HomeMy WebLinkAbout4530_001Next Ordinance No. 4457
Next Resolution No. 26-92
A G B N D A
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
0 R D E R 0 F B U 8 1 N E 8 8
REGULAR MEETING
Meeting Location:
Meeting Room, 1st Floor
Senior Citizen Center
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
I. CALL TO ORDER
Ii. ROLL CALL
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday
August 18, 1992
7:30 P. X.
Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley
Trustee Mark Busse Trustee Leo Floros
Trustee George Clowes Trustee Paul Hoefert
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Irvana Wilke
III. INVOCATION - Trustee Clowes
IV. APPROVE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, August 4, 1992
V. APPROVAL OF BILLS AND FINANCIAL REPORT
V1. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
VII. MAYOR'S REPORT
A. PROCLAMATIONS: CHRIS WALLER and RICH SCHUTZ,
1992 OLYMPIANS
B. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE
This Ordinance increases the number of Class 11W11
liquor licenses to include Annals Polish Restaurant,
2 West Busse Avenue. (Exhibit A)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
MODIFICATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
(CHAPTER 16) FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY
KNOWN AS 430 LAKEVIEW COURT
This Ordinance grants a modification from
the Development Code to allow a structure
25 feet from a storm water detention pond,
rather than the required 751. The Plan
Commission recommended approval of this
request. (Exhibit B)
ALL
B. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC CODE)
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
This ordinance brings the Village Code
into conformance with the speed limit
signs posted throughout the Village. This
Ordinance also includes the reduced speed
limit on Haven from 30 MPH to 25 MPH. The
Safety Commission considered this amendment
and recommended approval. (Exhibit C)
C. ZEA 36-V-92, 800 Ironwood Drive
ist reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
800 IRONWOOD DRIVE
This ordinance grants a variation to allow
a 240 square foot accessory building, rather
than the 120 square feet permitted. The vote
of the Zoning Board of Appeals was 3-1,
resulting in a recommendation to deny. (Exhibit D)
D. ZBA 44-V-92, 214 North Wille Street
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
214 NORTH WILLS STREET
This Ordinance grants 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. (Exhibit E)
E. ZBA 45-V-92, 104 North Eastwood
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
104 NORTH EASTWOOD
This ordinance grants a variation to allow
an addition to the existing principal
structure resulting in a minimum setback of
5.5 feet from an accessory structure, rather
that the required 101. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended granting this request
by a vote of 4-0. (Exhibit F)
F. ZBA 46-V-92, 15 South Wa Pella
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
15 SOUTH WA PELLA
This Ordinance grants 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 this request by a
vote of 4-0. (Exhibit G)
G. ZBA 49 -SU -92, 400 East Gregory Street
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A
SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 400 EAST GREGORY STREET
(CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH/COLLEGE)
This ordinance grants a Special Use for a
Planned Unit Development to allow the expansion
of the existing Christian Life Church. The
Zoning Board recommended granting this request
by a vote of 5-0. (Exhibit H)
H. ZBA 50 -SU -92, 999 North Elmhurst Road
1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RANDHURST
(ORDINANCE NO. 3604)
This Ordinance grants an amendment to the PUD
to allow the Jewel Food Store to build a new
structure in the general area of the existing
building. The vote of the Zoning Board of
Appeals was 3 Nays, 1 Aye and 1 Pass,
resulting in a recommendation to deny. (Exhibit J)
I. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE
OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT (Exhibit K)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ARTICLE VIII ENTITLED "FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONSIN
OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT
PROSPECT
This Ordinance adopts the new Flood Plain
Ordinance as required in order to participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program. (Exhibit L)
X. VILLAGE MANAGERIS REPORT
A. Bid results:
1. Parkway restoration
2. 'Parkway trees
3. Sewer TV System'
B. Request to waive the bidding procedure in
order to purchase one Life Pac 10 unit for
the Fire Department from Physio Control, which
is the sole source vendor.
C. Status Report
X1. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land acquisition and Personnel
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
TSE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
AUGUST 4, 1992
CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present upon roll call: Mayor Gerald Farley
General Fund
Trustee Mark Busse
$ 564,455
Refusal Disposal Fund
Trustee George Clowes
6,913
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
Trustee Timothy Corcoran
2,409
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Trustee Leo Floros
Illinois Municipal Retirement
Fund
Trustee Paul Hoefert
Water & Sewer Fund
Trustee Irvana Wilks
Parking System Revenue Fund
INVOCATION
1,890
Risk Management Fund
The invocation was given by Trustee Busse.
INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
89,396
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 21, 1992.
Police & Fire Building Const.
Upon roll call: Ayes:
Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
26,454
Floros, Wilks
1990
Nays:
None
Pass:
Hoefert
Motion carried.
Escrow Deposit Fund
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Police Pension Fund
Trustee Floros, seconded
by Trustee Clowes,
APPROVE
moved to approve the
following list of bills:
BILLS
General Fund
$ 564,455
Refusal Disposal Fund
6,913
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
2,409
Community Development Block Grant Fund
10,175
Illinois Municipal Retirement
Fund
13,553
Water & Sewer Fund
74,509
Parking System Revenue Fund
1,890
Risk Management Fund
64,840
Vehicle Replacement Fund
89,396
Motor Equipment Pool Fund
--
Capital
Capital Improvement, Repl. or
Rep.
9,910
Downtown Redev. Const. Fund
-
Police & Fire Building Const.
12,253
Flood Control Revenue Fund
26,454
Corporate Purpose Improvement
1990
-
Debt Service Funds
Flexcomp Trust Fund
-
Escrow Deposit Fund
22,332
Police Pension Fund
41,522
Firemen's Pension Fund
48,853
Benefit Trust Fund
-
$ 989,464
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse,
Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros,
Hoefert,
Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Norm Major, 200 North Owen, requested additional POLICE &
information on the construction for the new FIRE BLDG
Police & Fire Building. Village Manager Janonis
will meet with Mr. Major to discuss this subject.
VACATE ALLEY
Tom Davies;, 203'South Owen, stated that he would like
to install a'`tence however, there is a dedicated
alley runnjing1along the rear property` lines of this
block and asked the Board if the Village would
consider vacating this alley, since it is unimproved
and app'arently'serves no useful purpose. This matter
was referred tostaff for review and recommendation to
the Village Board.
MAYORIS REPORT'S
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Farley proclaimed August25 through 28, 1992 as
"School's Open ,Safety Week" in the Village.
CLASS "R"
Mayor Farley noted that the request for 'a Class "R"
LIQUOR
liquorlicense1for the "Wonderful Restaurant" proposed
LICENSE:
at 183 West .Algonquin Road, as been withdrawn due to
WONDERFUL
the fact that the Petitioner is unable to develop
RESTAURANT
the su ject property as a'restaurant.
AMEND CH. 13:
A request was presented from the owner of Anna's Polish
CLASS "W" LIQUOR
Restaurant, !,,,,West Busse Avenue, to allow one
LICENSE
additional Class "W" liquor license for this
ANNA'S
establishment,,;
2 W. BUSSE .AVE.
Trustee Busse, ;seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved to
concur„with tlter recommendation of the administration
and authorize *he creation of one additional Class "W”
liquor,license;for Anna's Polish Restaurant, located
at 2 West Busse%Avenue.
Upon roll ca11:� Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros,'Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion.;carried.:
r
An Ordinance will be presented for first reading at the
next meeting Of,,the Village Board"on August 18th.
OLD BUSINESS
ZBA 37-V-92
ZBA37=V-92, 43„0 Lakeview Court
430 LAKEVIEW CT
An Ordinance was presented for second reading that
would ;grant 'a, variation to allow a lot size of
approximately;3°:16 acres, 'rather than the required 4
acres.' The;,`Zon ng Board of Appeals recommended
granting thisr+�quest by a vote of 7-0.
ORD.NO. 4453
Trustee Wilks,,seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved for
passage of Orripance No. 4453
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR
PROPERTYL,`M,, TED WITHIN THE KENSINGTON
CENTER SUBDIVISION NO. 29`
Upon roll call;1,Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros,'Wilks
'Nays:
None
,Abstain: Hoefert'
Motion carried.,
KENSINGTON CENTER
The Kensington Center Plat of Subdivision No. 29,
PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
creating two lox of record, was presented for
NO. 29
approval. The Plan Commission had reviewed this
resubdivision,',,,,,
in conjunction with the preceding
Ordinance, and recommended approval.
Page 2 -,,August 4, 1992
Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to authorize the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest
his signature on the Kensington Center Plat of
Subdivision No. 29.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
MODIFICATION
Floros, Wilke
FROM DEVELOPMENT
Nays: None
CODE:
Abstain: Hoefert
1110 W.CENTRAL
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
MODIFICATIONS
would grant a modification from the Development
FROM DEVELOPMENT
Code (Chapter 16) to allow a structure 25 feet
CODE: DETENTION
from a storm water detention pond, rather than
POND
the required 75 feet. The Plan Commission had
considered this request and recommended approval
This Ordinance will be presented August 18th for
second reading.
ZBA 39 -SU -92, Randhurst Shopping Center
ZBA 39 -SU -92
An Ordinance was presented for second reading that
RANDHURST:
would grant a Special Use to allow a Game Room
PARTY ZONE
within the Randhurst Shopping Center. The Zoning
Board Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting
this request by a vote of 6-1.
Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved
ORD.NO. 4454
for passage of Ordinance No. 4454
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE TO
ALLOW A GAME/PARTY ROOM WITHIN THE RANDHURST
SHOPPING CENTER
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
MODIFICATION
would grant a modifification from the Development
FROM DEVELOPMENT
Code (Chapter 16) to allow a 32,foot wide
CODE:
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 waive the rule requiring two readings of an
Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved
ORD.NO. 4455
for passage of Ordinance No. 4455
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A MODIFICATION FROM
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (CHAPTER 16) OF THE
VILLAGE CODE
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Page 3 - August 4, 1992
NEVI 13US,INESS
SAFETY COMMISSION
The Safety Commission forwarded the following
RECOMMENDATIONS:
recommendations.
HAVEN STREET
At the request residents on Havlin Street, the Safety
SPEED LIMIT
Commission recommended>reducing the speed limit on
AMEND CH. 18
Haven Street t,r 30 'MPH to 25 MPH.
Mr. L;i Montagne, 2117 Haven Street, requested the
Board to gran&/ his request and also to authorize a
sign "Children,at Play" and if all efforts failed,
perhaps the V-] age could make this street one-way.
Members of thea"''Village Board stated that while they
supported the intent of the residents to eliminate
speedin , a sib, such as the one requested, may give
resideits,a false sense- of security. It was also
noted that'since°theSafety Commission had notmadea
recommendation relative to the sign the residents
should°present that request to the safety commission.
Village Managj4janonis stated that the reduced speed
limit ;signs ; Al be installed and he will direct a
highpolice p resence profile be established for
enforcement
Trustee HoefeItll seconded by Trustee;Clowes, moved to
concur'` with'; recommendation of the Safety
Commis"ion an/ teduce the speed limit on Haven Street
from 3fl MPH to 25 MPH.
Upon roll call ;Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion;: carried j
An Ordinance be be presented August 18th for first
readzg.
AMEND CH. 18
TheCommission concurred with the
recommendetion,of staff to amend the Traffic Code to
reflect the actual speed limits posted throughout the
Village, which differ from the Village Code in some
instances.
Trustee Busse,giseconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to
concur with°, Ghe recommendation of the Safety
Commission to amend the Traffic Code relative to speed
limits througiicut the Village:
Upon roll ca Ayes: Busse, Clower, Corcoran,
Floros, ioefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion` carried'
An Ordinanceiwill be presented August 18th for first
reading.
ZBA 36-V-92
ZBA36=V-92,8)0 Ironwood Drive
800 IRONWOOD
The Petitioner'is requesting a variation to allow a
240 square foot accessory building, rather than the
120 square fee& permitted. Due to thefact that the
motion to; ap'lOove the request by the Zoning _Board _of
Appeals, whaphwas 3-1, did not receive the 4 votes
necessary for passage, the recommendation is to deny
this request»`
Page ;4 Pigust 18�, 1992
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved
to grant the request in ZBA 36-V-92, and authorize
a shed 240 square feet in size.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An ordinance will be presented August 18th for
first reading.
ZBA 44-V-92, 214 North Wille Street ZBA 44-V-92
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to 214 N. WILLE
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.
Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning
Board of Appeals and grant the variation
requested in ZBA 44-V-92.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance will be presented for first reading
at the August 18th meeting.
ZBA 45-V-92, 104 North Eastwood ZBA 45-V-92
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to allow 104 EASTWOOD
an addition to the existing principal structure
resulting in a minimum setback of 5.5 feet from
an accessory structure, rather than the required
101. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended
granting this request by a vote of 4-0.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved
to concur with the recommendation of the Zoning
Board of Appeals and grant the variation requested
in ZBA 45-V-92.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An ordinance will be presented August 18th for
first reading.
ZBA 46-V-92, 15 South Wa Pella ZBA 46-V-92
The Petitioner is requesting a variation to allow 15 S WA PELLA
a detached accessory building with a 4 foot side -
yard setback and 6 inch rear yard setback. The
Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting
the variations requested by a vote of 4-0.
Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
Page 5 - August 4, 1992
ZBA 49 -SU -92
400 E GREGORY
CHRISTIAN LIFE
CHURCH/COLLEGE
ZBA 50 -SU -92
999 N.ELMHURST
to coni
of App
46-V-9
Upon r
ZBA 4
This
reque
Unit`
to t
libra
to re
365
by a
Trusl
conci
Appei
Upon
ZBA !
of a
the i
recoi
It W;
to t
side
rathi
notes
one
exte:
than
traf
Driv,
by R
The
the
base
Page 6
e recommendation of the Zoning Board
cant the variation requested in ZBA
yes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
ays: None
be presented August 18th for first
East Gregory Street
Christian Life church/College, is
sial Use in the nature of a Planned
The proposal includes an addition
structure and a plan to build a
tears. Also requested are variations
mber of required parking spaces from
to allow approximately 47.75% lot
I of the permitted 45%. The Zoning
recommended granting these requests
econded by Trustee Busse, moved to
ecommendation of the Zoning Board of
: the requests in ZBA 49 -SU -92.
Lyes; Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
iays: None
)'North Elmhurst Road (Jewel Food
is requesting an amendment to the
:lopment governing Randhurst Shopping
t'No. 3604) to allow the construction
and Store in the general location as
icture. The Zoning Board of_ Appeals
it of this request.
t the original request, as presented
loard of Appeals, had been revised
-equest for variations to allow the
1 t be located 15 feet from the east
2.5 feet from the west side yard,
required 30 feet. The Petitioner
.-Randhurst has several stipulations
ld prohibit the proposed building to
Duth, into the existing parking lot,
rhe proposal also includes a revised
for the 'ring road', known as East
)rivate property owned and maintained
3t.
mated on Euclid Avenue to the east of
roperty, objected to the proposal,
t that their building has an 85 foot
�lid and the proposed building would
ty of potential customers to see the
;ust 4, 1992
Following discussion, representatives of Randhurst
stated that they would install a sidewalk along
Euclid Avenue.
Members of the Board asked that the Traffic Engineer
for this project be present at the .August 18th
meeting to explain the traffic pattern and site
distance being proposed.
Trustee Floras, seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved
to grant an amendment to the Planned Unit
Development for the Jewel Food Store, subject to
conditions that will be included in the Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
would amend Ordinance No. 4341, governing property
commonly known as 503 South Elmhurst Road, to extend
the effective date of the Ordinance for one additional
year.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to
waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved
for passage of Ordinance No. 4456
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF ORDINANCE NO. 4341, GOVERNING PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 503 SOUTH ELMHURST ROAD
Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion carried.
An Ordinance was presented for first reading that
would adopt the Official Comprehensive Plan for
the Village of Mount Prospect for 1992.
It was noted that the Plan Commission had a Public
Hearing, following proper legal notice, to consider
the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
This Ordinance will be presented August 18th for
second reading.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager, Michael E. Janonis, presented
a request to authorize the expenditure of $3,859
to cover additional expenses incurred as a result
of the 1992 July 4th Parade. It was noted that
because of the 75th Anniversary celebration, the
parade included more units than usual, therefore
additional costs were incurred.
Page 7 - August 4, 1992
AMEND ORD
NO. 4341
503 ELMHURST
ORD.NO. 4456
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
EXPENDITURE
JULY 4TH
PARADE
CAN DOTA SEWER
PROJECT: WATER
FOR LINCOLN
SCHOOL AUDITORIUM
NATIONAL SEWER
& WATER, INC.
ITEM NOT LISTED
ON AGENDA
POLICE & FIRE
HEADQUARTERS
CONSTRUCTION
Trustee Bussdi,,,!1seconded by Trustee Clowes, moved to
4,
authorize an expenditure of $3,859 to cover additional
expenses incurred in conjunction with the 1992 July
4th parade
Upon roll ca1//1*.Ayes: Busse, Clowesr Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Nays: None
Motion, carri"'Car,
/'A
Mr. Jahonis p,,tesented a request to authorize the
installation a;water line under Can Data in
conjunction with the storm sewer project presently
underv�'* y - Th' proposed water line, which would
provid,4, the4*
,0tei necessary for a sprinkling system
when the proms Lincoln Jr. High School auditorium
is construct;a�/.,/
would be installed while Can Data is
K I/
under e-cons',M, ction.
Mr. Ja- on s explained that the Village has contracted
with iona/111' ewer and Water, Inc. to make the storm
IC
sewer improvements el underway. Administration requested
a proposal from thatcompany for installation of the
proposed water, /,line, The proposal from National Sewer
and Water, Ind, would not exceed $7,410.00.
AWAK
I I &
Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to
concuriwith recommendation of the administration
and authoriz, �//(!Naitional Sewer and Water, Inc. to
instakthe 4 6r line under Can Dota, as presented,
T, 77 ,7
at a cost not7%to exceed $7,410-00.
41,41, 1
r' 4� clowes, Corcoran,
Upon roll calgillg,/.',', Ayes: Busse,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
�10001 Nays: None
Motioncarri.6/ i
777777/11,
H
Mr. J o is rZested the Board to consider an item not
7
ME
listed, o _1,1 genda relative to,the construction of
the P ice a, ire Headquarters Building.
Trust a Hoe-- seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to consider on
�item not listed on the agenda.
Upon roll cai'll" Ayes: Busse, clowes, Corcoran,
Floros, Hoefert, Wilks
Kays: None
Motion carriod%1 iii,
,
Village Manaqo:Ja
,
nonis requested the Village Board to
authorize
'Jonal expenditure of $318,780,00 in
odit
lan lf%117
conjunction 4`/fth they construction of the Police & Fire
Thif
K"177'
Building. -71
��//%�additional expenditures are broken down
as follows:
A;
I liscell- ous change items $ 62,000
ditid—Lengineering fees 16,780
", Speciald police/Fire equipment 150,000
4dditi funds for furniture -21.=
I'll, ..........
$318,780
o
Trustee H o e f/,,*, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved
to suthorthe additional expenditures in
conjiict"Onthe construction of the Police & Fire
,
HeadcP1,11a erailding in an amount not to exceed
$318,1780.
Page 8 r"�ugust 4, 1992
t
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee Corcoran asked if the Village could assist ASSIST
the Mount Prospect Park District to help acquire a PARK
house in the Prospect Meadows Subdivision. DISTRICT
It was noted that this property was apparently
seized in conjunction with drug violations and since
it is adjacent to a park, would make an appropriate
addition to the park.
Mr. Janonis stated he would look into the procedures
involved.
Trustee Hoefert stated that the residents along
Mount Prospect Road, between Central and Northwest
Highway, have placed a lot of obstructions at the
end of their driveways, which is actually unimproved
right-of-way. Trustee Hoefert asked the Village
Manager to look into this problem, which has proved
to be a hazard to motorists.
Trustee Clowes asked for information relative to the
Solid Waste Agency, noting that it appears 2 more
employees have been hired and he was under the
impression that only 2 employees were proposed in
the plan for that Agency.
ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before
the Village Board, Mayor Farley declared the
meeting adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 P.M.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Page 9 - August 4, 1992
General .& Special Revenue Funds
General Fund
Refuse Disposal Fund
Motor Fuel Tax
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
Enterprise Funds
Water & Sewer Fund
Parking System Revenue
Internal Service Funds
Risk Management Fund
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Capital Protects
Capital Improvement Fund
Downtown Redev Const Funds
Police & Fire Building Construction
Flood Control Construction Fund
Debt Service Funds
Trust & Ai!encv Funds
Flexcomp Trust Fund
Escrow Deposit Fund
Police Pension Fund
Firemen's Pension Fund
Benefit Trust Funds
VILLAGE OF MOUNT" PROSPECT
CASH POSITION
August 13, 1992
Cash & Invest Receipts Disbursements Cash & Invest
Balance 8/01192 through Per Attached Journal Balance
_ 8101/42 $113/92 List of Bills Entry 8113/92
$ 2,333,867
$ 559,967
$ 750,908
$ <30,000> $ 2,112,926
13,520
30,612
2,672
41,450
538,181
91,273
215,444
414,010
4,843
2,000
5,877
966
41,772
10,510
80,858
30,000 1,424
3,048,982
198,614
414,610
2,832,986
182,126
5,780
4,901
183,005
1,197,430
6,885
69,313
1,135,002
912,833
181
3,493
909,521
1,459,817
15,668
55,123
1,420,362
545,202
2,243
1,189
546,256
4,443,462
366
9,249
4,434,579
4,739,730
94,986
233,766
4,600,950
890,634
3,330
893,964
8,194
4,638
12,284
548
1,363,681
20,260
106,514
1,277,427
17,679,371
19,225
-
17,698,596
19,401,518
11,827
-
19,413,345
240,896
122
2,167
238.851
59 W6,049
�487
U&8
1968 368
-0 58156168
VENDOR
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
AIR ONE EQUIPMENT, INC.
ARROW ROAD CONSTRUCTION
ATMI
BLARNEY'S
DIXIE BOZIK
CAB PLUMBING & SEWER
DANIEL M. CIERO
CITIBANK, N.A.
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
DANLEY LUMBER
DISBURSEMENT ACCT
MARTIN FELD
FLEXCOMP DISBURSEMENTS
D. FRANCIS
GENCON BLDG. CORP.
MICHAEL E. HANNIGAN
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT
ANDREA JUSZCZYK
KGS INDUSTRIES
SANG SOOK KIM.
WADE KOLB
NICK KONDILES
LAKE -COOK FARM SUPPLY COMPANY
LEON GABRIEL CO.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 1
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8113%92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
EQUIPMENT
$3,689.50
$3,689.50
SERVICES RENDERED
$41,400.03
RECONSTRUCTION STREETS
$9,241.61
$50,641.64
C6536 ATMI
$500.00
$500.00
C11124 BLARNEYS
$100.00
$100.00
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2,79
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$28.00
$30.79
C11264 CAB PLBG
$100.00
$100.00
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$12.50
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$1.25
$13.75
PMT INSURANCE CLAIMS GAB
$2,381.68
PMT INSURANCE CLAIMS GAB
$727,09
PMT INSURANCE CLAIMS
$1$224.25
$4,136.77*
920806 PMT P R 846492
$224.25
C10864 DANLE LUBR
$100.00
$100.00
PZR ENDING 8f6192
$411,812.19
PZR ENDING 8J6f92
$1,249.66
PZR ENDING 816192
$758.70
PZR ENDING $16192
$41,471.58
PJR ENDING 876/92
REEFUND
$1,713.04
$457,005.17*
ZNG B EARING
$100.00
$100.00
JULY 92 DEP CARE REIMB
$2,212.00
JULY 92 MED BENEFIT REIMB
$7,072.13
$9,284.13*
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$2.11
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL-
$.12
$2.23
C11280 GENCON BLDG
$100.00
$100.00
C11312 HANNIGAN MICHAEL
$100.00
$100.00
EMPLOYEE SHARE - JULY '92
$19,629.52
EMPLOYER SHARE - JULY 192
$49$254,00
$68,877.84*
920806 PMT PJR 816j92
$254.00
901012 NUISANCE RRELLEASE
$2,375.00
$2,375.00
REFUND LIQUOR LICENSE APPL
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
AUG 92 HLTH INS REFUND
$39.00
$39.00
LIQUOR ESCROW REFUND
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
NO LEAD GASOLINE
$8,081.06
$8,081.06
C11175 LEON GABRIEL CO
$100.00
$100.00
VENDOR
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
M -K SIGNS, INC.
ROCHELLE MAROVITZ
MITY-LITE
MONTESSORI SCHOOLHOUSE
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO.
MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY
MT. PROSPECT PARK DISTRICT
MICHAEL E. NAURET
NBD BANK MOUNT PROSPECT, N.A.
OLD ORCHARD C. C. VILLAGE
ON ELECTRIC INC.
OPUS
PAR 4 BUILDERS
PARK NATIONAL BANK
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
ROBERT PLOWRIGHT
POSTAGE BY PHONE SYSTEM
R 0 R SUPERIOR
A. L. RACINE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS
THIRD DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 2
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8113192
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
1550 M -K SIGNS
$100.00
$100.00
RESIDENT RE TR TAX REBATE
$480.00
$480.00
TABLES
$1,971.20
$1,971.20
1582 MONTESSORI
$100.00
$100.00
REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT
$140.00
$140.00
920803 JULY 4TH PROGRAM
$63.75
PPRT 6TH ALLOCATION
$610.44
$674.19
920803 SHIRTS
$452.50
$452.50
C9463 1914 GOLF NAURET
$12,500.00
$12,500.00
920806 SAVINGS BONDS 816
$450.00
DUE TO FED DEP PR $f6
$94.48
DUE TO FED DEP PR 816
57.55
DUE TO FED DEP PR 816
$1,339.86
DUE TO FED DEP PR 816
$3,128.50
DUE TO FED DBP PR 816
$11,979.74
DUE TO FED DEP PR 8f6
$113.61
$17,163.74*
890329 OLD ORCHARD
$25,000.00
890329A OLD ORCHARD
13,000.00
890425 OLD ORCHARD DEPOSIT
$28,000.00
$56,000.00
920813 2y{ STREET LIGHTS
$7,000.00
$7,000.00
C11076 OPtTS NORTH
$325.00
$325.00
C10240 PAR 4 BLDRS
$500.00
C10240A PAR 4 BLDRS
$2,000.00
$2,500.00
C6620 PARK NATIONAL
$8,022.00
C6628A PARK NATIONAL
$75.00
C8049 PARK NATIONAL
$450.00
C8455 PARK NATIONAL
$350.00
$8,897.00
MISC EXPENSES
$10.00
$10.00*
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$14.10
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
,51.42
15.52
POSTAGE METER ADVANCE DEP
$3,000.00
$3, 00.00*
C11347 ROR SUPERIOR
$100.00
$100.00
C11007 AL RACINE
$25.00
$25.00
C10770 RESIDENTIAL BLDRS
$100.00
$100.00
AGI BOND MONEY
$450.00
AG2 BOND MONEY
$1,675.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8113192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
AG3 BOND MONEY
$2,122.00
$4,247.00*
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
TR TO CAPITAL IMPR FUND
$117.08
$117.08
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
TR TO POLICE PENSION FUND
$120.98
$120.98
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
011007 AL RACINE
$75.00
C11076 OPUS NORTH
$175.00
C1861 BRICK & TROWEL
$100.00
C6628 PARK NATIONAL
$25.00
C8049 PARK NATIONAL
$50.00
C8455 PARK NATIONAL
$150.00
881201 HOME BY HEMPHILL
$10.00
890504 OPUS 100 BUSINESS
$100.00
910404 GENCON BUILDING
$100.00
911217 JOSEPH DELAY CITGO
$100.00
920212 MARATHON OIL
$100.00
$985.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
TR TO GENERAL FUND
$3,000.00
TR TO GENERAL FUND
$2,000.00
TR TO GENERAL FUND
$27,405.48
TR TO GENERAL FUND
$8,575.84
TR TO RISK MGMT FUND
$174,160.00
TR TO RISK MGMT FUND
$490.00
TR TO RISK MGMT FUND
$26,750.00
TR TO RISK MGMT FUND
$500.00
$242,881.32
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
TR TO IMRF FUND
$8,288.44
TR TO IMRF FUND
$798.35
TR TO IMRF FUND
$355.06
TR TO IMRF FUND
$257.88
TR TO IMRF FUND
$170.14
$9,869.87
VILLAGE OF MT PROSPECT FIRE PE
TR TO FIRE PENSION FUND
$46.78
$46.78
LENNY WESTFALL
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$8.24
REFUND FINAL WATER BILL
$81.88
$90.12
ANDREA WOJTAS
RESIDENT RE TR TAX REBATE
$324.00
$324.00
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
***TOTAL**
$979,091.43
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BUSSE'S FLOWERS & GIFTS
VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 4
JUNE
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
$78.00
$163.00
PAYMENT
DATE 8%13/92
$38.00
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
$656,613.58
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
$2,671.71
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$1,602.02
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
$80,857.58
WATER & SEWER FUND
$107,196.41
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
$3,486.39
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$4,175.77
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
$3,689.50
FLEXCOMP ESCROW FUND
$12,284.13
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND
$106,514.34
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BUSSE'S FLOWERS & GIFTS
FLOWERS PASALIC
$60.00
$25.00
JUNE
FLOWERS-THULIN
$78.00
$163.00
JUNE
FLOWERS -WEEKS
$38.00
$31.35
JUNE
FLOWERS-BASNICK
$48.00
$1,609.72
JUNE
FLOWERS-ENGEL
$68.00
$294.70
JUNE
FLOWERS-PASCOE
$63.00
$355.00
CENTRAL CONTINENTAL BAKERY
SWEET ROLLS 75TH ANN MTG,
$6.48
$6.48
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$73.56
$73.56*
ST. CHARLES BORROMEO SCHOOL FD
J.HYDE MEMORY DONATION
$50.00
$50.00*
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
***TOTAL**
$485.04
GENERAL FUND
$485.04
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
ARNSTEIN & LEHR JUNE
LEGAL
SERVICES
$25.00
JUNE
LEGAL
SERVICES
$163.00
JUNE
LEGAL
SERVICES
$31.35
JUNE
LEGAL
SERVICES
$1,609.72
JUNE
LEGAL
SERVICES
$294.70
JUNE
LEGAL
SERVICES
$244.70
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 5
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$499.50
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$4,026.31
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$402.80
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$3.50
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$10.20
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$321.90
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$188.70
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$822.46
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$44.40
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$233.10
$8,921.34
IRENE F. BAHR
JULY LEGAL SERVICES
$261.74
$261.74
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
PERSONNEL AD
$210.00
AD
$420.00
$630.00
HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEELEXAM-JANONIS
$146.00
EMP EXAM SZMERGALSKI
$135.00
PRE-EMP PHYSICAL VAUGHAN
$146.00
$427.00
IACP
REGISTER-PAVLOCK
$135.00
$135.00*
ICMA
BOOKLET
$24.50
$24.50
ILLINOIS ASSN. OF CHIEFS OF
REGISTER PAVLOCK
$100.00
$100.00
ILLINOIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR
ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
$140.00
$140.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$338.04
$338.04
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$32.50
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$387.50
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$129.13
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$556.69
JUNE LEGAL SERVICES
$523.80
LEGAL
$382.50
$2,012.12
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
PICESTUDENTSERVICES LUNCHES
$114.75
MISC EXPENSES
$71.88
EXPENSES
$58.50
$245.13*
PROFESSIONAL NEWSSCAN, INC.
1IYR SUBSCRIPTION
$156.00
$.00
SECRETARY OF STATE
NOTARY FEE CLINGER
$10.00
$1o.oa
$10
BARRY A. SPRINGER
JULY 92 LEGAL FEES
$2,204.22
$2,204.22
HERBERT WEEKS
ADVANCE EXPENSES
$350.00
$350.00
PAIGE WINTERS
SERVICE
$105.00
$105.00*
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE
***TOTAL**
$16,060.09
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 6
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8%13/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $16,060.09
***k**************************#********#***************k****#k**************k*************kk*k*k*##***#*
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
AA SWIFT PRINT, INC.
NEWSLETTER CHGS
$352.75
$352.75
AMOCO OIL COMPANY
593-057-401-6
$12.48
$12.48
AT&T
016 089 7465 001
$637.18
$637.18
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVICE
$50.00
SERVICE
$2,209.07
$2,259.07
R.T. JENKINS
VILLAGE NEWSLETTER
$300.00
$300.00
PHYLLIS MOLIERE
COMM ASST COW MTG
$25.00
25.00
$90.00
NATOA/NLC
RGISTER-PASALIC
$290.00
$300.00
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$7.95
$7.95*
APRIL RAJCZYK
COMM ASST BD MTG
$25.00
$25.00
JERRY RAJCZYK
COMM ASST BD MTG
$25.00
$25.00
WALTER SOSIN
COMM ASST COW MTG
$25.00
$25.00
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$3,959.43
GENERAL FUND
$3,959.43
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
ARMOR SYSTEMS CORPORATION
SCHMALZLN RONALD
$41.66
$41.66
CITY OF CORVALLIS
PUBLICATIONS
$27.00
$27.00
D & B BUSINESS EDUCATION SERV.
SEMINAR - MCELDERRY
$155.00
$155.00
I.B.M. CORPORATION - BC5
MTCE COMPUTERSZPRINTER
$194.00
MTCE COMPUTERSrPRINTER
$21.00
$215.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIESS
$14.47
$14.47
THE OMNI USER
REGISTER CRISWELL
$110.00
$110.00
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
TRANSFER TAX TRANS JULY 92
$300.00
$300.00
********************************************************************************************************
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BROOKFIELD AUGUST EXCESS LOSS PREMIUM $10,470.28
•VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 7
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8%13192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
THE PERFECT IMAGE
4 B&W NEGATIVES
$30.00
2 B&W NEGATIVES
$15.00
$45.00
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$11.81
$11.81
PITNEY BOWES INC.
EZ -SEAL
$76.20
$76.20
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$189.50
$189.50
TRACS
CONNECT FEES
$50.00
$50.00
XEROX CORPORATION
JULY 1090 COPIER CHGS
$3,030.89
$3,030.89
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
***TOTAL**
$4,266.53
GENERAL FUND
$4,266.53
********************************************************************************************************
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
AA SWIFT PRINT, INC.
NEWSLETTER CHGS
$4,798.05
$4,798.05
CHICAGO SUBURBAN TIMES NEWSPAP
SUBSCRIPTION
$45.88
$45.88
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
SUBSCRIPTION
$164.50
$164.50
R.T. JENKINS
VILLAGE NEWSLETTER
$2,$85.00
$2,$85.00
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC
LASER RECHARGE
$85.00
$85.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$$20.00
$$20.38
SECRETARY OF STATE
NOTARY-FIELDSILOWE
$20.00
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
***TOTAL**
$7,790.81
GENERAL FUND
$7,790.81
********************************************************************************************************
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BROOKFIELD AUGUST EXCESS LOSS PREMIUM $10,470.28
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$65,137.44
********************************************************************************************************
INSPECTION SERVICES
COMP USA
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
$2,116.02
PAGE 8
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
$635.00
$2,751.02
COMPUTERWORLD
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
$29.57
$29.57
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
$51.45
$51.45
INT. ASSOC. OF ELECTRICAL
MED CLAIMS THRU 8/11
$52,887.51
$63,357.79*
CORPORATE POLICYHOLDERS COUNS.
RISK MGMT SERVICES
$500.00
$500.00
GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
AUGUST SERVICE FEES
$886.00
$886.00
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
9002077784-X
$221.65
7003998716-X
$92.00
$313.65
ROLLING MEADOWS HLTH CARE FAC.
SVCS R DRAFFONE
$80.00
$80.00
RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
***TOTAL**
$65,137.44
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$65,137.44
********************************************************************************************************
INSPECTION SERVICES
COMP USA
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
$2,116.02
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
$635.00
$2,751.02
COMPUTERWORLD
SUBSCRIPTION
$29.57
$29.57
ELEK-TEK, INC.
COMPUTER SUPPLIES
$503.96
$503.96
GREGORY G. GRAHAM
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
$51.45
$51.45
INT. ASSOC. OF ELECTRICAL
MEMBER RENEWAL FRONTZAK
$30.00
$30.00
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$11.82
MISC EXPENSES
$9.39
MISC EXPENSES
$4.23
MISC EXPENSES
$3.95
$29.39*
VITAL RECORD BANC, INC.
STORAGE CABINET
$140.50
$140.50
INSPECTION SERVICES
***TOTAL**
$3,535.89
GENERAL FUND $3,535.89
********************************************************************************************************
VENDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
CALEA
COMPUTERIZED FLEET ANALYSIS,IN
COMPUTERLAND
CURTIS 1000 INCORPORATED
THOMAS F. DALEY
FRAME EXPRESSIONS
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
HAINES & COMPANY
W. H. HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO
KALE UNIFORMS, INC.
KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER
LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE. 8%1392
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
PARTS
PARTS
CREDIT
CREDIT
REGISTER NICHOLSON
ANNUAL SUPPORT MTCE FEE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
PAPER
EXPENSES
REPAIRS DEPT PICTURES
WHEEL ALIGNMENT
WHEEL ALIGNMENT
12 MONTH LEASE SVC
BROGAN GROSS VIVERITO
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
UNIFORM SUPPLIES
UNIFORM SUPPLIES
UNIFORM SUPPLIES
UNIFORM SUPPLIES
TUITION RICHARDSON/KOLANOWSKI
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
INVOICE AMOUNT
$175.08
$35.76
$9.01-
$18.36-
$165.00
$189.23
$24.00
$56.00
$24.00
$244.08
$684.41
$76.60
$39.00
$39.00
$197.87
$285.00
$27.14
$300.00
$100.00
$20.20
$20.11
$165.15
$52.90
$217.85
$24.95
$290.00
$6.76
$255.71
$57.00
$55.13
$18.38
$79.90
$6.08
$32.33
$12.11
$34.49
PAGE 9
TOTAL
$183.47
$165.00
$189.23
$104.00
$244.08
$684.41
$76.60
$78.00
$197.87
$285.00
$467.45
$460.85
$290.00
VENDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
LEE AUTO PARTS
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC
LUND INDUSTRIES, INC.
METROMEDIA PAGING SERVICES
JOE MITCHELL BUICK, INC.
NATIONWIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
NORTHWEST POLICE ACADEMY
RAY O'HERRON CO., INC.
ERIC E. PIEE
PROFESSIONALS AGNST CONF.CRIME
QUALITY DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13%92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
CREDIT
SUPPLTES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
P8 REPAIR WORK
JULY AUG PAGER RENTAL
TACTICAL UNIT CAR RENTAL
TONER
NWPA%NPA RECEPTION BANQUET
REDMAN SUIT/BATON TRNG
SLAB CLEANER
RADIO REPAIRS
PACC RENEWAL KRUCHTEN
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
INVOICE AMOUNT
$37.50
$58.31
$26.00
$26.00
$69.12
$16.40
$63.02
$32.80
$19.88
$34.86
$38.08
$16.40
$16.40
$104.78
$52.04
$9.60-
$1.50
$28.70
$37.36
$37.50'
$37.50
$37.50
$198.48
$231.00
$100.00
$206.05
$40.00
$477.60
$68.86
$$35.00
$35.40
$210.12
$187.76
$191.18
$35.40
PAGE 10
TOTAL
$705.70
$454.18
$180.06
$198.48
$231.00
$100.00
$206.05
$40.00
$546.46
$405.00
$35.00
VENDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RONALD RICHARDSON
SCHWEPPE & SONS
SUBURBAN TRIM & GLASS CO
POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL FUND
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8113%92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
PARTS
PARTS
CONFERENCE EXPENSES
EVIDENCE BAGS
REPAIR DRIVERS SEAT
$7,951.37
PAGE 11
INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
$187.76
$1,915.00
$11.30
$858.92
$447.18
$447.18
$48.88
$48.88
$68.50
$68.50
***TOTAL** $7,951.37
********************************************************************************************************
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
ABLE FIRE SAFETY EQUIP
AIR ONE EQUIPMENT, INC.
AMOCO OIL COMPANY
DON ANDERSON
ARATEX AND MEANS SERVICES, INC
BSN SPORTS
CENTRAL TELEPHONE OF ILLINOIS
CHICAGO COMM. SERVICE, INC.
CITY OF DES PLAINES
DELSAR, INC.
GFE, INC
GIUSEPPE'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
HARRISON-FRANKLIN MFG.
EQUIPMENT
$1,915.00
$1,915.00
EQUIPMENT
$7.55
$7.55
593-057-401-6
$38.51
$38.51
SUPPLIES
$99.61
SUPPLIES
$32.72
SUPPLIES
$45.66
$177.99
LINEN SERVICE
$53.48
LINEN SERVICE$69.52
LINEN SERVICE
$25.95
$148.95
STEP TRAINER FITNESS CHART
$164.82
$164.82
070 0057060 0
$196.97
$196.97
SERVICES
$177.30
SERVICES
$35.00
SERVICES
$102.00
$314.30
REGISTER CLARK
$200.00
$200.00
1 DELSAR AC HOTSTICK
$302.01
$302.01
HIP BOOTS
$91.69
$91.69
ESDA DINNERS -HOMETOWN DAYS
$44.43
$44.43
MOUNT & BALANCE
$115.50
$115.50
SUPPLIES
$62.50
$62.50
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 12
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
HARRISON SUPPLY COMPANY
EQUIPMENT
$44.62
$44.62
ILL. EMERGENCY SERV.MGMT.ASSN.
REGISTER LABBE/DAWSON
$290.00
$290.00
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVICE
$400.00
SERVICE
$87.93
$487.93
JOHNS HOPKINS MEDICAL LETTER
SUBSCRIPTION
$15.00
$15.00
KALE UNIFORMS, INC.
UNIFORM SUPPLIES
$107.85
UNIFORM SUPPLIES
$2.19
$110.04
KNAPP SHOES INC.
BOOTS
$258.00
BOOTS
$50.00
$308.00
KREST UNIFORMS, INC.
SEWING CHARGES
$294.80
$294.80
LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC.
PARTS
$122.64
$122.64
LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$166.97
$166.97
M & R RADIATOR INC.
REPAIR GAS TANK
$125.00
$125.00
MAC'S FIRE AND SAFETY, INC.
HELMET TRIAL
$193.53
$193.53
MEDICAL PRODUCTS
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
$151.94
$151.94
MOTOROLA, INC.
EQUIPMENT
$457.83
$457.83
NAPA -HEIGHTS AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY
PARTS
$*10.05
PARTS
7.14
PARTS
$66.12
PARTS
$4.74
CREDIT
$5.04 -
CREDIT
$5.00 -
PARTS
$104.20
PARTS
$13.44
PARTS
$122.40
PARTS
$209.54
PARTS
$27.70
PARTS
$30.90
PARTS
$35.00
CREDIT
$104.20 -
PARTS
$5.08
PARTS
$46.01
$568.08
NCCEM HEADQUARTERS
MEMBERSHIP CAVELLO
$75.00
$75.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$32.00
$32.00
NOVA CELLULAR
SERVICE 22-00015599
$197.12
$197.12
PAGE AMERICA
SERVICES
$373.32
$373.32
********************************************************************************************************
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
LEONARD W. BAZAN
HAZEL FRICKE
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
LISA LEVIN
RAY LUNDIN
LINDA MARKAY
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OTTO SCHERR
JEANNE SHERMAN
BERTHA STEIL
KATHI WESLEY
HELEN WHITLOCK
VIRGINIA ZITO
JUNE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
REIMB
PAGE 13
$30.00
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
DRIVER
REIMB
$3.00
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
SERVICE
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
$12.00
$12.00
JUNE
PHYSIO -CONTROL
QUARTERLY MICE
$825.00
$825.00
SIMON-DUPLEX, INC.
PARTS
$110.96
$110.96
SPRING ALIGN
1 U BOLT
$10.00
$10.00
TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY
MICE SUPPLIES
$74.01
$3.00
$3.00
MICE SUPPLIES
$38.39
$112.40
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
TRNG CHG-BROUSSEAU
$35.00
$35.00
ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY
MICE SUPPLIES
$141.40
$141.40
FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT.
REIMB
***TOTAL**
$9,028.80
GENERAL FUND
$5,933.44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
FUND
$3,095.36
********************************************************************************************************
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
LEONARD W. BAZAN
HAZEL FRICKE
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
LISA LEVIN
RAY LUNDIN
LINDA MARKAY
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OTTO SCHERR
JEANNE SHERMAN
BERTHA STEIL
KATHI WESLEY
HELEN WHITLOCK
VIRGINIA ZITO
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$30.00
$30.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$3.00
$3.00
SERVICE
$400.00
$400.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$12.00
$12.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$36.00
$36.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$12.00
$12.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$45.84
$45.84
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$3.00
$3.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$9.00
$9.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$15.00
$15.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$6.00
$6.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$6.00
$6.00
JUNE
DRIVER
REIMB
$18.00
$18.00
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION ***TOTAL** $595.84
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 14
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
GENERAL FUND $595.84
********************************************************************************************************
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
SUBSCRIPTION & BINDER
$205.00
$205.00
BROADACRE CONSULTING COMPANY
CONSULTING SERVICES
$12,422.04
$12,422.04
DATED BOOKS
2 WEEKLY APPT BOOKS
$42.15
$42.15
MICHAEL J. MORAN
SERVICES RENDERED
$50.00
$50.00
N & H CONSTRUCTION INC.
SERVICES
$150.00
$150.00
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$17.69
$17.69
REI TITLE SERVICES
TITLE REPORTS
$225.00
$225.00
SUBURBAN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE C
SERVICES RENDERED
$3,999.99
$3,999.99
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
***TOTAL**
$17,111.87
GENERAL FUND
$12,836.88 COMMUNITY
DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$4,274.99
********************************************************************************************************
STREET DIVISION
ACCU-PAVING CO.
ACRT, INC.
AETNA TRUCK PARTS
ALDRIDGE ELECTRIC, INC.
AMERICAN ARBORIST SUPPLIES, IN
AMERICAN COMFORT GROUP, INC.
ANDERSON ELEVATOR CO.
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY
ARROW ROAD CONSTRUCTION
WILDWOOD LANE RECON
$27,697.00
ANNUAL SUPPORT MTCE FEE
$600.00
PARTS
$92.24
PARTS
$85.36
LABOR & EQUIPMENT
$188.50
SUPPLIES
$126.61
HOE
$32.62
BOILER INSPECTION
$91.00
ELEVATOR MTCE
$147.00
PARTS & SERVICE
$389.11
RESURFACING PROGRAM
$77,609.66
$27,697.00
$600.00
$177.60
$188.50
$159.23
$91.00
$147.00
$389.11
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
BOWMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER
BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE
BRUNO BUSANO
CADE INDUSTRIES
CARSONITE INTERNATIONAL CORP.
CENTURY LABS/PRO CLEAN, INC.
CENTURY RAIN AID
CITIZENS UTILITIES CO. OF ILLI
ARTHUR CLESEN, INC.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COMPUTERIZED FLEET ANALYSIS,IN
R. L. CORTY & COMPANY
EARNIES TIRE REPAIR SERV. INC.
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC.
FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS, INC
G & K SERVICES
THE GLIDDEN COMPANY
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
H & H ELECTRIC CO.
B.•HANEY AND SONS, INC.
HELLER LUMBER CO.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBOR
LAND AND LAKES CO
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 15
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8%1392
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
RESURFACING
$136,413.70
RESURFACING
$400.00
$214,423.36
CREDIT
$50.00 -
SUPPLIES
$54.06
SUPPLIES
$26.34
SUPPLIES
$25.08
SUPPLIES
$228.75
SUPPLIES
$188.70
$472.93
SUBSCRIPTION
$104.76
$104.76
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT
$84.00
$84.00
CLEANING SUPPLIES
$420.65
SUPPLIES
$314.63
SUPPLIES
$314.62
$1,049.90
CURV-FLEX MARKERS
$362.23
$362.23
CLEANING SUPPLIES
$333.41
$333.41
2 NS SOLENOID R/B
$17.50
$17.50
WATER USAGE
$69.67
$69.67
FERTILIZER
$63.80
$63.80
SERVICE
$9,276.66
$9,276.66
ANNUAL SUPPORT MTCE FEE
$189.23
$189.23
MTCE SUPPLIES
$172.50
$172.50
MTCE SUPPLIES
$32.22
$32.22
SUPPLIES
$14.79
$14.79
SUPPLIES$359.70
$359.70
UNIFORM SERVICE
$151.70
UNIFORM SERVICE
$151.69
$303.39
PAINT
$72.24
2 GAL END OIL STAIN
$30.30
$102.54
TIRES
$24.2.92
TIRES
$286.18
$529.10
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MTCE
$1,232.00
$1,232.00
20 YDS LOG DISPOSAL
$150.00
$150.00
SUPPLIES
$18.56
SUPPLIES
$50.56
$69.12
PUBLICATION
$30.00
$30.00
REFUSE/DEBRIS DISPOSAL
$264.00
$264.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 16
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
STREET DIVISION
LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC.
PARTS
$1.80
PARTS
$10.80
PARTS
$34.61
PARTS
$328.32
PARTS
$33.33
PARTS
$93.50
$502.36
LEE AUTO PARTS
PARTS
$2.80
PARTS
$316.50
PARTS
$16.89
PARTS
$5.95
PARTS
$22.81
PARTS
$35.76
PARTS
$19.52
PARTS
$65.28
PARTS
$190.62
PARTS
$83.74
$759.87
LEEDS ELECTRONICS, INC.
MICE SUPPLIES
$267.52
$267.52
LEWIS EQUIPMENT CO.
MICE SUPPLIES
$26.14
26.14
MANCINI CONSTRUCTION, INC.
WILDWOOD LANE RECON
$16,675.00
$16,275.00
MILLER SALES, INC.
REPAIR PARTS
$54.10
$54.10
NATIONAL HEAT AND POWER CORPOR
REPLACE RELAY
$211.93
$211.93
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
SUPPLIES
$179.71
SUPPLIES
$53.27
SUPPLIES
$108.45
SUPPLIES
$122.92
SUPPLIES
$231.85
SUPPLIES
$259.70
SUPPLIES
$57.75
SUPPLIES
$106.35
SUPPLIES
$362.80
SUPPLIES
$172.43
SUPPLIES
$343.10
$1,998.33
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$46.71
$46.71
HELEN LYNN PATE
WILDWOOD LANE RECON
$3,386.60
$3,386.60
PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT.
MISC EXPENSES
$26.00
$26.00*
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$15.75
VENDOR
STREET DIVISION
POLLARD MOTOR COMPANY
PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC.
QUALITY DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
R.A. ADAMS ENTERPRISES
ROUTE 12 RENTAL CO., INC.
RUNNION EQUIPMENT COMPANY
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO.
SOUTH SIDE CONTROL COMPANY
STANDARD PIPE & SUPPLY INC.
STEVENS PUBLISHING
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS
WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS
STREET DIVISION
GENERAL FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
STARTER
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
CREDIT
PARTS
4 TAIL GATE SPRINGS
2 CHIPPER RENTALS
HANDLE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE CHARGE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUBSCRIPTION
REGISTER DORSEY
OFFICE SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
$23,989.02 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$48,338.31
PAGE 17
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
$25.72
$3.20
$22.99
$67.66
$454.25
$454.25
$45.62
$45.62
$29.69
$34.94
$17.47
$34.94-
$23.42
$70.58
$72.00
$72.00
$2,113.95
$2,113.95
$22.01
$22.01
$20.96
$20.96
$419.00
$419.00
$35.12
$15.81
$50.93
$126.41
$126.41
$67.00
$67.00
$845.00
$845.00
$126.29
$126.29
$83.00
$75.72
$158.72
***TOTAL**
$287,771.19
$215,443.86
********************************************************************************************************
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. MANUAL $30.30 $30.30
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 18
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
BADGER METER INC
10 METERS
$1,270.00
METERS
$4,083.60
METERS
$3,327.00
METERS
$3,438.66
METERS
$364.50
METERS
$160.00
$12,643.76
BERRY BEARING CO
MICE SUPPLIES
$13.30
SUPPLIES
$10.62
$23.92
BOWMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER
SUPPLIES
$13.63
SUPPLIES
$228.75
SUPPLIES
$188.70
$431.08
COMPUTERIZED FLEET ANALYSIS,IN
ANNUAL SUPPORT MTCE FEE
$189.24
$189.24
CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT'L BK
OPER.MAINT COSTS - JAWA
$14,733.00
VILLAGE SHARE FIXED COSTS - JAWA
$104,946.00
LAKE WATER PURCHASE - JAWA
$138,972.00
POWER COSTS - JAWA
$16,506.00
$275,157.00
R. L. CORTY & COMPANY
WATER PUMP MODULE
$2,199.00
MTCE SUPPLIES
$172.50
$2,371.50
DURABLE PAVING CO.
APHALT RESTORATION
$1,745.00
$1,745.00
EARNIES TIRE REPAIR SERV. INC.
MTCE SUPPLIES
$32.22
$32.22
EATON FINANCIAL CORP
JULY LEASE COPIER
506.23
AUGUST LEASE COPIER
9506.23
$1,012.46
G & K SERVICES
UNIFORM SERVICE
$151.69
UNIFORM SERVICE
$151.70
$303.39
MARIO GAMBINO LANDSCAPING INC
SOD RESTORATION
$350.00
$350:00
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
TIRE
$73.13
WHEEL BALANCE
$9.50
TIRES
$286.18
$368.81
H -B -K WATER METER SERVICE
WATER METER LABOR
$285.48
$285.48
I.B.M. CORPORATION - BC5
MAY 92 MTCE
$115.37
MTCE COMPUTERS%PRINTER
$194.00
MTCE COMPUTERS/PRINTER
$21.00
$330.37
IBT, INC.
BEARINGS
$51.44
$51.44
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO.
SERVIC9
$92.60
SERVICE
$17.10
SERVICE
$300.00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 19
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8113192
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
SERVICE
$33.63
$443.33
LATTOF LEASING AND RENTAL, INC
CAR RENTAL
$3,255.00
$3,255.00
LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC.
PARTS
$34.61
PARTS
$11.22
$45.83
LEE AUTO PARTS
PARTS
$20.97
PARTS
$32.31
PARTS
$105.85
PARTS
$316.50
PARTS
$44.05
PARTS
$11.90
PARTS
$8.06
PARTS
$55.54
PARTS
$29,28
PARTS
$170.42
PARTS
$37.23
PARTS
$138.79
PARTS
$114.12
PARTS
$63.62
CREDIT
$4.80-
$1,143.84
MATCO TOOLS
AC CLUTCH SERVICE KIT
$90.00
$90.00
NET MIDWEST, INC.
JULY 92 WATER SAMPLES
$107.50
$107.50
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
SS GOLF 1W WAPELLA
$13.52
$13.52
NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
CREDIT
$14.45 -
SUPPLIES
$19.00
SUPPLIES
$42.80
SUPPLIES
$19.10
SUPPLIES
$188.02
SUPPLIES
$43.64
SUPPLIES
$17.10
SUPPLIES
$31.51
SUPPLIES
$118.65
SUPPLIES
$10.44
$475.81
NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$125.83
$6.29
$132.12
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC
LEGALEPAGEPLIES
$20.00
LEGAL PAGE
$20,00
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 20
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
********************************************************************************************************
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN TRANS C JULY LAND LEASE $1,397.32 $1,397.32
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO. 19 NORTWEST HWY $17.10 .$17.10
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION ***TOTAL** $1,414.42
LEGAL PAGE
$21.10
LEGAL PAGE
$113.41
$174.51
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$.98
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$3.48
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$108.64
$113.10*
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE FOR WATER BILLS
$530.35
$530.35*
QUALITY DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
PARTS
$171.75
$171.75
RAINBOW 1 HR PHOTO EXP.
FILM PROCESSING
$26.95
FILM PROCESSING
$7.05
FILM & PROCESSING
$36.23
FILM & PROCESSING
$13.25
$83.48
LAURA SCHULTZ
HYDRANTS PAINTED
$213.00
$213.00
SIDENER SUPPLY COMPANY
WRENCH
$89.50
$89.50
STANDARD PIPE & SUPPLY INC.
SUPPLIES
$25.56
$25.56
TIME MARK CORPORATION
MANUAL RESET
$82.02
$82.02
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
SUPPLIES
$14.96
$14.96
WATER PRO SUPPLIES INC.
MICE SUPPLIES
$1,264.73
MICE SUPPLIES
$543.50
CHAIN
$422.00
HYDRANTS
$2,533.71
$4,763.94
ZIEBELL WATER SERVICE PRODUCTS
MTCE SUPPLIES
$118.00
$118.00
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
***TOTAL**
$307,413.09
WATER & SEWER FUND
$307,413.09
********************************************************************************************************
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN TRANS C JULY LAND LEASE $1,397.32 $1,397.32
NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO. 19 NORTWEST HWY $17.10 .$17.10
PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION ***TOTAL** $1,414.42
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 21
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8/13/92
VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $1,414.42
********************************************************************************************************
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
BOURBONNAIS SUPPLY INC.
ROOT F5 SCRAPER
$2,666.38
$2,666.38
ROBERT K. BURDICK
FLOOD PREVENTION REBATE
$915.40
$915.40
GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SER
2 WHEELS & TIRES
$323.99
$825.00
GE SUPPLY
2 WHEELS & TIRES
$323.99
$647.98
MARILYN KAREL
FLOOD PREVENTION REBATE
$380.00
$380.00
ARMOND D. KING, INC.
UPDATED APPRAISAL LETTER
$750.00
$750.00
NATIONAL SEWER & WATER, INC.
STORM SEWER
$232,470.90
$232,470.90
BARRY A. SPRINGER
JULY 92 LEGAL FEES
$438.75
$438.75
TROW MIRZA
SAFETY BLDG SERVICES
$3,072.70
SAFETY BLDG SERVICES
$1,733.80
ADDTL SERVICES -SAFETY BLDG
$4,442.90
$9,249.40
ZIEBART
RUSTPROOF 92 WAGON
$179.00
$179.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
***TOTAL**
$247,697.81
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
$3,493.36 POLICE & FIRE
BOND PROCEEDS
$9,249.40
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991
$1,188.75 FLOOD CONTROL
CONST FUND 1991
$1,295.40
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1992
$232,470.90
********************************************************************************************************
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
BUDGET SIGN COMPANY
SIGNS
$80.00
SIGNS
$460.00
$540.00
FOLGERS FLAG & DECORATING, INC
JULY 4TH BANNERS
$825.00
$825.00
GE SUPPLY
2 BREA$ERS
$17.28
$17.28
HELLER LUMBER CO.
SUPPLIES
$46.01
SUPPLIES
$24.00
$70.01
ALL DEPARTMENTS TOTAL $1,968,367.83
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PAGE 22
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT
PAYMENT DATE 8113%92
VENDOR
PURCHASE DESCRIPTION
INVOICE AMOUNT
TOTAL
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
STEVEN R. JENKINS CO., INC.
FUSES
$448.94
$448.94
MOUNT PROSPECT JAYCEES
JULY 4TH PARADE EXPENSES
$3,859.00
$3,859.00*
PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVEL & SUPPLIES
$7.20
$7.20*
RAYCO
BANNER MATERIAL
$44.05
BANNER MATERIAL
$195.25
$239.30
COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES
***TOTAL**
$6,006.73
GENERAL FUND
$6,006.73
********************************************************************************************************
PENSIONS
NBD BANK MOUNT PROSPECT, N.A.
WITHHOLDING TAXES
$200.00
$200.00
CHARLES W. NICK
AUGUST 92 PENSION
883.22
883.22
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
SEPT MEDICAL INSURANCE
510.00
51d.00
PAUL H. WATKINS
AUGUST DISABILITY BENEFIT
$1,456.83
$1,456.83
PENSIONS
***TOTAL**
$3,050.05
GENERAL FUND
$883.22 BENEFIT TRUST #2
$2,166.83
ALL DEPARTMENTS TOTAL $1,968,367.83
DATE RUN 8/13/92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 23
TIME RUN 11.24.23
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL
LISTING ID-APPBAR
SUMMARY BY FUND 8/13/92
NO.
FUND NAME
AMOUNT
1
GENERAL FUND
$750,907.87
21
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
$2,671.71
22
MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
$215,443.86
23
COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
$5,877.01
24
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
$80,857.58
31
BENEFIT TRUST #2
$2,166.83
41
WATER & SEWER FUND
$414,609.50
46
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
$4,900.81
48
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
$3,493.36
49
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$69,313.21
51
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
$55,123.17
53
POLICE & FIRE BOND PROCEEDS
$9,249.40
56
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991
$1,188.75
58
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991
$1,295.40
59
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1992
$232,470.90
73
FLEXCOMP ESCROW FUND
$12,284.13
74
ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND
$106,514.34
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $1,968,367.83
VIEGAGE OF MOUNT PROSPFkT
FINANCIAL REPORT
July 1, 1992 - July 31, 1992
Fund
Revenues
Expenses
Fund
Balance
for
for
Balance
June 30,1992
July, 1992
July 1992)
July 31.1992
General and Special Revenue Funds
General Fund
$ 2,345,703
$1,039,285
$1,330,592
$ 2,054,396
Motor Fuel Tax Fund
408,469
100,931
65,833
443,567
Community Development Block Grant
<6,965>
11,537
14,024
< 9,452>
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
<45,828>
40,782
68,107
< 73,153>
Refuse Disposal Fund
<110,644>
57,146
224,129
< 277,627>
Enterprise Funds
Water & Sewer Fund
3,342,034
468,745
504,025
3,306,754
Parking System Revenue Fund
172,402
15,868
6,747
181,523
Internal Service Funds
Risk Management Fund
981,046
250,230
112,168
1,119,108
Vehicle Replacement Fund
1,016,764
4,354
94,841
926,277
Capital PEWects
Capital Improvement Fund
1,306,860
103,235
9,335
1,400,760
Downtown Redev. Const. Funds
539,136
3,917
349
542,704
Police & Fire Building Construction
4,648,806
26,366
131,533
4,543,639
Flood Control Const. Fund
4,555,747
104,136
26,454
4,633,429
Debt Service Funds
925,675
4,822
499
929,998
Trust & agency Funds
Flexcomp Trust
_
_
_
Escrow Deposit Fund
-
-
_
_
Police Pension Fund
17,678,976
159,817
74,872
17,763,921
Firemen's Pension Fund
19,561,864
192,694
89,854
19,664,704
Benefit Trust Funds
246,384
1,477
2367
245,694
57 566 429
Q585342 342
2 755 529
JLT396242
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
B U D G E T R E V E N U E S U M M A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
TAX REVENUE 1,852,650.00 2,879.24 17,080.91 1,835,569.09 99.07
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE 717,250.00 54,240.35 176,400.74 540,849.26 75.40
OTHER REVENUE 2,500.00 26.35 MI,Rr.. _ T9,177.68 87,10
FUND TOTALS 2.572,400.00 57,145.94 19� 7,3784596,03 92.46 X
MOTOR FUELTAX FUND
BUDGET
CUR MO
Y -T -O
BUDGET
PERCENT
RAL FUND
AMOUNT
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
I&ANCE
50,_100,00
TAX REVENUE
10,671,550.00
566,331.63
801,128.01
9,870,421.99
92.49
FEE REVENUE
1,833,000.00
132,916.55
1,037,270.95
795,729.05
43.41
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
2,570,700.00
229,122.25
495,489.48
2,075,210.52
$0,72
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE
376,500.00
29,899.17
73,364.58
303,135.42
80.51
FINES AND FORFEITS
325,700.00
29,526,14
57,229.06
268,470.94
82.42
OTHER REVENUE
565,,,550.00
5100
145,795.06
_419,754.94
74.22
FUND TOTALS
16.343,000.00
1.039,285.82
2,610,,277;14
13 73�
84.02 X
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
TAX REVENUE 1,852,650.00 2,879.24 17,080.91 1,835,569.09 99.07
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE 717,250.00 54,240.35 176,400.74 540,849.26 75.40
OTHER REVENUE 2,500.00 26.35 MI,Rr.. _ T9,177.68 87,10
FUND TOTALS 2.572,400.00 57,145.94 19� 7,3784596,03 92.46 X
MOTOR FUELTAX FUND
TAX REVENUE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
1,047,500.00
99,020.47
180,795.24
866,704.76 82.74
OTHER REVENUE
50,_100,00
1,910.70
8,571.00
41,529,01 82.89
FUND TOTALS
5 007.600,00
100,931,17
189,366.24
908,?35,76_ $2.74 %
COMMUNITY DEVLP14T RL.M GRANT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 250,900.00 .00 OD 250,900.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 25,000,00 11.536,67 ?,7,306,72 2,306.72- 9.22 -
FUND TOTALS 272�2ffl.QQ 11,536.67 2Z,306,72 24593 .?8 90,10 X
ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
TAX REVENUE
760,950.OD 1,162.98
6,899.32
754,050.68 99.09
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
55,000.00 39,532.57
39,532.57
15,467.43 28.12
OTHER REVENUE
2,5QQ.0„0 85.95
440,26
2,0W74 82.38
FUND TOTALS $1$.450.00 40,781.50 X15_ 771,577.$5 94.27 %
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
B U D G E T R E V E N U E S U M N A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR No Y -T -D BUDGET PERCENT
BENEFIT TRUST #2 AMOUNT RECEIVED RECEIVED BALANCE BALANCE
OTHER REVENUE 18,500.00 01) 1,466.75 4,396.3714,113.63 76.28
FUND TOTALS 18,500.00 1,466,75 4,386.37 14,113.63 76.28 %
BENEFIT TRUST #3
OTHER REVENUE Do 9.8$ 31.00 31.00- .DD
FUND TOTALS .00 9188 31.D0_ 31.00- .00 %
LIBRARY FUND
TAX REVENUE 2,220,425.00 ,00 .00 2,220,425.00 100.00
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 75,370.00 .00 .00 75,370.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 174,61Q,00 Do 5Z4,§2.00 100.00
FUND TOTALS 2,870,425.00 00 QO 2,870,425,00 100.00 %
WATER & SEWER FUND
FEE REVENUE
TAX REVENUE
1,357,900.00
2,485.32
14,200.90
1,343,699.10
98.95
FEE REVENUE
17,500.00
.00
$55.00
36,645.00
95.11
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE
4,437,500.00
446,816.70
1,208,289.37
3,229,210.63
72.77
OTHER REVENUE
05?330-00,
19,443.30
62,082.72
590,667.28
90.48
FUND TOTALS
6,465,650,00
468 .745,32
5,180,222.01
80.11 %
PARKIN SYSTEM REYENUE FUND
FEE REVENUE
2,880.00 240.00
720.00
2,160.OD
75.00
PARKING REVENUE
177,500.00 14,850.88
43,087.60
134,412.40
75.72
FINES AND FORFEITS
.00 .00
82.50
82.50-
.00
OTHER REVENUE
12,0w,00, "736
2,530,60
9,02.40
78.91
FUND TOTALS 192.380.00 15,068,24 46.420.70 145,959,30 75.87 %
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
B U D G E T R E V E N U E S U M M A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE 2,092,000.00 208,910.18 424,371.30 1,667,628.70 79.71
OTHER REVENUE - 426,500.0041,319.27 130,533,55 295,9%.45 69.39
FUND TOTALS 250,Z29,45 554,904.85 11963595,15 77.96 %
CAPITAL IMPRgVEMENT FUND
BUDGET
CU NO
D
ET
PERCENT
VEH"C S REPLACEMENT FUND
AMOUNT
REC:Ilso-
REC 1�%
jM'jT N i
A. NC 9
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE
627,600.00
.00
627,600.00
.00
.00
OTHER REVENUE
47,500.00
441�4.j'?
1�
... 35,189JI
74.08
FUND TOTALS
675.100 &Q
4,354.22
639,91Q.49
35J59,51
5.21 %
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE 2,092,000.00 208,910.18 424,371.30 1,667,628.70 79.71
OTHER REVENUE - 426,500.0041,319.27 130,533,55 295,9%.45 69.39
FUND TOTALS 250,Z29,45 554,904.85 11963595,15 77.96 %
CAPITAL IMPRgVEMENT FUND
TAX REVENUE
293,300.00
645.21
3,827.65
289,472.35
98.69
FEE REVENUE
120,000.00
8,424.67
25,210.01
94,789.99
78.99
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
990,000.00
73,370.77
143,103.48
$46,896.52
85.54
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
425,000.00
.00
.00
425,000.00
100.00
OTHER REVENUE
?500.Qg
20,793,67
65,694.20
__?Qq -W0 -.8O
75.34
FUND TOTALS 2,094.800.00, 103,234.32 237,8W34 1,856,964.§§ 88.64 %
POLICE & FIRE BLDG CONST F!LNO
OTHER REVENUE 100,000.00 t2376,81 38.070.08 --Atan, 9L 61.92
FUND TOTALS I 100. 0012,776.81 38, 7Q„0 Q0 I1,922.92_ 61.92 %
POLICE & FIRE @-QN
0 PR
,QC
OTHER REVENUE 75,000.00 13.582.0$ 10_,903,42 34,096.5$ 45.46
FUND TOTALS 751000.00 131589.08 40,903.42 34,0%6 58 45.46 X
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPHT CONST 1985
FEE REVENUE 16,500.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 12,000.00 72.72
OTHER REVENUE 7.pp 1,836.11 763.89 29.38
FUND TOTALS 19,100.99 2,117.99 6,336,21 12,763.89 66.82 %
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
B U D G E T R E V E N U E S U M M A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR NO Y -T -O BUDGET PERCENT
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991 AMOUNT RECEIVED RECEIVED BALANCE BALANCE
OTHER REVENUE 10 -1..11$.94 3,381.70 6,,618,30 66.18
FUND TOTALS 10.QQQ,00_ 1.118.94 3,381.70 6,618.30 66.18 %
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1992
OTHER REVENUE 10,.04 681.13 2,145.53 7,854.47 78.54
FUND TOTALS 10,000.00 641_1 147 5.53_ _ _ 7,854.47 78.54 X
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991
TAX REVENUE $00,000.00 $8,961.32 89,045.30 710,954.70 88.86
OTHER REVENUE 90.000,00 5,964.17 21,582.92 68 417,08 76.01
FUND TOTALS 890,DDO,00, 94.925.49 110,628.22 779,371.78 87.56 X
FLOOD CONTROL CONT FUND 199
OTHER REVENUE 50.000..00 9,211.1327,424.94. 22,575.06 45.15
FUND TOTALS 50,Qm.00 9.211.13 27,424.94 2,2:,575.06 45.15 X
08PORATE PULPOSE§k 1 197
TAX REVENUE 136,650.00 231.86 1,375.49 135,274.51 98.99
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 4,100.00 .00 .00 4,100.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 7,500.0 708.52 21201.80 70.64
FUND TOTALS 148.250.00 940.3$ _ x,5779 144,672.71 97.58 X
CORPORATEP 1974
TAX REVENUE
192,000.00
326.41 1,936.42
190,063,58 98.99
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
5,700.00
.00 .00
51700.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE
10,000.00
877.01 2.797.30
_ 7,,70 72.02
FUND TOTALS 207.700.00 1,ZQ3;42 4.733,72 202.966.28 97.72 X
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
8 U D G E T R E V E N U E S U M M A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
SSA #2 BLACKHAWK 8 i, I
TAX REVENUE 16,850.00 .00 206.53 16,643.47 98.77
OTHER REVENUE 7,250M 141.58 453.§A 1,796.56 79.84
FUND TOTALS 19,100,00 141,59 _659,97 18,440.03 96.54 X
EOLICE $ FIRE PLO8 8 1 1991A
TAX REVENUE 342,600.00 .00 .00 342,600.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 900.00 87 334.71 565.29 62.81
FUND TOTALS _ 343.500.00 .97 334,71 � 4334 ,,,165.29 99.90 X
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPNT 0 $ 11991
INTERFUND TRANSFERS _ 75 _ 15w 7S 16.881.25 51.54
FUND TOTALS 32.750.00 -00 15,868.75 16.81,25 51.54 X
INSURAMICE, RESERVE 8 & 1 1987
FUND TOTALS OQ OQ- 00 ,00 .00 X
F T 1A
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 371. SOO,OQOQ 87.26Q.Q0 X88,240.00 76.76
FUND TOTALS 37 500 ,00 87 260.00 _ 288,x,40.00 76.76 X
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPNT 8 S 119870
TAX REVENUE 146,500.00 .00 .00 146,500.00 100.00
8UDGETCUR
NO
Y -T -D
BUDGET
PERCENT
A#1 PROSPECT N A &
A NT
R V
A
A N
TAX REVENUE
19,750.00
.00
66.07
19,683.93
99.66
OTHER REVENUE
�2 ,250.W
�13�
-----4-4,5. 1_3
t804.87 87
8Q 21
FUND TOTALS
77,000 00
133.2Q
511,20
?L488.SO
97.67 X
SSA #2 BLACKHAWK 8 i, I
TAX REVENUE 16,850.00 .00 206.53 16,643.47 98.77
OTHER REVENUE 7,250M 141.58 453.§A 1,796.56 79.84
FUND TOTALS 19,100,00 141,59 _659,97 18,440.03 96.54 X
EOLICE $ FIRE PLO8 8 1 1991A
TAX REVENUE 342,600.00 .00 .00 342,600.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 900.00 87 334.71 565.29 62.81
FUND TOTALS _ 343.500.00 .97 334,71 � 4334 ,,,165.29 99.90 X
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPNT 0 $ 11991
INTERFUND TRANSFERS _ 75 _ 15w 7S 16.881.25 51.54
FUND TOTALS 32.750.00 -00 15,868.75 16.81,25 51.54 X
INSURAMICE, RESERVE 8 & 1 1987
FUND TOTALS OQ OQ- 00 ,00 .00 X
F T 1A
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 371. SOO,OQOQ 87.26Q.Q0 X88,240.00 76.76
FUND TOTALS 37 500 ,00 87 260.00 _ 288,x,40.00 76.76 X
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPNT 8 S 119870
TAX REVENUE 146,500.00 .00 .00 146,500.00 100.00
V I L L A G E 0 F M 0 U N T P R 0 S P E C T
8 U 0 G E T R E V E N U E S U M M A R Y
5/01/92 — 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR NO Y-T—O BUDGET PERCENT
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT 9 &-1 1987D AMOUNT RECEIVED RECEIVED BALANCE BALANCE
OTHER REVENUE 10,000,00 297.49 1,170.95 8,829.05 88.29
FUND TOTALS 156,500.00 e 297.49 1,170.95 155.329.05 99.25 %
P W FACILITY 8 & 1 19878
TAX REVENUE 362,250.00 575.52 3,414.24 358,835.76 99.05
OTHER REVENUE 151000.00 1,452.42 4,344.60 10,655.40 71.03
FUND TOTALS 377,250.00 2,027.94 7,758.84 369,491.16 97.94 %
MNTOVN REDEVLPMT 8 & 1 19879
TAX REVENUE 78,500.00 .00 .DO 78,500.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 115.00 "M 00 115.00 100.00
FUND TOTALS 78,615.00 .00 �00 78,615,00 100.00 %
POLICE PENSION FUND
TAX REVENUE 89,000.00 120.98 717.71 88,282.29 99.19
OTHER REVENUE 2,05,61500.00 159,696.44 428,940.46 1,627,559.54 79.14
FUND TOTALS 2,145,500.00 159,817.42 429,658.17 1,715,841,83 79.97 %
FIR EMEN'$ PENSION FUND,
TAX REVENUE 38,000.00 46.78 277.51 37,722.49 99.26
OTHER REVENUE 2,272,000,00 192,647,61 511,563.0.0 1,760,437M 77.48
FUND TOTALS 2,310,000.00 192,694.32 511,840,51 1,798,159.49 77.84 X
S$A #3 BUS$E—WILLE 0 & I
FUND TOTALS M .00 .00 .00, ,00 %
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
8 U D 6 E T E X P E N D I T U R E S U N M A A Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
BUDGET
CUR NO
Y -T -O
BUDGET
PERCENT
GENERAL FUND
MNT
EXPENDED
XP N.
ulma
RA NC
PERSONAL SERVICES
11,553,510.00
930,081.54
2,621,552.10
8,931,957.90
77.30
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,862,325.00
342,749.32
919,949.16
2,942,375.84
76.18
COMMODITIES
796,415.00
53,810.47
135,791.84
660,623.16
82.94
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
229,855.00
3,066.31
11,392.98
218,462.02
95.04
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
21,795.00
.00
21,280.60
514.40
2.36
PENSION EXPENSE
10.600,00
883.22
24649.66
7,950,34
75.00
FUND TOTALS
16x474,500.00
1,330,590.86
3,712,616.34
12,761 8834¢
77.46 %
REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND
PERSONAL SERVICES
56,930.00
4,173.40
12,218.95 44,711.05 78.53
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,469,700.00
214,911.01
424,295.70 2,045,404.30 82.81
COMMODITIES
17,500100
5,043,54
5,279,8411,920.1() 68.11
FUND TOTALS 2.544,130.00 224,127 95 442J24,49 2,10,?.035,51 82.62 %
MOTOR FUEL TAX. FUND
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66,000.00 13,055.13 15,583.13 50,416.87 76.38
COMMODITIES 75,000.00 .00 .00 75,000.00 100.00
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1.00M00,00 52,Z76.54 120.12 , 700,379.88 70.31
FUND TOTALS 1,148,500.00 65,831.67 314,703.25 833;796,75 72.59 %
90MUNM, DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT
PERSONAL SERVICES
46,750.00
2,839.48
8,841.26
37,908.74
81.08
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
42,850.00
36.92
173.92
42,676.08
99.59
COMMODITIES
11200.00
.00
7.99
1,192.01
99.33
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
185, 100,00
11,147.75
27.735.75
157,364,25
85.01
FUND TOTALS ULM= 14.Q24jj 36.758,92 239,141,08 86.67 %
ILLMUNICIPA6 RETIREMENT FUND
PERSONAL SERVICES -782,835.00 68,106.61 180,199.08 602,635,92 76.98
FUND TOTALS 742.835,0() 68,106.61 180,199.00 602 .635,92 .76.98 %
V I L L A G E 0 F N 0 U N T P R 0 S P E C T
8 U D G E T E X P E N D I T U R E S U N N A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR NO Y -T -D BUDGET PERCENT
BENEFIT TRUST #2 AMOUNT EXPENDED EXPENDED BALANCE ..BALANCE
PENSION EXPENSE 26,000.00 2,166.83 6,500.4919�499.5i 74.99
FUND TOTALS ?6,000.00 2,166.83 6,500.49 19,499,51 74.99 %
LIBRARY FUND
LIBRARY OPERATIONS 2&0,425.00 .00 .00 2_870,425.00 100.00
FUND TOTALS 2,870,425.00 199 Do 2,870.425.00 100.00 %
WATER & SEWER FUND
PERSONAL SERVICES
1,250,230.00
99,935.01
282,140.57
968,089.43
77.43
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,045,700.00
374,662.31
969,706.81
3,075,993.19
76.03
COMMODITIES
351,200.00
36,120.60
82,616.92
268,583.08
76.47
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
396,800.00
6,694.42-
31,447.17
365,352.83
92.07
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
601,925.00
.00
66,094.34
535,830.66
89.01
FUND TOTALS 6.645,855.00 504,023.50 1,439,005.81 5,213,849.19 78.45 %
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND
PERSONAL SERVICES
24,110.00
1,791.50
5,349.28
18,760.72
77.81
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
62,900.00
4,209.54
19,416.25
43,,483.75
69.13
COMMODITIES
5,800.00
194.58
946.08
4,953.92
83.68
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
111000.00
551.74
10,464.74
535.26
4.86
FUND TOTALS 103,810.00 § 747.36 67,633.65 65.15 %
VEHICLg REPLACEMENT FUND
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 503,415,0094,941.40 174.283.42 409,131.58 70.12
FUND TOTALS 5 415 QQ 94,841.40 174,283.42 409,131.59 70.12 %
RISK MANAGgMENT FUND
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES M,12-000 .00 119,169.00 469,932.98 2,04&,M,02 81.29
FUND TOTALS 2,512,900,00 112,169,00 469,939.99 2.042,060.02 81.29 %
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
8 U D G E T EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
POLICE & FIRE OLD
C9
.G
. -NST FUND
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1,830,285.00 .00 .00 1,830,285 00 100.00
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 425.000.00 QO
Do 45.000.00 100.00
FUND TOTALS 2-255.285.00 _00 M
2,255,285.,2 100.00 x
POLIGE & FIRE BONO PROCEED,$
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2J22.215.00 131.533.16 714 650.13 1. W7,564.87 66.32
FUND TOTALS MZ2,215,00 131,533.16 714,6.50.13 1,407,564A7 66.32 %
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 250,000.00 348.95 1,401.97 148,598.03 99.43
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 32J50.0 15,WJS 16,881J5 51.54
FUND TOTALS 292,750.00 348,95, 1Z 7Q_71,_ 265,479.28 93.89 %
DOWNTO-WN REDEVLPMT CM§T 1992
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 9,650.00 .00 .00 9,650100 100.00
FUND TOTALS 9,65g,41 00 QQ 9.650.0.0. 100.00 %
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 801000.00 .00 600.00 79,400.00 99.25
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 390,000.00 26,453.70 142,488.21 247,511.79 63.46
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 485,6 OO �00 87,260,00 328,540.00
82.03
FUND TOTALS 255,800-00 26,453,70 230,348.2l 725,JSI,79 75.89 %
BUDGET
CUR NO
Y -T -D
BUDGET
PERCENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
AMOUNT
EXPENDED
EXPENDED
BALANCE
BALANCE
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
498,500.00
316.16
485,229.31
13,270.69
2.66
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
1,310,960.00
9,018.46
31,625.48
1,279,334.52
97.58
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
64,500.00
AM
00
64,500,00
100.00
FUND TOTALS
1,873,960.00
9,334.,6-2 ,
516,854,79
1,357j03,21
72.41 Z
POLICE & FIRE OLD
C9
.G
. -NST FUND
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1,830,285.00 .00 .00 1,830,285 00 100.00
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 425.000.00 QO
Do 45.000.00 100.00
FUND TOTALS 2-255.285.00 _00 M
2,255,285.,2 100.00 x
POLIGE & FIRE BONO PROCEED,$
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2J22.215.00 131.533.16 714 650.13 1. W7,564.87 66.32
FUND TOTALS MZ2,215,00 131,533.16 714,6.50.13 1,407,564A7 66.32 %
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT CONST 1991
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 250,000.00 348.95 1,401.97 148,598.03 99.43
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 32J50.0 15,WJS 16,881J5 51.54
FUND TOTALS 292,750.00 348,95, 1Z 7Q_71,_ 265,479.28 93.89 %
DOWNTO-WN REDEVLPMT CM§T 1992
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 9,650.00 .00 .00 9,650100 100.00
FUND TOTALS 9,65g,41 00 QQ 9.650.0.0. 100.00 %
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1991
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 801000.00 .00 600.00 79,400.00 99.25
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 390,000.00 26,453.70 142,488.21 247,511.79 63.46
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 485,6 OO �00 87,260,00 328,540.00
82.03
FUND TOTALS 255,800-00 26,453,70 230,348.2l 725,JSI,79 75.89 %
V I L L A G E 0 F M 0 U N T P R,0 S P E C T
8 & 1 1974
8 U D G E T E X P E N D I T U R E
S U M " A R Y
DEBT SERVICE
FUND
EXPENSE
TOTALS
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
24.00 22,624.00
22,624-00
222,77§.00 90.78
222,776.00 90.78 Z
BUDGET CUR 140
Y -T -D
BUDGET
PERCENT
FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 1992 AMOUNT EXPENDED
EXPENDED
BALANCE
BALANCE
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 318501000.00 .00
.00
x,000.00
100.00
FUND TOTALS 3,850,000.00 '00
.00
3,850,000.00
100.00 %
CORPOUTE PURPOSES 8 & 1 1973
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 166,500.00 475.42 10,850.42 155,649.58 93.48
FUND TOTALS 166,5 00 4M42 10,050.42 155,649.58 93.48 %
CORPORATE PURPOSES
8 & 1 1974
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
FUND TOTALS
DEBT SERVICE
FUND
EXPENSE
TOTALS
245,400.00
245.400,0024M
—
24.00 22,624.00
22,624-00
222,77§.00 90.78
222,776.00 90.78 Z
SSA #1 PROSPECT MEADOWS 1) & I
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 22.470.00 .00 4,235= 19,235-00 81.15
FUND TOTALS 22,470.00 .00 4,235.00 ' 18,235.00 81.15 %
0
SSA #2 8LACrHAWK 8 & I
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
FUND TOTALS
30, M .00
30,800.00
QO 2,900-00
.00 2,900.00
27,900.00 90.58
27,900.00 90.58 %
POLICE & FIRE BLM 8 & I 1991A
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 244,455.00 Do 122,016.90 122,43,8, 10 50.08
FUND TOTALS 244A55.00 .00 122,016.90 122,439.10 50.08 %
DOW MTQWN REM
,YLPMT 8& .1 19910
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE
FUND TOTALS
32,750.00
32,750.00
Do 16,368J5
.00 16,368 .75
16,381.25 50.01
16,391,25 50.01 %
V I L L A G E 0 F N 0 U N T P R 0 S P E C T
8 U 0 G E T E X P E N D I T U R E S U M N A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR 140 Y -T -D BUDGET PERCENT
FLOOD CONTROL B & I 1991A AMOUNT EXPENDED EXPENDED BALANCE BALANCE
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 375,5WQQ .00 87,469.35 288,OM65 76.70
FUND TOTALS 375100,99 QQ-A7„469,35 .. Z§IQN_65 76.70 %
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT 8 & 1 19870
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 114,375 .0,0 56,938Z5 49.78
FUND TOTALS 1I4.375,99 Do 57,436.25 56.938J5 49.78 %
P W FACILITY 0 & 1 19879
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 434J30.00 M 89,507.54 344,622.46 79.38
FUND TOTALS 434,130.00 .00$9,507,54 344.§M46 79.38 %
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPNT 8 & I 1987C
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 78,615,00 M 11,807.50 66,80,7,50 84.98
FUND TOTALS M615,00 00 11,807jg 66,607J0 84.98 %
KLICE PENSION FUND
PERSONAL SERVICES 333,500.00 33,350.00 66,700.00 266,800.00 80.00
PENSION EXPENSE 568,00,00 ,5 126J40.24 441,659.Z6 77.75
,Q 4121.80
FUND TOTALS 201,50000 74,871.80 193,040,24 708,459.76 78.58 %
FIRE 'S PENSION FUND
PERSONAL SERVICES 410,000.OD 41,000.00 82,000.00 328,000.00 80.00
PENSION EXPENSE 6051000.00 48.853.38 146,887,% 458,112.16 75.72
FUND TOTALS 220 0
40.7. 94 7
-.1i2_16 77.44 %
CAPITAL IMPROVMJNT 9 & I 1992A
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 68,500100 .0-0 506-32 67.993,§§ 99.26
FUND TOTALS — 68,500.00, 506,12 67.993.08 99.26 %
V I L L A G E 0 F N 0 U N T P R 0 S P E C T
S U D G E T E X P E N D I T U R E S U 9 N A A Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR NO Y -T -D BUDGET PERCENT
FLOOD CONTROL 8 & I 1992A AMOUNT EXPENDED EXPENDED BALANCE BALANCE
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 118,500.00 .00 846.05 117.653.95 99.28
FUND TOTALS 118,500.00 .00 846w05 117,653.95 99.28 %
DOWNTOWN REDEVLPHT 8 & 1 19928
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 10, 250. DO .00 578.92 9,671.08 94.35
FUND TOTALS 10,250,00 .00 578.92 91671,00 94.35 %
SSA #6 GEORGE/ALBERT 8 & I
DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE _3,3,65 ,,00 .00 11,823.75 21,826.25 64.86
FUND TOTALS 33.650.00 .00 11,823,75. 21,826.25 64.86 %
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 49,209,425.00 2,755,524.36 9,145,300.61 40,064,124.39 81.41 %
P R 0 C L A X A T 1 0 N
WHEREAS, through dedication and hard work, CHRIS WALLER has
achieved one of the highest rewards possible to an athlete,
that of being a member of the United States Olympic Gymnastics
Team; and
WHEREAS, CHRIS WALLER is a hometown boy, having been raised in
the Village of Mount Prospect; and
WHEREAS, since the age of 10, CHRIS WALLER has displayed an
interest in gymnastics and continued to pursue his desire to
become the best he could be as a gymnast; and
WHEREAS, while attending River Trails Junior High School, John
Hersey High School and UCLA, CHRIS WALLER continued to
dedicate himself to gymnastics, requiring hours of
conditioning, training, and competition, resulting in numerous
awards; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the determination and dedication,
CHRIS WALLER qualified for the 1992 U. S. Gymnastics Team
competing in Barcelona, Spain and the opportunity to compete
against the best gymnasts in the world; and
WHEREAS, CHRIS WALLER represented the United States of America
with pride and distinction; and
WHEREAS, CHRIS WALLER has brought honor and pride to the
hearts of the residents of Mount Prospect and the entire
Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village of
Mount Prospect do hereby express appreciation and
congratulations to CHRIS WALLER for his years dedication to
his sport, his many achievements and the excellence displayed
in representing the United States of America.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 18th day of August, 1992
P R 0 C L A X A T 1 0 N
WHEREAS, through dedication and hard work, RICH SCHUTZ has
achieved one of the highest rewards possible to an athlete,
that of being a member of the United States Olympic
Weightlifting Team both in 1988 and 1992; and
WHEREAS, RICH SCHUTZ is a hometown boy, having been, raised in
the Village of Mount Prospect; and
WHEREAS, since the age of 12, RICH SCHUTZ displayed an
interest in weightlifting, following in the steps of his
father who was also an award winning weightlifter; and
WHEREAS, RICH SCHUTZ has displayed the desire to excel as a
weightlifter during his years at Prospect High School; and
WHEREAS, RICH SCHUTZ has excelled as a weightlifter, earning
numberous national and international awards; -and
WHEREAS, as a result of the many hours of dedication, and with
great determination RICH SCHUTZ once again qualified for the
1992 U. S. Weightlifting Team competing in Barcelona, Spain
and the opportunity to compete against the best weightlifters
in the world; and
WHEREAS, RICH SCHUTZ represented the United States of America
with pride and distinction; and
WHEREAS, RICH SCHUTZ has brought honor and pride to the hearts
of the residents of Mount Prospect and the entire Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village of
Mount Prospect do hereby express appreciation and
congratulations to RICH SCHUTZ for his years dedication to his
sport, his many achievements and the excellence displayed in
representing the United States of America.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
Dated this 18th 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 "W" liquor licenses by one (1) (Anna's Polish Restaurant,
Two West Busse Avenue), so that hereafter said Subsection A of Section 13.107 of
Chapter 13 shall be and read as follows:
Section 13.12. Numbgr 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-one (21)
Class R Licenses
Nine (9)
Class S Licenses
One (1)
Class T license
Seven (7)
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:
PASSED and APPROVED this
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
day of , 1992.
Village President
FA
Qm
A
B
C
I
G
H
M
P
R
S
Establishment Number
Midwest Liquors; Mrs. P & Me 2
Dumas Walker's; Ye Olde Town Inn 2
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)
Prospect Moose Lodge
Bristol Court Banquet Hall; Mr. Peter's
Banquet Hall
Mount Prospect Park District -Golf Course
Zanie's
Holiday Inn
Shimada Shoten
Artemis; Boo Ill; 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;
Yasuke
El Sombrero; Emerson House; Jake's Pizza;
Jamesoes Charhouse; Kampai; Old Orchard Country
Club Restaurant; Retro Bistro; Sam's Place;
Wild Stallions Cafe
T Thunderbird Lanes
W Anna's Polish Restaurant; Mr. Beef & Pizza;
Pete's Sandwich Palace; Photo's Hot Dogs;
10
1
2
21
9
1
Pizza Hut; Rosati's Pizza; Taqueria Fiesta 7
59
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. IR 38-52-829, all in cook
County, Illinois,
and
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 Clerk
CAF/
8/10/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SCHEDULE I OF ARTICLE XX
OF CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC CODE) OF THE
VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2001, Schedule I entitled "Speed
Restrictions" of Chapter 18 (Traffic Code) of the Village Code of
Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby amended in its entirety by
substituting the following; so that herein after said Section
18.2001 shall be and read as follows:
18.2001
Sec. 18.2001. Schedule I -Speed Restrictions. In accordance with Section 18.601, and when
signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall operate
a motor vehicle in excess of the speed limits indicated upon the following streets or portions
of streets and/or driveways; except the the provisions of Section 18.605, regarding special
speed limits while passing schools, shall take precedence during school days when school
children are present and shall in no way be construed to be in conflict with this Schedule I.
�141.J0Ili)11:2 1
Speed
Direction of Limit
Name of Street Traffic Movement (MPH) Description
Albert St
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Central Rd &
East & Westbound
25
Barberry Ln
Northwest Hwy
Albion Ln
East & Westbound
20
Forest to Prospect Manor Entire Jursidiction
Alder Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Algonquin Rd
East & Westbound
45
Entire Jurisdiction
Almond Ct
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Althea Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Andoa Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Apache Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Aralia Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Ardyce Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Aspen Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Audrey Ln North & Southbound 20 Entire Jurisdiction
Autumn Ln North & Southbound 25 Entire Jurisdiction
Azalea Ln East & Westbound 25 Entire Jurisdiction
Azalea PI
East & Westbound 20
X
Aztec Ln
East & Westbound
25
Barberry Ln
East & Westbound
25
Basswood Ln
East & Westbound
25
Beech Rd
North & Southbound
25
Bittersweet Ln
East & Westbound
25
Bob—o—Link Rd
East & Westbound
20
Bonita Dr
East & Westbound
20
Born Ln
North & Southbound
25
Boulder Dr
East & Westbound
25
Boxwood Dr
North & Southbound
20
Brentwood Ln
North & Southbound
25
Briarwood Dr
North & Southbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
FQ;Ost to Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jursidiction
9!
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
East Briarwood Dr
North & Southbound
Buckthorn Dr
East & Westbound
Centennial Dr
East & Westbound
Bunting Ln
East & Westbound
Burning Bush Ln
North & Southbound
Busse Ave
East & Westbound
Busse Avenue East & Westbound
Busse Rd North & Southbound
Busse Rd North & - Southbound
Camp McDonald Rd Eastbound
Camp McDonald Rd East & Westbound
Carib Ln East & Westbound
Catalpa Ln East & Westbound
Cayuga Ln
East & Westbound
Cedar Ln
East & Westbound
Centennial Dr
East & Westbound
Central Rd
East & Westbound
Central Rd
Central Rd
Central Rd
ectomi Rd
Cheerywood Dr
Cholo Ln
Circle Dr
Columbine Dr
Corktree Ln
Cottonwood Ln
Council Tr
20
Entire Jurisdiction
25
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Entire Jurisdiction
20
R.._est Ave to n., a
Entire Jurisdiction
25
- Ma ner-
Entire Jurisdiction
SeeGwun Ave
20
Btw. We -Go Tr &
20
Weiler Ln
25
Btw. Main St -end-
&
Mount Prospect Road
Wolf Rd
35
Btw, Central Rd &
Algonquin Rd
as
South 9C Al@Qaquin Id
Btw. Algonquin Rd &
Oakton St
35 X
Btw. West Village
Limits & Elmhurst
Rd
35
East .-_ *Bendel Ad
Btw. Mandel Ln &
River Rd
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
25
Btw. Tamarack Dr
Entire Jurisdiction
20
-aad Busse ROO
&
25
Entire Jurisdiction
SeeGwun Ave
25
Entire Jurisdiction
20
Entire Jurisdiction
35 9a
s
BtW. Rand Rd &
Wolf Rd
& Westbound
Westbound
Eastbexad- & Westbound
,nd--
North & Southbound
East & Westbound
North & Southbound
North & Southbound
East & Westbound
East & Westbound
East & Westbound
35 Btw. Busse Rd &
-& Rand Rd
35
arlywX
40 Btw. Busse Rd &
West Village
Limits
2s Rtw Pal Piiv� as
- WiBevr-bn-
25 Entre Jurisdiction
20
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
20
8a-
25
-Iifiaesaex Rde
Btw. Elmhurst Rd &
SeeGwun Ave
Btw Palm Drive &
Entire Juriidiction
Council Tr
East & Westbound
20
Btw. Elmhurst Rd &
East Village Limits
Country Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Crabtree Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Cree Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Cypress Dr
North & Southbound
20
Btw. Willow Ln &
Cottonwood Ln
Dale Ave
North &
--1wAuw- Southbound
20
NeA ef Ne#hwest
Entire Jursidiction
Dempster St
East & Westbound
45
_H_
Entire Jursidiction
Dogwood Ln
East & Westbound 20
P
-EEhn
^ r -^a:^':^
Btw. Boxwood Dr &
Wheeling Rd
Dogwood Ln
East & Westbound
25
Btw. Wheeling Rd &
Barberry Ln
Eastwood Ave
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Edward St
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Central Rd &
Lincoln St
Elm St
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Central Rd &
Evergreen St., and
Btw. Lounquist Blvd
& Golf Rd
Elmhurst Ave
North & Southbound
20
Btw. Prospect Ave &
bineelf sF
Rt 83
Elmhurst Ave
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Central Rd &
Rds_
Kensington Rd
Elmhurst Ave
North & Southbound
20
-Kensity;ton
Btw. Kensington Rd &
Bob-O-Link Rd
Elmhurst Rd
North & Southbound 30
X
Btw. III Rt 83 & Council. Tr
Elmhurst Rd
North & Southbound
35
Btw Council Tr &
Golf Rd
Elmhurst Rd
Southbound
as
South ef Golf Rd
Btw. Golf Rd &
South Village Limits
Elmhurst Rd
Southbound
40
North F E
Btw. Camp McDonal
Rd & Euclid Ave
Elmhurst Rd
North & Southbound
35
Btw. Euclid Ave &
Kensington Rd
Emerson St
North &
tea.. Southbound
20
Btw. Prospect Ave &
Shabonee Tr
Emerson St
North &
-w.#hb..ad_ Southboun 25
20
Btw. Lonnquist Blvd
-sham
Shabonee Tr
Emerson St
Southbound
20
Btw. Milburn Ave &
Shabonee Tr
Emmerson Lane
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jursidiction
Eric Ave
--southbodftd—
North & Southbound
25
lArelf RA,J
Entire Jurisdiction
Estates Dr
Fast &
westbound
20
-Weg-oPUadan-Axg
Btw. Haden Ave &
& Carol Ln
Euclid Ave
East & Westbound 45
Btw. Wheeling Rd &
-&Y---"—
Wolf Rd
Euclid Ave
East & Westbound
40
4kw-fih%hwst4k-PA"
Btw. Rand Rd &
4wo--
Wheeling Rd
Euclid Ave
East & Westbound 35a
Btw. Wolf Rd &
River Rd
Fairview St
North &
Southbound 25
)eB4wr
6rregtteSi Jtc
Btw. Memory Ln &
-KOSSWO—u-
Kensington Rd
Fairview St
North &
Southbound
20
Btw. Memory Ln &
Thayer St
Fairview St
North &
-Northhoua4- Southboun 25
Btw. Thayer St &
Northwest Highway
Fairview St
Northbound
25
Btw. Isabella St &
Northwest Hwy
Forest Ave
North &
-Nertw)aund- Southbound
20
y.,st-..
Btw. Northwest Hwy
& Isabella St
Forest Ave
North & Southbound
20
Btw. Memory Ln &
Bob -O -Link Rd
George St
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction *
Glendale Ln
North & Southbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Golf Rd
East & Westbound
40
-fit ef-beuisS
Entire Jursidiction
Golfview PI
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Golf Rd &
Golfview Ave
Greenbriar Dr
East & Westhound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Greenfield Ct
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Greenfield Dr Greenwood Dr
East & w-b.—d
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Greenfield Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Gregory St
East & Westbound
20
Btw. Waterman Ave
& William St
Harvest Dr
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Haden Ave
North &
Southbound
20
Btw. Central Rd
& Lincoln St
Haden Ave
North & Southbound
20
Btw. Estates Dr &
Loanquist Blvd
Haven St
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Hemlock Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Henry St
East & Westbound
25
Btw. Forest Ave & Rand
Rd
Hiawatha Tr
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Hickory Ave
North & Southbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Highland Ave
East & Westbound
20
Btw. Forest Ave & Main
St
Hi-Lusi Ave
Northbeund-
& Southbound
20
Entire JurSidiction
Hi-Lusi Ave
Southbound
20
Btw Busse Ave &
Central Rd
Hopi Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Horner Ln
North & Southbound
25
Btw Gentral Read
Entire Jursidiction
Hunt Club Dr
North & Southbound
20
X
-Thay-,64046
Entire Jurisdiction
Huntington Common Rd
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Illinois Rte 83
East & Westbound
30
T
Btw. Elmhurst Ave &
Main St
Indigo Ct
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Indigo Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
I -Oka Ave
North & Southbound
25
Btw Golf Rd &
Hiawatha Tr
Ironwood Dr
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Ironwood Pl
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Isabella Ave
East & Westbound
25
Btw Forest Ave & Main
St
Isabella Ave
East & Westbound
25
Btw Main St & Rand
Rd
Ivy Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Judith Ann Dr
East & Westbound
10
61A of Main St
Entire Jurisdiction
Juniper Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
North & Southbound
Kenilworth Ave North &
Northbound
Southbound
20
Nerth of Lineelft St
$tw. Lincoln St &
River Rd
Kensington Rd
East & Westbound
35
woo at mpAeeiiog
Btw. West Village
Limits & Wheeling
Rd
Kensington Rd East &
Eastbound
Westbound 45
VAteelias Rd to so
Btw. Wheeling Rd &
bins RA
Wolf Rd
Kensington Rd East &
Eastbound
Westbound 40
01
BtW. Wolf Rd &
-U-
River Rd
Kensington Rd
Westbound
45
Btw Wolf Rd &
WeAeund
SO
12W ,•7F D.i fes..-..�:-....11/l.^el'^.S
Wheeling Rd
Rd
Kiowa Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Lama Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Lancaster St
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Larch. Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Larkdale Ln
East & Weatbound
20
Btw Forest Ave &
-P
Prospect Manor Ave
Laurel Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Lavergne Dr
North & Southbound
25
-f)hv4I&bn4D*-aa&
pheaftntTfail
Entire Jursidiction
Lincoln St
East & Westbound
25
Bt.. Meier Ad & ws ro
Btw. Douglas Ave &
-T4-aad--
Rtm, rilmhurst 44,0 -
Wego Tr
Lincoln St
East & Westbound
25
Adt 14-spect RA
Btw. Elmhurst Ave &
Mt Prospect Rd
Lincoln St
East & Westbound
20
Btw. Elmhurst Ave &
We-Go Tr
Linden Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Lineman Rd
North & Southbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Locust Ln
East & Westbound
25
8tw. T*nw*ck Bt
IIAUS
Entire Jursidiction
Lonnquist Blvd
East & Westbound
25
Lffiwfve
Btw. Meier Rd & We-Go
Tr and
Btw Elmhx:rst Ave &
William st
Lonnquist Blvd
East & Westbound
20
Btw. Elmhurst Ave *AGI.
&
We-Go Tr
Louis St
North & Southbound
25
Entire jurieition
Lowden Ln
East & Westbound
25
Skm- 28,aa,m I a ad
Entire Jursidiction,
Lynn Ct
North & Southbound
20
Woff Rd
Entire Jurisdiction
MacArthur Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Magnolia Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jursidiction
Main St
North & Southbound
35
9 Wgo Ad
Btw. Kensington Rd &
Central Rd
Main St
North & Southbound
30
f9w, $Xresp" &W Genti
Btw Prospect Ave &
RA,
Central Rd
Main St
North & Southbound
30
Bew. 2GG Ft 1201th,
Btw. Rt 83 &
weasin st ww proopeot
Central Rd
Manawa Tr
East & Westbound
25
Avo
Entire Jurisdiction
Mandel Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire jurisdiction
Maple St
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Golf Rd-owl.
Lonnquist Blvd
Marcclla.4:*- Rd
North & Southbound
25
2w.- 322.71 Peat Smith 4
Theyes stfoo sod 6"
Entire- JUrSidiCtiOn
ag CM0gQVL-
Maya Ln East &
westbound
25
*Ae4 efBeeMbent
Btw. West Village
CASs f QIWd" I a
Limits & Buckthorn
Dr
Maya Ln East &
westbound
20
Btw. Buckdiorawkd-
&
Oneida Ln
Maya Ln
East &
-sa*onnrl
Westbound
25
Eatim
Btw. Oneida Ln &
Mura Ln
Meadow Ln
North &
Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Meier Rd
North & Southbound
25
-ea6tbe1-0d -
Btw. Golf Rd & Lincoln
St
Memory Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Milburn Ave
East & Westbound
25
Btw. CarAdota Ave
Main St
& Emerson St
Mohawk Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Moki Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Mt Prospect Rd
Southbound
30
-40-
Entre Jurisdiction
Mulberry Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
East & Westbound
Mura Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Na Wa Ta Ave
North &
N-;thbuacd
Southbound
20
Btw. Golf Rd &
Lincoln St
Neil Ave
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Newberry Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Nordic Rd
North & Southbound
25
Btw Algonquin Rd and.
&
Carboy Rd
Northwest Hwy
East &
Westbound
40
Btw. Mt Prospect Rd.
-SwAbouad_
& Owen St
Northwest Hwy
East &
-
Westbound
35
Btw Main St ( Rt 83)
sAstb—nd
& Owen St
Northwest Hwy
East &
Westbound
30
Btw. Forest Ave & Main
enthe"'Id
St (Rt 83)
Northwest Hwy
East &
Westbound
40
Btw. Forest Ave &
-eaatbeuad
Waterman Ave
Oak Ave
North & Southbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Oakwood Dr
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Palm Drive4wt -
&
Willow Lane
Oneida Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
East & Westbound
Orchard Pl
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Owen St
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Oxford PI
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Palm Dr
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jursidiction
Park Dr
North & Southbound
25
-Su9so4e"-
Entire Jurisdiction
Pawnee Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Peachtree Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Peartree Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Pecos Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Pheasant Tr
East & Westbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Pima Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Pine St
North &
-Nero&ewmd
Southbound
20
Btw Berkshire Ln &
Lincoln St
Pine St
Southbound
Pine St
North & Southbound
Prospect Ave East &
Westbound
-ems
Prospect Manor Ave
North & Southbound
Prospect Manor Ave
North & Southbound
Quince Ct
East & Westbound
Quince Ln
North & Southbound
Rand Rd Westhound
�-
-eaacbaund-
Rand Rd
-Nw�stbound
Rand Rd
Westbound
Rand Rd
Eastbound
Rand Rd
Eastbound
River Rd
North & Southbound
Robert or
North & Southbound
Rosetree Ln
North & Southbound
Russel St
North & Southbound
Rusty Dr
East & Westbound
Santee Ln
North & Southbound
Sauk Ln
North & Southbound'
Schoenbeck Rd
North & Southbound
School St
North & Southbound
Scott Terr
East & Westbound
See Gwun Ave
North & Southbound
Seminole Ln
Eastbound
Seneca Ln
East & Westbound
Shabonee Tr
East & Westbound
Sioux Ln
North & Southbound
Sitka Ln
East & Westbound
Small Ln
East & Westbound
Sprucewood Ln North & Southbound
25
Btw Berkshire Ln &
Lincoln St
25
Btw. Lincoln St &
Kensington Rd
25
Btw. Central Rd &
est
Maple St
25
Plookwom
Btw Northwest Hwy
-Koasip�
Kensington Rd
20
Btw Kensington Rd &
—W
Rand Rd
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
45
Btw. South Village
Limits & Elmhurst
Rd (Rt 83)
40
Btw. Elmhurst Rd (Rt 83)
& Wedgewood Ln
45
Btw. Wedgewood Ln &
Euclid Ave
40
Btw. Euclid Ave &
Highland Ave
45
Btw. Highland Ave
&
Central Rd
45 -59
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
35
Ww Gamp MeDeas
D_n.1 Dae
Entire Jursidiction
25
-ad
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Btw Golf Rd wW
&
Lincoln St
25
Entire Jursidiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Btw. Maple StAad�
&
Na Wa Ta Ave
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
Entire Jurisdiction
25
m_.._.,...._ r
Entire Jursidiction
2s
.__
m:n...., r a__
Entire Jursidiction
Stevenson Ln
North & Southbound
25
Dw• C-ptr-1 n....A --a
Entire Jursidiction
Stratton Ln
North & Southbound
25
---co. dea-nom
-Bt ar
115,6? ftor+ of
Entire Jursidiction
Sumac Ln
North & Southbound
25
Lowden LMO
Entire Jurisdiction
Sunset Rd
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Sycamore Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Tamarack Dr
North & Southbound
25
-•Btv-Palm-irir'ead-
Entire Jursidiction
Tano Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Thayer St
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jursidiction
Thornwood Ln.
East & Westbound
25
Wb f-ROW
Entire Jursidiction
Wa Pella Ave
North & Southbound
20
and Lavofga a LiucL
Btw Central Rd and
Council Tr
Wa Pella Ave
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Golf Rd &
Sunset Rd
Waverly Ave
North & Southbound
25
Btw. Golf Rd &
Lonnquist Blvd
Waverly PI
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jursidiction
Wedgewood Ln
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
We Go Tr
North & Southbound
20
XoAL-aLLinccln.
Btw. Lincoln St &
Central Rd
Weller Ln
North & Southbound
20
Sg-tL of rea,V,1 ua
Entire Jursidiction
Westgate Rd
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Wheeling Rd
North & r>lQ49abound_ Southbound
25
Entire jafifidiatie
Btw. Euclid Ave &
Kensington Rd
White Oak St
East & Westbound
20
Entire Jurisdiction
Wille St
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
William St
North & Southbound
25
Entre Jurisdiction
Willow Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Wilshire Dr
North & Southbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Wintergreen Ave
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Wistoria Ct
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Wolf Rd
North & Southbound 40
X
Entire Jurisdiction
Wood Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Woodview Dr
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
Yates Ln
North & Southbound
25
8tw. 9 motiaa4Aae
Entire Jursidiction
Yuma Ln
East & Westbound
25
Entire Jurisdiction
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
FROM:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
MLI
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
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 Hackberrq 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
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
SUBJECT 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 hearin& -
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 allow a 240 square foot shed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lannon.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Savano, and Pratt
NAYS: Cassidy
The request was denied because a minimum of 4 votes is required for a positive
recommendation.
Raymol P. Forsyt�,
Planner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENK-
TS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JUNE 17, 1992
CASE NO.: ZBA-36-V-92
APPLICANT. ROLAND H. BRACHER
ADDRESS: 800 IRONWOOD DRIVE
LOCATION MAP:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
LOT SIZE: 8,750
% COVERAGE: 36% (37.46 proposed)
F -A -R.: N/A
GH 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.
I 101WItt.w. WaDK#19041 41 I
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 landscaping 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%.
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.
119"TC4304
CAF
8/11/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 800 IRONWOOD DRIVE
WHEREAS, Roland H. Bracher (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 commonly
known as 800 Ironwood Drive (hereinafter referred to as Subject
Property), legally described as:
Lot 182 in Brickman Manor First Addition, Unit #2, being
a subdivision of part of the West 1/2 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 26, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of
the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois;
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks a variation from Section 14.102 to allow
a 240 square foot accessory structure, rather than the permitted
120 square feet; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variation requested being
the subject of ZBA Case No. 36-V-92 before the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 23rd day of July,
1992, after a continuation from the June 25, 1992 meeting, pursuant
to due and proper notice thereof published in the Mount Prospect
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 variations
being the subject of ZBA 36-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 14.102 to allow an accessory structure 240 square feet
in size, as shown on the site plan attached hereto and hereby made
a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
SECTION THREE: Except for the variation granted herein, all other
applicable Village of Mount Prospect Ordinances and regulations
ZBA 36-V-92
Page 2 of 2
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR: In accordance with the provisions of Section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted herein
shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction
begins within one (1) year from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
SECTION FIVE: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
kly W 0 ** QP
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
,1992.
c►� C'A RP��Tz�� Ley, � T' � ��'
L�-1 • (CO
.ire
10
y
P �
/S2
1
/O 7,3
ell;
0
m 4��
b4
c°r
M /RJ_S
IROAIWOOD Y
HiQ'/ E
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONI LIAGE MANAGER
�T4
SI&4
FROM:
DAVID X CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 27, IM
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
4
VIATOP'SURVEY
Sy
ilEVERTSEN SURVEY SERVICE INC,
215 SOUTH MIDGE AVENUE
ARLINGTON H[10"I$, ILLINOIS SOOOS
OF
&I inMork7 in Hillcromt, being a dlltdl,kalcn In the Nn! the,,st 1/1� of l the
ept the North 2-7/8 AereA thereof)
) or c tI n '41, Tnvlslhlp 6,' N—th. k,nwe
'hlrd principal Meridian, al,,.o the N—th of the
(,ppt the Leet 295.1 Feet Of the IOLlth Feet IVl"p
'.'t ,
1, ../;' of the f;outh.*rt 1/1, th,renr) �1Y 1-
-N-0-
64k
-q,
C—W.Itarok)
PAGE
1, Ed*atdt ghvitvfwI%, s R"Wt,.d 114—h
K"oby cestgy "I I ba- sm—wd tho v
"bona. Aw flw*t
�hq P11.4 Ww— b— I.
9 be%" oiroov a", ftc 0—m
olio.
b. IrW. A-Prt 06MIA to orr **K* ld oocC BOAC16" %Vk" OW
m4Y w+wlt lt-v IWII w ftcord"r dw ww4w atb-4-4r to yow
eMrrwag "r&
-'ll -'/.!"Z
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.B.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
14.102.13.2 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 built on the property with a
similar setback to the existing one -car garage. He stated he hoped to maintain a more
usable rear yard by maintaining the same setback.
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 518" Class X drywall be added to the garage for fire
safety. Mr. Sobey agreed to the condition.
ZBA44-V-92
Page 2
Accordingly, Vice Chairman Cassidy asked for a motion on the request. Mr. Lannon moved
that a variation be re oxnm ndcd 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. CLEMENwrl,TS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: JULY 15, 1992
CASE NO.: ZBA44-V-92
APPLICANT: MARTIN AND RENATA SOBEY
ADDRESS: 214 NORTH WILLE STREET
LOCATION MAP:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
FAX:
J
R -I Single Family Residential
7,252.30
37% (existing) 42% (proposed)
N/A
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.102.8.2 to allow an accessory structure
to be constructed with a minimum side yard setback of 1.91 ft. instead of the required 5 feet.
P NG AND Z I N! OMMEM AND CONCERNS
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 ft. 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.
MER DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
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.
I
SUMNMY RECOWMEND-ATIQN
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
CAF/
8/11/92
10) "10 4 z ?4X1 [a) A a N410 P
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 214 NQRTH WILLE STREE
WHEREAS, Martin and Renata Sobey (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioners) have filed an application for a variation from Chapter
14 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois, for property
commonly known as 214 North Wille Street (hereinafter referred to
as Subject Property), legally described as:
Lot 4 in Block 7 in Hillcrest, being a subdivision in the
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (except the north 2-
7/8 acres thereof) of Section 34, Township 42 North,
Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, also the
North 23.5 acres of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 (except the West 295.1 feet of the South 295.1 feet
lying North of the South 543 feet of the East 1/2 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 34 thereof) all in Cook County,
Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioners seek a variation from Section 14.102.B.2 to
allow a 1.91 foot side yard setback, rather than 51 as required, in
order to construct a two -car garage; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variation requested being
the subject of ZBA Case No. 44-V-92 before the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 23rd day of July,
1992, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published in the
MoUnt Prospect Herald on the 7th day of July, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have
given further consideration to the variation being the subject of
ZBA 44-V-92 and have determined that the best interests of the
Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting a 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 14.102.B.2 to allow a 1.91 foot side yard setback in
order to construct a two -car garage as shown on the Site Plan
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". This
variation is granted subjected to installing Class X fire -rated
drywall in the garage.
SECTION THREE: Except for the variation granted herein, all other
applicable Village of Mount Prospect Ordinances and regulations
a
ZBA 44-V-92
Page 2 of 2
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property:
,SECTION FOUR: In accordance with the provisions of Section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted herein
shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction
begins within one (1) year from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.'
SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
rlw*s
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
P14AT OF SURVEY,
,iwvtlgT$*m .sumvEY stotvnCt
2tS #Iplii'M AM AVl Nn/1
AIMMINOTtnN MN1n{, II.iwGMS d0110�
4 in Stork 7 In Hillerest, being a Jur.dtv(afon in the Nor(heust 1/,• r! rh• ".r+�rh:r::
pt the North 2-7/S Accept thereof) of e•tl n !4. Tr.rnr,hlp 4; Nn.(h, k�n,ce
11. h•i,! ,+
hlyd rineipai Meridien, aluo the North —.S Acren of th. r+,thra: : l/o rf (':• .r„ 0
t,.
e*rept the beet 295.1 Fnet of the Krurh ."'.1 Feet ]vine Nrrin IN
o1 "r„Ih ',•.+ Ia.l
1' t 1/2 or the aouthwe,t 1/4 ^f rr:!�n '4 thereof) .,11 1••."ink ty rllln� ,
z
c u � ti1i
a"
ad-144-,
X'zm;z;1-
1. Aw
� A
` N "
.t_ -i
r j
�
' °�«
,. ShN d'lN 5.5
,.. " Ce.ry al Co" :,
.
EaFMwIAL"liewsresrw.emeewdfl4e.m1.
*+�. +Y CaM!/e`IAeI I ltr�nr :Nwv+- 0
'^^ pnM wMEll thee; wF, aEelMMelf$ or **z
atolvkwo dlslaw ob we. Md OR eiMt w boom is
M MrMaee'eeinrlMryl wW �' w . h IM'rr*wMr.yd rhr„sMd awe d Maid fti-v,
tMM Iawd-, M►eN Mega M eMl'ra M sera. nnaAdlMrd MMIIII aMd ♦•
.fwr��ayes+M Ma taraelfrMdir MM aMMea: aaM+raa �lrvwyenr TITS �°bAV 41F.
,.
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.
DMC:hg
HTC,
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
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.
DMC:hg
W
�
50
s / rff PLAN
Survey brought op to dot to Mow oil
improvements on Fra 'w
19 9z
btwg 11 up to data to show .0
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 5.5 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 4-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village
Board for their consideration.
.aym nd P. Fo h
Planner
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PtANNING 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:
ON
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
% COVERAGE:
FA.R.:
R-1 Single Family Residential
7,253.80
54% (existing) 54% (proposed)
.27 (existing) .28 (proposed)
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
REMM
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.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS A" CONCERN
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 5/8" 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
CAF
8/11/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY
LQCATEQ AT 104 NOM EASTWOOD
WHEREAS, Walter J. Szymczak, Jr. and Patricia A. Szymczak
(hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have filed an application
for a variation from Chapter 14 of the Village Code of Mount
Prospect, Illinois, for property commonly known as 104 North
Eastwood (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property), legally
described as:
Lot 9 in Block 18 in Prospect Manor, being a subdivision
of part of the South 3/4 of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2
of Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, as per plat thereof recorded
March 6, 1926 as Document Number 9199191, in Cook County,
Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioners seek a variation from Section 14.102 to allow
a five foot six inch (51 611) separation between a principal
structure and an accessory building in order to construct a kitchen
addition; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variation requested,
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 45-V-91, before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 23rd day of
July, 1992, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published in
the Mognt Prospect Herald on the 7th day of July, 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 45-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 14.102 to allow a five foot six inch (51 611)
separation between the principal structure and an accessory
building in order to construct a kitchen addition, as shown on
Exhibit "A". This variation is subject to a condition of
installing fire -rated Class X drywall in the existing garage.
SECTION THREE: Except for the variation granted herein, all other
applicable Village of Mount Prospect ordinances and regulations
I
ZBA 45-V-92
Page 2 of 2
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR: In accordance with the provisions of section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted herein
shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction
begins within one (1) year from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
,1992.
ily
Yds Ob
ft�tt
4
�E
FE
S1T� PLAN
Survey brought up to daft, m ~ all
improvement: on fm Mu
+stared Ntirft# tttvay0r`�T+1$
�1 tt6 b " m aha. aM
ids
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIWAr,S, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE:
JULY 24, 1992
SUBJECT- ZBA-4&V.92, EDWIN AND SUSAN BOUNDY
LOCATION: 15 SOUTH WA-PELLA AVENUE
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 -PELLA AVENUE
F7 F__
4 MIS
fw
2 f h't
0"
IL 1
Q5
<
oq L L 1_�_ lk
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 14.10232 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 WaPella 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 slab.
Becky Maroot, Planning Intern, then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Ms. Maroot stated the petitioner s,requesting a variation to allow a.5 ft. W) rear
setback and a 4 foot sideyard setback for a shed, instead of the minimum 5 foot required
by Code. She stated the petitioner. would like to construct a new shed on an existing 1W x
12' cement slab in their rear yard. W Maroot stated that the surrounding area consisted
Of a 3 ft. chain-link fence and a raw of dense, 5 foot tall 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 former me
staff supports the minimum rear setback
location and the neighbors not objecting.
Mr. Peter Lannon asked if the proposed
Vice Chairman Cassidy then asked for co
Dennis Saviano stated that the petitioner
neighbors. Mr. Cassidy read one letter of
then stated several names of other suppoi
There being no further discussion, Vice
request. Mr; Pratt moved that the Zoning
building to have an interior minimum lot
inches instead of the required 5 feet, at
seconded by Mr. Saviano.
Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Lannon,
NAYS: None
The motion carried by a vote of 4-4. This i
Board for their consideration.
ZBA-46-V-92
Page 2
tal shed did not have any impact on the area and
, only on the basis of the former shed at this
shed will be same size as the existing shed.
mments+from members of the Zoning Board. Mr.
did a good job receiving letters of support from
support from an adjoining property owner. He
t Cassidy asked for a motion . on the
Appeals approve a detached accessory
A of 4 feet and rear yard setback of 6
i WaPella Avenue. The motion was
ano: and Cassidy
immendation will be fora
AA
Becky Maroot,
Planning Intern
the Village
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
8 U D 6 E T R E V E N U E S U M M A R Y
5/01/92 - 7/31/92
BUDGET CUR NO Y -T -D BUDGET PERCENT
SSA #4 BUSS E-WILLE 8 & I A14OUNT RECEIVED RECEIVED BALANCE BALANCE
FUND TOTALS :o.Q J)o - DO .00 %
CAPITAL IMPROVMENT 0 a r 1992A
43,531,520.00
2,585,342.89
7,129,298.09
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
64,500.00
.00 .00
64,500.00 100M
OTHER REVENUE
100,00
9,21 35.23
64,77 64.77
FUND TOTALS
-----6L.-02-
9.21 35.23
64,564.77 99.94 %
FLOOD CONTROL 8 4 1 199ZA
43,531,520.00
2,585,342.89
7,129,298.09
36,402,221.91
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
110,300.00
.00
.00
110,300.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE
200.00
17,31
-----6L.-02-
138,98 69.49
FUND TOTALS
110,500.0
17,31
61.02,
99.94 %
DOWNTOWN RRREVLPMT 0 & 1 19928
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 9,650.00 „00 9,650.00 100.00
OTHER REVENUE 00 1,60 5.29 5.9 .00
FUND TOTALS 9,650.00 1,60 5.29 19,644.71 99.94 %
$$A #6 GEORGE/ALBERT 0 & I
TAX REVENUE 32,300.00 .00 203.98 32,096.02 99.36
OTHER REVENUE 1.000.00 49,22 185-50 814,50 81.45
FUND TOTALS 33„300 QQ_
49,22 389,48 3?.210.52 98.83 %
TOTALS ALL FUNDS
43,531,520.00
2,585,342.89
7,129,298.09
36,402,221.91
83.62 %
LESS TRANSFERS
-1,017,700.00-
.00
103,128.75-914,571.g5-
89.86 %
TOTAL REVENUES
42,513,820.00
2585,342.09
7,026,16 34
35,487,650.66
83.47 %
VIN : Wra
O/o6Z :39V'2IaAOZ) %
*U *bs S*OgL'L Wis loll
juljuap!sajj,(j!tuuA alauls I.0 :DNINOZ
:Noimiwas3a AIMMOIld
:am KOLL` Z)Orl
anNaAV V'113d-VM HIaOS 51 :Smuc[v
AuNaou Nuc SRS aNv Nimm :JINVZ)Ilddv
Z6-A-9t,-VUZ :.ON 3sva
2661 'tT ArIfIf :aLva
ONINNrld 40 NOJ.33HI(i 'SJLN3W3'lD 'N OIAVU :WOHA
")m
NYMIVHZ)'NINSV9'11f)
97V3ddV AO GWV09 ONIN07 J03dSONd INMOW :01
sioutill 113adsOad junoW
JX3KLNVd3a f)MIMNV'ld
JDgdSONd JLNfIOW AO 39VTIIA
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
The petitioner is requesting a variation from Section 14.102.B.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 recontmend
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
Z6 -A -9V VqZ
SUOT4Plnb9a PUP saouvuTpao 4oadsoad 4UnOK 30 9bvTTTA 9TqPDTTdd2
a9q4O TTV 'UT9a9q P94URJb UOTqRTaVA 9144 10; 4deoxa -
:aa-dHtL Nolloas
-bUTPTTnq Aaossaoop p9qoPq9p
P MOTTV o4 aepao uT 3[ovq4as pavA aega (,,9) 140UT XTS v pup 3(oleq4as
PaPA 9PTS aOTa94UT (,V) 400; V e MOTTV 04 S-ZOT-VT UOT408S MOa;
UOTqPTaRA 9 Aqaadoad 4oalqns eqq oq queab Aqaaaq 4oad;oaa 4unoK
go ;af)PTTTA 9q4 JO S894SM11 JO PaeOg PUP 4u9PTs6ad 9ql :OMI NOIlDaS
-4oedsoad 4unoK go 9bPTTTA 9144 JO
s984snal JO PaV09 Pup 4usPTsOad 9T44 Aq 4ov3 go sbuTpuTj SP UT9a9q
pa4viodaOOUT eap aAoquUT9a9q q4aO3 49S sTv4TDaa W41 :aNO NOIlOaS
:SIONIUaI 'AlKnOD XOOD '10adSOIld lKnOK JO HOVIIIA alll aO saaisfim
aO CrdVos Qmv INaGIsaud alli xq caxivauo li as a-doaaHa&L 'MON
-UOT4VTaPA PTPs bUT4UVab
Aq pat-Tas aq PTnom -4ogdsoici 4unoK go ObeTTTA 9144 go S4S9'-194UT
4seq aqq 4PT44 POUTM-1949P 9APq PUP Z6 -A -9t Vqz go 4oalqns 9q4 bUT9q
UOT4PTaPA 8q4 04 UOT49aePTSUOD aeq4anj U9ATb eAeq ebPTTTA 9144 go
sqaistal go papos PU,R 4u9PTsaad 9q4 PUP 4oa'dsoad 4unoK go 9bvTTTA
9q4 JO S;994SrLl1 JO P-TPOS PUP 4U9PTS9.1d 9q4 04 UOT4RPU9UrMO08-T
PUP SbUTPUT; s4T peqqTmqns seg sTpeddV go papog bUTUOZ 9q4 'SVa-daHM
Pup !Z66T 'ATnf go App lq4L 9q4 UO PTV10H 40odsoad 4utioR
9q4 UT paqsTlqnd ;oeaaq4 9OT40U a9doad pup anp oq qupnsand 'Z66T
IATnr go App paCZ aqq uo qpedsoad 4unON JO 069TTTA 9q4 go sTeaddV
go Papog buTuoz aq4 aaojeq Z6 -A -9V 'ON 9sP0 V9Z go qoalqns eq4
bUT9q pa4sanbaj UOTqRTaPA 9144 UO P19q SPM bUTaR9q OTTqnd P 'ISVa-dHHM
PUP !bUTpTTnq Aaossaoop paqop4ap v 94vpomm000p
04 a9pJO UT 1peainbea sp s upq4 aaq4ea l3foeq4as pxPA apea (,,q)
14OUT XTS P pupXopq4es PIPA 9PTs IOTa94UT (,v) 400; anoj P moTTP
04 Z'S*ZOT*VT UOT409S UlOaj UOT4RTJVA V X89S Sa8UOTqTq9d 'svauaHm
PUP
STOUTTTI 'A4UnO0 5(000 'URTPTa9K TpdTOUTad
PJTT41 Olq'4 go 4Spa ITT 8buleld 'q4 -10N Ti, dTlqSUMOj UT
TTp 'ZT UOT409S 90 a94aPnD 4samq4aON OT44 go 4aed pup ITT
UOT409S go ae4xeno 49paq4jox 9T44 go 4.xed go UOTSTATpqns e
bUi9q 'aOURK TPTUOTOD s,Auedmoo Aaaag AoU •H UT T6Z 4OU
:sv P9qT23s9P ATTPb9T I(A4aadoaa 4oalqns
SP 04 P91a939a a94;RUT9a9q) PTT9d vm q4nos gT se umOUX ATuOUTMOD
A4aadoad aoj 'STOUTTT
. . i l4oadsoad qunoK go 9PO0 9bvTTTA aq4 go VT
ae4dPT40 moij UOT4pTxeA P ;10; UOT4leOTTddie up POTTJ 9APq (saeuo-pT49cl
Sle 0:4 P9.2.193Oa -l943RUT9a9q) Apunoq uesnS pup UTMpa I
SVaHaHM
Vqqaa VM rlOS 9T IV (laLVD(YI
AlHHdOHd HOa NOLlVIHVA V 9XIINVU0 R0NVNIG60 KV
*ON aomvxia*ao
Z6/TT/8
/av;)
Page 2 of 2
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR: In accordance with the provisions of Section 14.604
of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the variations granted herein
shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction
begins within one (1) year from the date of passage of this
Ordinance.
SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet
form in the manner provided by law.
WMF
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
-uais Iutluaptsai agi gSnoigl
lou pus psog pusg jo jjo lgSnoiq aq ag3nii uolptuisuoo oql 1Eg1 pa3Isu uioX -.TW uojuaZ)
uoiSutsaag aqi uio.g otysii aqi of pandmoa 1-owiunu si iowis sig uo gosngo agi uioij iouduit
agi a aqi isgi paisls aH -isonbai agi jo lzoddns ut axods `multi1Acl 't�I 10£ `ujoX ugof 'jW
•losdun us osod lou pinogs pus Isuitunu aiam suotluusn aSuianoo iol pus
Su Ind aqi isgi pine sivauraimboi aauuuipio ima gnglas IIs isgi pollomput oglAsio3 -jW
-pamollu umuiTnw
0/091 aqi ;o psalsut aSsianoa iot OML'Lb AIamunxoiddu mollu of uopVt mA d Z
'Z££
of Sq£ utoij saosds Sunliud pannboi aqi ut uotlonpoi s mope of uotisusn V j
:suogiouun Suimollo; aqi su Ilam se `suopIppu posodoid aqi `obHoZ) aqi sapnlout isanbaa
Qfld aqi Imp Paisatput aH -oSolloD s opnlaut Xlluagtaads l�usaop inq loulslu Islluaplso-d
j -g us ut gamga s smollu aouuutp10 SutuoZ aqi vagi polsls `iauuuld `oglAsio3 Amd
•ainioniis Sutlstxa oql sagaluui pasn oq of uStsop pus sluualiew aqi 1ug1 pallemput
puu saotltppu Sutppnq agi uo uopmuojui :)g ads anus uagi iopoX pregatg loaitgond
-uuld aqi uo indut itagi iaS pus sioggStau
aql uuo3ut of Z66I `OZ (Inf uo Sutiaaui poogioggStau u plag psq X;Dgl vagi palsotpul
aHuoMppu �{reiq.1 amin3 s pus `aouds ooglo polulaz puu Aiunlouss lsas OOL pasodoid
agi Paquasap OH •suotitpps pasodoid oql 3o moLuoAo uu onuS uagl iptulgoS klnH 'Aa -d
10IUSIQ Xnd aql of plos Almaoai sum fwadoid nogl 3o soin g iugi polsalput OH
aSaiioD Puu goinqD a3r1 ustistmD aqi 3o tiolsT.q u anuS llWoW IbuQ •Ao-d `Sullaoui oql
IV 766I `£Z (Inf 3o Supoom nagl lu lsonbai aql paiaptsuoo slsaddd 3o pmog SutuoZ agZ
-agalloo Pus goingD a31'I umsuga io3
�iglt aanln3 pun uotitpps us mollu of luouidolaeaQ llufl pouuuld s iuu
o; ltad as fl lutoadS
i! jo uouvpuou uiooas vagi uopsiaptsuoo inoA loj siluxsuuii sluaddd 3o pmog SutuoZ oq L
A,HOOgHO Im 00b WOLLV D011
HOT1 IO3 GXV Hauaw) aAi i NVUSIHHJ `Z6-flS-6b-VgZ :joajrEns
2661 `LZ AIM mva
9AIWMd dO xoLaaxiQ Sj.I L1Ia'IO "NI CIIAva :NIONA
Haf)VNVVNI 3ov l'IlA `SINOKvf . 113VHDIW :O.L
sloulllI `laadsoad MOW
JddHMNVd3U 9NINN Id
JOUSONd INflOW AO 3OV'I'IIA
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
99 -Iz
yo U)
r�C
i ait +mea e w
��a7paot
-, � - � L t nt1!`j } �c+a.G-Pt ; .,) E i * F 4 L•
btlli..b€Wtq
. 1
r
t. f � •
\l
4
i t � f�}" T € E 3 C� � r � t -3 � � � ) >• )e..a. is....,. -r..} . )� >� t=tTEfiiS'kf�e.i � 1
�.-�—_. i� l 1 E�—�� E� s� ♦� �-' 4 i L 3 - i 'I 4. a• 1 S�� t
3)TL PLAN �• wev r-vG --- a ate - .,maa. `wr.+<.t
3o♦i0 M
I�r y� ✓•✓ ;„ t� G.d6M0.T ,G}+„t>'ON ITfnnY
,'�� G ls,U-0• „',O<.`OYwUIG. E e i. tr=r�C+3Ja`aC.r `� +ami Y.f.
-4
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
included allowing a college in the "R-1" 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 parking spaces from 365 to 332.
2. A variation to allow approximately 47.75% 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 Kom, 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%a instead of the maximum. allowed
45%.
ZBA-49-SU-92
Page 3
'nese 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 list 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 nd 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:
GH Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
Location 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.
ZQning and Land Ilse:
The property is currently zoned "R-1" Single Family and is improved with a 33,000
square foot brick building occupied by Christian Life Church and College.
grounding Zgning and Land Use,:
North: "R-1" Single Family; Mount Prospect Park District property - Vacant
East: "R -l" Single Family; residences
South: "R-1" Single Family; residences
West: "R-1" Single Family; residences
Lot Coverage:
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.
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 -l" 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. . .
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 plan 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 landbaaked 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.
The "R -l" 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%.
Landscaps Plan:
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:
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.
UMMMUM
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
0061j"W10 3,
EngineedjiV
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.
Inspection Senjces,-
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.
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. .
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.
KIAMAMWAV; •
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 -l" 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. , All outstanding issues and concerns of Engineering, Inspecti6n Services and
Public Works shall -be addressed and 'resolved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
DMC:hg
CAF/
8/12/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE
NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH/OLLEGE, 400 EAST GREGORY $MET
WHEREAS, the Christian Life Church/College (hereinafter referred to
as Petitioner) has filed an application for a Special Use in the
nature of a Planned Unit Development for . located at 400 East
Gregory Street (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property)
and legally described as follows:
The South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of Rand'Road, except the
North 229.93 feet, as measured at right angles and except that
part thereof dedicated for street purposes as per Document No.
18617987, in Cook County, Illinois
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks a Planned Unit Development for a church
and college, to allow an addition to the existing structure and
plans for a library to built in the future; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for amendment
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 49 -SU -92 before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 23rd day of
July, 1992, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published
in the Mount Prospect Herald on the 7th day of July, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings on
the proposed amendment to a Special Use to the President and Board
of Trustees; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the
Village of Mount Prospect would be attained by granting the request
in ZRA 49 -SU -92.
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 a Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit
Development is hereby granted to the Subject Property, which
Planned Unit Development provides for a church and college, and an
addition to the existing structure with plans for a library to be
added in the future, all as shown on the site plan attached hereto
as Exhibit "A", subject to the following conditions:
1. The land -banked parking as shown on the Site Plan shall only
be built when demand warrants additional parking, as
determined by the Director of Planning.
2. A final Landscape Plan shall be submitted that meets the
requirements of Chapter 15 of the Village Code.
SECTION TME: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
H
ZBA 49 -SU -92
Page 2 of 2
effect from and after its passage, approval ant 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
TWN
fit
q4�b
28010%;+.ra we V&
91 - U -1z
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
W
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONTS, 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 ELMHURST 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. Janonis
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 onepass
DMC:hg
mo _ --®—es_m ul-"jD -—
i a —
r
j i F t
I #
PROPOSEQil{#SGOBUIIDlNG
I I�
I I £
I
llllll\lll\lll\l\lll\l\
RMA
I I
V /
i
i
! f
t
_I
� �
f
J
,. a
MINUTES OF THE 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 Randburst 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/Randbursi 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 Randburst 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
ZBA-50=SU-92
Page °'2
depicted the new Jewel Store on the east side of the property at the location of the, existing
East Drive with the main entrance to the store facing west, Mr. Rielley stated that this
location is necessary in order to keep the existing Jewel Store in operation, and so as not
to encroach on the location of the existing ring road to the south with the new grocery store.
Mr. Rielley stated that such an encroachment to the south would require approval by
shopping center anchors.
Mr. Bob Brown then introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated that
Jewel has always been; a part of the Randhurst Shopping Center beginning in 1962 with =a
store located in the original Mall. He explained that in 1970 the existing building was
constructed, and that at this time the company needs to construct a large prototype store
to stay competitive in this particular location. He explained that the upgrade is.necessary
to maintain growth for the company at Randhurst, and that Jewel has been working for the
last two years with Rouse on this subject, He indicated that Jewel wants to stay at the
Randhurst Shopping Center, and that they had worked hard discussing several alternatives
for the store and issues involved with the location that bad finally been selected. Mr. Brown
stated that it is necessary to keep the existing store open during construction, and that the
location, as proposed, accomplishes that goal and. also meets the constraints that Randhurst
has with shopping center leases for the anchors, Mr. Brown stated that one key feature of
the site plan is that the prime customer parking in front of the store is increased
substantially, and he concluded by stating that the company would like to begin construction
this fall or in early 1993.
Mr. Jerry Aulisio then introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated he is
a planning consultant working with Rouse/Randhurst on this matter, and Mr. Aulisio
continued an overview of the site plan:. He focused on the landscaping and buffering of the
store from the properties to the east, Particularly the multi-family areas in Boxwood. He
stated that the: setback from Euclid increases the farther south it goes, and provides a wider
buffer adjoining the Boxwood neighborhood: He stated that this area would be planted with
8' and 10' pine trees in order to provide year around screening and reduce the impact of the
new store on those adjoining properties. He also presented a rendering of the proposed
store:
Mr. Aulisio also described how East Drive is being relocated with this site plan, and on a
mounted exhibit showed how East Drive was being looped from its present location to south
of the theatre +bringing all the East Drive traffic to the stop light near the theatre. He
believed that this was an improvement and that it would require all traffic to use signalized
intersection and avoids turning movement problems that exist presently at East Drive and
Euclid,
Mr. Lannon asked for more specifics on the location of the ring road and Mr. Cassidy asked
how far the proposed building is from the east property line. Mr. Aulisio stated that the
Jewel Store is approximately 70 feet from the property line, and again 'summarized the
proposed change in the location of the ring road. Mr. Aulisio also described the location
of the existing ring road and East Drive.
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 met 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 line 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 parking 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.
Mr. Clements then summarized the traffic
stated that as the traffic report suggested
Clements stated that Village staff believe
traffic to the signalized intersection at'Euc
Heights is concerned about the realignmen
through traffic through their residential nei
that Prospect Heights had submitted a Ic
would support the plan based on a Gond
barrier at the signalized intersection to pr
Mr. Clements also stated that staff had bee
blocks the line of sight to the restaurant as
and that the owner of these commercial F
that he believed visibility of the stores is
stated his staff had prepared a sight line
proposed Jewel Store, and that depicts the
Jewel Store to a 30 foot setback. Mr. Cler
the line of sight increases 85 feet along E
Clements stated, .while the -sight line is
setback, he believed that this is relatively m
Road,
Mr. Clements concluded his statements
constraints that have made it difficult to d
requirements. Mr. Clements indicated the
he believes the advantages to a new J
disadvantages of an inadequate Euclid set]
to provide as attractive a plan as possible i
Euclid is a design flaw that is difficult t(
believes that the plan is adequate, but not
open space.
Mr. Cassidy then asked for comments fi
introduced himself to the Zoning Board
commercial property to the east. Mr. C
location of the Jewel Store, and stated that
virtually blocks visibility of the commercial
a letter from real-estateappraiser Vincen
Store would have an adverse impact on
presented a petition` to the Zoning Board c
238 persons who objected to the relocatii
negative impact on the properties to the e;
precedent in Zoning Board records to
commercial building, and also noted that
the commercial driveways to the east. He i
would be a nuisance and suggested that th
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 4
study that was submitted by the petitioner, and
the proposed road network is adequate. Mr.
s there are advantages to bringing East Drive
id. However, he noted that the City of Prospect
of East Drive and the potential of increased cut-
;hborhood to the north, Mr. Clements explained
tter to the public hearing file stating that they
kion that Rouse/Randhurst construct a curbed
)hibit cut -through traffic:
x concerned with the fact that the proposed store
id the shopping center to the east of Randburst,
roperties had approached staff and pointed out
treatly diminished by the Jewel. Mr. Clements
exhibit that shows the line of sight around the
increased sight line that results from moving the
tents stated that the sight line exhibit shows that
told when a 30 foot setback is maintained. Mr.
mproved by moving the building to a greater
inor considering the speed of traffic along Euclid
and summarized that there are a number of
;sign the site plan to meet the Village's setback
t several of these are man. -made issues and that
ewel Store are greater for the Village than
ack. Mr. Clements stated that staff had worked
i all other areas, but that virtually no setback on
overcome. Mr. Clements indicated that staff
up to normal Village standards for setback and
Dm the audience. Attorney Cary Chickerneo
end stated that he represents the owner of the
hickerneo stated that his client objects to the
the proposed location with no setback on Euclid
-estaurant>to the east. Mr. Chickerneo presented
Solan that indicates the location of the Jewel
he property to the east. Mr. Chickerneo also
f Appeals. The petition contained the names of
in 'of, the Jewel Store in that it would create a
st. Mr. Chickerneo stated that he could find no
pprove such a major setback reduction for a
he traffic study did not address the locations of
oted that the truck docks abutting the restaurant
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 t6 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. MT. 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. MT. 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 Kevin 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.
Mr. Saviano asked if Rouse had considere
the vacated Child World, and Mr. Ball sta
and visibility for the grocer.
Mr. Cassidy asked why timing is such an
Randhurst for two years on this subject. M
the new store as soon as possible, and that
soon so they'll know what their timing is'+1
Mr. Brown stated that Jewel <has a concer
location, but stated that this plan was the 1:
Jewel. Mr. Brown explained that the proto
newer prototypes provide expansion room
is very committed to the Randhurst locatio
that does not provide for expansion area.
of the store is important and that is why th,
Euclid setback. Mr. Brow—, stated it was
product in a reasonable time, and again e
Mr. Lannon asked why the building coup
north, and Mr. Brown stated that placinj
insufficient amount of parking in front of
Mr. Jim Thomas from Jewel introduced hi
is the smallest prototype store that Jewel
size was to be changed, the company woul
this would be difficult for them to underu
Mr. Cassidyasked if Jewel could reduce t
a 20 foot setback. Mr. Brettrager* stated
make the store wider, or ask them if theyi
Brown and Mr. Thomas stated that there i
to be designed into a prototype store, at
convenience, and that any revised store
requirements in mind. Mr. Brown also i
negotiate revised dimensions with the Zon
believes that this building at this locatior
Jewel and Rouse. Mr. Brown stated he
changes in the plan. He believed the quc
this plans will work with the constraints as
Mr. Saviano believed it was important the
consider changing dimensions on the buil
work with Rouse to discuss alternatives an
but he believed that this was the best plan
ZBA-50-SU-92
Page 6
g the new Jewel Store at the location of
this location did not offer,enough traffic
if
ves Jewel ne
ing a larger
the minimus
m that could
such, has
size cannot
t that Jewel
I their coma
placed with
ling facing
nanager of
.ting at this
iplete in a to
an appropri,
would
he was
had been working with
needs to get started with
to make some decisions
re to this market.
etback and traffic at the
arrived at by Rouse and
w getting larger, and that
Brown stated that Jewel
Nith a prototype building
the width to depth ratio
- changed to increase the
iave a desirable finished
tment to the location.
ie main elevation facing
iclid would result in an
sign, and stated that this
me, and that if the store
Jesign the store and that
mely fashion.
int in time ws
'to go back t,
put to the Z(
I report back to theii
for the company at
dimension to provide
-educe the length and
,mse on the issue. Mr.
I aisle width that have
iportant for customer
keep these requisite
individual that could
orporate management
the best solution for
management for any
zing Board is whether
ie Euclid setback and
tat his company could
)rate decision makers,
ds 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 Randhurst 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. C"OZL
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
FROM:
DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR 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:
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2
Emmy' DexrIption;
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.
Zoning and Lgnd Use -
The Randhurst Center property is presently zoned a"B-3" Planned Unit Development
Business Retail and Service and is improved with a shopping center and several
outlot buildings, including the existing Jewel/Osco building.
Surrounding Zoning apd 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. 360.4
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.
E sting Planned_ it Development,
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.
Site -Layout;
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-Randburst 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.
Traffic Study,
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.
1. 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.
3. A MWRD permit is necessary.
4. The building must be sprinkled for fire protection.
5. Need handicap stalls. A curb is required around the lot. Need complete
engineering plans.
6. Stalls in the southwest comer 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.
Public
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.
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
CAP/
8/12/92
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3604
GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE
OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNING PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER
WHEREAS, Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center (hereinafter referred to
as Petitioner) has filed a petition to amend Ordinance No. 3604,
being an Ordinance authorizing a Special Use in the nature of a
Planned Unit Development with respect to property commonly known as
Randhurst Shopping Center (hereinafter referred to as the Subject
Property) and legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Randhurst Center Resubdivision No. 1, being
a resubdivision of Lot I 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, Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Site Plan of the
Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 36-04 to
allow the relocation and construction of the Jewel Food Store; and
A
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for amendment
being the subject of ZBA Case No. 50 -SU -92 before the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 23rd day of July
1992, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the
Mount Prospect Herald on the 7th day of July , 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings on
the proposed amendment to a Special Use to the President and Board
of Trustees; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the
Village of Mount Prospect would be attained by granting the request
in ZBA 50 -SU -92.
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 Ordinance No. 3604 entitled "An Ordinance
Approving and Authorizing a Planned Unit Development and Expansion
of the Area Commonly Known as Randhurst Shopping Center For
Development of Two Department Stores, Three office Buildings and a
Restaurant in the Village of Mount Prospect" be amended by
attaching a amended Site Plan, as depicted on the following plans:
1. Site Plan #9236, dated 8/11/92, by Seton Engineering. Such
Site Plan provides a fifteen foot (151) setback along Euclid
Avenue at the northeast corner of the building and a twenty-
five foot six inch (251 611) setback at the northwest corner of
the building.
2. Landscape Plan for Jewel/Osco, dated 8/10/92, by David W. U.
of Rouse Operating Properties.
N
ZBA 50 -SU -92
Page 2 of 2
3. Elevation Plan by Cambinas & Theodore, depicting face brick on
all building elevations, with contrasting horizontal masonry
bands, a shingled peaked roof on the front elevation, and
screening of all roof -top mechanical equipment.
The amendment to the Planned Unit Development, being the subject of
this ordinance, provides for the relocation and construction of the
Jewel Food Store, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Jewel loading docks and compactor/refuse areas shall be
screened by masonry wall matching the building of a height
sufficient to completely screen vehicles in these areas.
2. No exterior refuse, compactor or baled cardboard areas shall
be permitted.
3. The Petitioner shall work with the City of Prospect Heights,
Cook County, and the Mount Prospect Engineering Division to
design a traffic diverter at the signalized Euclid Avenue
entrance, in order to prevent cut -through traffic from
proceeding north through residential areas in the City of
Prospect Heights.
4. Jewel/Osco shall restrict deliveries to the store between
midnight and 6:00 A.M. and other hours determined appropriate
by the Village Manager.
5. No permanent "Open 24 Hour" banner or similar permanent
exterior promotional banner shall be permitted.
6. A right -turn lane on Euclid Avenue into the main store
driveway shall be provided.
7. The truck service area east of the building shall be south-
bound, one-way only, with appropriate signage.
SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, in
pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
1992.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER *(_
FROM: DAVID ISL CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: AUGUST 12, 1992
SUBJECT: ZBA-50-SU-92, JEWEL/OSCO STORE
As you requested, attached please find a copy of the traffic study for the proposed Jewel
Store at Randburst Shopping Center.
Also, the traffic engineer who prepared the report will be present at the August 18 Board
meeting.
MEW
08. 12, 92 12: 16 0708 259 0228 RltI, R.�LNDHURST. , RCD-NIt R-RQLFE 003 010
GOROVE a SLADE ASSOCIATES, Inc.
2111200 f 1 "Q Connecticut Av9., NW I Wwhlnpton, OC 2=
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Jerome N. Morstein
The Rouse Company
CC: Mr. Scott Ball
FROM: Michael J. Workosky
Terence J. Miller
Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc.
DATE:- June 9, 1992
RE: Jewel -Osco Relocation and Expansion Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the proposed relocation and expansion of the
Jewel -Osco store located adjacent to the Randhurst Shopping Center in Mt. Prospect, Illinois.
The existing Jewel -Osco grocery store is bounded by Euclid Avenue on the north, East Drive on
the east, and the Randhurst Mall ring road on the south. Currently, the store contains 41,735
square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA). As proposed, the store will consist of 66,326 square
feet of GLA and will be relocated approximately 300 feet to the cast. As a result of the store
relocation, a segment of existing East Drive will be closed and the traffic relocated to center
entrance on Euclid Avenue.
This analysis examines traffic conditions surrounding the existing Jewel -Osco store, provides a
trip generation analysis and estimates of future traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed
store expansion, and traffic conditions subsequent to the Jewel -Osco store relocation.
Existing Traffic Analysis and Conditions
An analysis of the existing road network was conducted to identify existing capacity constraints
within the road system, and to isolate the future impacts of the store expansion and relocation.
Existing traffic count data was collected to obtain base -line conditions for the roadways
surrounding the Jewel -Osco store site.
As requested by the Mt. Prospect technical staff, counts of existing traffic were conducted on
Thursday, April 30, 1992 from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM and were
recorded in 15 minute intervals. The intersections counted are as follows: (1) Center
Entrance/Euclid Avenue; (2) East Drive/Euclid Avenue; (3) East Drive/Jewel-Osco Entrance;
and (4) Jewel -Osco Entrance/Mall Ring Road. It was determined that the morning commuter
peak hour occurred from 7:15 - 5:15 AM, and the evening commuter peak hour occurred from
5:00 - 6:00 PM. Figure 1 illustrates the existing traffic volumes.
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC end PARKING CONSULTANTS Telepnons (202) 896.8625
Washington, Cc Blrmwshem, Alabama Bndpawatar, Nov Jereay Fax (202) 7855-1276
s
1/14
606/1460 •— 6 8
37/112 EUCLID AVENUE � 688/229/229
3/22
1505/691
fI
f-----_v.e.. --- 1374/752
r
28/92--
r000
171/140
�
}
Npt4
tpM
ca
ONV
�n
N N
n
z
p
1T
w
�
4
�
I
RDJG ROAD
-___—_-
z
A
F
Figure 1
Existing 1992 Traffic VOIUMOS Norm
s�nen�su�:
!* V#
000/000
RAM MURST SHOPPING CENTER GOROVE-SLADE
MT. PncECT. ILLUpIs
ASSOCIATES, INC.
061 12, 92 12:17 '0708 259 0226 RH1-R_i.',DHLRST. — RLDNI K -WOLFS 4005.010
Mr. Jerome Morstein
June 9, 1992
Page 3
In addition to the above mentioned intersections, the service drive located between the Center
Entrance and East Drive was observed during the peak hours to document truck activity. The
service drive serves the rear of the Jewel -Osco site and intersects with Euclid Avenue and the
Mall ring road. Field observations revealed that 3 trucks serving the store 'entered and exited
the loading dock facility from the Randhurst Mall ring road during the peak hours.
Currently, access to the Randhurst Mall and Jewel -Osco store occurs from Euclid Avenue, a four
lane divided roadway abutting the north boundary of the site. The Center Entrance located west
of the Jewel -Osco site intersects with Euclid Avenue to the north with a signalized intersection,
and on the south with the mall ring road operating under stop sign control. The East Drive
borders the east side of the site and intersects with Euclid Avenue, forming a '"T" type
intersection operating under stop sign control. Specific site access serving the Jewel -Osco Store
consists of two access drives, one on East Drive and one on the Mall Ring Road. Both
entrances lead directly into the Jewel -Osco parking field.
The traffic volumes described above were analyzed to determine the existing level of operation
for the road network adjacent to the Jewel -Osco site. Intersection analyses were conducted
using Highway Capacity Software (HCS), based on the methodology contained in the Highw�
Cagacity Manual, 5pggial Report #209, published by the Transportation Research Board. The
operation is expressed in Levels of Service (LOS) ranges from "A" to "F". Table 1 summarizes
the levels of service for the intersections analyzed.
TABLE 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
JEWEL-OSCO SITE
Level of Service
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Center Entranec/Eucild Ave. B C
East Drive/Euclid Ave. E F
08.12.92 12:18 $708 259 0229 RX I,R�LNDK'RS;.. RUNICK-WOLFE 2008.010
Mr. Jerome Morstein
June 9, 1992
Page 4
The results of this analysis revealed that currently the East Drive/Euclid Avenue intersection
operates an unacceptable level of service. The deficient level of service realized at this
intersection is primarily due to the heavy main line traffic volumes experienced on Euclid Avenue
and the lack of spaces between vehicles or critical gaps available for vehicles entering the traffic
stream from East Drive.
It should be noted that due to deficiencies in the regional roadway system serving the Mt.
Prospect area, a large percentage of the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic on East Drive
is cut -through commuter trips traveling to/from work. Commuters use East Drive to access the
office buildings to the south of the Mall to/from Euclid Avenue to avoid using the intersection
of Rand Road at Elmhurst Road.
Trip Generation Analysis
The existing Jewel -Osco store consists of 41,735 square feet and operates 7 days week, 24 hours
a day from Monday through Saturday. The proposed expansion will increase the square footage
to a total of 66,326, and relocate the store along the existing east boundary line of the site.
Parking for patrons will occur between the existing Cinema and new Jcwel-Osco store front.
In order to estimate future traffic volumes generated by the proposed Jewel -Osco store
expansion, a trip generation analysis was conducted to derive traffic generation rates based on
existing store operations. The study was conducted by manually counting inbound and outbound
vehicles from the two site entrances during the previously mentioned peak hours. Based on the
total number of inbound and outbound vehicles versus the existing square footage, a peak hour
of generator rate was derived.
It was determined through the above methodology that an inbound rate of 6.877 vehicles/1000
square feet of gross leasable area and an outbound rate of 7.308 vehicles/1000 square feet of
gross leasable area are currently experienced at the store during the PM commuter peak hour,
The AM commuter peak hour rate was found to be lower therefore, the PM peak hour rates
were used to estimate the additional AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by
the future expanded store. Table 2 illustrates the existing and future number of additional
vehicles expected to be generated by the Jewel -Osco store.
06,12/92 12:18 V708 259 0228 Rh 1,'R.i\D FURST. . --- RL-DNICK-WOLFE 2007,010
Mr. Jerome Morstein
June 9, 1992
Page 5
TABLE
TRIP GENERATION RESULTS
JEWEL-OSCO STORE
Condition
Number of
Vehicles
In
Out
Trip Generation
Rate
In Out
Fjisling a d Rates (41,.733—SF)
AM
84
71
PM
287
305
6.877 7.308
Proferred Future Ido (66,326 SF)
AM
185
158
Existing
84
21
Net Additional Trips
101
87
PM
456
485
Existing
2L7
305
Net Additional Trips
169
180
Future Traffic Volumes and Road Network
In
conjunction with the expansion and relocation of the Jewel -Osco store, the East Drive will be
closed to through/Mall traffic. The traffic on East Drive will be relocated to the signalized
Center Entrance intersection of the Randhurst Mail site with Euclid Avenue. South of the
Jewel -Osco location, East Drive will follow a curve -linear path south of the new store and
existing Cinema location and essentially become part of the Mall's outer ring road. Access to
the new store will be via a full access, unsignalized intersection on Euclid Avenue, and a full
access, un3ignalized intersection on relocated Fast Drive/Ring Road. Truck access only will be
provided at the rear of the site with a right-in/out location from Euclid Avenue at the existing
East Drive location. The purpose of this proposal is to maintain service to the Mall, the new
Jewel -Osco and provide a safe and efficient route for the existing commuter traffic that uses the
Mall's ring road system to cut through to parking areas.
Projections of future traffic volumes were derived to reflect the road network described above
and the relocation and expansion of the Jewel -Osco store. The forecasts were based on: (1)
existing traffic patterns currently experienced in the study area; (2) the existing trip generation
of the Jewel -Osco store; (3) the relocation of East Drive; and (4) the expansion, relocation, and
06, 12. 92 12:19 708 258 0228 MI R-10bR1R51 006, 0iu
Mr. Jerome Morstein
June 9, 1992
Page 6
access system of the new Jewel -Osco store.
Assuming the new road system in place, existing traffic volumes were reallocated to reflect the
East Drive relocation and the access to the new Jewel -Osco store. In addition to the existing
volumes, the net additional trips expected to be generated by the Jewel -Osco store expansion
were added to the road network. These future traffic volume estimates are illustrated in Figure
2.
Capacity Analysis
Capacity analyses were conducted using the future traffic volumes in order to isolate deficiencies
in the road network and site access system. These analyses were performed using the
methodology previously described and are summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3
FUTURE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
JEWEL -OSLO SITE
Level of Service
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Center Entcance/Euclid Ave. B C
Jewel Access/Euclid Ave. E F
A comparison of the existing operations of the road network surrounding the site versus the
planned road system with the new Jewel -Osco store revealed no change in the level of service
of the intersections providing access to the retail development. Existing traffic that presently
uses East Drive to access Euclid Avenue will be able to use the signalized Center Access Drive.
The Jewel -Osco traffic will have a choice to use the unsignalized intersection of the store access
drive to Euclid Avenue, or to use the Mail ring road to access the signalized Center Access Drive
intersection.
In studies of retail centers with this type of access, during the PM peak hour when there is
insufficient capacity for exiting vehicles at the Jewel -Osco store access drive, the majority of
patrons will use the Mall's Center Drive to access Euclid Avenue via the traffic signal.
Additionally, the relocation of the East Access Drive will reduce the current levels of East Drive
traffic by an average of 45%.
Figure 2 Ap-
Future Projected Traffic Volumes Noru�
With Relocated and Expanded Jewel -Osco Store � �,�+� sin« rth
0001000
a
RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER
GOROVE•SLADE
Mr. PROSPECT, ILLMOIS ASSOCIATES, INC. _ a
is
i
06,,12/92 12:20 $708 239 0228
Mr. Jerome Morstein
June 9, 1992
Page 8
Summary of Findings
RX I / PULSMURST. _RUDNI CK- WOLFE F0 010/010
The results of the capacity analyses indicate that with the proposed road network and the
expansion and relocation of the Jewel -Osco store there will no decrease in the level of operations
at the Center Entrance/Euclid Avenue intersection. The Jewel -Osco access drive intersection
with Euclid Avenue will operate under the same level of service that is currently present under
existing conditions at the East Access Drive. The analysis showed that current traffic levels at
the East Access Drive will be reduced by an average of 45% with the proposed road network
in place. As part of the Jewel -Osco access system, the proposed road design provides adequate
access for Randhurst Mall patrons, Jewel -Osco patrons and the exiting cut -through traffic
experienced at East Drive,
MJW2/tgc
1003-92
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS,�IGCTOR OF PLANNIJ
DATE. AUGUST 13, 1992
SUBJECT: REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN
RANDHURST JEWEL/OSCO
Attached please find a revised landscape plan for the proposed Jewel Store at Randburst.
The final site plan is also attached. The landscape plan addresses the issues that were
raised in the initial staff report, and provides a special design emphasis at the front of the
building along Euclid Avenue. Also, please note that the shade trees along Euclid are
located so their height does not contribute to the site line issue for the adjoining restaurant.
The berm design adjoining the residential area in Boxwood is also improved. This is a 3
ft. to 5 ft. berm height planted with 6 ft. Austrian Pines, to provide year-round screening.
Lastly, please note that the landscape plan includes a sidewalk on the Jewel property. This
should be placed on the Euclid Avenue right-of-way, subject to County approval.
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
Carol A. Fields, Village Clerk
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager Michael Janonis
FROM: Director Inspection Services Chuck Bencic OA�
DATE: 8-6-92
i3b
RE: FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE REVISION
The Village has been notified that there are revised -Federal and State
regulations governing floodplain regulations. To remain eligible for
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) the Village must adopt
the revised regulations.
The main revisions in the ordinance deal with:
1) Specific engineering calculations required to demonstrate
a development will not increase flooding or decrease the
capacity of a stream.
2) More stringent compensatory storage requirements.
3) Giving municipalities authority to issue certain types of
permits in the floodplain area.
Another benefit to the Village for passing the Floodplain. Ordinance
is that we are attempting to receive a Class 8 ranking in the Community
Ranking system (CRS). Adopting the ordinance is a requirement. As
you may recall Mount Prospect was one of only six (6) communities in
the State to receive a Class 9 ranking. Each improved class ranking
results in a 5% reduction in flood insurance premiums for residents
who take out NFIP insurance. We will be having a meeting with
representatives of the CRS program August 21.
I feel it is essential the Village remain in the National Flood Insurance
Program and it would be beneficial to our residents for the Village
to receive the Class 8 CRS rating. Therefore I recommend this ordinance
be adopted as soon as possible.
Chuck Bencic
CB: rm
Attach.
cc: Engineering
File L
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VIII ENTITLED
"FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS" OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has adopted "Flood Plain
Regulations", pursuant to the direction of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, as amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has directed that
specific amendments be made to local "Flood Plain Regulations".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Article VIII entitled "Flood Plain Regulations"
of Chapter 22 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect be and the same
is hereby amended in its entirety; so that hereafter said Article
VIII of Chapter 22 shall hereinafter read as follows:
ARTICLE VIII
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS
SECTION:
22.801
Purpose
22.802
Definitions
22.803
How to Use this Ordinance
22.804
Duties of Enforcement Official
22.805
Base Flood Elevation
22.806
Occupation and Use of Flood Fringe Areas
22.807
Occupation and Use of Identified Floodways
22.808
Occupation and Use of Special Flood Hazard
Where Floodways Are Not Identified
22.809
Permitting Requirements Applicable to All
Areas and Protection of Building
22.810
Other Development Requirements
22.811
Variances
22.812
Disclaimer of Liability
22.813
Penalty
22.814
Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
22.815
Separability
22.816
Effective Date
Areas
Flood Plain
SECTION 22.801 PURPOSE
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the police powers
granted to this Village by Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 24,
Sections 1-2-1, 11-12-12, 11-30-8, and 11-31-2.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to maintain this Village's
eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program; to minimize
potential losses due to periodic flooding including loss of life,
loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce
and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for
flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general
welfare, and to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters,
conserve economic and natural values and provide for the wise
utilization of water and related land resources. This Ordinance
is adopted in order to accomplish the following specific purposes:
A. To meet the requirements of Chapter 19, paragraph 65(g)
of the Illinois Revised Statutes, An Act in Relation to
the Regulation of the Rivers, Lakes and Streams of the
State of Illinois," approved June 10 1911, as amended.
B. To assure that new development does not increase the
flood or drainage hazards to others, or create unstable
conditions susceptible to erosion;
C. To protect new buildings and major improvements to
buildings from flood damage;
D. To protect human life and health from the hazards of
flooding;
E. To lessen the burden on the taxpayer for flood control
projects, repairs to flood -damaged public facilities and
utilities, and flood resource and relief operations; and
F. To make federally subsidized flood insurance available
for property in the Village by fulfilling the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
G. To comply with the rules and regulations of the National
Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 CFR 59-79, as
amended.
H. To protect, conserve, and promote the orderly development
of land and water resources;
I. To preserve the natural hydrologic and hydraulic
functions of watercourses and flood plains and t . o protect
water quality and aquatic habitats;
J. To preserve the natural characteristics of stream
corridors in order to moderate flood and storm water
impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion,
protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide
recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits
and enhance community and economic development.
SECTION 22.802 DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this ordinance, the following definitions are
adopted:
"Act" "AN ACT in relation to the regulation of the rivers,
lakes and streams of the State of Illinois", Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1987, Ch. 19, Par. 52 et seq.
"Applicant"
Any person, firm, corporation or agency which submits an
application.
"Appropriate Use"
Only uses of the regulatory floodway that are permissible
and will be considered for permit issuance. The only
uses that will be allowed are as specified in section
22.807B.
"Base Flood"
The flood having a one -percent probability of being
equaled or exceeded in any given year. The base flood
is also known as the 100 -year frequency flood event.
Application of the base flood elevation at any location
is as defined in Section 22.805 of this ordinance.
"Building"
A structure that is principally above ground and is
enclosed by walls and a roof. The term includes a gas
or liquid storage tank, a manufactured home, mobile home
or a prefabricated building. This term also includes
recreational vehicles and travel trailers to be installed
on a site for more than 180 days, unless they are fully
licensed and ready for highway use.
"Channel"
Any river, stream, creek, brook, branch, natural or
artificial depression, ponded area, flowage, slough,
ditch, conduit, culvert, gully, ravine, wash, or natural
or man-made drainageway, which has a definite bed and
banks or shoreline, in or into which surface or ground-
water flows, either perennially or intermittently.
"Channel Modification"
Alteration of a channel by changing the physical
dimensions or materials of its bed or banks. Channel
modification includes damming, rip -rapping or other
armoring; widening, deepening, straightening, relocating,
lining and significant removal of bottom or woody
vegetation. Channel modification does not include the
clearing of dead or dying vegetation, debris, or trash
from the channel. Channelization is a severe form of
channel modification typically involving relocation of
the existing channel (e.g. straightening).
"Compensatory Storage"
An artificially excavated, hydraulically equivalent
volume of storage within the SFHA used to balance the
loss of natural flood storage capacity when artificial
fill or structures are placed within the flood plan. The
uncompensated loss of natural flood plain storage can
increase off-site floodwater elevations and flows.
"Conditional Approval of a Regulatory Floodway Map Change"
Preconstruction approval by DWR and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency of a proposed change to the floodway
map. This preconstruction approval, pursuant to this
Part, gives assurances to the property owner that once
an Appropriate Use is constructed according to permitted
plans, the floodway map can be changed, as previously
agreed, upon review and acceptance of as -built plans.
"Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)II
A letter which indicates that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency will revise base flood elevations,
flood insurance rate zones, flood boundaries or floodway
as shown on an effective. Flood Hazard Boundary Map or
Flood Insurance Rate Map, once the as -built. plans are
submitted and approved.
"Control Structures"
A structure designed to control the rate of flow that
passes through the structure, given a specific upstream
and downstream water surface elevation.
"Dam" All Obstructions, wall embankments or barriers, together
with their abutments and appurtenant works, if any,
constructed for the purpose of storing or diverting water
or creating a pool. Underground water storage tanks are
not included.
"Development"
Any man-made change to real estate, including:
(a) Construction, reconstruction, repair, or placement
of a building or any addition to a building.
4
(b) Installing a manufactured home on site, preparing
a site for a manufactured home, or installing a
travel trailer on a site for more than 180 days.
If the travel trailer or recreational vehicle is on
site for less than 180 days, it must be fully
licensed and ready for highway use.
(c) Drilling, mining, installing utilities, construction
of roads, bridges, storage of equipment or
materials, or similar projects.
(d) Demolition of a structure or redevelopment of a
site.
(e) Clearing of land as an adjunct of construction.
,(f) Construction or erection of levees, walls, fences,
dams or culverts; channel modification, filling,
dredging, grading, excavating, paving, or other non-
agricultural alterations of the ground surface;
storage of materials deposit of solid or liquid
waste;
(g) Any other activity of man that might change the
direction, height, or velocity of flood or surface
water, including extensive vegetation removal;
Development does not include maintenance of existing
buildings and facilities as re -roofing or re-
surfacing of roads when there is not increase in
elevation, or gardening, plowing, and similar
agricultural practices that do not involve filling,
grading, or construction of levees. I
11DWR11 Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Water
Resources.
"Elevation Certificates"
A form published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency that is used to certify the elevation to which a
building has been elevated.
"Erosion"
The general process whereby soils are moved by flowing
water or wave action.
"Exempt Organizations"
Organizations which are exempt from this ordinance per
the Ill. Rev. Stat. including state, federal or local
units of government.
5
"Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision"
A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on
which the manufactured homes are to be affixed
(including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities,
the construction of streets, and either final site
grading or the pouring of concrete pads is completed
before April 1, 1990.
"Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision"
The preparation of additional sites by the construction
of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the
installation of utilities, the construction of streets,
and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete
pads.
"FEMA" Federal Emergency Management Agency and its regulations
at 44 CFR 59-79 effective as of October 1, 1986. This
incorporation does not include any later editions or
amendments.
"Flood" A general and temporary condition of partial or complete
inundation of normally dry land areas from overflow of
inland or tidal waves, or the unusual and rapid
accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
"Flood Frequency"
A period of years, based on a statistical analysis,
during which a flood of a stated magnitude may be
expected to be equaled or exceeded.
"Flood Fringe"
That portion of the flood plain outside of the regulatory
floodway.
"Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)"
A map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
that depicts the special flood hazard area (SDHA) within
a community. This map includes insurance rate zones and
flood plains and may or may not depict floodways.
"Flood Plain"
That land typically adjacent to a body of water with
ground surface elevations at or below the base flood or
the 100 year frequency flood elevation. Flood plains may
also include detached Special Flood Hazard Areas, ponding
areas, etc. The flood plain is also know as the Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The flood plains are those
lands within the jurisdiction of the Village that are
subject to inundation by the base flood or 100 year
6
frequency flood. The SFRA I s of the Village are generally
identified as such on the Flood Insurance Rate Map of the
Village prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development) and dated August 2, 1982. The SFHA's of
those parts of unincorporated Cook County that are within
the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village or that
may be annexed into the Village are generally identified
as such on the Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared for Cook
County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) and
dated April 15, 1981.
"Floodproofing"
Any combination of structural and non-structural
additions, changes or adjustments to structures which
reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or
improved real property, water and sanitary facilities,
structures and their contents.
"Floodproofing Certificate"
A form published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency that is used to certify that a building has been
designed and constructed to be structurally dry
floodproofed to the flood protection elevation.
"Flood Protection Elevation (FPE)II
The elevation of the base flood or 100 -year frequency
flood plus two foot of freeboard at any given location in
the SFHA.
"Freeboard"
An increment of elevation added to the base flood
elevation to provide a factor of safety for uncertainties
in calculations, unknown localized conditions, wave
actions and unpredictable effects such as those caused by
ice or debris jams.
"Historic Structure" Any structure that is:
(a) Listed individually in the National Register of
Historic Places or preliminarily determined by the
Secretary of the Interior as meeting the
requirements for individual listing on the national
Register;
(b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the
Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historic district or a district preliminarily
determined by the Secretary to qualify as a
registered historic district;
(c) Individually listed on the State inventory of
Historic places by the Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency;
(d) Individually listed on a local inventory of
historic places that has been certified by the
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
"Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations"
Engineering analysis which determine expected flood flows
and flood elevations based on land characteristics and
rainfall events.
"Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)"
Official determination by FEMA that a specific structure
is not in a 100 year flood zone; amends the effective
Flood Hazard Boundary Map or FIRM.
"Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)II
Letter that revises base flood or 100 year frequency
flood elevations, flood insurance rate zones, flood
boundaries or floodways as shown on an effective FHBM or
FIRM.
"Manufactured Home"
A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which
is built on a permanent chassis and is designated for use
with or without a permanent foundation when attached to
the required utilities. The term "manufactured home"
does not include a "recreational vehicle".
"Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)II
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago.
"Mitigation"
Mitigation includes those measures necessary to minimize
the negative effects which flood plain development
activities might have on the public health, safety and
welfare. Examples of mitigation include compensatory
storage, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and
channel restoration.
11NGVD11 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. Reference
surface the National Geodetic Survey deduced from a
continental adjustment of all existing adjustments in
1929.
"Natural" when used in reference to channels means those channels
formed by the existing surface topography of the earth
prior to changes made by man. A natural stream tends to
follow a meandering path; its flood plain is not
8
constrained by levees; the area near the bank has not
been cleared, mowed or cultivated; the stream flows over
soil and geologic materials typical of the area with no
substantial alteration of the course or cross-section of
the stream caused by filing or excavating. A modified
channel may regain some natural characteristics over time
as the channel meanders and vegetation is re-established.
Similarly, a modified channel may be restored to more
natural conditions by man through regrading and
revegatation.
"New Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision"
Manufactured home park or subdivision for which the
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on
which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including
at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading
or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after
April 1, 1990.
"Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)II
The point on the bank or shore up to which the presence
and action of surface water is so continuous so as to
leave a distinctive mark such as by erosion, destruction
or prevention of terrestrial vegetation, predominance of
aquatic vegetation or other easily recognized
characteristics.
"Public Flood Control Project"
A flood control project which will be operated and
maintained by a public agency to reduce flood damages to
existing buildings and structures which includes a
hydrologic and hydraulic study of the existing and
proposed conditions of the watershed. Nothing in this
.definition shall preclude the design, engineering,
construction or• financing, in whole or in part, of a
flood control project by persons or parties who are not
public agencies.
"Publicly Navigable Waters"
All streams and lakes capable of being navigated by
watercraft.
"Recreational Vehicle or Travel Trailer" A vehicle which is:
(a) Built on a single chassis;
(b) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest
horizontal projection;
(c) Designed to be self propelled or permanently towable
by a light duty truck; and
9
(d) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent
dwelling but as temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
"Registered Land Surveyor"
A land surveyor registered in the State of Illinois,
under The Illinois Land Surveyors Act (Ill. Rev. Stat.
1987, Ch. 111, Pars, 3201-3234).
"Registered Professional Engineer"
An engineer registered in the State of Illinois, under
The Illinois Professional Engineering Act. (Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1987, ch. 111, pars. 5101-5137).
"Regulatory Floodway"
The channel, including on -stream lakes, and that portion
of the flood plain adjacent to a stream or watercourse as
designated by DWR, which is needed to store and convey
the existing and anticipated future 100 year frequency
flood discharge with no more than a 0.1 foot increase in
stage due to the loss of flood conveyance of storage, and
no more than a 0.11 increase in stage due to the loss of
flood conveyance or storage, and no more than a 10%
increase in velocities. The regulatory floodway are
designated for Weller Creek, McDonald Creek, Feehanville
Ditch, Des Plaines River, Higgins Creek on the Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map prepared by FEMA and dated
August 2, 1982, and for the Des Plaines River on the
regulatory Flood Plain map prepared by DWR and dated
October 1, 1978. The regulatory floodwayb for those
parts of unincorporated Cook County that are within the
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village that may be
annexed into the Village are designated for Weller Creek,
McDonald Creek, Feehanville Ditch, Des Plaines River,
Higgins Creek on the Flood Boundary and Floodway map
prepared by FEMA and dated April 15, 1981. To locate the
regulatory floodway boundary on any site. The regulatory
floodway boundary should be scaled off the regulatory
floodway map and located on a site plan, using reference
marks common to both maps. where interpretation is
needed to determine the exact location of the regulatory
floodway boundary, the Division should be contacted for
the interpretation.
"Repair, Remodeling or Maintenance"
Development activities which do not result in any
increases in the outside dimensions of a building or any
changes to the dimensions of a structure.
"Retention/Detention Facility"
A retention facility stores stormwater runoff without a
gravity release. A detention facility provides for
RY,
storage of stormwater runoff and controlled release of
this runoff during and after a flood or storm.
"Riverine SFHA"
Any SFHA subject to flooding from a river, creek,
intermittent stream, ditch, on stream lake system or any
other identified channel. This term does not include
areas subject to flooding from lakes, ponding areas,
areas of sheet flow, or other areas not subject to
overbank flooding.
"Runoff" The water derived from melting snow or rain falling on
the land surface, flowing over the surface of the ground
or collected in channels or conduits.
"Sedimentation"
The processes that deposit soils, debris, and other
materials on other ground surfaces or in bodies of water
or watercourses.
"Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)"
Any base flood area subject to flooding from a river,
creek, intermittent stream, ditch, or any other
identified channel or ponding and shown on a Flood Hazard
Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map as Zone A, AO,
Al -30, AE, A99, Ah, VO, V30, VE, V, M, or E.
"Structure"
The results of a man-made change to the land constructed
on or below the ground, including the construction,
reconstruction or placement of a building or any addition
to a building; installing a manufactured home on a site;
preparing a site for a manufactured home or installing a
travel trailer on a site for more than 180 days, unless
they are fully licensed and ready for highway use.
"Substantial Improvement"
Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure,
the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the
market value of the structure either, (a) before the
improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the structure
has been damaged from and source, and is being restored,
before the damage occurred. This term includes
structures which were damaged whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its predamaged condition would
equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value before the
damage occurred, regardless of the actual repair work
performed. For the purposes of this definition
"Substantial Improvement" is considered to occur when the
first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other
structural part of the building commences, whether or not
that alteration affects the external dimensions of the
11
structure. The term does not, however, include either
(1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply
with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety
code specifications which are solely necessary to assure
safe living conditions or (2) any alteration of a
"Historic Structure", provided that the alteration will
not preclude the structure's continued designation as a
"Historic Structure".
"Transition Section"
Reaches of the stream or floodway where water flows from
a narrow cross-section to a wide cross-section or vice
versa.
SECTION 22.803 HOW TO USE THIS ORDINANCE
The Director of Inspection Services shall be responsible for
fulfilling all of the duties listed in Section 22.804.
To fulfill those duties, the Director of Inspection Services first
should use the criteria listed in Section 22.805, Base Flood
Elevations, to determine whether the development site is located
within a flood plain. once it has been determined that a site is
located within a flood plain, the Director of Inspection Services
must determine whether the development site is within a flood
fringe, a regulatory floodway, or within a SFRA or flood plain on
which no floodway has been identified. If the site is within a
flood fringe, the Director of Inspection Services shall require
that the minimum requirements of Section 22.806 be met. If the
site is within a floodway, the Director of Inspection Services
shall require that the minimum requirements of Section 22.807 be
met. If the site is located within a SFHA or flood plain for which
no detailed study has been completed and approved, the Director.of
Inspection Services shall require that the minimum requirements of
Section 22.808 be met.
In addition, the general requirements of Section 22.809 shall be
met for all developments meeting the requirements of Sections
22.806, 22.807, 22.808. The Director of Inspection Services shall
assure that all subdivision proposals shall meet the requirements
of Section 22.810.
If a variance is to be granted for a proposal, the Director of
Inspection Services shall review the requirements of Section 22.811
to make sure they are met. In addition, the Director of Inspection
Services shall complete all notification requirements.
In order to assure that property owners obtain permits as required
in this Ordinance, the Director of Inspection Services may take any
and all actions as outlined in Section 22.813.
KU
SECTION 22.804
The Director of Inspection Services shall be responsible for
the general administration and enforcement of this Ordinance which
shall include the following:
A. Determining the Flood Plain Designation. Check all new
development sites to determine whether they are in a Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). If they are in a SFHA, determine
whether they are in a floodway, flood fringe or a flood plain
on which a detailed study has not been conducted which drains
more than one (1) square mile.
B. Professional Engineer Review. If the development site is
within a floodway or in a flood plain on which a detailed
study has not been conducted which drains more than one (1)
square mile then the permit shall be referred to a registered
professional engineer (P.E.) under the employ or contract of
the Village for review to ensure that the development meets
the requirements of Section 22.807. In the case of an
Appropriate Use, the P.E. shall state in writing that the
development meets the requirements of Section 22.807.
C. Dam Safety Requirements. Ensure that a DWR Dam safety
permit has been issued or a letter indicating no Dam Safety
permit is required, if the proposed development activity
includes construction of a dam as defined in Section 22.802
include weirs, restrictive culverts or impoundment structures.
D. Other permit requirements. Ensure that any and all
required federal, state and local permits are received prior
to the issuance of a flood plain development permit.
E. Plan Review and Permit Issuance. Ensure that all
development activities within the SFHA's of the jurisdiction
of the Village meet the requirements of this Ordinance and
issue a flood plain development permit in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance and other regulations of this
community when the development meets the conditions of this
Ordinance.
F. Inspection Review. Inspect all development projects
before, during and after construction to assure proper
elevation of the structure and to ensure they comply with the
provisions of this Ordinance;
G. Elevation and Floodproofing Certificates. Maintain in
the permit files an Elevation Certificate certifying the
elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of a
residential or non-residential building or the elevation to
which a non-residential building has been floodproofed, using
a Floodproofing Certificate, for all buildings subject to
13
Section 22.809 of this Ordinance for public inspection and
provide copies of same:
H. Records for Public Inspection. Maintain for public
inspection and furnish upon request base flood data, SFRA and
regulatory floodway maps, copies of federal or state permit
documents, variance documentation, Conditional Letter of Map
Revision, Letter of Map Revision, Letter of Map Amendment and
"as built" elevation and floodproofing or elevation and
floodproofing certificates for all buildings constructed
subject to this Ordinance.
I. State Permits. Ensure that construction authorization has
been granted by the Illinois Division of Water Resources, for
all development projects subject to Sections 22.807 and 22.808
unless enforcement responsibility has been delegated to the
Village. Upon acceptance of this Ordinance by DWR and FEMA,
responsibility is hereby delegated to the Village as per 92
Ill. Adm. Code 708 for construction in the regulatory floodway
and flood plain when floodways have not been defined in
Sections 22.807 and 22.808 of this Ordinance. However, the
following review approvals are not delegated to the Village
and shall require review or permits from DWR:
1. Organizations which are exempt from this Ordinance, as
per the Illinois Revised Statues;
2. Department of Transportation projects, dams or
impoundment structures as defined in Section 22.802 and
all other state, federal or local unit of government
projects, including projects of the Village and County,
except for those projects meeting the requirements of
Sec. 22.807.B.5.
3. An engineer's determination that an existing bridge or
culvert crossing is not a source of flood damage and the
analysis indicating the proposed flood profile, per Sec.
22.807 B.l.e.
4. An engineer's analysis of the flood profile due to
Section 22.807 B.I.d.
5. Alternative transition sections and hydraulically
equivalent compensatory storage as indicated in Section
22.807 B.1 (a,b,and h)
6. Permit issuance of structures within or over publicly
navigable rivers, lakes and streams;
7. Any changes in the Base Flood Elevation or floodway
locations; and,
14
8. Base Flood Elevation determination where none now exist.
J. Cooperation with Other Agencies. Cooperate with state and
federal flood plain management agencies to improve base flood
or 100 -year frequency flood and floodway data and to improve
the administration of this ordinance. Submit data to DWR and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency for proposed revisions
of a regulatory map. Submit data to DWR and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for proposed revisions of a
regulatory map. Submit reports as required for the National
Flood Insurance Program. Notify the Federal Emergency
Management Agency of any proposed amendments to this
Ordinance.
K. Promulgate Regulations. Promulgate rules and regulations
as necessary
cessary to administer and enforce the provisions of,this
Ordinance, subject however to the review and.approval of DWR
and FEMA for any ordinance changes.
SECTION 22.805 BASE FLOOD ELEVATIQN
This ordinance's protection standard is based on the Flood
Insurance Study for the Village. If a base flood elevation or 100 -
year frequency flood elevation is not available for a particular
site, then the protection standard shall be according to the best
existing data available in the Illinois State Water Survey's Flood
Plain Information Repository. When a party disagrees with the best
available data, he/she may finance the detailed engineering study
needed to replace existing data with better data and submit it to
DWR and FEMA.
A. The base flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevation for
the SFHAs of Des Plaines River and Weller, Higgins, McDonald
Creeks and Feehanville Ditch shall be as delineated on the
100 -year flood profiles in the Flood Insurance Study of the
Village prepared by FEMA and dated February 2, 1982 and such
amendments to such study and maps as may be prepared from time
to time.
B. The base flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevation for
the SFHAs of those parts of unincorporated Cook County that
are within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village or
that may be annexed into the Village shall be as delineated on
the 100 -year flood profiles in the Flood Insurance Study of
Cook County prepared by FEMA and dated December 4, 1984, and
such amendments or revisions to such study and maps as may be
prepared from time to time.
C. The base flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevation for
each of the remaining SFHAs delineated as an "A Zone" on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map of the Village shall be according to
the best existing data available in the Illinois State Water
15
Survey Flood Plain Information Repository. When no base flood
or 100 -year frequency flood elevation exists, the base flood
or 100 -year frequency flood elevation for a riverine SFHA
shall be determined from a backwater model, such as HEC -II,
WSP2, or a dynamic model such as HIP. The flood flows used in
the hydraulic models shall be obtained from a hydrologic model
such as HEC -I TR -20, or HIP, or by techniques presented in
various publications prepared by the United States Geological
Survey for estimating peek flood discharges. Flood flows
should be based on anticipated future land use conditions in
the watershed as determined from adopted local and regional
land use plans. Along any watercourses draining more than
one (1) square mile, the above analyses shall be submitted to
DWR for approval, once approved it must be submitted to the
Illinois State Water Survey Floodplain Information Repository
for filing. For a non-riverine SFHA, the Base Flood Elevation
shall be the historic Flood of Record plus one foot, unless
calculated by a detailed engineering study and approved by the
Illinois State Water Survey.
SECTION 22.806 • AND USE OF FLOOD FR
INGE AREAS
Development in and/or filling of the flood fringe will be
permitted if protection is provided against the base flood or 100 -
year frequency flood by proper elevation, and compensatory storage
and other provisions of this ordinance are met. No use will be
permitted which adversely affects the capacity of drainage
facilities or systems. Developments located within the flood
fringe shall meet the requirements of this section, along with
the requirements of Section 22.809.
A. Development Permit. No person, firm, corporation, or
governmental body not exempted by state law shall commence any
development in the SFHA without first obtaining a development
permit from the Director of Inspection Services.
1. Application for a development permit shall be made on a
form provided by the Director of Inspection Services.
The application shall be accompanied by drawings of the
site, drawn to scale, showing property line dimensions
and legal description for the property and sealed by a
licensed engineer, architect or land surveyor; existing
grade elevations in M.S.L., 1929 adj. datum or N.G.V.D.
and all changes in grade resulting from excavation or
filling; the location and dimensions of all buildings and
additions to buildings. For all proposed buildings, the
elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) and
lowest adjacent grade shall be shown on the submitted
plans and the development will be subject to the
requirements of Section 22.809 of this Ordinance.
2. Upon receipt of a development permit application, the
16
Director of Inspection Services shall compare the
elevation of the site to the base flood or 100 -year
frequency flood elevation. Any development located on
land that can be shown to have been higher than the base
flood elevation as of the sites first Flood Insurance
Rate Map identification is not in the SFRA and,
therefore, not subject to the requirements of this
ordinance. The Building Official shall maintain
documentation of the existing ground elevation at the
development site and certification that this ground
elevation existed prior to the date of the site's first
Flood Insurance Rate Map identification.
3. A soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for
disturbed areas shall be submitted. This plan shall
include a description of the sequence of grading
activities and the temporary sediment and erosion -control
measures to be implemented to mitigate their effects.
This plan shall also include a description of final
stabilization and revegetation measures, and the identi-
fication of a responsible party to ensure post -
construction maintenance.
4. The Director of inspection Services shall be responsible
for obtaining from the applicant, copies of all other
local, state and federal permits, approvals or permit -
not -required letters that may be required for this type
of activity. The Director of Inspection shall not issue
a permit unless all other local, state and federal
permits have been obtained.
B. Preventing increased Damages. No development in the
flood fringe shall create a threat to public health and
safety.
1. If fill is being used to elevate the site above the base
flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevation, the
applicant shall submit sufficient data and obtain a
letter of map revision (LOMR) from FEMA for the purpose
of removing the site from the flood plain.
2. Compensatory Storage. Whenever any portion of a flood
plain is authorized for use, the volume of space which
will be occupied by the authorized fill or structure
below the base flood or 100 -year frequency flood
elevation shall be compensated for and balanced by a
hydraulically equivalent volume of excavation taken from
below the base flood or 100 -year frequency flood
elevation. The excavation volume shall be at least
equal to 1.5 times the volume of storage lost due to the
fill or structure. In the case of streams and
watercourses, such excavation shall be made opposite or
17
adjacent to the areas so filled or occupied. All flood
plain storage lost below the existing 10 -year flood
elevation shall be replaced below the proposed 10 -year
flood elevation. All flood plain storage lost above the
existing 10 -year flood elevation shall be replaced above
the proposed 10 -year flood elevation. All such
excavations shall be constructed to drain freely and
openly to the water -course.
SECTION 22.807 OCCUPATION AND USE OF IDENTIFIED FLOODWAYS
This section applies to proposed development, redevelopment,
site modification or building modification within a regulatory
floodway. The regulatory floodway for Weller Creek, McDonald
Creek, Feehanville Ditch, Des Plaines River, Higgins Creek shall be
as delineated on the regulatory floodway maps designated by DWR and
referenced in Section 22.802. only those uses and structures will
be permitted which meet the criteria in this section. All floodway
modifications shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the
purpose of the project. The development shall also meet the
requirements of Section 22.809.
A. Development Permit. No person firm, corporation or
governmental body not exempted by state law shall commence any
development in a floodway without first obtaining a
development permit from the Director of Inspection Services.
1. Application for a development permit shall be made on a
form provided by the Director of Inspection Services.
The application shall include the following information:
a. Name and address of applicant;
b. Site location (including legal description) of the
property, drawn to scale, on the regulatory
floodway map, indicating whether it is proposed to
be in an incorporated or unincorporated area;
C. Name of stream or body of water affected;
d. Description of proposed activity;
e. Statement of purpose of proposed activity;
f. Anticipated dates of initiation and completion of
activity;
g. Name and mailing address of the owner of the
subject property if different from the applicant;
h. Signature of applicant or the applicant's agent;
18
i. If the applicant is a corporation, the president or
other authorized officer shall sign the application
form;
j If the applicant is a partnership, each partner
shall sign the application form; and
k. If the applicant is a land trust, the trust officer
shall sign the name of the trustee by him (her) as
trust officer. A disclosure affidavit shall be
filed with the application, identifying each
beneficiary of the trust by name and address and
defining the respective interests therein,
1. Plans of the proposed activity shall be provided
which include as a minimum:
(i) A vicinity map showing the site of the
activity, name of the waterway, boundary
lines, names of roads in the vicinity of the
site, graphic or numerical scale, and north
arrow,
(ii) A plan view of the project and engineering
study reach showing existing and proposed
conditions including principal dimensions of
the structure or work, elevations in mean sea
level (1929 adjustment) datum or N.G.V.D.
adjacent property lines and ownership,
drainage and flood control easements, location
of any channels and any existing or future
access roads, distance between proposed
activity and navigation channel (when the
propoised construction is near a commercially
navigable body of water), regulatory floodway
limit, flood plain limit, specifications and
dimensions of any proposed channel
modifications, location and orientation of
cross-sections, north arrow, and a graphic or
numerical scale;
(iii)cross-section views of the project and
engineering study reach showing existing and
proposed conditions including principal
dimensions of the work as shown in plan view,
existing and proposed elevations, normal water
elevation, 10 -year frequency flood elevation,
100 -year frequency flood elevation, and
graphic or numerical scales (horizontal and
vertical)
19
(iv) A soil erosion and sedimentation control plan
for disturbed areas. This plan shall include
a description of the sequence of grading
activities and the temporary sediment and
erosion control measures to be implemented to
mitigate their effects. This plan shall also
include a description of final stabilization
and revegetation measures, and the
identification of a responsible party to
ensure post -construction maintenance.
(v) A copy of the regulatory floodway map, marked
to reflect any proposed change in the
regulatory floodway locations.
M. Any and all other local, state and federal permits
or approval letters that may be required for this
type of development.
n. Engineering calculations and supporting data shall
be submitted showing that the proposed work will
meet the permit criteria of Section 22.807.B.
0. If the regulatory floodway delineation, base flood
or 100 -year frequency flood elevation will change
due to the proposed project, the application will
not be considered complete until DWR has indicated
conditional approval of the regulatory floodway map
change. No structures may be built until a Letter
of Map Revision has been approved by FEMA.
p. The application for a structure shall be
accompanied by drawings of the site, drawn to scale
showing property line dimensions and existing
ground elevations and all changes in grade
resulting from any proposed excavation or filling,
and flood plain and floodway limits, sealed by a
registered professional engineer, licensed
architect or registered land surveyor; the
location and dimensions of all buildings and
additions to buildings, and the elevation of the
lowest floor (including basement) of all proposed
buildings subject to the requirements of Section
22.809 of this ordinance.
q- If the proposed project involves a channel
modification, the applicant shall submit the
following information:
(i) A discussion of the purpose of and need for
the proposed work;
20
(ii) A discussion of the feasibility of using
alternative locations or methods to accomplish
the purpose of the proposed work;
(iii)An analysis of the extent and permanence of the
impacts the project would have on the physical
and biological conditions of the body of water
affected;
(iv) An analysis of the extent and permanence of
the impacts each feasible alternative
identified in 22.807.B.1 d(i) of this Section
would have on the physical and biological
conditions of the body of water affected; and
(v) An analysis of the impacts of the proposed
project, considering cumulative effects on the
physical and biological conditions of the body
of water affected.
2. The Director of Inspection services shall be responsible
for obtaining from the applicant copies of all other
local, state, and federal permits and approvals that may
be required for this type of activity.
The Director of Inspection Services shall not issue the
development permit unless all required federal and state
permits have been obtained. A Registered Professional
Engineer, under the employ or contract of the Village
shall review and approve applications reviewed under this
Section.
B. Preventing Increased Damages and a List of Appropriate
Uses. The only development in a floodway which will be
allowed are Appropriate Uses, which will not cause a rise in
the base flood elevation, and which will not create a damaging
or potentially damaging increase in flood heights or velocity
or be a threat to public health and safety and welfare or
impair the natural hydrologic and hydraulic functions of the
floodway or channel, or permanently impair existing water
quality or aquatic habitat. Construction impacts shall be
minimized by appropriate mitigation methods as called for in
this Ordinance. Only those Appropriate Uses listed in 92 Ill.
Ad. Code 708 will be allowed. Appropriate Uses do not include
the construction or placement of any new structures, fill,
building additions, buildings on stilts, excavation or channel
modifications done to accommodate otherwise non -appropriate
uses in the floodway, fencing 8(including landscaping or
planting designed to act as a fence) and storage of materials
except as specifically defined above as an Appropriate Use.
The approved Appropriate Uses are as follows:
21
a.' Public flood control structures, dikes, dams
and other public works or private improvements
relating to the control of drainage, flooding
of existing structures, erosion, or water
quality or habitat for fish and wildlife.
b. Structures or facilities relating to the use
of, or requiring access to, the water or
shoreline, such as instream aeration and
similar treatment facilities, facilities and
improvements related to recreational boating,
and commercial shipping and other functionally
water dependent uses;
0. Storm and sanitary sewer outfalls;
d. Underground and overhead utilities;
e. Public open space and recreational facilities
such as playing fields and trail systems
including any related fencing (at lease 50%
open when viewed from any one direction) built
parallel to the. direction of flood flows, and
including open air pavilions;
f. Bridges, culverts, and associated roadways,
sidewalk, and railways, necessary for crossing
over the floodway or for providing access to
other appropriate uses in the floodway and any
modification thereto;
9- Flood proofing activities to protect previously
existing lawful structures including the
construction of water tight window wells,
elevating structures, or construction of
floodwalls around residential, commercial or
industrial principal structures where the
outside toe of the floodwall shall be no more
than ten (10) feet away from the exterior wall
of the existing structure, and, which are not
considered substantial improvements to the
structure.
h. In the case of damaged or replacement
buildings, reconstruction or repairs made to
a building that are valued at less than 50% of
the market value of the building before it was
damaged or replaced, and which does not
increase the outside dimensions of the
building.
t -h
1. Within the regulatory floodway as identified on the
regulatory floodway maps designated by DWR, the
construction of an Appropriate Use, will be considered
permissible provided that the proposed project meets the
following engineering and mitigation criteria and is so
stated in writing with supporting plans, calculations and
data by a registered professional engineer and provided
that any structure meets the protection requirements of
Section 22.809 of this ordinance.
a. Preservation of Flood Conveyance, so as Not to
Increase Flood Stages Upstream. For appropriate
uses other than bridge or culvert crossings, on-
stream structures or dams all effective regulatory
floodway conveyance lost due to the project will be
replaced for all flood events up to and including
the 100 -year frequency flood. In calculating
effective regulatory floodway conveyance, the
following factors shall be taken into
consideration:
(i) Regulatory floodway conveyance,
1.486
IIKII = n AR 2/3
where 'In" is Manning's roughness factor, "All
is the effective area of the cross-section,
and IIRII is the ratio of the area to the wetted
perimeter. (See Open Channel Hydraulics, Ven
Te Chow, 1959, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York)
(ii) The same Manning's 'In" value shall be used for
both existing and proposed conditions unless a
recorded maintenance agreement with a federal,
state, or local unit of government can assure
the proposed conditions will be maintained or
the land cover is changing from a vegetative
to a non -vegetative land cover.
(iii) Transition sections shall be provided and used
in calculations of effective regulatory
floodway conveyance. The following expansion
and contraction ratios shall be used unless an
applicant's engineer can prove to DWR through
engineering calculations or model tests that
more abrupt transitions may be used with the
same efficiency:
(a) when water is flowing from a narrow
section to a wider section, the water
should be assumed to expand no faster
23
than at a rate of one foot horizontal for
every four feet of the flooded stream's
length.
(b) When water is flowing from a wide section
to a narrow section, the water should be
assumed to contract no faster than at a
rate of one foot horizontal for every one
foot of the flooded stream's length.
(c) When expanding or contracting flows in a
vertical direction, a minimum of one foot
vertical transition for every ten feet of
stream length shall be used.
(d) Transition sections shall be provided
between cross-sections with rapid
expansions and contractions and when
meeting the regulatory floodway
delineation on adjacent properties.
(e) All cross-sections used in the
calculations shall be located
perpendicular to flood flows.
b. Preservation of Floodway Storage so as Not to
Increase Downstream Flooding. Compensatory storage
shall be provided for any regulatory floodway
storage lost due to the proposed work from the
volume of fill or structures placed and the impact
of any related flood control projects.
Compensatory storage for fill or structures shall
be equal to at least 1.5 times the volume of flood
plain storage lost. Artificially created storage
lost due to a reduction in head loss behind a
bridge shall not be required to be replaced. The
compensatory regulatory floodway storage shall be
placed between the proposed normal water elevation
and the proposed 100 -year flood elevation. All
regulatory floodway storage lost below the existing
10 -year flood elevation shall be replaced below the
proposed 10 -year flood elevation. All regulatory
floodway storage lost above the existing 10 -year
flood elevation shall be replaced above the
proposed 10 year flood elevation. All such
excavations shall be constructed to drain freely
and openly to the -watercourse. If the compensatory
storage will not be placed at the location of the
proposed construction, the applicant's engineer
shall demonstrate to DWR through a determination of
flood discharges and water surface elevations that
the compensatory storage is hydraulically
�E!
equivalent. Finally, there shall be no reduction
in floodway surface area as a result of a floodway
modification, unless such modification is necessary
to reduce flooding at existing structure.
C. Preservation of Floodway Velocities so as Not to
Increase Stream Erosion or Flood Heights. For all
Appropriate Uses, except bridges or culverts or on
stream structures, the proposed work will not
result in an increase in the average channel or
regulatory floodway velocities or stage, for all
flood events up to and including the 100 -year
frequency event. However in the case of bridges or
culverts or on stream structures built for the
purpose of backing up water in the stream during
normal or flood flows, velocities may be increased
at the structure site if scour, erosion and
sedimentation will be avoided by the use of rip -rap
or other design measures.
d. Construction of New Bridges or Culvert Crossings
and Roadway Approaches. The proposed structure
shall not result in an increase of upstream flood
stages greater than 0.1 foot when compared to the
existing conditions for all flood events up to and
including the 100 -year frequency event; or the
upstream flood stage increases will be contained
within the channel banks (or within existing
vertical extensions of the channel banks) such as
within the design protection grade of existing
levees or flood walls or within redorded flood
easements. If the proposed construction will
increase upstream flood stages greater than 0.1
feet, the developer must contact DWR, Dam Safety
Section for a Dam Safety permit or waiver.
(i) The engineering analysis of upstream flood
stages must be calculated using the flood
study flows, and corresponding flood
elevations for tailwater conditions for the
flood study specified in Section 22.805 of
this ordinance. Culverts must be analyzed
using the U.S. DOT, FHWA Hydraulic Chart for
Selection of Highway Culverts. Bridges must
be analyzed using the U.S. DOT/Federal Highway
Administration Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways
calculation procedures.
(ii) Lost floodway storage must be compensated for
per Section 22.807 B 1 (b).
t4�
(iii) Velocity increases must be mitigated per
Section 22.807 B 1 (c).
(iv) If the crossing is proposed over a public
water that is used for recreational or
commercial navigation, a Department of
Transportation permit must be received.
(v) The hydraulic analysis for the backwater
caused by the bridge showing the existing
condition and proposed regulatory profile must
be submitted to DWR for concurrence that a
CL40MR is not required by Section 22.807 B.
(vi) All excavations for the construction of the
crossing shall be designed per Section 22.807
B 1 (h) .
e. Reconstruction or Modification of Existing Bridges,
Culverts, and Approach Roads.
(i) The bridge or culvert and -roadway approach
reconstruction or modification shall be
constructed with no more than 0.1 foot
increase in backwater over the existing flood
profile for all flood frequencies up to and
including the 100 -year event, if the existing
structure is not a source of flood damage.
(ii) If the existing bridge or culvert and roadway
approach is a course of flood damage to
buildings or structures in the upstream flood
plain, the applicant's engineer shall evaluate
the feasibility of redesigning the structure
to reduce the existing backwater, taking into
consideration the effects on flood stages on
upstream and downstream properties.
(iii) The determinations to whether or not the
existing crossing is a source of flood damage
and should be redesigned must be prepared in
accordance with the Department of
Transportation Rules 92 Ill. Adm. Code 708
(Floodway Construction in Northeastern
Illinois) and submitted to the Division for
review and concurrence before a permit is
issued.
f. On -stream Structures Built for the Purpose of
Backing Up Water. Any increase in upstream flood
stages greater than 0.0 foot when compared to the
existing conditions, for all flood events up to and
including the 100 -year frequency event shall be
26
contained within the channel banks (or within
existing vertical extensions of the channel banks)
such as within the design protection grade of
existing levees or flood walls or within recorded
flood easements. A permit or letter indicating a
permit is not required must be obtained from DWR,
Dam Safety Section for a Dam Safety permit or
waiver for any structure built for the purpose of
backing up water in the stream during normal or
flood flow. All dams and impoundment structures as
defined in Section 22.802 shall meet the permitting
requirements of 92 Ill. Adm. Code 702 (Construction
and Maintenance of Dams) . If the proposed activity
involves a modification of the channel or floodway
to accommodate an impoundment, it shall be
demonstrated that:
(i) The impoundment is determined to be in the
public interest by providing flood control,
public recreation, or regional stormwater
detention;
(ii) The impoundment will not prevent the migration
of indigenous fish species, which require
access to upstream areas as part of their life
cycle, such as for spawning;
(iii) The impoundment will not cause or contribute
to degraded water quality or habitat
conditions. Impoundment design should include
gradual bank slopes, appropriate bank
stabilization measures, and a pre -
sedimentation basin.
(iv) A non -point source control plan has been
implemented in the upstream watershed to
control the effects of sediment runoff as well
as minimize the input of nutrients, oil and
grease, metals, and other pollutants. if
there is more than one municipality in the
upstream watershed, the municipality in which
the impoundment is constructed should
coordinate with upstream municipalities to
ensure comprehensive watershed control;
(v) The project otherwise complies with the
requirements of Section 22.807..
g. Flood Proofing of Existing Habitable, Residential
and Commercial Structures. If construction is
required beyond the outside dimensions of the
existing building, the outside perimeter of the
27
floodproofing construction shall be placed no
further than 10 feet from the outside of the
building. Compensation of lost storage and
conveyance will not be required for floodproofing
activities.
h. Excavation in the Floodway. When excavation is
proposed in the design of bridges and culvert
openings, including the modifications to and
replacement of existing bridge and culvert
structures, or to compensate for lost conveyance
for other Appropriate Uses, transition sections
shall be provided for the excavation. The
following expansion and contraction ratios shall be
used unless an applicant's engineer can prove to
DWR through engineering calculations or model tests
that more abrupt transitions may be used with the
same efficiency:
(i) when water is flowing from a narrow section to
a wider section, the water should be assumed
to expand no faster than at a rate of one foot
horizontal for every four feet of the flooded
stream's length;
(ii) When water is flowing from a wide section to a
narrow section, the water should be assumed to
contract no faster than at a rate of one foot
horizontal for every one foot of the flooded
stream's length; and
(iii) When expanding or contracting flows in a
vertical direction, a minimum of one foot
vertical transition for every ten feet of
stream length shall be used.
(iv) Erosion/scour protection shall be provided
inland upstream and downstream of the
transition sections.
i. If the proposed activity involves a channel
modification, it shall be demonstrated that:
(i) There are no practicable alternatives to the
activity which would accomplish its purpose
with less impact to the natural conditions of
the body of water affected. Possible
alternatives include levees, bank
stabilization, flood proofing of existing
structures, removal of structures from the
flood plain, clearing the channel, high flow
channel, or the establishment of a stream side
28
buffer strip or green belt. Channel
modification is acceptable if the purpose is
to restore natural conditions and improve
water quality and fish and wildlife habitat;
(ii) Water quality, habitat, and other natural
functions would be significantly improved by
the modification and no significant habitat
area may be destroyed, or the impacts are
offset by the replacement of an equivalent
degree of natural resource values;
(iii) The activity has been planned and designed and
will be constructed in a way which will
minimize its adverse impacts on the natural
conditions of the body of water affected,
consistent with the following criteria:
(a) The physical characteristics of the
modified channel shall match as closely
as possible those of the existing channel
in length, cross-section, slope and
sinuosity. If the existing channel has
been previously modified, restoration of
more natural physical conditions should
be incorporated into channel modification
design, where practical.
(b) Hydraulically effective transitions shall
be provided at both the upstream and
downstream ends of the project, designed
such that they will prevent erosion.
(c) One-sided construction of a channel shall
be used when feasible. Removal of
streamside (riparian) vegetation should
be limited to one side of the channel,
where possible, to preserve the shading
and stabilization effects of the
vegetation.
(d) Clearing of vegetation shall be limited
to that which is essential for
construction of the channel.
(e) Channel banks shall be constructed with a
side slope no steeper than 4:1 horizontal
to vertical, wherever practicable.
Natural vegetation and gradual side
slopes are the preferred methods for bank
stabilization. Where high velocities or
sharp bends necessitate the use of
29
alternative stabilization measures,
natural rock or rip -rap are preferred
materials. Artificial materials such as
concrete, gabions, or construction rubble
should be avoided unless there are no
practicable alternatives.
(f) All disturbed areas associated with the
modification shall be seeded or otherwise
stabilized as soon as possible upon
completion of construction. Erosion
blanket or an equivalent material shall
be required to stabilize disturbed
channel banks prior to establishment of
the vegetative cover.
(g) If the existing channel contains
considerable bottom diversity such as
deep pools, riffles, and other similar
features, such features shall be provided
in the new channel. Spawning and nesting
areas and flow characteristics compatible
with fish habitat shall also be
established, where appropriate.
(h) A sediment basin shall be installed at
the downstream end of the modification to
reduce sedimentation and degradation of
downstream water quality.
(i) New or relocated channels shduld be built
in the dry and all items of construction,
including vegetation, should be completed
prior to diversion of water into the new
channel.
(j) There shall be no increases in stage or
velocity as the channel enters or leaves
the project site for any frequency flood
unless necessitated by a public flood
control project or unless such an
increase is justified as part of habitat
improvement or erosion control project.
(k) Unless the modification is for a public
flood control project, there shall be no
reduction in the volume of floodwater
storage outside the floodway as a result
of the modification; and
(iv) The project otherwise complies with the
requirements of Section 22.807.
30
j. Seeding and Stabilization Plan. For all activities
located in a floodway, a seeding and stabilization
plan shall be submitted by the applicant.
k. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Measures. For all
activities in the floodway, including grading;
filling, and excavation, in which there is
potential for erosion of exposed soil, soil erosion
and sedimentation control measures shall be
employed consistent with the following criteria:
(i) The construction area shall be minimized to
preserve the maximum vegetation possible.
Construction shall be scheduled to minimize
the time soil is exposed and unprotected. In
no case shall the existing natural vegetation
be destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than
15 days prior to the initiation of
improvements.
(ii) Temporary and/or permanent soil stabilization
shall be applied to denuded areas as soon as
possible. As a minimum, soil stabilization
shall be provided within 15 days after final
grade is reached on any portion of the site,
and within 15 days to denuded areas which may
not be at final grade but will remain
undisturbed for longer than 60 days.
(iii)Sedimentation control measures shall be
installed before any significant grading or
filling is initiated on the site to prevent
the movement of eroded sediments off site or
into the channel. Potential sediment control
devices include filter fences, straw bale
fences, check dams, diversion ditches, and
sediment basins.
(iv) A vegetated buffer strip of at least 25 feet
in width shall be preserved and/or re-
established, where possible, along existing
channels (See 22.807.B.I.(p). Construction
vehicle use of channels shall be minimized.
Temporary stream crossings shall be
constructed, where necessary, to minimize
erosion. Necessary construction in or along
channels shall be re -stabilized immediately.
(v) Soil erosion and sedimentation control
measures shall be designed and implemented
consistent with "Procedures and Standards for
Urban Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
31
in Illinois" (1988) also known as the "Green
Book" and "Standards and Specifications for
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control" (IEPA,
1987).
1. Public Flood Control Projects. For public flood
control projects, the permitting requirements of
this section will be considered met if the
applicant can demonstrate to DWR through hydraulic
and hydrologic calculations that the proposed
project will not singularly or cumulatively result
in increased flood heights outside the project
right-of-way or easements for all flood events up
to and including the 100 -year frequency event.
M. General Criteria for Analysis of Flood Elevations
(i) The flood profiles, flows and floodway data in
the regulatory floodway study, referenced in
Section 22.805, must be used for analysis of
the base conditions. If the study data
appears to be in error or conditions have
changed, DWR shall be contacted for approval
and concurrence on the appropriate base
conditions data to use.
(ii) If the 100 -year regulatory floodway elevation
at the site of the proposed construction is
affected by backwater from a downstream
receiving stream with a larger drainage area,
the proposed construction shall be shown to
meet the requirements of this section for the
100 -year frequency flood elevations of the
regulatory floodway conditions and conditions
with the receiving stream at normal water
elevations.
(iii)If the applicant learns from DWR, local
governments, or a private owner that a
downstream restrictive bridge or culvert is
scheduled to be removed, reconstructed,
modified, or a regional flood control project
is scheduled to be built, removed, constructed
or modified within the next five years, the
proposed construction shall be analyzed and
shown to meet the requirements of this section
for both the existing conditions and the
expected flood profile conditions when the
bridge, culvert or flood control project is
built.
32
n. Conditional Letter of Map Revision. If the
Appropriate Use would result in a change in the
regulatory floodway location or the 100 -year
frequency flood elevation, the applicant shall
submit to DWR and to FEMA all the information,
calculations and documents necessary to be issued a
conditional regulatory floodway map revision and
receive from DWR a conditional approval of the
regulatory floodway change before a permit is
issued. However, the final regulatory floodway map
will not be changed by DWR until as -built plans or
record drawings are submitted and accepted by FEMA
and DWR. In the case of non-government projects,
the municipality in incorporated areas and the
county in unincorporated areas shall concur with
the proposed conditional regulatory floodway map
revision before DWR approval can be given. No
filling, grading, dredging or excavating shall take
place until a conditional approval is issued. No
further development activities shall take place
until a final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is
issued by FEMA and DWR.
0. Professional Engineer's Supervision. All
engineering analyses shall be performed by or under
the supervision of a registered professional
engineer.
p. For all activities in the floodway involving
construction within 25 feet of the channel, the
following criteria shall be met:
(i) A natural vegetation buffer strip shall
be preserved within at least 25 feet of
the ordinary high water mark of the
channel.
(ii) Where it is impossible to protect this
buffer strip during the construction of
an Appropriate Use, a vegetated buffer
strip shall be established upon
completion of construction.
(iii)The use of native riparian vegetation is
preferred in the buffer strip. Access
through this buffer strip shall be
provided, when necessary, for stream
maintenance purposes.
After receipt of conditional approval of the regulatory
floodway change and issuance of a permit and a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision, construction as
33
necessary to change the regulatory floodway designation
may proceed but no buildings or structures or other
construction that is not an Appropriate Use may be placed
in that area until the regulatory floodway map is changed
and a final Letter of Map Revision is received. The
regulatory floodway map will be revised on acceptance and
concurrence by DWR and FEMA of the "as built" plans.
2. State Review. For those projects listed below
located in a regulatory floodway, the following
criteria shall be submitted to DWR for their review
and concurrence prior to the issuance of a permit:
a. DWR will review an engineer's analysis of the
flood profile due to a proposed bridge
pursuant to Section 22. 807.B.1.d.
b. DWR will review an engineer's determination
that an existing bridge or culvert crossing is
not A source of flood damage and the analysis
indicating the proposed flood profile,
pursuant to Section 802.1(e).
C. The DWR will review alternative transition
sections and hydraulically equivalent storage
pursuant to Section 22. 807.B.1.e
d. The DWR will review and approve prior to the
start of construction any Department projects,
dams (as defined in Section 22.802 and all
other state, federal or local units of
government projects, including projects of the
municipality or county.
3. Other Permits. In addition to the other
requirements of this Ordinance, a development
permit for a site located in a floodway shall not
be issued unless the applicant first obtains a
permit or written documentation that a permit is
not required from DWR, issued pursuant to Illinois
Revised Statutes, Chapter 19, Section 52 et seq.
No permit from DWR shall be required if the
Division has delegated this responsibility to the
Village.
4. Dam Safety Permits. Any work involving the
construction, modification or removal of a dam as
defined in section 22.802 per 92 Ill. Adm. Code 702
(Rules for Construction of Dams) shall obtain an
Illinois Division of Water Resources Dam Safety
permit prior to the start of construction of a dam.
If the Director of Inspection Services finds a dam
34
that does not have a DWR permit, the Director of
Inspection Services shall immediately notify the
Dam Safety Section of the Division of Water
Resources. If the Director of Inspection Services
finds a dam which is believed to be in unsafe
condition, the Director of Inspection services
shall immediately notify the owner of the dam, DWR,
Dam Safety Section in Springfield and the Illinois
Emergency Services and Disaster Agency (ESDA).
5. Activities That Do Not Require a Registered
Professional Engineer's Review. The following
activities may be permitted without a registered
professional engineers review. Such activities
shall still meet the other requirements of this
Ordinance, including the mitigation requirements.
a. Underground and overhead utilities that:
(i) Do not result in,any increase in existing
ground elevations, or.
(ii) Do not require the placement of above
ground structures in the floodway, or
(iii)In the case of underground stream
crossings, the top of the pipe or
encasement is buried a minimum of 31
below the existing stream bed, and
(iv) In the case of overhead utilities, no
supporting towers are placed in the water
course and are designed in such a fashion
as not to catch debris.
b. Storm and sanitary sewer outfalls that:
(i) Do not extend riverward or lakeward of
the
existing adjacent natural bank slope, and
(ii) Do not result in an increase in ground
elevation, and
(iii) Are designed so as not to cause stream
erosion at the outfall location.
C. Construction of sidewalks, athletic fields
(excluding fences), properly anchored
playground equipment and patios at grade.
d. Construction of shoreline and streambank
35
protection that:
(i) Does not exceed 1000 feet in length.
(ii) Materials are not placed higher than the
existing top of bank.
(iii) Materials are placed so as not to reduce
the cross-sectional area of the stream
channel or bank of the lake.
(iv) Vegetative stabilization and gradual side
slopes are the preferred mitigation
methods For existing erosion problems.
Where high channel velocities, sharp
bends or wave action necessitate the use
of alternative stabilization measures,
natural rock or rip -rap are preferred
materials. Artificial materials such as
concrete, construction rubble, and
gabions should be avoided unless there
are not practicable alternatives.
e. Temporary stream crossings in which:
(i) The approach roads will be 0.5' (1/2
foot) or less above natural grade. -
(ii) The crossing will allow stream flow to
pass without backing up the water above
the stream 2 bank vegetation line or
above any drainage tile or outfall
invert.
(iii)The top of the roadway fill in the channel
will be at least 21 below the top of the
lowest bank. Any fill in the channel
shall be non-erosive material, such as
rip -rap or gravel.
(iv) All disturbed stream banks will be seeded
or otherwise stabilized as soon as
possible upon installation and again
upon removal of construction.
(v) The access road and temporary crossings
will be removed within one year after
authorization.
36
SECTION 22.808 OCCUPATION AND USE OF SFHA AREAS WHERE FLOODWAYS
ARE NOT IDENTIFIED
In SFHA or flood plains, (including AO Zones, AH Zones or Un-
numbered A Zones) where no floodways have been identified and no
base flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevations have been
established by FEMA, and draining more than a square mile, no
development shall be permitted unless the cumulative effect of the
proposals, when combined with all other existing and anticipated
uses and structures, shall not significantly impede or increase the
flow and passage of the floodwaters nor significantly increase the
base flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevation.
A. Development Permit. No person, firm, corporation, or
governmental body, not exempted by state law, shall commence
any development in a SFHA or flood plain without first
obtaining a development permit from Director of Inspection
Services. Application for a development permit shall be made
on a form provided by the Director of Inspection services.
The application shall be accompanied by drawings of the site,
drawn to scale showing property line dimensions; and existing
grade elevations and all changes in grade resulting from
excavation or filling, sealed by a licensed engineer,
architect or surveyor; the location and dimensions of all
buildings and additions to buildings; and the elevation of the
lowest floor (including basement) of all proposed buildings
subject to the requirements of Section 22.809 of this
Ordinance.
The application for a development permit shall also include
the following information:
a. A detailed description of the proposed activity,
its purpose, and intended use;
b. Site location (including legal description) of the
property, drawn to scale, on the regulatory
floodway maps, indicating whether it is proposed to
be in an incorporated or unincorporated area;
C. Anticipated dates of initiation and completion of
activity;
d. Plans of the proposed activity shall be provided
which include as a minimum:
(i) A vicinity map showing the 'site of the
activity, name of the waterway, boundary
lines, names of roads in the vicinity of the
site, graphic or numerical scale, and north
arrow;
37
(ii) A plan view of the project and engineering
study reach showing existing and proposed
conditions including principal dimensions of
the structure or work, elevations in mean sea
level (1929 adjustment) datum or N.G.V.D.,
adjacent property lines and ownership,
drainage and flood control easements, distance
between proposed activity and navigation
channel (when the proposed construction is
near a commercially navigable body of water),
flood plain limit, location and orientation of
cross-sections, north arrow, and a graphical
or numerical scale;
(iii)Cross-section views of the project and
engineering study reach showing existing and
proposed conditions including principal
dimensions of the work as shown in plan view,
existing and proposed elevations, normal water.
elevation, 10 -year frequency flood elevation,
100 -year frequency flood elevation, and
graphical or numerical scales (horizontal and
vertical); and
(iv) A soil erosion and sedimentation control plan
for disturbed areas. This plan shall include
a description of the sequence of grading
activities and the temporary sediment and
erosion control measures to be implemented to
mitigate their effects. This plan shall also
include a description of final stabilization
and revegetation measures, and the
identification of a responsible party to
ensure post -construction maintenance.
e. Engineering calculations and supporting data shall
be submitted showing that the proposed work will
meet the criteria of Section 22.808. B.
f. Any and all other local, state and federal permits
or approvals that may be required for this type of
development.
1. Based on the best available existing data according to
the Illinois State Water Survey's Flood Plain Information
Repository, the Director of Inspection Services shall
compare the elevation of the site to the base flood or
100 -year frequency flood elevation. Should no elevation
information exist for the site, the developer's engineer
shall calculate the elevation according to Section
22.805.c. Any development located on land that can be
shown to have been higher than the base flood elevation
ffiq
as of the sites first Flood Insurance Rate Map
Identification is not in the SFHA and, therefore, not
subject to the re -requirements of this Ordinance. The
Building Official shall maintain documentation of the
existing ground elevation at the development site and
certification that this ground elevation existed prior to
the date of the site's first Flood Insurance Rate Map
identification.
2. The Director of Inspection Services shall be responsible
for obtaining from the applicant copies of all other
local, state, and federal permits, approvals or permit -
not -required letters that may be required for this type
of activity. The Director of Inspection Services shall
not issue the development permit unless all required
local, state, and federal permits have been obtained.
B. Preventing increased Damages. No development in the SFHA
where a floodway has not been determined shall create a
damaging or potentially damaging increase in flood heights or
velocity or threat to public health, safety and welfare or
impair the natural hydrologic and hydraulic functions of the
floodway or channel, or impair existing water quality or
aquatic habitat. Construction impacts shall be minimized by
appropriate mitigation methods as called for in this
Ordinance.
1. Within all riverine SFHA's where the floodway has not
been determined, the following standards shall apply:
a. The developer shall have a Registered Professional
Engineer state in writing and show through
supporting_ plans, calculations, and data that the
project meets the engineering requirements of
Section 22.807 B. (a) through (1) for the entire
flood plain as calculated under the provisions of
Section 22.805.D of this Ordinance. As an
alternative, the developer should have an
engineering study performed to determine a floodway
and submit that engineering study to DWR for
acceptance as a regulatory floodway. Upon
acceptance of their floodway by the Department, the
developer shall then demonstrate that the project
meets the requirements of Section 22.807 for the
regulatory floodway. The floodway shall be defined
according to the definition in Section 22.802 of
this Ordinance.
b. A development permit shall not be issued unless the
applicant first obtains a permit from DWR or
written documentation that a permit is not required
from DWR.
ok,
C. No permit from DWR shall be required if the
Division has delegated permit responsibility to the
Village per 92 Ill. Adm. Code, Part 708 for
regulatory floodways, per DWR' Statewide Permit
entitled "Construction in Flood Plains with No
Designated Floodways in Northeastern Illinois".
d. Dam Safety Permits. Any work involving the
construction, modification or removal of a dam or
an up -stream structure to impound water as defined
in Section 22.802 shall obtain an Illinois Division
of Water Resources Dam Safety permit or letter
indicating a permit is not required prior to the
start of construction of a dam. If the Director of
Inspection Services finds a dam that does not have
a DWR permit, the Director of Inspection Services
shall immediately notify the Dam Safety Section of
the Division of water Resources. If the Director
of Inspection Services finds a dam which is
believed to be in unsafe condition, the Director of
Inspection Services shall- immediately notify the
owner of the dam and the Illinois Emergency
Services and Disaster Agency (ESDA), and the DWR,
Dam Safety Section in Springfield.
e. The following activities may be permitted without a
Registered Professional Engineer's review or
calculation of a base flood elevation and
regulatory floodway. Such activities shall still
meet the other requirements of this Ordinance:
(i) Underground and overhead utilities that:
(a) Do not result in any increase in existing
ground elevations, or
(b) Do not require the placement of above
ground structures in the floodway , or
(c) In the case of underground stream
crossings, the top of the pipe or
encasement is buried a minimum of 31
below the existing streambed, and
(d) In the case of overhead utilities, no
supporting towers are placed in the
watercourse and are designed in such a
fashion as not to catch debris.
(ii) Storm and Sanitary Sewer Outfalls that:
(a) Do not extend riverward or lakeward
40
the existing adjacent natural bank slope,
and
(b) Do not result in an increase in ground
elevation, and
(c) Are designed so as not to cause stream
bank erosion at the outfall location.
(iii) Construction of shoreline and streambed
protection that:
(a) Does not exceed 1000 feet in length or 2
cubic yards per lineal foot of streambed.
(b) Materials are not placed higher than the
existing top of bank.
(c) Materials are placed so as not to reduce
the cross-sectional area of the stream
channel by more than 10%.
(d) Vegetative stabilization and gradual side
slopes are the preferred mitigation
methods for existing erosion problems.
Where high channel velocities, sharp
bends or wave action necessitate the use
of alternative stabilization measures,
natural rock or rip -rap are preferred
materials. Artificial materials such as
concrete, construction rubble, and
gabions should be avoided unless there
are no practicable alternatives.
(iv) Temporary stream crossings in which:
(a) The approach roads will be 0.51 (1/2
foot) or less above natural grade.
(b) The crossing will allow stream flow to
pass without backing up the water above
the stream bank vegetation line or above
any drainage tile or outfall invert.
(c) The top of the roadway fill in the
channel will be at least 21 below the top
of the lowest bank. Any fill in the
channel shall be non-erosive material,
such a rip -rap or gravel.
(d) All disturbed stream banks will be seeded
or otherwise stabilized as soon as
41
possible upon installation and again upon
removal of construction.
(e) The access road and temporary crossings
will be removed within one year after
authorization.
(v) The construction of light poles, sign posts and
similar structures.
(vi) The construction of sidewalks, driveways,
athletic fields (excluding fences), patios and
similar surfaces which are built at grade;
(vii)The construction of properly anchored,
unwalled, open structures such as playground
equipment, pavilions, and carports built at or
below existing grade that would not obstruct
the flow of flood waters.
(viii)The placement of properly anchored
buildings not exceeding seventy (70) square
feet in size, or ten (10) feet in any one
dimension (e.g., animal shelters and tool
sheds);
(ix) The construction of additions to existing
buildings which do not increase the first
floor area by more than twenty (20) percent,
which are lc�iated on the upstream or
downstream sids of the existing building, and
which do not ;?xtend beyond the sides of the
existing building that are parallel to the
flow of flood waters;
(x) Minor maintenance dredging of a stream channel
where:
(a) The affected length of stream is less
than 1000 feet.
(b) The work is confined to re-establishing
flows in natural stream channels, or
(c) The cross-sectional area of the dredged
channel conforms o that of the natural
channel upstream and downstream of the
site.
f. The flood carrying capacity within any altered or
relocated watercourse shall be maintained.
42
2. Compensatory Storage. Whenever any portion of a flood
plain is authorized for use, the volume of space which
will be occupied by the authorized fill or structure
below the base flood or 100 -year frequency flood
elevation shall be compensated for and balanced by a
hydraulically equivalent volume of excavation taken from
below the base flood or 100 -year frequency flood
elevation. The excavation volume shall be at least equal
to 1.5 times the volume of storage lost due to the fill
or structure. In the case of streams and watercourses,
such excavation shall be made opposite or adjacent to the
areas so filled or occupied. All flood plain storage
lost below the existing 10 -year flood elevation shall be
replaced below the proposed 10 -year flood elevation. All
flood plain storage lost above the existing 10 -year flood
elevation shall be replaced above the proposed 10 -year
flood elevation. All such excavation shall be
constructed to drain freely and openly to the
watercourse.
SECTION 22.809 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL FLOOD
PLAIN AREAS
In addition to the requirements found in Section 22.806,
22.807, and 22.808 for development in flood fringes, regulatory
floodways, and SFRA or flood plains where no floodways have been
identified (Zones A, AO, AH, AE, AI -A30, A99, VO, VI -30, VE, V, M
or E, the following requirements shall be met.
A. Public Health Standards
1. No developments in the SFHA shall include locating or
storing chemicals, explosives, buoyant materials, animal
wastes, fertilizers, flammable liquids, pollutants, or
other hazardous or toxic materials below the FPE.
2. New and replacement water supply systems, wells, sanitary
sewer lines and on-site waste disposal systems may be
permitted providing all manholes or other above ground
openings located below the FPE are watertight.
B. carrying capacity and Notification. For all projects
involving channel modification, fill, or stream maintenance
(including levees) , the flood carrying capacity of the
watercourse shall be maintained. In addition, the Village
shall notify adjacent communities in writing 30 days prior to
the issuance of a permit for the alteration or relocation of
the watercourse.
43
C. Protecting Buildings. All buildings located within a
100 -year flood plain also known as a SFHA, shall be protected
from flood damage below the flood protection elevation.
However, existing buildings located within a regulatory
floodway shall also meet the more restrictive Appropriate Use
standards included in Section 22.807. This building
protection criteria applies to the following situation:
a. Construction or placement of a new building.
b. Nonconforming structures may remain in use, but
shall not be enlarged, replaced or structurally
altered. A nonconforming structure damaged by
flood, fire, wind or other man-made or natural
disaster may be restored unless the damage exceeds
fifty percent 50%), considered on a cumulative
basis, of its market value. In which case, it
must, thereafter, conform to this Ordinance.
C. Installing a manufactured home on a new site or a
new manufactured home on an existing site. This
building protection requirements does not apply to
returning a mobile home to the same site it
lawfully occupied before it was removed to avoid
flood damage; and
d. Installing a travel trailer on a site for more
than 180 days.
This building protection requirement may be met by
one of the following 'methods.
1. A residential or nonresidential building, when allowed,
may be constructed on permanent land fill in accordance
with the following:
a. The lowest floor, (including basement) shall be a
minimum of two feet above the flood protection
elevation.
b. The fill shall be placed in layers no greater than
one (1) foot deep before compaction and should
extend at least ten (10) feet beyond the foundation
of the building before sloping below the flood
protection elevation. The top of the fill shall be
above he flood protection elevation. However, the
ten (10) foot minimum may be waived if a structural
engineer certifies an alternative method to protect
the building from damages due to hydrostatic
pressures. The fill shall be protected against
erosion and scour. The fill shall not adversely
effect the flow or surface drainage from or onto
44
Fa
neighboring properties. The design of the fill or
fill standard must be approved by a registered
engineer.
A residential or non-residential building may be
elevated in accordance with the following:
a. The building or improvements shall be elevated on
crawl space, stilts, piles, walls, or other
foundation that is permanently open to flood waters
and not subject to damage by hydrostatic pressures
of the base flood or 100 -year frequency flood. The
permanent openings shall be no more than one foot
above grade, and consists of a minimum of two
openings. The openings must have a total net area
of not less than one square inch for every one
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding
below the Base Flood Elevation.
b. The foundation and supporting members shall be
anchored and aligned in relation to flood flows and
adjoining structures so as to minimize exposure to
known hydrodynamic forces such as current, waves,
ice and floating debris.
C. All areas below the flood protection elevation
shall be constructed of materials resistant to
flood damage. The lowest floor (including
basement) and all electrical, heating, ventilating,
plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and
utility meters shall be located a minimum of two
feet above the flood protection elevation. Water
and sewer pipes, electrical and telephone lines,
submersible pumps, and other waterproofed service
facilities may be located below the flood
protection elevation.
d. The areas below the flood protection elevation may
only be used for the parking of vehicles, building
access or storage in an area other than a basement.
When the building wall encloses open space that is
below the Base Flood Elevation, gravity storm and
sanitary sewer connections are specifically
prohibited and overhead sewers are required for the
sanitary connections and sumps for the storm sewer
connections.
e. Manufactured homes shall be anchored to
resistflotation, collapse, or lateral movement by
being tied down in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations for the Illinois Mobile Home Tie -Down
W
Act issued pursuant to 77 Illinois Administrative
Code. In addition, all manufactured homes shall
meet the following elevation requirements:
(i) In case of manufactured homes placed or
substantially improved (a) outside of
manufactured home park or subdivision, (b) in
a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
(c) in an expansion to an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision, or (d)
in an existing manufactured home park or
subdivision on which a manufactured home has
incurred substantial damage from a flood, the
top of the lowest floor shall be elevated to
or above the flood protection elevation.
(ii) In the case of manufactured homes placed or
substantially improved in an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision, the
manufactured home shall be elevated so that
either the top of the lowest floor is above
the base flood elevation or the chassis is at
least 36 inches in height above grade and
supported by reinforced piers or other
foundations of equivalent strength, whichever
is less.
f. Recreational vehicles or travel trailers shall be
required to meet the elevation and anchoring re-
quirements of Subsection 22.809c.2.e above unless:
(i) They are on site for less than 180 consecutive
days; and,
(ii) They are fully licensed and ready for highway
use.
A recreational vehicle is ready for highway
use if it is on its wheels or jacking system,
is attached to the site only by quick
disconnect type utility and service devices,
and has no permanently attached additions.
3. Only a non-residential building may be structurally dry
floodproofed (in lieu of elevation) provided that a
registered professional engineer shall certify that the
building has been structurally dry floodproofed below the
flood protection elevation, the structure and attendant
utility facilities are watertight and capable of
resisting the effects of the base flood or 100 -year
frequency flood. The building design shall take into
account floo4 velocities, duration, rate of rise,
M
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, the effects of
buoyancy, and impacts from debris or ice. Floodproofing
measures shall be operable without human intervention and
without an outside source of electricity (Levees, beams,
floodwalls and similar works are not considered
floodproofing for the purpose of this subsection).
Tool Sheds and detached garages on any existing
single-family platted lot, may be constructed with the
lowest floor below the flood protection elevation in
accordance with the following:
a. The building is not used for human habitation.
b. All areas below the base flood or 100 -year
frequency flood elevation shall be constructed with
waterproof material. Structures located in a
regulatory floodway shall be constructed and placed
on a building site so as not to block the flow of
flood waters and shall also meet the Appropriate
Use criteria of Section 22.806. In addition, all
other requirements of Section 22.806, 22.807, and
22.808.
C. The structure shall be anchored to prevent
flotation.
d. Service facilities such as electrical and heating
equipment shall be elevated or flood proofed to the
flood protection elevation.
e. The building shall be valued at less than $5,000.00
and be less than 500 square feet in floor size.
f. The building shall be used only for the storage of
vehicles or tools and may not contain other rooms,
workshops, greenhouses or similar uses.
4. Non -conforming structures located in a regulatory
floodway may remain in use, but may not be enlarged,
replaced or structurally altered. A non -conforming
structure damaged by flood, fire, wind or other natural
or man-made disaster may be restored unless the damage
exceeds fifty percent (50%) of its market value before it
was damaged, in which case it shall conform to this
Ordinance.
SECTION 22.810 OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
A. The Board of Trustees shall take into account flood
hazards, to the extent that they are known, in all official
actions related to land management, use and development.
47
1. New subdivisions, manufactured home parks, annexation
agreements, and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) within
the SFHA shall be reviewed to assure that the proposed
developments are consistent with Sections 22.806, 22.807,
22.808, 22.809, of this ordinance and the need to
minimize flood damage. Plats or plans for new
subdivision, manufactured home parks and Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) shall include a signed statement by
a Registered Professional Engineer that the plat or plans
account for changes in the drainage of surface water in
accordance with the Plat Act (Ill. Rev Stat., Ch. 109,
Sec. 2).
Proposals for new subdivisions, manufactured home parks,
travel trailer parks, planned unit developments (PUDs)
and additions to manufactured home parks and additions to
subdivisions shall include base flood or 100 -year
frequency flood elevation data and floodway delineations.
Where this information is not available from an existing
study filed with the Illinois State Water Survey, the
applicant's engineer shall be responsible for calculating
the base flood or 100 -year frequency flood elevation per
Section 22.805. B. and the floodway delineation per the
definition in Section 22.802 and submitting it to the
State Water Survey and DWR for review and approval as
best available regulatory data.
3. Streets, blocks, lots, parks and other public grounds
shall be located and laid out in such a manner as to
preserve and utilize natural streams and channels.
Wherever possible, the flood plains shall be included
within parks or other public grounds.
4. The Board of Trustees, shall not approve any Planned Unit
Development (PUD) or plat of subdivision located outside
the corporate limits unless such agreement or plat is in
accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 22.811 VARIANCES
A. No variances shall be granted to any development located
in a regulatory floodway, as defined in Section 22.802.
However, when a development proposal is located outside of a
regulatory floodway, and whenever the standards of this
Ordinance place undue hardship on a specific development
proposal, the applicant may apply to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall
review the applicant's request for a variance and shall submit
its recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees.
1. No variance shall be granted unless the applicant
demonstrates that:
48
a. The development activity cannot be located outside
the SFHA;
b. An exceptional hardship would result if the
variance were not granted;
C. The relief requested is the minimum necessary;
d. There will be no additional threat to public
health, safety, beneficial stream uses and
functions, especially aquatic habitat, or creation
of a nuisance;
e. There will be no additional public expense for
flood protection, lost environmental stream uses
and functions, rescue or relief operations,
policing, or repairs to stream beds and banks,
roads, utilities, or other public facilities;
f. The provisions of Section 22.806. B. and 22.808.B.
of this Ordinance shall still be met;
9- The activity is not in a regulatory floodway;
h. The applicant's circumstances are unique and do not
represent a general problem, and
i. The granting of the variance will not alter the
essential character of the area involved including
existing stream uses.
2. The Director of Inspection services shall notify an
applicant in -writing that a variance from the
requirements of Section 22.809 that would lessen the
degree of protection to a building will:
a. Result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of
insurance coverage;
b. Increase the risks to life and property; and
C. Requite that the applicant proceed with knowledge
of these risks and that he will acknowledge in
writing that he assumes the risk and liability.
3. Variances requested in connection with restoration of a
historic site or historic structure as defined Zin
Subsection 22.802. Historic structures, may be granted
using criteria more permissive than the requirements of
Sections 22.811.A.1 - 22.811.A.2.
49
a. The repair or rehabilitation is the minimum
necessary to preserve the historic character and
design of the structure; and,
b. The repair of rehabilitation will not result in the
structure being removed as a certified historic
structure.
SECTION 22.812 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY
The degree of flood protection required by this Ordinance is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on
available information derived from engineering and scientific
methods of study. Larger floods may occur or flood heights may be
increased by man-made or natural causes. This Ordinance does not
imply that development, either inside or outside of the SFHA, will
be free from flooding or damage. This Ordinance does not create
liability on the part of the Village or any officer or employee
thereof for any flood damage that results from reliance on this
Ordinance or any administrative decision made lawfully thereunder.
SECTION 22.813PENALTY
A. Failure to comply with the requirements of a permit or
conditions of a variance resolution shall be deemed to be a
violation of this Ordinance. Upon due investigation, the
Director of Inspection Services may determine that a violation
of the minimum standards of this Ordinance exist. The
Director of Inspection Services shall notify the owner in
writing of such violation.
1. If such owner fails after ten days notice to correct the
violation:
a. The Village may make application to the Circuit
Court for an injunction requiring conformance with
this Ordinance or make such other order as the
Court deems necessary to secure compliance with the
Ordinance.
b. Any person who violates this Ordinance shall, upon
conviction thereof, be fined not less than fifty
dollars ($50.00) or more than one -thousand dollars
($1,000.00) for each offense.
C. A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon
each day during or on which a violation occurs or
continues.
d. The Village may record a notice of violation on the
title to the property.
50
2. The Director of Inspection Services shall inform the
owner that any such violation is considered a willful act
to increase flood damages and, therefore, may cause
coverage by a Standard Flood Insurance Policy to be
suspended.
3. Nothing herein shall prevent the Village from taking such
other lawful action to prevent or remedy any violations.
All costs connected therewith shall accrue to the person
or persons responsible.
SECTION 22.814 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS
This Ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate or impair
any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. Where
this Ordinance and other ordinance, easements, covenants, deed
restrictions conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more
stringent restriction shall prevail. This Ordinance is intended to
repeal the original ordinance or resolution which was adopted to
meet the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, but is not
intended to repeal the resolution which the Village passed in order
to establish initial eligibility for the program.
SECTION 22.815 SEPARABILITY
The provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall be deemed
separable and the invalidity of any portion of this Ordinance shall
not affect the validity of the remainder.
SECTION 22.816 EFFECTIVE PATE
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and approval and publication, as required by law.
Mp�
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED THIS - day of 1992.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTESTED:
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
. .........................
Mount rospect Public Works Department
W, PINTEROFFICE MEMORANDUlf
TO: Village Manager bt�wp__
FROM: Director of Public Works -e'b, dv:�
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Parkway Restoration Bids
Sealed bids were opened on August 6, 1992, for contractual park-
way restoration. Bid results are as follows:
Bidder Cost/sq.(Rd Base Bid
Gambino Landscaping, Inc.
Hellmer and Associates
D & J Landscaping, Inc.
$ 4.00 $1,212.00
$ 5.50 $1,666.50
$ 7.00 $2,121.00
This contract provides for the restoration of excavations made
in village parkways for water main breaks, hydrant replacements,
etc. The specified work includes excavation and disposal of
sand/stone/clay, replacement with topsoil, compaction, sod in-
stallation and one watering.
The Base Bid price is for 16 sites known at the time of bid
letting. At this point in time it is unknown how many total
sites will need restoration during the term of the contract
(annual average has been approximately 115 sites; we have al-
ready restored 70 sites this year on a previous contract).
The low bidder, Gambino Landscaping, Inc., has performed this
type of work satisfactorily for us in the past.
On page 160 of the 1992-93 budget, $7,672.50 remains available
for contractual parkway restoration (Account $41-072-05-6250).
I recommend award of a contract to Gambino Landscaping, Inc. in
an amount not to exceed $7,672.50.
Herbert L. Weeks
HLW/eh
PWRESTOR.92/FILES/BIDS
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works '�
DATE: August 10, 1992 8//��
SUBJ: Bid Results - Shade Tree Planting
On August 6, 1992, sealed bids were opened for the provision and
installation of parkway trees. Bid prices were sought for
2-1/211 trees for our Cost Share planting program, 1-1/211 trees
for reforestation, and larger trees for accident replacements.
Bid tabulations are shown on Attachment A.
We structured the bid to allow us to split the award between
various bidders if that was in the best interests of the Vil-
lage. Attachment B shows that ordering 2-1/211 trees from Klehm
and 1-1/2" trees from Land of Lincoln gives the lowest total
cost. It must be noted that at this point we can only estimate
quantities since residents may select their choice of species.
There is a total of $79,000.00 in various tree planting accounts
in the 1992-93 budget: 1-071-08-6241 (p. 143) 1-071-08-6242 (p.
143), 1-071-08-6243 (p. 143) and 1-071-10-8718 (p. 145). Based
on unit costs and estimated quantities, I recommend acceptance
of bids received by Klehm Nursery for 2-1/2" trees and by Land
of Lincoln for 1-1/2" trees. Total expenditures not to exceed
$79,000.00.
Herbert L.
HLW/eh
Attachments
SHADE92/FILES/BIDS
Attachment A
Bid Results - Shade Tree Planting
August 6,1992
Size
species
Davey
Tree
Charles J
Fiore
Land of
Lincoln
Arthur
Weilar
Klehm
Nursery
St.
Aubin
Berthold
2.51
Hedge Ma le
295.00
nb
196,90
nbnb
(D)
185,00
250.00
25'
Black KU&
299.00
nb
198.90
nb
- 109,00
234,40
195.00,
2.5"
Crimson K Ma le
302.00
438,75
198,90
nb
189,00
263.00
210,00
24"
Emerald Dusan or
Emerald Lustre Norway Ma le
260,00
41625
194.90
185.00
159.00
194,40
189.00
2,S"
Columnar N orwayKuple
279.00
nb,
194,90
190.00
lwoo
nb
189.00
245*
Cleveland Norway Maple
280,00
nb
198.90
nb
nb
204.40
1806
2.5"
Globe Norway Maple
nb
nb
21140
nb
nb
nb
250,001
2,5*
Green NO. Sugar Ma le
285.00
nb
191,80
nb
189.00
229.40
196.00
2,5"
Hackberry
300.00
nb
194,90
170.00
149.00
nb
189.00
2.5'
Katsura Tree
3M.00
nb
198.90
nb
- 1 1 69M
nb
195,00
2.5'
-TS'
Turkish Filbert
30,00
nb
224.00
nb
IS&OO
nb
210.96'
American Yell . . . od
_KI.inb.rq,
360.00
nb
198,90
nb
189.00
nb
225,00
2.5'
Kulumn Purple.
or S!Wine White Ash
276,00
nb
194.20
190.001
(8) IMOO
224.90
189.00
2.5"
-F$--
Marshall, Summit or Patmore
Green Ash
265.00
342,00
ISOM
180.00
154.00
I85.90
179.00
Pumpkin Ash
nb l
nb
nb
nb
no
nb
nb
24"
Autumn Gold GinNo
nb I
nb
194.10
nb
nb (D)
239,40
(9) 275.00
2.5'
Princeton Sent ry Ginkgo
463,001
nb
196.90
nb
199,00
239.40
(G) 275,00
25'
SMine or Shademester Hone st
275D0
405.00
189.90
180.00
151.00
154.40
185,00
2w5*
Sentinel Crabapple
222.00
1 nb
149.90
nb
nb
15440
n 145.00
2.5*
White Angel, Wyman, or Ormiston ROM,
Crabs le
222D0
nb
149.90 1
160.00
159.001
154.40
145.00
231
ironwood
349D0
438.75
223.90
nb
179.001
nb
210,00.
2.5'
Macho Amur Corldree,
nb
nb
189.90
nb
(C) 141.00 1
214.90
M 189,00
Bradrord or Autumn Blaze Pear
280.00
438.75
192.80
nb
159.00-164.40
189,00
2,5'
Sawtooth Oak
nb
nb
217.90
nb
nb
nb
260,00
2.5'
-5-
Northern Red Oak
31100
540.00
218.25
nb
184.00
no
210.00
fnglish Oak
269.00
nb
MIS
nb
184,00
nb
210D0
2.5'
Iwo Silk Tree Lilac
300M
nb
230.00
nb
179.00
248,90
(D) 189.00
2.5"
Greens ire Littleleaf Linden
263.00
438.75
185,90
175.00
179.00
184.90
189,00,
IS*
Redmond Linden
225.00
nb
185.901
180.00
-
179.00
180,40
189,00
1.5'
Hedge Ma le
219.00
nb
100.901
105.00
nb
115.00
150.00
1.5'
Purpleblow Ma la
nb
nb
98.90
nb
nb l (P)
114.50
(K) 175.00
1.5'
Mackbegy
299.00
nb
90A0
nb
(D) 125.001
105D0
135,001
1.5'
Turkish Filbert
320.00 1
nb
(A) 136.45
nb
(D) 125.00
115,00
150.00
I.S*
_15;
Blue Ash
prM
300.001
no
9190
115.00
(0) 125M
125D0
nb
Autumn Gold aMTr Ginkgo
295.00
nb
97.90
nb
J, 145,00
(D
159.90
(G) 195.00
'e!d`lnaI
215m00
Tb
85.90
nb
nb
1MOO
150,00
,�F
Crabs pp12
215,00
nb
85.90
nb
nb
105.00
(L) 120.00
1.51
Macho Amur Corldree
nb
nb l
(A) 139.90
n
155.00
135.00
15*
Bradford or Autumn Blaze Pear
215.00
nb
115.901
- n - b
(0) 149,00
99.40
135M
IS"
White Oak
nb
nb
(A) 148,50
nb
nb
144.40
195.00
1.6"
Northern Red
Northern R Oak
220.00
nb
107.90
140.00
(D) 149.00
114,40
150.00
1S'
Sur Oak
nb
nb
110.90
nb
nb
144.40
175.00
1,S'
Oak
nb
nb
117,80
nb
nb
nb
195.00
1.5"
English Oak
215.00
nb
115.90
nb
(D) 149.00
114,40
150.00
Tree Lilac
=
315.00
Tb
12&90
nb
(0) 149.W
109.40
15O.&T
Linden
215.00
nb
110.50
nb
149.00
89.40
150:00
3*
ISuoarWaole
415.00 1
596,25
270.50
,(D)
nb
295.00
298.40
350.00
4'
SugaWLle
nb l
nb
370-00
nb
550DI)
464.90
475.00
S'
Sugar Wap!q
nb l
nb
569.90
nb
750.00,
nb
65000
3"
Greens ire Littleleaf Linden_
330.00
528.75
259.90
300.00
245.00 I
264,40
325.00
4'
Greens 're Littleleaf Linden
455.00
856.25
375-90
nb
345.00
394.40
425.00
S'
Greens 're Littleleaf Linden
686.00
1113.75
571,80
nb
550.00
494.40
625.00
X
Marshall or Summit Green Ash
315.00
450.00
224.90
nb
295.00
229.40
250.00
1:
Marshall or Summit Green Ash
489.00
787.50
296.50
nb
375.00
389.90
400.01?
S"
IMarshall or Summit Green Ash
nb
1058.00
465.90
nb
375,00
569.90
550,00
3'
Skyline or Shademaster Houst
355.00
663.00
265.80
nb
295.00
234.90
276.00
4*
S!Dd:ine or Shademaster HonEdocust
489.00
lmwoo
378,913
nb
395.00
374.90
450.00
5'
S!Mine or Shademaster Honvtocust
nb
1113,75
528.90
nb
nb
489.90
575.0
3*
Norway %U le
369.00
529.00
2115.90
nb
245.00
263.90
275.00
4'
Nonvay hbple
495.00
$3100
368,90
nb
350.00
399.90
450.00
5"
Norway Ma Ke
$45.00
nb
526.90
nb
400.00
nb
575.00
4'
White Angel Crabap pie
400.00
nb
292.90
nb
nb
335.00
325.00
3"
Bradrord Pear
390.00
617.60
210.96
280.00
295.00
324.40
275.00
4"
Bradford Pear
415A00
709.00
285.90
nb
395.00
354.40
450.00
Substitulions
A -1.314' D -r 0 - or olher male variety J - Amur Maple
B -'Royal Purple' or'Chicago Roger E - USDA Strain H -'Profusion' K - *hAarmd
C - Seedless Variety F - Hybrid Maple I - Straight species L-AdaffW
Attachment B
Estimated Quantities/Costs
2-112' Frees
Land of
luantity Species Davey Fiore Lincoln Weiler
Klehin St. Arrbin Berthold
30
White Angel Crabapple
6,660.00
nb
4,497.00
4,800.00
4,7X00-,
4,632.00
4,350.00
30
Black Maple
8,970.00
nb
5,967.00
nb
5,670,00
703.20
5,850.00
30
Em. Queen Norway Maple
7,800.00
12,480.00
5,847.00
5,550.00
4,770,00.:
5,832.00
5,670.00
30
Sugar Maple
8,550.00
nb
5,754.00
nb
5,670.00 ,
6,882.00
5,850.00
30
Hackberry
9,000.00
nb
5,847.00
5,100.00
4,470.00'''
nb
5,670.00
38
White Ash
10,488.00
nb
7,379.60
7,220.04
6,802.00
nb
8,550.00
50
Green Ash
13,250.00
17,100.00
9,525.00
9,000.00
7,700.00
9,445.00
8,950.00
50
Honeylocust
13,750.00
20,250.00
9,495.00
9,000.00
7,550.00-!
7,720.00
9,250.00
30
Bradford Pear
8,400.00
13,162.50
5,784.00
nb
4,770.00>
4,932.00
5,670.00
30
Northern Red Oak
9,390.00
16,200.00
6,547.50
nb
5,52040['
nb
6,300.00
30
English Oak
8,070.00
nb
6,562.50
nb
5,520.00'
nb
6,300.00
30
Tree lilac
9,000.00
nb
6,900.00
nb
5,370.00<
7,467.00
5,670.00
30
Littleleaf Linden
7,890.00
13,162.50
5,577.00
5,250.00
5,370,00<
5,547.00
5,670.00
438 Totals 121,218.00 92,355.00 * 85,682.60 45,920.00,9:OQ `; 53,160.20 ; 83,750.00
1-1/2" Trees
Lath of
2uantity Species Davey Fiore Lincoln > Weiler Klehm St. Aubin Berthold
8 Purpleblow Maple
nb
nb
79110 `
nb
nb
916.00
1,400.00
5 Hackberry
1,495.00
nb
„j,,.,.454.0011',
nb
625.00
525.00
675.00
5 Blue Ash
1,500.00
nb
657:30°-
575.00
625.00
625.00
nb
5 Ginkgo
1,475.00
nb
489:50
nb
725.00
799.50
975.00
5 Tuliptree
1,075.00
nb
429.50
nb
nb
550.00
750.00
5 Sentinel Crabapple
1,075.00
nb
429.50
nb
nb
525.00
600.00
5 Bradford Pear
1,075.00
nb
579:50
nb
745.00
497.00
675.00
5 Northern Red Oak
1,100.00
nb
539.50 ;
700.00
745.00
572.00
750.00
5 Bur Oak
nb
nb
554:50 `
nb
nb
722.00
875.00
48 Totals 8,795.00 * nb 4,924.50: 1,275.00 * 3,465.00 * 5,731.50 6,700.00 •
* - Indicates partial total due to no bid' items. nb - no bid
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM I= MY tim
TO: Village Manager
FROM: Director Public Works
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Sealed Bid Sewer TV System
On August 6, 1992, sealed bids were opened for a van mounted
internal sewer TV inspection system. Three invitational bids
were sent out, plus advertising as required. This proposed
purchase is replacing a 1973 van with related equipment. Bid
results as follows:
Cues, Inc.
Jack Doheny Supplies, Inc.
National Diversified
Products, Inc.
Bid Price
Inc. Trade in Delivery
$107,070 75-90 days
136,767 75-90 days
139,790 120 days
In the current budget there is $110,000 allocated for this pro-
posed purchase under account code 48-077-93-8461, page 197. 1
recommend acceptance of the lowest bid as submitted by Cues,
Inc. in an amount not to exceed $107,070. This unit meets all
of our specifications. Bid price includes trade in of our exist-
ing 19 year old unit.
Herbert L. Weeks
HLW/eh
SEWTVSYS/FILES/BIDS
• • • PROSPECT
ILLINOIS
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FIRE CHIEF EDWARD M. CAVELLO
DATE: AUGUST 7, 1992 _80
SUBJECT: WAIVER OF BID PROCESS FOR LIFE PAC 10
Over the past three years we have been upgrading our Life Pac
monitor cardio -defibrillators. We presently have two LP10's in
service on Ambulance #12 and Ambulance #13. Our stated goal is to
have one LP10 on each ambulance.
The LP10 is a very specialized piece of EMS equipment. A
monitor/cardio defibrillator is the keystone to almost all
advanced life support procedures. It is the only piece of
equipment on the ambulance that can be used to monitor cardiac
activity; and without it you no longer are technically an ALS
unit.
The LP10's which are being purchased are currently the most
advanced units available. The LP10's have the advantage over the
LP5's of a feature called non-invasive pacing. "Pacing" is a
medical management technique whereby the heart is electrically
stimulated into adequate contraction in order to sustain cardiac
output (life itself). This technique will become approved as part
of "routine" field cardiac/trauma care by January, 1993.
By having our third LP10 purchased this year and a final purchase
of one unit next year we will be fully capable to come on line
immediately with the most current technology available. This was
our goal from the beginning. The LP51sthat are being replaced
are currently in the 8-11 year old range. The life -cycle of these
units is approximately 10 years.
Physio -Control is the sole source of any new LP equipment. All
purchases of LP's are directly through a manufacturer's sales Rep.
The Northwest Community Hospital EMS approves of the Matrix
monitor/defib in addition to the Physio LP series,. However, the
Matrix unit does not provide pacing which puts us back to the same
capability we now have with LP5's. LP5's are units that are based
on 15 year old technology.
The Fire Department respectfully requests a waiver from the bid
process as it relates to the purchase of a Life Pac 10. This
request is being made because Physo Control of Redmond, Washington
is the only source through which an LP10 is available.
Funds for the Life Pac 10 are provided in this FY Budget in
Account No. 1-042-02-8012. The total cost of this item is $8,995.
With this request, is supporting information on the use of the
LP10. Life Pac's by Physio Control is the standard unit approved
for use by Northwest Community Hospital EMS System. The LP10 is
the third generation of Life Pac's that have been used by the
Mount Prospect Fire Department.
The Fire Department's goal has been to provide the citizens of
Mount Prospect the most advanced technology and service available.
K
Edward M. Cavello
Fire Chief
EMC/mah
LIFEPAK' 10
defibrillator/monitor
Code Summary" The LIFEPAK"- 10 defibrillator/monitor offers compre-
critical event record hensive ACLS features in a rugged, portable package.
Rugged
Pacemaker option
In the tradition of the LIFEPAK 5 defibrillator/monitor, the
LIFEPAK 10 defibrillator/monitor is built tough. Meeting
strict U.S. military requirements for shock, vibration, and
weather sealing promotes dependable field performance.
In-hospital transport applications will appreciate the utility
of its features and the convenience of its size and weight.
Batteries are conveniently located for easy removal and
battery selection can be accomplished with the turn of a
switch. Battery Paks are interchangable with the LIFEPAK
5 defibrillator/monitor.
Control layout features simple 1-2-3 operation for fast, easy
use. Dependability and exceptional capability make the
LIFEPAK 10 defibrillator/ monitor the best choice for your
urgent intervention needs.