Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0151_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 I. ROLL CAL The meeting was called to order at 737 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L Farley-, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geern and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John, Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager Michael Janonis, Finance Director David Jepson, Public Works Director Herbert Weeks, and Forestry Superintendent Sandra Clark. Also present were three persons from the print media. 11. MINUTED The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of August 22, 1989 were accepted and filed. III. MIZENS IQ BE HEARD George Clowes, 604 South Elm Street, appeared before Committee members to request that a compromise be worked out regarding the parking problems around Busse School. Mr. Clowes indicated that he had been a member of the Mount Prospect Park District Board when this item was first discussed and indicated that he felt a compromise could be reached whereby the parking currently taking place on the parkway could be eliminated and replaced with a gravel parking lot on the School site. Mr. Dixon indicated that he had been in contact with Tom Tayler, the Park District Director, and that a survey of the neighborhood residents would be undertaken to determine what would be an acceptable solution to this problem. Kathy Lee, 700 Windsor, and several of her neighbors, appeared before Committee members to express their concern about the continuing problems with McBrides Tavern, Ms. Lee indicated that after several meetings between the neighbors, Police officials and the establishment owner, no appreciable resolution to the noise problems has been achieved. Ms. Lee and her neighbors requested that an Ordinance be adopted which would prohibit the future establishment of beer gardens and would restrict the hours and dates of operation of current beer gardens. 0 im Mayor Farley indicated that before he took any officio opportunity to speak with the owner who was currently o Farley indicated that if the owner was not cooperative in then he would seek the adoption of such an Ordinance, indicated support for the neighbors and asked that they, established by the Mayor. Trustee Leo Floros request been compiled by the Police Chief regarding this partic K[LiLAJ.. lgnim action, he wanted the of the country. Mayor -solving these problems Several other Trustees ark through the process any report which had u situation. Representatives of Northfield Laboratories appeared before Committee members to review their unique process for producing synthetic blood. The representatives indicated that this would be a pilot program and that it was expected to continue operating for approximately three years. Depending on the outcome of the pilot program, it was possible that Northfield Laboratories would seek to establish a larger facility in the Kensington Business Center. Upon extensive questioning by Committee members, it was determined that the blood used in the process was safe and uncontaminated; that any waste products could be disposed of without special handling and that current plans called for a single -shift operation. It was estimated that this pilot facility would produce approximately 10,000 units of synthetic blood per year. I Committee members indicated their approval of the Laboratories to operate within the Kensington Business Committee members agreed to take Item VI. (Barberry out of order because several residents were in attendai RARDEMMILPER ARFA RIMLSSION Mr. Stephen Alpert, 1121 Barberry, addressed Committe opposition to the requirement that he trim trees and shr in the Village parkway adjacent to his home. Mr. Alpert the potential liability issues the Village was dealing with trimming was unreasonable. Mr. Alpert indicated he felt somewhat in retaliation for a neighborhood request Barberry/Juniper intersection. Mr. Alpert also indicated' of Information Request, he was of the opinion that c Village had been allowed to deviate from Village standarc of trees and shrubs. by Northfield Area Discussion) members regarding his )s currently maintained adicated he understood iut that the request for at the requirement was ,r a Stop sign at the at based on a Freedom ier citizens within the regarding the trimming Ms. Patti Armocida, 1118 Barberry, addressed Committee members regarding the placement of one of the Stop signs at the Barberry/Juniper intersection. Ms. Armocida complained that the Stop sign had been placed directly in front of ber property and that this placement was detracting from its value. 'Ms. Armocida asked that the Committee give consideration to moving the sign approximately 14 feet to the east so that the sign was more in line with existing property lines. -2- Ms. Armocida also indicated that she had done some research regarding the placement of -Stop signs and had talked to IDOT officials. She indicated that there was some latitude in the placement of signs as long as they did not hinder the effective functioning of the intersection. She indicated that movement of the sign would still keep it on her properly. Mr. and Mrs. Carl Clayton., 1201 Barberry Lane, presented Committee members with a Petition signed by several area residents that asked that the bushes planted on the public right-of-way in and around the Claytons° home be maintained as is. Mr. Clayton indicated that the trees and shrubs as currently configured provided a degree of privacy to the home which sits on a corner lot. Mr. Clayton indicated that he understood that there needed to be a balancing of traffic concerns and the privacy and beauty of a neighborhood. Public Works Director Herbert Weeks reviewed with Committee members past Board policies and specific actions which had taken place over several years regarding this particular matter. Mr. Weeks referenced specific discussions at the Board level as well as the Village Attorney's opinion regarding the Village's liability in this matter. Mayor Gerald Farley indicated that he had every confidence in the Public Works Department and Director Herb Weeks in using their best judgment in enforcing this Ordinance. Mayor parley went on to say that he was confident that the Public Works Department had nothing but the best interest of the Village in mind as it carried out its mission. Trustee Theodore Wattenberg also defended staff actions in this regard and indicated that it was a difficult situation but one which had to be remedied. Trustee Leo Floros indicated that he felt it was proper for these residents to appeal to the Board regarding their displeasure with certain activities of Village staff. However, Trustee Floros also agreed that decisions such as these made by the Public Works Department regarding the trimming of trees and shrubs on Village right -of --ways was something that was best left with those individuals with the requisite expertise. Trustee Floras also indicated that he felt the request by Mrs. Armocida regarding placement of the Stop sign was reasonable. Trustee Timothy Corcoran also indicated that he felt the Village Board was a proper place for residents to appeal decisions of Village staff. He went on to say he felt the requests of the residents based upon the pictures and diagrams provided were reasonable and that staff should continue to work with the residents to reach effective compromises. Further discussion among Committee members resulted in direction to the Village Manager that he make personal visits to the various sites in question in order to snake a final determination regarding the adequacy of the Stop sign placement and tree and shrub trimming. -3- W Finance Commission Chairman Richard Bachhuber reviewed the actions of the Finance Commission with Committee of the Whole members. Mr. Bachhuber renewed his request that the Village Board authorize the hiring of an additional consultant(s) for the purposes of establishing more definitive information on the life expectancy, maintenance costs and other factors of the Village's Elevated Tank. Mr. Bachhuber felt that this additional information would allow the Finance Commission to make an informed decision regarding the future of the Tank. Trustee Arthur stated that he saw no need to move the Tank at the present time. He referred to an extensive review undertaken by the Village Board in 1986 at which time the need for the Tank was thoroughly reviewed as well as the costs associated with moving the Tank. Trustee Arthur indicated that the $1 million estimated cost of replacing the Tank was an unnecessary 'expenditure at this time. Instead, he suggested that any surplus in the Water Fund be utilized to repair Village water mains and defer future rate increases. Discussion among Committee members resulted in the following comments: Trustee Timothy Corcoran indicated he felt that the review by the Finance Commission should be based on pure financial consideration and that other considerations such as the desirability of the Tank's current location and its effect upon the TIF Development should not play a part in their deliberations. Trustee George Van Geem indicated that he had attended the Finance Commission and had gained valuable insight from that discussion. It 'vias his feeling that two additional opinions were necessary for the Finance, Commission to make an informed decision. Further, Trustee Van Geein agreed that the Finance Commission should limit its review of the Tank to purely'financial considerations. Finance Commission Member John Engel, addressed the Board on his perspective of the Commission's review. He indicated that the need," for additional opinions was precipitated by the Commission's hesitancy to accept some of the assumptions upon which the financial analysis was based. Mr. Engel indicated that the facts that formed the basis for these assumptions needed to be clarified so that any recommendation by the Finance Commission could be defended fully. Further discussion among Committee members indicated a desire to engage at least one additional consultant to render a further opinion regarding the life expectancy and probable maintenance schedule for the existing tank Additionally, Committee members requested that information regarding the cost of purchasing additional land as well as demolition and maintenance costs for a new Tank be included in such study. -4- The consensus of Committee members was to approve the hiring of one additional consultant to review the condition of the Tank. It was suggested that any Request for Proposal be reviewed first by Finance Commission members to ensure that the desired information would be developed. VII. MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager John Fulton Dixon requested that Committee members give consideration to expanding the current flooding study from the area of WaPella and Central to several other areas within the Village which have also complained of flooding as a result of recent bad weather. Committee members discussed extensively the areas which were affected and inquired as to whether staff was in a position to make the necessary analysis and recommendations or whether it was necessary to hire an outside consultant. Village Manager John Fulton Dixon and Public Works Director Herb Weeks indicated that the Village staff had a good idea of what some of the causes of the problems were and that it was possible for staff to conduct the necessary study and formulate recommendations without the help of an outside consultant. After extensive discussion among Committee members, it was determined that the staff should conduct the necessary studies and report back to the Board of Trustees. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Gerald Farley questioned the legality of brick mailboxes in Village parkways. This item was raised as part of the discussion regarding Barberry/Juniper. The Village currently prohibits any permanent structures from being placed in parkways. However, up to a dozen residents throughout the Village have constructed mailbox -type structures out of bricks and mortar or concrete. These structures pose serious safety concerns and raise liability issues similar to those raised by obstructive parkways. Discussion among Committee members resulted in a consensus that staff should review this issue and that an appropriate Ordinance should be drafted addressing this item. It was also suggested that information regarding this matter be distributed through the Newsletter and that the. Safety Commission review staff recommendations. -5- IX. ADJO There being no further business before the Committee of the Whole, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. MEJ/rcw Respectfully subinii MICHAEL E. JAN Assistant Village N. -6- Village cf' unt prospect � Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance 0irector�"� � DATE: September 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Vehicle License Changes There are two iaaoee concerning Village vehicle licenses which should be resolved before we purchase application forms for the next license year. The first oonc*coo a rate to be charged to a privately owned school bus company and the second is consideration of a reduced rate for students. The question regarding a privately owned school bus operation surfaced when the Village annexed the South nuna* H000 properties including the Cqmw County School Bus Company. Previous to this time the village only had school district and nor -for-profit vohvnl buses registered within the Village. The bvoaue operated by a school district are exempt from local licensing by Illinois State Statutes; and the Village pmaecd a resolution in 1986 which provided that a not-for-profit organization would receive village vehicle lioeoeoo for school buses at no charge. Under the existing Village ordinance, buses are Licensed according to gross weig»t. Based on this condition, most eoxopl bvmma would pay an annual license fon of $aO to $80. Cook County School 8wn Company has 34 school buses in operation and under the existing fee structure would be crvvireu to pay an estimated $2,380 in Village license fees. Prior to the annexation, the company paid a $s vehicle license fee to Cook County. We have giooveaed the fee with Cook County 5cxunl Bus Company and they indicated that they think a $10 fee would be appropriate. I believe we should license the school buses and a $10 fee would at 'Least cover our processing costs. It is my recommendation that we amend the ordinance to include a $10 rry for privately- owned The second question regarding a reduced rate for students was raised by u resident through the "Speak Out" section of the Village Newsletter. The points expressed were: 1> the vehicle owned by a college student who resides out of the area is only in the Village for three months out of the year and during holidays; 2) the student usually pays a vehicle registration or parking fee a, the college or ummocoitr; and }) the costs of higher education are increasing at such u fast John Fulton Dixon Page 2 Vehicle License Changes It is easy to empathize with the parents and the students regarding the above points and the Village has partially addressed the problem. The existing ordinance provides for an extension of the du: date of a license for a vehicle owned by a resident of the Village who maintains the vehicle in storage while temporarily away from the village an a full-time student or while fulfilling military obligations. T^*co is also a provision for a half-year license if the extended due date in after October }l, *nwever, the above conditions do not provide for u reduced fru for a student who uses xio/»oc car at school. There are two general problems which we have experienced concerning students and vehicle licenses. The first is that the students are usually away at school when the new licenses are being sold and as a result they do not obtain the license by the due date. Then when we send e follow-up notice, they aro required to purchase the license along with a 5000' penalty. The second problem is the comment in the Speak Out reply that the vehicle is only in Mount Prospect three months out of the year. One poeaih10 solution to Lxeao problems would be to treat students who have been away at school the same way new residents of the Village are treated. When a new resident moves into the village, they aro charged the difference between what they paid in their previous municipality and what is charged in Mount Prospect plus a $2.00 transfer fee. For example, if someone moves from a community whore they had previously paid a $15,00 roe, we would charge them $7.00 for the balance of our year ($20 less $15 plus $z), If someone moves from a community where they had paid $50.00, we would only charge $%,OO. This ooumua somewhat complicated but our Customer Service Clerks have been able to administer this system routinely. The war e student could fit into this picture would be to charge them the difference between what they paid for a vehicle permit at an out -of -the -area college or university and the Village rate plus the $2.00 transfer fee. This procedure would be somewhat difficult to administer fairly ueoouao or the timing of the school year and the license due date. It would also we a burden on the student to be able to provide proof of the vehicle fees they actually paid at school. One other consideration for students could u� '-o nx'_and the due date to ru days after the end or the school year. In this circumstance, a student would not be charged o penalty if they obtained the license within 30 days after he/axe returned to the village. Either, or both of these considerations concerning students could be handled administratively and would not require an ordinance change. I am reluctant to recommend the reduced rate for mtuuonLo if the vehicle is registered in mount Prospect as I believe it could raise a number of questions and possible misunderstandings. However, I think it would be appropriate to extend the due date to 30 days after the end of the school year. nc4am GE OF MOUNT PROSPE\,.,- PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1989 SUBJECT: BASKETBALL STANDARDS - REQUIRED FRONT YARDS As you directed, I have looked into the issue of basketball standards in a required front yard. Presently, our Zoning Ordinance prohibits "recreational equipment" in a front yard, the area that is typically from the front lot line to the house. The Planning and Zoning Department receives occasional questions on the installation of basketball goals. When advised of the prohibition in a front yard, residents are disappointed, and point to many basketball goals in front yards in their neighborhoods. I do not believe such a regulation is necessary. It is generally unenforceable and creates bard feelings and misunderstanding in the community. The regulation is not a necessary zoning tool, it does not serve to protect property values, the health, safety and welfare of residents, and a basketball goal is not an inappropriate use. The only real consideration is that a basketball could bounce into a street, and a smaller child might not be cautious of any on -coming vehicles. However, considering the number of basketball goals in front yards in the Village, I do not believe this has been a problem. As further background, the staff checked on regulations of other communities. A summary is as follows: Prohibits Rggreational Equipment• Arlington Heights Schaumburg Prospect Heights Rolling Meadows Glenview Elgin Skokie Evanston No Prohibition: Elk Grove Village Waukegan Park Ridge Hoffman Estates Lombard Homewood John Fulton Dixon - Page 2 September 22, 1989 While many communities prohibit basketball standards, it is my belief that the regulation is unenforceable, and probably only reviewed on a complaint basis. In my twelve years of experience in communities that did not regulate basketball standards, I can recall no problems other than misdirected basketballs occasionally upsetting neighbors. Considering that many basketball standards exist in front yards in Mount Prospect, and in an effort to eliminate an unnecessary regulation that is, ' misunderstood, I would recommend that the Village Board authorize an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on this matter. 101 'N,,_,,LAGE OF MOUNT PROVE,, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER W_ FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1989 SUBJECT: PROPOSED BIKE ROUTES AND BROCHURE Attached please find a Bike Route Map and Brochure for the Village of Mount Prospect. The transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan suggests that new on -street bike routes be investigated. The proposed Bike Route Map implements this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Bike Route Map is intended to provide bicyclists with safe routes through the Village, using scenic, low volume streets whenever possible. At arterial streets, the bike routes use controlled intersections. The map attempts to direct riders to parks, schools, shopping and other popular destinations. Also, the bike routes are planned to link -up routes in neighboring communities. This information was prepared by the Planning and Zoning staff, and reviewed by Village Departments, Park Districts and local bike clubs. The Plan Commission reviewed and approved the proposal at their meeting of September 20. If approved, the map would be made available to the public at Park District and Village offices, local bike shops and clubs. Signage for marking the routes will proceed as funds are available. DMC:hg Rhone 3121392-6000 AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Thursday, September 28, 1989 8:00 P. M. Public Safety Building 112 East Northwest Highway ZRA-66-$U-8%, ZBA-67-V.�9, The MAY Propertigs, 1509S Elmhurst Road (Venture Deparlmot Store Parcel) l'be May Department Stores are requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Department for their property at 1500 South Elmhurst Road. The request includes the following: 1. The approval of two outlots on a portion of the under-utilized parking lot adjacent to Elmhurst Road. One outlot is for a proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-tbru, fast-food restaurant. Preliminary approval for a second drive-thru, fast- food restaurant is requested for the second outlot. 2. Approval of a future addition on the north side of the Venture Store consisting of 20,000 square feet. 3. A variation from the provisions of Section 14.2102.E to allow a 20 foot parking lot setback instead of 30 feet along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street, and a zero foot parking lot setback instead of 20 feet on the west and north property lines. Village Board action will be required in this case. LB -A -48-Z-89, _1_%_gFid el1tv D 2 __gvglqpment -Corp L _9ration, Southeast corner! f Rgnd and Euclid 'Roads including,Z07, 292, 211.213 215 Euclid, L 4 446.45 4 -0. , ft 620 Rand The applicant is requesting to rezone this parcel from RA Single Family to B-3 Business Retail and Service in order to construct a 90,000 square foot shopping center. Village Board action will be required in this case. In all cases where the Zoning Board of Appeals is final, a fifteen (15) day period is provided for anyone wishing to appeal their decision. No permit will be issued until this period has elapsed. MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY TRUSTEES RALPH W ARTHUR MARK W BUSSE TIMOTHY J CORCORAN LEO FLOROS GEORGE R VAN GEEM THEODORE J. WATTENSERG Village of Mount Prospect VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON VILLAGE CLERK 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 CAROL A. FIELDS Rhone 3121392-6000 AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Thursday, September 28, 1989 8:00 P. M. Public Safety Building 112 East Northwest Highway ZRA-66-$U-8%, ZBA-67-V.�9, The MAY Propertigs, 1509S Elmhurst Road (Venture Deparlmot Store Parcel) l'be May Department Stores are requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Department for their property at 1500 South Elmhurst Road. The request includes the following: 1. The approval of two outlots on a portion of the under-utilized parking lot adjacent to Elmhurst Road. One outlot is for a proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-tbru, fast-food restaurant. Preliminary approval for a second drive-thru, fast- food restaurant is requested for the second outlot. 2. Approval of a future addition on the north side of the Venture Store consisting of 20,000 square feet. 3. A variation from the provisions of Section 14.2102.E to allow a 20 foot parking lot setback instead of 30 feet along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street, and a zero foot parking lot setback instead of 20 feet on the west and north property lines. Village Board action will be required in this case. LB -A -48-Z-89, _1_%_gFid el1tv D 2 __gvglqpment -Corp L _9ration, Southeast corner! f Rgnd and Euclid 'Roads including,Z07, 292, 211.213 215 Euclid, L 4 446.45 4 -0. , ft 620 Rand The applicant is requesting to rezone this parcel from RA Single Family to B-3 Business Retail and Service in order to construct a 90,000 square foot shopping center. Village Board action will be required in this case. In all cases where the Zoning Board of Appeals is final, a fifteen (15) day period is provided for anyone wishing to appeal their decision. No permit will be issued until this period has elapsed.