The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/15/1965 VB minutes MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES' MEETING HELD JUNE 15~ 1965 P~esident Congreve opened the meeting at 8:06 P.M. The Clerk called the roll with the following members present: ~oll call Bergen Colfer Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Ek~en, who arrived at 8:14 P.M. T~ustee Grittani gave the invocation. T~ustee Colfer, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved for the approval of the minutes of June 8th as submitted: minutes Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Grittani Teichert Absent; B~uhl Ek~en Motion carried. T~ustee Ekren entered meeting at this point. T~ustee Grittani, seconded by T~ustee Colfer, moved for the approval of the following bills: a~rgva% 9f "'~ bills General $8,960.99 Parking System Revenue 8.75 Public Works Bldg. Constr. 1964 786.16 Waterworks & Sewerage Fund 4p683.00 $I4,388.90 Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. Trustee Grittani, seconded by Trustee Bergen, moved for the acceptance of the Financial Report for the month of Financial re- May, subject ~o audit, port Upon moll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. T~ustee Colfer, seconded by T~ustee Bergen, moved for the passage of O~d. 1062. Oud. 1062 Amend Bldg. Co( AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER III OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT BUILDING CODE Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Gmittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion %ammied. June 15, 1965 This ordinance deletes the waiver of the plan examination fee Plan exam fee for similar buildings within a subdivision. Trustee Collar, seconded by Trustee Bergen, moved for the publication, according to law~ of Ord. 1052. 0rd~062 Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Collar Ekren Grlttani Teichert _ Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. Trustee Grittani read the following report from the Finance Committee regarding purchase of tractor and rotary tractor & mower: rotary mower purchase "The Public Works Department is in need of a new tractor and a rotary mower to mow parkways and gacant property. The present tractor is equipped with a sickle mower which is not the proper machine for the job to be done; is 12 years old and cannot be nmpained. The following are the three lowest prices secured: Net Price, trading in old tractor and mower Delivery Fi~nbach Brothers ~ $2200 30-45 days International 2404 & 60" ~-~ Rotary (2~1) Fishback Brothers 2257 Immediate Ford 2000 & 60" Rotary (901) P & W Sales 2484 Week to 10 days Ford 3000 $ 60" Rotary (901) The Public Works Director and Village Manager recommend the equipment be purchased from Fishback Brothers (the second low bidder) at a price of $2257 because of immediate delivery. The Finance Committee~ by a vote of 2-0 concurs in this recommendation. Joseph Grittani Chai~man Finance Committee~ Trustee Grittani, seconded by Trustee Bergen~ moved to concu~ with the recommendation of the Finance Committee to purchase tractor and rotary mower from Fishback Bros. at a price of $2257 because of immediate delivery. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Collar Ekren ~-- ' - Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. T~ustee Teichert read the following report f~om The Police Committee regarding stoplight at Central and HiLusi: June 15, 196~ UBJECT: Stoplight at Central and Hi Lusi Stoplight Central ~ Hi Lusi DATE OF COMMITTEE MEETING: June 7, 1965 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ATTENDING: Robert D. Teichert Joseph J. Grittani Parker Ekren COMMENTS: East-bound traffic on Central when stopped by the lights on Northwest Highway (or the train gates) backs-up and blocks the intersection of Hi Lusi and Central...B$ock~e of the intersection west of the Northwest~ railroad tracks prevents traffic from Hi busi and from Prospect Avenue from moving onto Central Road. RECOMMENDATION: The Police Committee recommends (3-0) that the Village install a stop light on the south side of Central immediately to the west of Hi Lusi. Trustee Teichert, seconded hy Trustee Ekren, moved to confirm recommendation of Police Committee that Village install a stoplight on the south side of Central immediately to the west of Hi busi, said installation to be inserted innext budget and installed with MFT funds. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Teichert read the following report from the Police Committee regarding stoplight atMain and Prospect: SUBJECT: stoplight at Main street and Prospect Avenue. Stoplight · Main & Prospect DATE OF COMMITTEE MEETING: June 7, 1965 COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT~ENDING: Robert D. Teichert ~ : Joseph J. Grittani Parker Ekren COMMENTS: North-bound traffic,onMain Street when stopped by the lights on Northwest Highway (or the train gates) backs-up and blocks theinterseetion of Prospect Avenue and Main Street. Blockage of the intersec- tion south of ~hs Northwestern railroad tracks pre- vents traffic from Prospect and fromEvergreen Avenues from movingonto: or across Main Street. RECOMMENDATION: The Police Committee recommends ($-0) that the Village.install a stoplight on the east side of Main Street immediately to the south of Prospect Avenue. Trustee Teichert, seconded by Trustee Ekren, moved to concur with recon~endation of Police Committee for installation of stoplight on the east side of Main Street immediately tothe south of Pros- peet Avenue, pending State approval,and to be installed with MFT funds. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. June 15, 1965 T~ustee Teichert read the following report from the Louis St. 1-way Police Committee regarding making Louis Street one-way in a northerly direction from Thayer to Rand Road: SUBJECT:Louis Street one-way in a northerly direction from Thayer to Rand Road. DATE OF COMMITTEE MEETING: June 7, 1965 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ATTENDING: Robert. D. Teichert Joseph J. Grittani Parker Ekren COMMENTS: Before the annexation of the Bluett area, this por- tion of Louis Street from Thayer to Rand Road was one-way north. This is only a half street since the eastern half has not been dedicated. The at this point is not wide enough for traffic in opposite directions with safety. One-way north would permit egress of theresidents onto Rand Road. One-way south would prevent such egress and in ad- dition would probably create a traffic hazard, since it would appear to be a cut-off to reach Central Road and avoid the stoplights on'Rand Road at Pros- pect Plaza and Central. This increase of thru- %%~affic in a residential area does not seem desirable .... particularly in view of the high speed traffic we would encourage to enter at this point. RECOMMENDATION: The Police Committee recommends (3-0) that ~-~ the Village establish Louis Street as a one- way street in a northerly direction between Thayer Street and Rand Road. M~. James Darby of 206 N. Louis appeared as objector asking that Thayer be posted as closed for traffic entering from Rand Road on week-ends only. After discussion, President Congreve referred this item back to Committeee. Trustee Teichert, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved to concur with recommendation of Police Committee to adopt light blue short sleeve shirts as part of Police uniform between short sleeve shirts pariod of JUne 15 to September 15, initial issue of short sleeve police shirtsto be at Village expense. . Upon ~oll call: Ayes:Bergen Colfer Grittani Teichert Nays: Ekren :Absent: Bruhl Motion carried~ President Congreve referred matter of Village furnishing uniforms , Police Comm. refer in lieu of clothing allowance to Police Committee. President Congreve r6ferred matter of driveway to Fi~e Fin. Comm. referal Station #2 to Finance Committee. June 15, 1965 President Congreve referred matter of flooding of lots in the 900 block of S. Edward St. to the Building Com- mittee and asked that they meet in committee with Village flooding S. Edwaz Manager Appleby and Bldg. Supt. Pecoramo on Monday, June 21st. T~ustee Bergen ~ead the following repor~ from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 65-11: REPORT June 14, 1965 To: Board of Trustees From: Zoning Board of Appeals Re: CASE 55-11, heard June 11, 1965 ZBA 65-11 Petitioner: Chicago Title and T~ust Co., as Trustee St. John Apts. The Petitioner requests a special use to peri, it swim pool construction of a swimming pool on the propePty known as St. John's Apartments, located on the wes~ side of Busse Road, north of Algonquin, au the north edge of the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way. The~e were no objectors present. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the Zoning Boar~ found that, if gmanted, the requested special use will not: 1) Be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. 2) Be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3) Impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in ~he district. The Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend the granting of the special use. E. F. Martin, Chairman M. G. Young, Acting Secretary The Board meeting recessed at 9:13 P.M. to give Judiciary Com- mittee time to review above ~%oor~. The meeting ~esumed at 9:28 P.M. with the following members present: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Pres. Congreve Absent: Bruhl T~ustee Bergen, seconded by T~ustee Colfer, moved to concur with the opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals to g~ant special use for swimming pool at the St. John's Apartments and to direct attorney to draw up ordinance granting special use. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen golfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. June 15, 1965 Village Attorney Siegel gave first reading of o~dinance grant- ing special use permit for construction of swimming pool .on Special use permit property located on the west side of Busse Road north of Algon- swim pool quin Road and directly north of an~ adjacent to the Commonwealth Edison Company right-of-way (Case 65-11). President Congreve requested the ordinance be put on agenda for next meeting. Trustee Bergen gave first reading of ordinance vary- ing side yard requirementsfor lots located at 808 and 810 808-810 S. Albert $. Albert St. President Congreve requested this ordinance be side yard variation placed on agenda for next meeting. Trustee Bergen read the following letter from :Attorney 65-9 Smith to Attorney Siegel regarding side yard variation (Case 65-9): side yard variation 500 S. wapella June 15, 1965 In Re: Villase of Mount P~o.s~ect - G~.n.eral Corporate Matters A~ the meeting of June 8, 1965, we were directed to prepare an ordinance granting a Variation~ from the minimum 20 foot side yax~i requirement on the corner lot of the property located at 500 S. Wapella Avenue, that is, the southwest corner of Wapella and Shabonee T~ail. An e~amination of the zoning ordinance fails to disclose any requirement that the side lot line of a corner lot that abuts a street be 20 feet in width. Such a requirement does appear, however, in Section 6 of Article 2 of the Village Plan (subdivi- sion regulations). These regulations were adopted in 1943 and the Plat of SubdiVision that included this lot was recorded in 1926. The Superintendeht of Building has apparently been enforcing the standards for subdivision as though they were a provision in the zoning ordinance, although I can find no provision in the zoning ordinance which makes these restrictions applicable where they are more restrictive than the regulations that would otherwise be imposed by the zoning ordinance. An examination of the Plat of Subdivision (which was recorded July 10, 1926, as Document No. 9335147, Plat Book 232, pp. 38-39) discloses that the only platted building line on the lot is a required setbaBk of 30 feet along Wapella Avenue. There is no platted building line on the Shabohee side. The Mount Prdspebt Zoning Ordinance does not define the term "front Yard," so i~ i% not possible to know whether the Wapella side or the Shabonee side of the lot would be treated as the front yard. The' hbuse is to face Shabonee, and if the view is taken that the front door faces the front yard, then the Shabonee side would have to have a 30 foot setback. The unusual shape of the lot would probably prevent the property owner from observing this~equirement and he would need a variation for this purpose. If, however, the view is taken that the Wapella side is the front yard, even though the side of the house will face on it, then in my opinion a house could be constructed without any variation what- ever. It seems to me that it might be appropriate to refer this case back to the Board of Appeals for their further consideration. If Wapella~ viewed as the front yard, it might even be appropriate to refund to the applicant the fee he paid for con- sideration of his variation application on the ground that he was incorrectly advised by village employees that he could not con- sl~ucX a house without securing a variation, R. M. Smith June 15, 1965 President Congreve referred this case back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the matter of refunding the fee to the peri- 65-9 richer was referred to the Judiciary Committee. President Congreve referred to the Finance Director a study on Linneman property annexation as to the feasibility Eimne~an anne~ of developing as single-family or multi-family. President Congreve requested a r~port on the study be put on the agenda for The meeting of June 29th. Trustee Bergen read the following letter from Ross~ Ha~dies~ O'Keefe, Babcock, McDugald 6 ParsOns regarding special assessments: June 8, 1965 President and Board of Trustees Village of Mount P~ospect Village Hall Mount P~ospect, Illinois Re: Special Assessments Gentlemen: I have reviewed the various special assessments that have been assigned to us for processing. We a~e prepared to undertake the special assessments, including Kenilworth Avenue, a project installing certain alleys nomth of No~thwest Highway, certain sidewalks generally along Central Road, and certain paving on Lincoln Avenue, Milburn Avenue, and Manawa Avenue. I ~ave asked M~. Kenneth Stonesifer to participate Lu the special assessment P~oceedings wi~h me. As I haVe p~eviously indicated to you, our charges for ~hese specials, wou~d be on a sliding scale. Each of these Attorney re p~o~ects is less than $75,000. I would pmopose a fee of four special asses~ and one-fourth per ce~t,ofthe amount actually confirmed for each special. This fee, of course, would be payable at the time of the issuance of the first vouchers following confizm~ation of ~he assessment. The Village would be responsible rom the payment of all experts who would be required to testify. This would normally include a real estate appraiser, :as well as the engineer who p~epared the plans. We would expect the Village to provide us.with stamped envelopes for the purpose of sending out n~tices, We will provide necessary mimeographing services fo~ notices, and pay filingfees. If The Village requires a court reporter, the Village would be responsible for cou~t ~eporter's fees. We are p~epared to make the spread, as well as p~ocess- ing Tbs assessment itself. There would be an additional charge of one pereent if the Village desires us to undertake the spread of assessment. I would urge, incidentally, that we be permitted to undertake the spread because it expedites matters considerably. If the Village should abandon the assessment p~ior to filing in cou~T, we would require a fee of two per cent of The estimate. If itshould be abandoned after court proceedings have been co~enced or dismissed, our fee would be three per cent of the estimate. The additional one pemcent fo~ spreading would be payable if =he project should be abandoned at any stage. The above fees are based upon the size of the various special assessmentsandwould be scaled down in the event of future assessments having a la~ger estimated cost. I would re- mind you That the Village is entitled to six per cent of the as- sessment for the costs of vacating, levying, and spreading the June 15, 1966 assessment, and the fees mentioned above are payable out of this si~ per cent. Very truly yours, /s/ Jack M. Siegel, Village Attorney Village of Mount P~ospect Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved to accept contents of letter of June 8 and include the spread of special assessment work in terms of agreement. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. Trustee Ekren, seconded by T~ustee Teichert, moved MFT Kenilworth to approve plans and specifications for the MFT project for 22 CS surfacing the east side of Kenilworth Avenue, 22 CS. Upon roll Call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. President Congreve reported he had received from i flag presentation Station WIND a fla~ which had been flown over the Capitol. This flag is to be held and used ~for the grand opening of Fire Station The meeting recessed at 9:50 P.M. for members to meet as committee of the whole to discuss the water problem. The water regular meeting resumed at 10:88 P.M. with the following members present: Bergen Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Pres. Congreve Absent: Bruhl TrusteeTeichert, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved to ins%l~uct Village Attorney, to draw up ordinance increasing Vii- water rates lage water rates and eliminating sliding schedule by consumption in favor of flat rate price for all users: Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Colfer Ekren · Grittani Teichert Absent: Bruhl Motion carried. This ordinance will not contain final rate but will be amended after study by Finance Director is submitted on Tuesday, June 22nd. Study will include capital improvements planned and estimated water income projection. Adjournment by acclamation at 11:04 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Monroe, Village Clerk June 15, 1965