Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1965 VB minutes MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES'.MEETING .. HELD TUESDAY! FE.BRUARY 9~ 1965 P~esident Schlaver called the meeting to order a~ 8:12 P.M. with the following members present: roll call Bruhl ~Bergen Busse Casterline Ek~sn Phillips T~ustee Casterline, seconded by T~ustee Bruhl, minutes moved to approve the minutes of February 2*%d as corrected. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Bergen Busse Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Trustee Bruhl, seconded by Trustee Ekren, moved for bills approval of the following bills: General $55,~79.21 Pa~king System Library 2,01~. 27 Public Works Bldg. 6,908.77 L~brary Bldg. 1961 1$,251.~0 Waterworks & Sew. 8,7~5.81 $87,810.10 Upon roll call: Ayes= B~uhl Bergen Busse Ekren Phillips Casterline Motion ca,tied. Mr. Wm. Mort, of D~A.M.P. addressed the Board, thanking them for their contribution to this organization, D.A.M.P. asking them if they had given thou. ght to securing Chicago water through that Commission. Mr. Mort. pointed out that the Engineers' Report made for the Village had made no mention of This method, and he was wondering what to say to the D.A.M.P. Commission on behalf of Mount Prospect at their next meeting. l~esident Schlaver assured him that the engineers will give consideration to D.AM.P. Trustee Ekren brought up plat of annexation with ordinance, showing area between Weller Creek and Golf Road bi- Annexations sected by Elm Street, 22.195 acres, with intention to move for annexation as per motion of the Board at a previous meeting. Mr. Ek~en also stated that he had received petition f~om resi- dents of th~ea.asking not to be annexed. Attorney for the residents therein, Mr. Rissler~ arose and asked for defezvaent of This annexation. It was agreed to set a meeting within the next ~0 days between these homeowners and members of Village departments from Water, Engineering, etc., To explain the practical effects of including this area within boundaries. Trustee Ek~en, seconded by Trustee Bruhl, then moved to table passage of this annexation until a later date. Upon roll call: Ayes~. Bruhl Busse Bergen Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. February 9, 1965 nnexations T~ustee Ekren brought forth plat of annexation with ordinance showing area on east side of P~nd Road north of Gregory, 22.447 acres, to be annexed as per motion of the Boamd at. a pravious meeting. The zoning is shown as R-4 in Cook County, and some of the property is now used in a non-conforming or illegal manner. Trustee Ekren read . memo from the Village Manager recommending use of Tach Search, Inc. to give appraisal of best use of this area. M~. Harry Lavery, attorney representing the Muller family on Rand Road, asked for deferment for time to discuss prob- lem with members of the Village Board~ Mr. Heersman, attorney for Loy White, asked that hms client s zoning appeal not be held up. Trustee Ekren, seconded by T~ustee Phillips~ moved to table motion to annex the foregoing area for a period of 40 days. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Busse Bergen Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Trustee Ekran, seconded by Trustee Phillips, moved Annexations and that Village Manager Appleby be directed to inform Tach Zoning along Search~ Inc. that ~he Village seeks their suggestions for Rand Road planning and zoning of the above-mentioned 22.447-acre area along Rand Road. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Busse Bergen Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Trustee Ek~en, secondedby Trustee Bruhl, moved Ord. 1021 for the passage of Ordinance #1021: Annexation ANNEXING 3.4855 ACRES LOCATED ON CENTRAL ROAD IMMEDIATELY EAST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH BUSSE ROAD Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Busse Ek~en Casterline Phillips Pres. Schlaver Motion carried. Ord. 1022 Trustee Ek~en, seconded 5yTrUstee Busse, moved for Annexation the passage of O~dinance #1022: ~NEXING .741 ACRES FRONTING ON BUSSE ROAD AND LYING 575 FEET SOUTH OF CENTRAL ROAD, ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUSSE Upou roil call: Ayes: Bergen' Bruhl Busse Ek~en Casterline Phillips Pres. Schlaver Motion car led. February 9, 1965 Trustee Ekren, seconded :by Tmustee Castarline, Ord. 1023 moved for the passage of O~dinance #102S: Annexation ANNEXING .995~ ACRES OF LAND ON EAST GOLF ROAD BETWEEN MAPLE DRIVE AND COUNTRY LANE Upon moll Call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Busse Ekren Caste~line Phillips Pres. Sohlave~ Motion carried. T~ustee Ek~en, seconded by Tz'ustee Phillips, Ord. 102~ moved fom the passage of O~dir~ance ~102~: Annexation ANNEXING 7.127 ACRES OF PROPERTY BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH .BY ALGONQUIN ROAD~ 0N THE EAST BY BUSSE ROAD, AND IN PART ON THE WEST BY COMMONWEALTH EDISON RIGHT OF WAY Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Busse Ekren Casterline Phillips PPes. Sohlave~ Motion cam~ied. Messrs. John Ju~sich,~rry W. Gahagan and Jermy Greenberg, all of whom own or ~epresent p~opertiesin this-tez~itory, spoke to theBoa~d and expressed the fact that they welcome the privilege of connection and ax'e pleased to be a part of the Village. Village Manager Appleby pointed out that all of these gentlemen had filed applications fo~ rezoning to be heard at the next regulam hea~ing. (These will be known as Cases 65~3 and T~ustee Ek~en brought forth plat of annexation with Annexation o~dinance showing area of 11.78~ acres no~th of Golf Road, Kellen property south of Lonnquist, between Louis and William Street, to be annexed as perm0tion of ~he Board at a pmeVious meeting. At the request of a ~esident, M~. Kallan, this matter was deferred until a late~ date. T~ustee Ekmen, seconded by T~ustee Bruhl, moved fom the passage of Ordinance #1025: ' Ord. 1025 Annexation AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRIANGULAR PORTION OF LAND COMPRISING 5.77 ACRES BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST BY RAND ROAD, ON THE SOUTH BY HENRY STREET AND ON THE NORTH BY THE CENTER LINE OF THAYER STREET AS EXTENDED~ Upon roll call: Ayes: Bemgen Bruhl Busse Ekren Casteriine Phillips Pres. Schlave~ Motion carried. T~ustee Ek~en, seconded by T~ustee Phillips, moved for the passage of O~dinanoe ~1026: 0rd~ %026 ANNEXING 1.595 ACPd~S OF PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF SCHOENBECK ROAD AND SURROUNDED BY OLD ORCHARD COUNTRY CLUB February 9, 1965 Upon roll call: Ayes: ~ergen Bruht Busse Casteriine Ek~en Phillips Pres. Schlaver Motion carried. Zoning Ord. T~ustee Ek~en re~erred to memo dated February 6 1965 from the Zoning Board as follows: "We submit to the trustees a revised business zoning ordi- nance, new in concept, modern in design. The instrument places the three existing classifications with five. "It has been our aim all along to create a document of zoning to fit not alone the needs of today, but to enable our busi- ness community to grow in a truly progressive manner and certainly not in the image of the past. Inspection will re- veal controls which make many of the Less desirable develop- ments of the past if not impossible at least exceedingly difficult to repeat. "The new B-1 and B-2 classifications encourage the cluster- lng principle, with of course generous off-street parking. The new B-3 and B-q classifications are designed for indivi- dual developments; and all of our ~existing uses will fit into one or the other, altho many will be legally non-conforming because of the lack of off-street parking. The new.T-1 classification meets a definite need. The Village has fre- quently resorted to the variation device to accommodate a use not mentioned anywhere. This District should p~ove to be a valuable zoning tool, not alone for o~fices b~t as an "in between District". "Application of the pPop~sed zoning Districts tothe business zoning in our community is shown on the maps attached. '!.We u~ge the Trustees to study the results of our labors, and hope that they are found to be acceptable. The study resulZs hake been reviewed by our Village Attorney." E. F. Martin, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals The above matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee for their study and recommendation. Trustee Ekren read the following report from the Zoning Case 65-1 Zoning Board re Case 65-1: Re:Case 65-1, Petitioner: Mathilde Busse (Minardi Construc- tion Co.), Heard January 29, 1965. This is a request f~r rezoning from R-1 to R-A con- .~1 tingent upon annexation of about 17 acres located on the south side of Golf Road about 150 feet east of Robert Drive. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 7-0 to recommend that the rezoning be denied. There was one objector present. E. F. ~artin, Chairman R. H. Monroe, Acting Sec'y This matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee. February 9, 1965 Tz~ustee Ek~en read report from the Zoning Board Zoning re Case 65-2: Case 65-2 Re: Case 65-2, heard January 29, 1965 Petitioner: Village of Mount Prospect This is a revision of the B-3 ordinance regarding Drive In Restaurant and Food establishments as directed by the Board of Trustees. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 7-0 to recommend that the revision be approved. Eugene F. Martin, Chairman K. H. Monroe, Acting Sec'y This matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee. T~ustee Ekren read the following letter f~om the Plan Commission: Dedication of Street February 9, 1965 Village President and Board of T~ustees Mount Prospect, Illinois Gentlemen: The Mount P~ospect Plan Commission recommends that the attached Plat of Dedication of Streets adjoining the Robert Frost School be accepted. Respectfully submitted, Mount Prospect Plan Commission Lloyd Norris, Chair~aan pro rem M. G. Appleby, Secretary TDustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Castertine, moved to accept the recommendation of the Plan Commission and direct the President and requi~ed officials to sign this plat of dedication on behalf of the Village. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse Bergen Bruhl Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Casterline, Ord. 1027 moTed for the passage of Ordinance ~1027: Building Code AMENDING CHAPTER IX SECTION B, PARAGRAPH 7 of the MOUNT PROSPECT BUILDING CODE. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse Bergen Bruhl Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. T~ustee Bergen, seconded by T~ustee Casterline, moved that the Village Attorney be directed to draw up ordi- nance amending the Building Code by giving specifications for February 9, 1965 garages. This motion ca~ied by acclamation. Building T~ustee Bergen b~ought up the subject of Ch~pte~ 3~ Pamag~aph 6.1, mentioning that a builde~ had submitted fop --~ building permit a g~eat numbem of house plans (sold) rom one block at a time of which too manywe~e alike. The pmesent omdinance meads as follows: 6.1 It shall be unlawful fop any contmacto~ om buildem to constmuct mo~e than two mesidential buildings of the same extemio~ design on the same side of the stmeet in any one block. Two buildings of like exte~iom design when so con- st~ucted within any one block may be so emected only when they ame-not adjacent To each othem om dimectly across the street fmom each other. The pmoposed omdinance meads as follows: 6.1 It shall be unlawful for any contmactoT o~ buildem to constmuct mesidential buildings of the same fmont exte~io~ design on mo~e than 25% of the lots on the same side of the stmeet of any one block. Buildings with the same fmont extemiom design may not be constz~/cted adjacent to each othem on the same side of The stmeet o~ acmoss the stmeet fmom each othem wheme the lap of f~ontage is g~eatem than 25%. (a) Change in fmon~ extemioP design shall mean a change of the ~oof line elevations om a set-back vamiation in the fmon= design of the building. (b) The addition of an attached gamage shall be considemed as a fmont extemiom design change. (c) In computing the 25% mequi~ement, to in the fi~s~ sentence of pa~agmaph of 6.1, any pa~t of a fmaction shall be dmopped. (d) Co,hem lots shall be considemed on the s=mee~ on which the minimum $0-f~. set-back is established. (e) Changes in windows, dooms, shuttems om colom of bmick om paint shall no% be con- sidemed as f~on= exte~iom design change. (f) Revemsal of plans shall no= be considemed · a f~ont extemiom design change. T~ustee Bemgen then moved, seconded by T~ustee Castemllne, that the Building Supemintenden~ and the Chairman of the Architectumal Committee mecommend a pmog~am ~o be followed allowing a cemtain numbem of days.foP acceptance om mejec- tion of building peri, its. based on the numbem of applica- tions submitted at one time by a buildem or contmactom~ me Chaptem 3, Pa~agmaph 1St Building Code. This motion cap- tied by acclamation. Febmuary gt 1965 Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Casterline, Building - moved that the Building Superintendent h~ directed to with- Elk Ridge Villa hold issuance of permits for houses on Fern Drive in Elk Ridge Villa p~nding a meeting to be held with the builder and the Superintendent of Building and the Building Commait- tee° Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Bergen Busse Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Casterline, moved that the Clerk advise the builder submitting plat of subdivision that thSs plat will he recorded within 15 days after approval, or he will have to withdraw this plat and resubmit again to the PlanCommission. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Bus~e Bergen Ek~en Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Trustee Phillips read the following Statement Fire regarding question raised by Trustee Bergen at the previous meeting regarding the ¥illage's Fire Rating: "Trustee Frank Bergen, in a statement issued in last week's Village Board Meeting, accused this Board and more particu- larly the Fire g Water Committee and responsible village administrators in making no attempt to alter our present Fire Classification frc~ a "5" to a "~"~ This concern was ex- pressed in support of the fact that insurance rates effecting Mt. Prospect residents are based on this classification. "This accusation was made on the premise that ~ince the lishment of the "Class 5" rating in the Illinois Inspection Bureau survey of 1956 we have had no inspecti°n. Furthermore at the time of 1956 inspection, we had no paid ~iremen, equip- ment needed repair, and we had no facility to store fire equipment south of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad tracks. Therefore, in view of all the improvements made subsequent to that time, we should be in a position to request another in- spection in seeking a reduction to a "Class 4" rating. Unfortunately, this statement was issued in my'absence, and as Chairman of the Fire & Water Committee I had no opportunity to respond to Mr. Bergen's remarks. Accordingly, I have prepared this written statement in the interest of both replying to Trustee Bergen and setting the record straight. Mr. Bergen was quoted as saying, ',I have been voting to uphold our fire rating for ~woyea~.s without knowing what it was or how it was determined, so I decided to find out what it was all about," 'Mr. Bergen's method of discovering "what it was all about" was not To consult with ~the Village Manager, Fire Chief, Water Superintendent~ Fire & Water Committee, and particularly the engineers Austin and Gent at the Illinois Inspection Bureau, who are directly responsible in the establishment of our rate classification and with whom we have maintained close February 9, 1965 ire since the 1956 survey. T~ustee Bergen instead apparently bases his knowledge on information contained in a general information pamphlet issued by the Bureau entitled "Fire Defenses." He quotes the Bumeau in such a manner as to give the reader or listener the impression that the quotation was made and specifically directed to Mt. Prospect's present position. Since this impression is likely t6 result, and the source of information was undisclosed in Mr. Bergen's statement, I wish to point out this quotation can be found on page eight of this general information 'pamphlet. Needless to say, I was alarmed from what appeared to be statements made by the Inspection Bureau relative to our present status, and which otherwise wodld have been directly contrary to what we knew our position to be as a result of the discussions we have had with the Bureau in recent months. Engineer Marvin Austin, Bureau contact man for Mt. Prospect, informed me no one, other than myself, had contacted them relative to the question of going'to a class "4", and re- assured me they did not recommend a Dew survey at this time in view of themany uncompleted projects found necessary in maintaining step with both cum growth and the standards re- quired To hold our class "5" rating. A review of the Illinois Inspection Bureau file on the Vil- lage of Mt. Prospect will disclose the results of many conversations and inspections on the part of the Bureau each time a major development was completed. To name a few in recent years: 1. Randhurst development. 2. Water rehabilitation program. 3. South side fire station and equipmenT. Old O~cbard projecT. 5. Securing of Chicago water. 5. Emergency water connections. It is misleading To state there have been no inspections by the Bureau since 1956. The CO~eCT sTaTement is there has been no official survey made since 1956. There have been numerous inspections and consultations, as previously stated, az such time the Fire Chief and Village Manager felt the need for them. We have been periodically informed of our precarious position concerning The possi- bility of falling into Class "6" in view of the difficulty in maintaining services commensurate with our rapid growth. However, due to our effort in maintaining pace, we have been assured of remaining in "class 5". Des Plaines and Arlington HeighTs were not quite so fortu- naTe. They both in recent yea~s lost their class "5" rating due to the inability To maintain baae requirements in their rapid growth. Both villages subsequently were able To make the improvements necessary in being reclassified as February 9, 1965 "5"° M~. Bergen questioned why it was that both Arlington Heights and Des Plaines obtained'a reduction in their class rate in recent yeams and we had not. I believe the answem to that is now obvious. Possibly the oonditions that bring about increased defi- ciencies oan be generally pointed out by the amount of defi- ciency points developed in the 1956 sumvey, and those developed in a Bureau meport ~de in Febmuary of 1963. The laTTem ~epomt was a pmojection of the status of oum Village subsequent to the last survey. Each classification, one thmough ten, has a to~al maximum of 5~000 deficiency points~ consequently class 5 ~anges fmom 2001 =o 2500 deficiency points. At the time of ou~ 1956 survey we had 2323 deficiency points~ whereas by 1963, even though we had made many improvements commespondent To a gmowTh in village area from three square miles in 1956 to almost six squame miles in~1963, we had increased oum defi- ciency points to 2~25, om only 75 points memoved from a class "6" rating. While subsequent to 1963 we have made added impmovemenTs, we have also had added gmowth. Consequently~ in ou~ discussion with the Bureau in recent months, we have been assured of only one thing - as long as we maintain pmogmess with gmowTh we ame not in dangem of losing oum class "5" mating. It has been the furthest thing,fmom oum mind to mequesT a su~vey~ in view of mecenT pmojecTions~ as theme is no ques- tion in ou~ mind that until the major projects pmesently under way a~ecompleted~ we would ~be inviting the possibility in demanding an official survey, of falling into a class "6" rating. The majom pmojects undem way are: 1. Completion of the South Side ¥ime Station, including installation of equipment and staffing of personnel. 2. Secuming Chicago watem. 3. Completion of water main installation on Rand and Kensington~ including the looping of Randhurst. P~oposed looping of the Bruning 5. Secuming of and integration of citizens Water Company System in the Bluett area. 6. Secu~in~ of The Watem Company and integma- tionof that,system in the Fai~view Gamdens 7. EliminaTion of some of the majom tmaffic ills such as the widening of Central Road and insTallaTion of bridges across Weller Cmeek to aid oum intemnal tmaffic flow. In other words~ with oum continued effomt in maintaining a position of improving oum facilities corespondent to gmow~h, February 9, 1965 ire it is conceivable az such time as we have stabilized our position that we can and should expect a reduction in our class rating. If the question and indirect accusations made by Trustee Bergen had come from'a concerned but misinformed citizen, it would be understandable. However, to ha~e this come f~om a fellow trustee who has had for the past two years full access to the facilities available to him in secur- ing these facts, I can draw only one conclusion. The comments made by Trustee Bergen were both i~esponsible and politically motivated." Ord. 1028 Trustee Casterline, seconded by Trustee Bergen, Health mo=ed for passage of 0rdi~nce #1028: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WITH REFERENCE TO FOOD SERVICE S~ITATION. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Busse Ekren Casterline Phillips Motion carried. Ord. 1029 Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Casterline, Elections moved for the passage of Ordinance ~1029: 1965 ELECTION ORDINANCE FOR THE VILLAGE ~-~ OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, STATE OF ILLINOIS Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Busse Ekren Casterline Phillips ~ot ion carried. Board of Trustees President Schlaver stated that the Board shall consider only those matters given to the Village Manager by Thursday of the preceding week to be placed on the agenda; this applies also to citizens wishing to present their requests. Health, Board of Trustee Casterline, seconded by T~ustee Bruhl, moved that the Board acknowledge appreciation of the considerable work done by the Board of Health in putting together O~dinance #1028. This motion carried by acclamation. Adjournment by acclamation a~ 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth C. Wilson, Clerk February 9, 1965