°ons regarding' the definition of; the parkway, waiver of
liability by the %Village, enforcement of over ordinance, and utility
easements. San, Clark and Chuck Bencic were available to discuss the
questions.
6
Del Ulreich, sc oadea, by Chris Lanz motioned to adopt. the SrM
OBSTRUCTTO ORDINANCE pending Village'Joard Approval.
All Safety Conussioners concurred.
C. Request fr Speed Reduction on Haven Street
"Tom Daley presented a,,,/petition by the residents on Haven Street to reduce
the speed Limit �om. 36 nip to ZS mph. Tam �7aley also discussed the
problem of state%nantenance vehicles using Haver Street as a short cut.
Safety Commissi§ concurred 'to reduce the speed;limit from 30 mph to 25
mph. Safety Co 'ssion also requested that a letter be sent to the State
requesting that =ni intenance trucks refrain from usmg Haven Street as a short
CUL
j
IV. Clarification of Seed Restrictions throughout the Village.
Fred Tennyson p `sented a'imap showing the speeqrestriction throughout the
town as.describey the Village fJrdinance. Also, sown on the map are the
location of spee `signs which are posted throughout the village. Fred
Tennyson descri several confl where the potted speed limit does not
agree with the P lage Ordnance.
'ssion recommended that thy° Village Ordinance
The Safety Co �be
amended to al with the posted speed lirtuts m cases where the posted limit
is less than the o ce �Tha Safety Commisstori also 'recommended that
where the poste'peed limit is greater than the Ordinance, the posted limit
should be change,
j
Page 3
Safety Commission Meeting
July 6, 1992
Having no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Tenn n, P.E.
FT'.m
W V P2 -
e)4 June 4, 1992
Mr. David M. Clements,
Director of Planning
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
RE: ZBA-44-V-91
Dear Mr. Clements:
I am writing to you to ask if we can have an extension of a variation that we received
on our property.
. On August 20, 1991, 1 was granted variations for a circular driveway, front yard lot
coverage of 53.8% and a 17 foot wide driveway.
We have experienced health problems and our budget does not allow us to complete
the work at this time. I would like to ask for an extension, having until August 20, 1993 to
get a permit and complete the work.
Thank you.
MP/
Sincerely,
Mary Parlakian
503 South Elmhurst Ave.
Mount Prospect, 11L 60056
CAF/
7/28/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4341
BY EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR
VARIATIONS GRANTED TO PROPERTY COMMONLY
KNOWN AS 503 SOUTH ELMHURST ROAD
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect did adopted ordinance No. 4341 entitled "An
Ordinance Granting Variations for Property Commonly Known as 503
South Elmhurst Road" at their regular meeting held August 20, 1991;
and
WHEREAS, the variations granted through the passage of Ordinance
No. 4341 contained the provision that building permits must be
secured within one year from the date of passage; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner has requested that the one year effective date
contained in Ordinance No. 4341 be extended for one additional
year.
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 SECTION FOUR of Ordinance No. 4341. is hereby
amended by extending the effective date for the variations being
the subject of Ordinance No. 4341 for one additional year.
SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after is passage and approval in the manner
provided by law.
%Vvz
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
P.1900 6
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
1992.
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JULY 31, 1992
SUBJECT: 4TH OF JULY PARADE EXPENSES
Attached is a breakdown of the revenues and expenses for the July 4 Parade.
Due to the special circumstances; i.e., 75th Anniversary, surrounding this year's Parade,
expenses were incurred pursuant to the direction of the Village Manager's office. While
the itemized breakdown shows an apparent shortage of $4,359, the Village should receive
approximately $500 in reimbursements from the 75th Anniversary Committee. As such,
the actual shortage is $3,859.
The Village Manager recommends that these additional expenses be ratified by the
Village Board. Funds to cover this shortage are available and will be highlighted at the
six-month Budget review.
MEJ/rcc
attachment
c: Finance Director David Jepson
Village Clerk Carol Fields
1992 PARADE FUND ACCOUNTING
Beginning Balance 1/1/92:
Deposits:
From sales of T -Shirts
From Village
From donations through water
bills
Total
Expenses:
$ 93.33
$ 100.00
10,000.00
357.52
$10,457,52
$10,550.85
Mona Lisa (T -Shirts) $
Cavalier Promotions (Deposit)
KCM (Mariachi Band) Deposit
KCM (Organ Grinder & Monkey) Deposit
Prospect High (Janitorial)
J V Johnson (Flags)
Steinmiller (refreshments for
reviewing stands)
Mount Prospect Park District
Rental to use bathrooms
Tim Corcoran (candy)
Jesse White Tumblers
Prospect High School Marching Band
Tebala Mini Bikes
Emerald Society Bagpipes
Skokie Valley Shriners
St. John's Drum & Bugle Corp.
Ridge Raiders Drum & Bugle Corp.
KCM Productions:
Inflatables: Fat Man
Stilt Man
Humpty Dumpty
Alligator
Mariachi Band (balance)
Organ Grinder & Monkey (balance)
ABC Parade Floats
Homemade floats (4 @ $100.00 each)
Mona Lisa (T -Shirts)
Association Attractions (Floats)
Unpaid invoices total: $ 5,650.00
Balance in account: 1,291.00
Shortage: $ 4,359.00
160.00
<500. 00)
475.00
425.00
28.00
258.09
61OW411,
10.00
22.29
500.00
750.00
200.00
800.00
200.00
950.00
850.00
2,325.00
750.00
400.00*
500.00*
44,759 00*
$14,903.38
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois +
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JULY 31, 1992
SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE FOR LINCOLN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
The attached memorandum from Public Works Director Herb Weeks indicates that the
Village has been committed to installing the up -graded water service to handle the
anticipated flow requirements for the sprinkler system in the new Auditorium.
The construction schedule for the Can-Dota/Wa-Pella Storm Sewer Project calls for work
around Lincoln Junior High prior to the opening of school. As Mr. Weeks indicates, it
would be prudent to install this service which the street is under construction.
I would concur with Mr. Weeks' recommendation that this work be awarded to National
Sewer and Water, Inc., at a price not to exceed $7,410. Funds are available from the
Water Fund. This expense will be further addressed at the six-month Budget review.
MEJ/ICC
attachment
c: Finance Director David Jepson
Director of Public Works Herbert
MICHAEL /N
Weeks
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM T= CM USA
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE: July 21, 1992
SUBJECT: New 611 Water Service
Lincoln Jr. High School
A recent intergovernmental agreement was reached for the con-
struction of a new auditorium attached to the Lincoln Jr. High
School building. Due to high bids, the project may not be con-
structed this year, but we project it will probably be built the
next construction season.
The park district, the village, and the school district would
share in the costs involved. Being that this auditorium will be
for public use, the school system has agreed to have a sprinkler
system installed in it. The 611 water service needed for this
sprinkler system will have to be connected to our water main on
the east side of Can-Dota Avenue.
Within the next 30 to 45 days, there will be a new storm sewer
going down the center of the street on Can-Dota on the east side
of Lincoln Jr. High. Before the street is restored, it may be
prudent to install this new water service and have it terminate
outside of the street improvement at this time. I have secured
the following quotes:
National Sewer & Water, Inc. estimated $ 7,410
Rossetti Sewer & Water estimated $11,000
V.J. Centracchic, & Son, Inc. estimated $15,150
I recommend acceptance of the quote as submitted by National
Sewer & Water, Inc. at an estimated cost of $7,410. Specific
costs per lineal foot of pipe and per yard for backfill were
spelled out. National Sewer & Water is currently installing the
new storm sewer on Can -Dots, so it is logical that their price
is lower than the other two contractors'.
HLW/td/attach.
LINCLNHI.6"/FILES/SEWERS
National Sewer & Water, Inc.
faw'1698 W. Cortland Court a Addison, IL 60101
(708) 620-2505 * 620-2506 a 620-2507 e FAX (708) 620-2509
July 15, 1992
Mr. Herbert Weeks
Public Works Director
Village of Mount Prospect
1700 West Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
RE: Extra Work
6" Waterma. 4 n Lead to Jr. High School at Lincoln and Can-dota
Dear Mr. Weeks:
PROPOSAL
1 each - 6X6 pressure tap at $2,500 complete
6" Class 56 Watermain at $30.00 lineal foot
1 60" Pressure Vault at $1,200 each
Granular Trench Backfill at $19.00 per yard
Test and Chlorinate at $650.00 each
48" Vault if necessary at $900.00 each
6" Mi valve at $500.00 each
Respectfully submitted by:
At-Neri
President
DN/nd
SA FFO