HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/1962 VB minutes MINUTES OF MEETING OF PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES HELD TUESDAY~ OCTOBER 9.~ 1952
President Schlaver called the meeting to order au 8:23 P.M.
with the following members presenT: roll call
Phillips Casterline Absent: Trustee Gaw, who
Bickley Ekren Bruhl arrived later.
Trustee Casterline, seconded by Trustee Bickley, moved for
the approval of the minutes of October 3rd as submitted.
minutes
Ayes: Phillips Bickley Ekren Absent: Gaw
Casterline Bruhl
Motion carried.
Trustee Bruhl, seconded by Trustee Bickley, moved for
approval of bills for the previous~ek as follows:
hills
General $11,719.95
Garbage 7,158.36
~Parking System Revenue .70
Libnary ~7.75
Water operations 13~298.16
S32,62~.93
Upon roll call: Ayes: Phillips Bic~ley Ekren
Casterline Bruhl
Absent: Gaw
Motion carried.
Trustee Casterline, seconded by Trustee Phillips, moved that Fence -
Anthony J. Daly, 1302 West Lincoln, be granted variation for erection Daley
of fence higher than that allowed by ordinance contingent upon receipt
of letters of approval from the abutiing proper~y owners.
This motion carried by acclamation.
Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Bickley, moved for the
passage of O~d. #873: Ord. 873
Road vacation -
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION Golfhurst Sub.
OF A PUBLIC ROAD.
This is a strip 25 feet wide along the eas~ edge of Golfhurst Subdivision,
formerly used as an access road for trucks.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Phillips Bickley Ekren
Casterline Bruhl
Absent: Gaw.
Motion carried.
~T~stee.~Ek~en~..~¢~nd~d by Trustee Bickley~ moved for the
passage of Ord. #874: Ord. 874
RA District
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING g SUPPLEMENTING THE ZONING in Zoning
ORDINANCE AND CREATING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY code
RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE R-A DISTRICT,
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Phillips Bickley Ekren
Casterline Bruhl
Absent: Gaw
Motion carried.
October 9, 1962
ase 62-29 Trustee Ekren read the following report from the
Maier Zoning Board re Case 62-29:
REPORT
October g, 1962
To: Board of Trustees
From: Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Case 62-29, heard Sept. 28, 1962
Petitioner: Fred W. Maier~
The petition is for a rezoning from R-1 to B-2 o~ Lot 11
located on The nort~st corner of Elmhurst and Golf Roads.'
Three legal objectors were present; two, owning lots 10
and 12, objected To the petition and the Third property owners,
owner of Lot 13, was in favor of the petition provided that petitioner
improved the lot in question as petitione~ so stated in testimony.
A resident on the 900 block of Ioka was in favor of the
petition provided that petitioner improve the lot as he so stated in
testimony.
The Zoning Board voted 5-0 to approve the petition.
E. F. Martin, Chairman
G. E~ Jacobsmeyer, Acting Sec'y
This case was referred To the Judiciary Committee.
Trustee Ekren read the following report from the Zoning Board
Zoning re Case 62-30:
Case 62-30
Stamis R E P O R T ~'~
October 9, 1962
To: Board of Trustees
From: Zoning Board of Appeals
Re:Case 62-30, heard September 28, 1962
Petitioner: Constantine Stamts
The petition is for variation of front yard from the 30 feet
required in R-3 to 25 feet, and for the erection of an office building
on this property, which consists of three lots located on the southeast
corner of West Prospect and Ioka.
%qlree objectors were present at the hearing and stated their
feelings to the Board.
The Zoning Board voted 5-0 to approve the proposed variation
subject to the requirement that the:three lots are considered as one
parcel and that one building will be erected on this parcel.
The Board also agreed that the variation, if granted, w~uld
not impair adequate supply of light and aid to adjacent property,
increase congestion in public streets unreasonably, increase hazard
of fire, endanger public safety, diminish or impair values of property
within the surrounding areas, or in any other way impair public health,
safety, comforts, morals and welfare of the community.
The Zoning Board has informed the petitioner that this
variation is cancelled unless construction is started within one year
from the date of the hearing.
E~ F. Martin, Chairman
G. E. Jacobsmeyer, Acting Sec'y
This case was. referred to the Judiciary Committee.
October 9, 1962
Trustee Gaw arrived at 8:~0 P.M.
President Schlaver a~lowed the Board a five minute recess at 8:g5,
and the meeting was resumed at 8:52.
Trustee Ekren, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, reported Zonin~ Case
on Zoning Case 62-26, petitioner, George E. Hickey. The report of the 62-26
zoning board on this case is show~ in the minutes of September 18th. Hickey
Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Bickley, moved that this request for
variation be denied because it will further traffic congestion and hamper
the growth of the Central business area. Mr, Hickey arose and read
petition from certain businessmen in the ares who were in favor of allowing
the erection of this building. President Schlaver pointed~out that most
of these businessmen were not members of the Central Businessmen's Association
which association had pooled their resources for setting up of parking lot
across from the proposed building.
The Clerk thereupon called the roll, with the following response:
Ayes: Phillips Bickley Ekren
Gaw Casterllne Bruhl
Motion carried.
Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Bickley, moved that the Village Condemnation
Attorney be directed to investigate the purchase or condemnation of or purchase
the property at Busse and Main Streets, referred to in Case 62-26 in land by
the report of the Board of Appeals. Village
Busse & Main
Upon roll call: Ayes: Bickley Bruhl Casterline
Ekren Gaw Phillips
Motion carried.
Trustee Gaw, seconded by Trustee Casterline, moved that bids
for equipment for the Street Department be opened. This motion carried.
by acclamation. Bids -
Street Pep%
The bids were opened and read as follows: trucks and
eouipmen%
FOR TWO TRUCKS
Allowance
01d GMC
North Cicero Dodge, Inc. S100 $7,228.00 or
8,278.~0 for Model D700
B & T Truck Sales(Int'l) 100 9,252.00
Ben Hartz, GMC 250 8,300,00
Geo. C. Poole 125 7,797.92 w/o double frame
7.889.g~ with double frame
Diamond T Motor Truck None 10,307.~ Model P3000
Pollard~ International 150 7,90~.00
Schuster, Inc. (Dodge) 200 8,415.78
Lattoff (Chevrolet) 150 8,985.86
RoMers Park Ford ~00 8,112.00 on F700
FOR TWO PIMP BODIES
R.G. Smith, (Heil) 2,123.86
Ontario Equip. Co. 2,012.7g
Axle g Equip,'Co. 2,250.00
Auto Truck Equip. Sales 2,260.00
General Body Bales 1,997.80
Rogers Park Ford 2,250,00
October 9, 1962
TWO SNOW PLOWS~
Omar Cornell ($2,133.76
R. H, Lyons Equip, Co. 2,198.00
Schuster, Inc. (Ross) 2,790.00
C. T. ~ M. Industrial
Suppliers 2,589,89
TWO SALT SPREADERS:
C. T. & M. Industrial 942.00
R. H. Lyons Equip. Co. 1,052.00
Schuster, Inc. 998.25
Swenson Spreader Mfg. Co. 858.98 for 7 1/2 ft.
888.0~ for 8 ft.
929.4~ for 8 1/2 ft.
Installation, $45 per spreader
Trustee Gaw, seconded by Trustee Ekren, moved that the fore-
going bids for street equipment be referred to the Street Committee
for study and recommendation. This motion carried by acclamation.
Village Manager Appleby gave recommendation from Johnson Tree
Trees Service listing suitable trees for planting in narrow parkways on
South Emerson and South Wille Streets in the or,er of their suitability:
1. Thornless honey locust.
2. Small-leafed linden
3. Red maple.
This memo was referred to the Street Committee.
Zoning Case Trustee Ekren read supplementary report from the Zoning Board
82-23 re Case 62-23, Sal Di Mucci, giving recommendations for the rezoning of
Di Mucci a large tract recently annexed.
Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Phillips, moved that the Board
concur in the report from the Zoning Board in regard to Case 62-23
as supplemented and amplified.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Bickley Bruhl Casterline
Ekren Gaw Phillips
Motion carried.
Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Phillips, moved to instruct
the Village Attorney to prepare zoning ordinances in accordance with
the supplementary report of the Board of Appeals hereinbefore mentioned.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Bickley Bruhl Casterline
Ekren Gaw Phillips
Motion carried.
Zoning Case Trustee Ekren read report from the Board of Appeals re
62-25 Case 62-25, Halvorson. This report was inserted in the minutes of
Halvorsen September llth. Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Bickley, moved to
concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board to approve this
rezoning, and directed the Village Attorney to draw up the necessary
ordinance.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Bickley B~uhl Casterline
Ekren Gaw Phillips
Motion carried.
October 9, 1982
Village Manager Appleby read letter from Neal L. Hunter of
Colonial Heights, Inc. as follows: Colonial Hts.
Sub.
October 9, 1952 improvements
President and Board of Trustees
Gentlemen: Re: Colonial Heights Fourth
Addition Subdivision
.-- We hereby request permission to install concrete curb and gutters,
concrete sidewalks, black top pavements and storm sewer improvements all as
shown and described in the plans and specifications for the above-mentioned
.~ subdivision prepared by E, N. Fletcher, Engineer. Cost of these improvements
will be paid by Colonial Heights, Iuc. and there shall be no expense whatever
to the Village of Mount Prospect.
Colonial Heights, Ina. also agrees that when said improvements are com-
pleted they shall become the property of the Village of Mount Prospect a~ no
cost whatever to the Village.
Sincerely yours,
Neal L. Hunter
Colonial Heights, Inc.
Mr. Appleby also read memo from Engineer Ben Hemmeter as follows:
MEMO
Re: Colonial Heights, ~th Addition
The improvements shown on the subdivision plans for the 4th
Addition to Colonial Heights meet the requirements of the Village Ordin-
ances pertaining to subdivisions.
The estimated cost of the improvements are as follows:
~- · Street and Sidewalks $28,900.00
Water mains 8,100.00
Sanitary sewers 6,400.00
Storm sewer 18,700~00
Combined total $62,100.00
Engineering 5% 3,100.00
GRAND TOTAL $65,200.00
Trustee Casterline, seconded by Trustee Ekren, moved that the Board
approve installation of public improvements in Colonial Heights Fourth
Addition subject to the filing of a bond acceptable to the Village
Attorney or establishment of an escrow to cover the public improvements
and establishment of an escrow to insure planting of street trees.
Upon roll call: Ayes: Bickley Bruhl Ekren
Gaw Pkillips Casterllne
Motion carried.
Adjournment was by acclamation at 10:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk
October 9, 1962
MEMORANDUM
September 7, 1962
TO:. Board of Trustees
FROM: Zoning Boardof Appeals
Re: Zoning Case 62-23. Heard August 24, 1962.
Salvatore Di Mucci, Sole Beneficiary under
Trusts 11093, 11155, 11156 and 11157, Pioneer
Trust & Svngs. Bank as Trustee.
Attorney: Arnold Ruud.
This was a request fo~rvariation o~fR-1 to allow minimum side
yard of five feet; rezonin~'~f~om R-1 to R-4 and from R-1 to B-3 of
certain parcels described in the petition. Also, request for rezontng
from R-1 to B-3 contingent upon annexation of 50-foot strip alons the
south edge of Di Mucci property on the southwest corner of Golf Road
and Route 83.
~he Board of Appeals yoted 6-0 not to approve the variation of
the side lot requirement for the requested R-1 areas. The variation
could not be granted for the reason that there was no hardship shown
by the petitioner, nor in fact even clalmed by the petitioner. The
Board repeatedly tried to determine the basic reason for reducing the
side ya~ requirement from the usual 10% of lot width, and no direct
answer was ever given other than to the effect that a lesser side
yard requirement would pe~it a greater leeway in the placing of a
particular house on a particular lot. However, proposed house plans that
were submitted indicated that the house widths would be on the order
of 48 feet, and that 6 feetoD~neach side w6uld be available on 60-foot
lots and a still greater amount available on larger lots.
In connection with the ot~r parts of the petition, the Board of
Appeals felt that more complete information should have been presented to
assist in the review and to penmit a final decision. In other words, the
lack of spedific data on the Exhibit No. 1 plat and of the prior agree-
ment gave rise to a hesitancy on the part of the Board to grant approval
or disapproval of the remaining parts of the petition, as for example,
. con~idert~e various following aspects:
1. The petitioner submitted a plat at the hearing as Exhibit No. 1~
showing various designated parcels "A" through "8", which were indicated
as being "single family residences", "apartments" and "commercial".
The petitioner, upon our questioning, subsequently indicated that the
single family residence notation was equivalent to R-l, that the
apartments referred ~o R-~, and that commercial meant a B-3 zone area9
The published notice gave the legal description of each of the parcels.
However, the exhibit showed no proposed layout of streets or access
roads, nor any dimensions or overall areas by acreage or square footage.
The proposed subdivision of a small fractional part of an R-1 area
was submitted as being typical, but there was nothing shown for the
remaining R-1 areas and apartments or business zones as to how streets
or blocks or other subdivisions might eventually be developed.
The petitioner did say h~ w0uld meet requirements for all of the
zoning; however, it is ~elieved that the Board of Appeals should
h have been supplied with a plat which was immediately readable and
understandable, without havinE to undertake the prolonged procedure
of obtaining dimensio~s'from the legal descriptions and placing them
on a drawing for consideration. It is part of the duty of the Board
of Appeals to review public safeguards with regard to safety, health
~d and welfare, etc., so that street locations for fire protection,
etc.? might be considered, as well as to make sure that there is
10-9-62
an orderly development to the entire area. Uncontrolled zoning
does exist in some communities, but we seek to avoid such dis-
order, and we hesitate to zone by parcels which have no measurements
and which are difficult tointerpret from a small scale map.
2. Ne believed it desirable to check into the extent of the consider-
able R-~ zoning indicated on the various parcels of Exhibit No.:l,
a~d it appears from an inquiry made of Mr, Hofert that such desig-
nated parcels do not conform with prior representations made with __~
the Village, thus we should be advised further on this point.
It was expressed that the R-~ zoning areas shown on Exhibit No. 1
constitute a rather high percentage of the total area.
3. Furthermore, it is desired to make further inquiry of Mr. Hofert
as to the proposed B-3 zoning on Exhibit.No. l, to check for
variations from prior representations made with the Village.as
set forth in the Board of Trustees' minutes of May 22, 1962, and
we therefore await further advice and consideration before making
a~recommendation.
4. The 50-foot strip abutting south edge of Petitioner's land presently
zoned B-3 along Elmhurst Road, which he requested to be changed
from R-1 to B-3 is not shown on the plat drawing of Exhibit No. 1
and was not mentioned in the presentation. However, no objections
were raised to such~equest,
By way of summary, it is believed that the Board of Appeals should
be provided with information covering at least:
a. An accurate survey (or plat) showing dimensions for each
portion of the requested zoning districts.
b.The acreage or square footage for each requested zoning
district on the Exhibit.
c. At least preliminary sketches showing an indication of
streets and access roads within the requested zoned areas
as well as between th~ various contiguous areas, such
that there may be a consideration and study made of the
traffic flow pattemu and the entire planning as it affects
the Village and community as a whole.
There were a number of objectors present who live in Elk Ridge Villa,
an area adjoining the property in question, and as a courtesy certain of
these individuals were permitted to express themselves. Their p~incipal
questions and concern appeared to relate to the proposed small side yard
reqUirement being petitioned by the developer as well as with regard to
the large quantity of apartment area indicated in the Exhibit No. 1.
The Superintendent of School District No. 59 appeared and objected
to the failure of dedication of any land for school purposes. It was
estimated that some 1000 families would eventually occupy the area and
that the Petitioner p~oposes to build it solid.
It is requested that the Board of Appeals be given additional time
to meet with the petitioner and obtain the above noted additional infor-
mation before we have a final vote and repor~ out the remainin~ parts of
tSe
E. F. 'Martin, Chairman
P. T. Licgett, ~oting ~eo'y
10-9-62
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND MEMORANDUM
October 2, 1962
TO: ~oard of Trustees
FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Zoning Case 62-23. Heard August 24 and September 7, 1962.
: Petition%r: Salvatore Di Mucci, Sole Beneficiary under Trusts 11093,
11155, 11156 and 11157, Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank, Trustee
Attorney: Arnold Ruud.
The report and memorandum of September 14, 1962, with regard to the
above-noted comprehensive petition, set forth the results of our decisions
on the various portions of the petition. Our adverse findings were based
~ponkeur interpretation of the present zoning ordinance and upon an uncertainty
as to the propriety of the size of certain of the parcels, and are therefore
primarily "technical reasons". However, inasmuch as the Board of Appeals
serves the trustees in an advisory capacity, certain of our thg~ghts and
suggestions, which are set forth hereinafter, may be of assistance to the
trustees in their further consideration and disposition of thepetition.
Actually, it is the consensus of the Board of Appeals that the
annexation Of the approximately 304 acres was in the best interests of the
Village of MOunt Prospect and was of advantage to us in precluding imminent
annexation and encirclement by our neighboring municipalities. It is also
believed that the plat of development and rezoni~, in accordance with that
set forth in the drawing presented as Exhibit No. 1, is not unreasonable o~
illogical. It is further realized that the area in question is a large one
and that it is understandable that the petitioner is not presently in a
position to have subdivision layouts and "planned development" drawings
prepared at this time. It might well be that some time will elapse before
certain parcels of the area are to be actually developed by the petitioner.
The majgr portion of the entire area being petitioned for single
family residential property is commendable. The lack of an R-A Zoning
classification at the time of presentation of the petition and the necessity
that we review it from a variation of R-1 aspect gave rise to our submitting
a technical disapproval. Subject to approval of the Village Attorney and
of the petitioner, it may he possible for the trustees to rezone the "A",
"H"~ "I" and "J" parcels to R-A, since the R-A classification is an
equivalent to the petitioned R'i variation, and there has been held a
public hearing with regard to the latter.
With regard to the proposed R-~ areas, and having in mind Section 6.2
of the Ordinance 773 which provided a "technical" block to their immediate
consideration on the part of the Zoning Board of Appeals, we believe that
R-~ zoning along Golf Road and along each side of the Commonwealth Edison
Right of Way appears suitable for such zoning, particularly from the aspect
of taking a bird's-eye view of the property and the relation of the present
roads and thoroughfares which bound or pass through the area.
Perhaps the trustees can proceed with the rezoning of those parts
of the R-~ parcels which are in accordance with the original agreement
made with Mr. Di Mucci, subject to development of each of the particular
parcels involved having the planned apartment building locations, parking
areas~ access streets, etc., submitted to the Trustees and/or the Plan
Commission to insure the proper and orderly development of each Residential
Planned Development, in accordance with our zoning ordinance requirements.
Certain parcels and/or portions of the petitioned R-4 parcels are understood
to be in addition to the original agreement with Mr. Di Mucci and perhaps
objectionable from the standpoint of spot zoning. More specifically, the
excessi~eareas may be informally described as follows:
10-9-62
1. Parcel "0", which extends along Busse Road to the
north of Golf Road. This parcel is adjacent to
and opposite single family areas, and is thus a
spot zoning situation.
2. The westerly and southern 175-f~ot strip portions ~
of Parc~ "G". These portions appear, to be exces-
sive R-~ areas and ~buld be lokated between the
presently proposed single family residence area
and the high school area to the west.
3. The northern part of Parcel "N" along Church Road,
and particularly that part that lies directly
adjacent to the easterly edge of Parcel "J". This
northerly strip appears to be an unnecessary
extension of the large apartment area parallelin~
the Commonwealth Edison right of way.
With the exception of t~se three described portions, it
may a~ain be stated that the remaining R-~ zonin~ seems logical and
appropriate for the area in question.
In connection with the proposed B-3 areas, it is the
consensus of the Board of Appeals that their locations at the co~ners
of the section line roads are appropriate and logical for the future
development of the area in question~ however, inasmuch as our prior
objection was based upon lack of information as to an appropriate
size for such areas, it is requested that the trustees in considerin~
zonin~ for such parcels have a verification of the size for each parcel
in accordance with the original agreement with Mr. DiMucci. Subject
to such verification, it is believed appropriate that the trustees ~-~
rezone the parcels in accordance with the petition.
With regard to the 50-ft. strip of land west of Elmhurst
Road and south of the present DiMucci property extending to the south-
west corner of Golf and Elmhurst Roads, there has been full concurrence
by the Board of Appeals to rezone this strip to B-3 classification.
~ ....Cha'' ....
E. F. Mart~n, ~rman
P. 'T. Liggett, Acting Sec'y
10-9-62