Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1958 VB minutes MINUTES OF A REGULA~ MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD 01~ TRUSTEES HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, NOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS ON '£u~.~DAY, MAY 13, 1958. The meeting was called to order at 8:13 P.M. by President Lams amd the Clerk was then directed to call the roll. On roll call, the following Trustees answered "Present": Airey, Broad, Oasterline, Norris and Willer. Absent: Trustee Schlaver. All Trustees having previously received copies of the minutes of the meeting held Ma~ 6, 1958, it was moved by Trustee Broad and seconded by Trustee Norris that the minutes be approved as submitted. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Schlaver; where- upon the President declared the motion carried amd said minutes approved as submitted. It was moved by Trustee Airey and seconded by Trustee Willer that the List of Bills to be paid as of May 13, 1956 be approved for payment. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following ~l~nse: Ayes: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Wilier. ~ays: None. Absent: Trustee Schlaver; whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Village Manager Appleby read the following letter: President and Board of Trustees Village of Mount Prospect 112 East Northwest Hi,way Mount Prospect, Illinois Gentlemen: I request your renoh~ideration of the matter of acceptance of the sewers in Surety's Bonnie Park Subdivision. We have completed this work and if it is not accepted by yo~, we will be forced to pay a substantial bond premium on the subdivision or payment bond which we have submitted to you. It does not seem reasonable to me to 'expect us te submit again a payment bond f~r work which is completed and paid for. I would like to inquire as to whether or not this Board would expect us to 'maintain a bond for an indefinite period of time, years perhaps, if ~we were subdividers and not builders, and had completed this work and were selling or had sold this property to the public as a whole who would individually construct homes in the area. I seriously question if this is the intent of your ordinances. If assurance that the sewers are clean amd operative on completion of construction is the only reason for not accepting the sewers, I would be very happy to furnish some sort of guarantee as a bond to indemnify the Village. I hope that th~ Board will see fit to reconsider its decision, as I would not like to litigate this matter. Very truly yours, SURETY BUILDERS, INC. S/ Albert President Lams referred this matter to the Street Committee and directed the Village wa~eger to send a copy of the above read letter ~o the Village Attorney. Village ~ager Appleby info~med the Board of a public hearing to be held on May 26, 1958 in the Assembly Room of the Board of Mav 13, 1958 ommissioners of Cook County for the purpose of amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance of Cook County. It was moved by Trustee Willer and seconded by Trustee Casterline that the Village Manager be directed to send a letter to the Zoning Board o2 Appeals of Cook County, stating that the Village of Mount Prospect favors the proposed ch~uges which are to be considered at the May 26 hearing. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes: Trustees ~irey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Schlaver; whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Willer read the folIowing memorandum: RE: CASE 58-2 The only reason for continued deliberation by the Judiciary Committee of the Village Board insofar as Case 58-2 is concerned is to wait until it be proven that sewerage or water facilities are adequate. Should the Judiciary Committee decide from the facts presented in the record that without this information the recommendation of this~Committee would not favor the recommendation of the Board of Appeals! no further reason for continued deliberation would exist. We members of the Judiciary Committee and our fellow members of the Village Board must realize that this case has become the most controversial zoning case ever heard by our Board of Appeals. We must recognize that both sides in this case have important facts that have been presented. The members of the Board of Appealsand the Village Board have an awareness of Village Affairs. We do not feel that there can be any questimu that Mount Prospect business firms as now constituted do not take care of the needs of our community. With additional business done inside the Village, the Village would collect, through the State of Illinois additional revenue to operate the Village from Sales Tax funds. Business buildings do not, generally speaking, cause h~rdship on schools - rather the real estate taxes collected held the school budgets. We have been advised by Kincaid & Associates that there is a definite need for addit~oual shopping facilities for the residents of this Village. We do not in any way ~J~pute this. We do, however, ask ourselves if this is the proper location. We refer back to Mr. Baug~m~u's letter in which he "indicates" that this location could be the location for a shopping center - but Mr. Baughmau does not say this is the only location. We have had objections offered by certain members of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce. It is quite natural for them to object to additional competition. We rsalize that to annex additional land south of Golf Road, (Route 58) would be a big step for the Village. Histor- ically, members of the Village Board of the Village of Mount Prospect have b~en reluctant to cross Route 58 t~ the South for Village annexations. We are a growing community a~d we know that with growth comes p~oblems. We believe that if we are to solve those problems not everyone will believe we have solved them wisely. Ail members of the Village Board are chosen to serve not a small area but the community as a whole. We know that a rather large number of villagers are in opposition to the request of the petitioner, as they understand it. Insofar as this case is concerned we are not dealing with land that is already in the Village of Mount Prospect. It will take action by the Village Board to a~ex the subject property before it can be zoned by the Village for a shopping center. If the Village is to annex any territory south of Golf Road it should be ~nexed in the bests interests of all of the residents already living within the Village. The case presented by the petitioner in Case 58-2 does not do this~ We would favor annexation off more acreage eouth of Golf Road, but not juet 15 acres, with the followin~ understanding: This l~d would be zoned ~i~le f~ily reeid~ti~l 'f~m Golf Ro~ ~mme~iately ~sout~ to m po~t where a b~fer zone of ~lti- family zon~ would be created. S~th of this multiJf~m~ly z~ing would be ~e best place, in o~ opini~ for a shopping center zon~g. ~ ~is ~y the developer would sell his property zoned single f~i~ residence to persons who would m~e their p~chmse with the fuIl ~owledge t~t ~lti-f~ily zoni~ adjoined th~m ~d that ~ere ~s a ehoppl~ center to be built ne~ them. ~ this way we could be s~e that all the needs of ~ co~i~ co~d be t~en c~e of. ~e foll~i~ motion was then ~de by T~stee ~iller ~ seconded by ~stee Norris: "Because of ~e fore~i~, I move t~t the Village B~ of the Vill~e of Mo~t Prospect ~ on record as oppos~ ~e request of the petitioner ~ Case 58-2 ~d that the petitioner be so advised by the Vill~ Clerk. - ~e ~resident ~t ~e q~esti~ ~ the Clerk call~ the roll, with the follow~ ~sponse: ~es: T~stees Airey, Broad, Casterline, No,is ~d Willer. N~S: None. Abs~: T~stee Schlaver; whereupon the Presiden~ decl~ed ~e motion c~ried. It was moved by T~stee No,is ~d seconded by T~stee Broad that the above read report of the Judici~ Co~ittee be accepted ~ full. ~e ~sident ~t the question ~d the Clerk called the ~11, with the follow~ response: ~es: T~stees Airey, B~ad, Casterl~e, No,is ~d Willer~. N~s: None. Absent: T~stee Schlaver; ~ereupon the President decl~ed the motion c~ed. T~stee Willer then read the following letter: ~ 12, [958 Bo~d of T~stees Vill~ of Mo~t ~ospect M~ Prospect, Ill~ois Gentlemen: Case ~8-8: ~is ~se.conc~ns the 25 foot lots located on the West side of E~st Road between S~bonee Trail ~d Lincoln Steer to be rezoned from R-2 to R-3, ~d to ~t a v~iation pe~itti~'~tensification of l~d use. ~ Bo~d of Appe~s voted 6 to 0 to reco~end that the rezen~ request ~d the v~iation request be denied. ~ decision c~'be S,~mmmwize~ as follows: 1. Petitioner ~mttted ~t the property could be used as zoned. 2. Petitioner's request'~o~ts to spot zoni~. ~e v~iation requested so ~ly diminishes li~ ~ea t~t the he~th ~d welf~e requirements of o~ zoni~ ordi~ce lose me~. 4. Petitioner did not cla~ or show ~dship. Case ~8-~ ~is case conce~s ~ i~e~ily s~ped lot on the east side of George Street ~d bonded on the south by the all~ to the re~ of Not,west ~w~ property, to be ~zoned f~m R-1 to P-3. ~e Bo~d Of Appe~s voted 6 to 0 to reco~end that the request be denied. S/ E. F. ~tin At ~e request of T~stee Wilier, President ~m~ referred this ~tter to the J~icia~ Oo~ttee to offer their reco~end- ations at the first meet~ ~ J~e. ~stee Willer read proposed Ordi~ce No. 610 ~ O~CE G~G A V~TI~ FROM T~ ZONING O~CE AS P~TA~S TO ~N~ RE~ Y~ ~QUIR~TS ~R P~PE~ LOOAT~ AT T~ NORTHWEST CO~ OF ~ ST~ ~D C~T~ RO~ ~ PETITI~ED ~R ~ CASE 58-7. It ~s moved by T~stee Willer ~d seconded By T~stee ~rey ~at Ordi~ce No. 610 be passed. ~e P~sident put the question ~d theCl~k called the roll, wi~ the follow~g respOnse: Ayes: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline and Willer. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Schlaver; whereupon the President declared the motion carried-and Ordinance No. 610 passed and approved. Trustee Willer read the following petition: April 28, 1958 Board of Appeals Village of Mt. Prospect OBJECTION TO REZONING ............ CASE 58-9 We the unders, igned, being the closest property owners to the lot in question (lot 17 in Maplewo0d H~ights, Block 26 in Busse's Eastern Addition to'Mt. Prospect) object to rezoning from R-1 (single family residence) to P-3 (off street parking- un~aved) classification or any classification other than R-1. This 'petition was signed by '21 citizens living in the v~icinity of the propgrty in question. The above read petition was referred to the VilIage Clerk for file. Tru~stee Casterline referred to a question of parallel pa~rking as opposed to diagonal parking, which was referred to the Police & Light Committee at a meeting~of the Board of Trustees held on May 6, 1958J He stated ttiat, after much 'stud~, the Pslice & Light COmmittee recommends parallel parking. Trustee Casterline offered as evidence to support this decision, articles on safety prepared by the National Safety Council, an excerpt from documents prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, references from the Internation~City N~nagers' Association, a letter from Chicago Motor Club addressed to the Village Manager, and other similar information. Mr. Frank Lynn spoke in opposition to changes in parking without Board approval. Trustee Casterline assured Mr. Lynn that future changes in parking would be as a result of Board action. After much discussion on the parking problem, President suggested that the recently appointed Citizens' Committee on Parking review the desirability of the installation of parking meters at certain locations in the business district. Trustee Airey read'proposed Resolution 10-58. A ~ESOLUTION AUTHORIZING'CHECKS ISSUED'AGAINST THE PAYROLL ACCOONT IN THE MOUNT PROSPECT STATE BANK TO BE SIGNED BY A1PE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: VILLAGE PRESID~T, VILLAGE CLERK, OR VILLAGE TREASURER. It was moved by Trustee Airey and seconded by Trustee Broad that Resolution No. 10-58 be adopted. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. Nays: None. Absent:' Trustee Schla~er; whereupon the 'President declared the motion carried and Resolution 10-58 formally adopted. The following motion was the~ made by Trustee Airey and seconded by Trustee Broad: "I hereby make a motion to advance temporarily $349.2~ to the LibrarY Building Bond & Interest account from the General Fund to cover the interest charges due June l, 1955 on the eutstandi~g bonds of the LibrarY Building, due to the fact that we have received no tax money as yet for this year for the payment of the bonds and interest." The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes: Trustees · irey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. Nays:'None. Absent: Trustee Schlaver; whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Willer referred to a plat of Subdivisic~ sub- ~t'~# mitted by Bric~ Eom~ Builders pertaining to approximately ~~ 7.181 acres lying south of Rand Road and bounded on the south by Highland Avenue. It w~s moved by Trustee Willer and seconded by Trustee Norris that the plat of subdivision sub- mitted by Brib~man Rome Builders be referred to the Plan Comm- ission for~ study and recommendation. The President put the question and the vote was t~en by acclamation; whereupon the President declared the motion carried. At the request of Trustee Willer, President Lams May 13, 1958 irected that Case 58-1 be l~l~ in Committee for an additional week. ' '~J"" '~ ~ The tee Norris and seconded by True' in the middle of Prospect Avenue between Pine Street and EmersOn Street be eliminated, and that the Village Engineers be directed to revise plans and specifications f~r M.F.T. Sec. 10-CS to include the removal of said parkways and the paving of the area now occupied by said parkways with reinforced concrete." Trustee Willer inquired if the Park District would want the :trees that were to be removed and if the trees Could be moved at this time of year. It was moved by Trustee Will~r ~t the motion be tabled. Village Manager Appleby answered Trustee Willer's question in part. Trustee Willer stated that he would with~r~w his motion to table if assured that efforts would be made~ to give proper thought .to the salvage of trees that are to be removed. Pres- ident Lams requested the Village Clerk to re-state the motion submitted by Trustee Norris. There bein~ nofffurther discussion on the matter, the President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Schlaver; whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Mr. Owen Lynch of 510 S. F, lmburst read a prepared statement opposing the installation of storm sewers in the parkway on So~ Elmhurst and petitioning that the sewer be located in the street rather than in the proposed location. This petition was signed by 21 citizens, all living in the 500 block on S. Elmhurst. This matter was referred to the Village Clerk for file. Village Manager Applehy informed citizens present that the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago is now considering installation of the sewer in the street rather than in the parkway on South Elmhurst. Mr. Warner of 504 $o. Elmburst Road read a prepared list of questions concerning the proposed sewer installation. Mr. Warner was advised to send a letter stating his objections to the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. After much discussion, Mr. ~ms requested Mr. Warner to submit a copy of his list of questions to the Board and stated that the Board would submit the list to the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. Trustee Willer *~ President ~_~ms discussed the possibility of arranging a public meeting with the representatives' of Consoer, Townsend & Associates and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, in which citizens would have an opportunity to state their beliefs. At the request of a citizen, President suggested that a carA of notification concerning the public meeting, when arranged, be mailed those citizens signing the petition objecti~ to the installation of the sewers in the parkway on So. Etn~urst. President ~,e referred to a proposed Ordinance relating to civil defense, to be published in the next issue of the Municipal League Review, and requested action on a similar ordinance tabled at the meeting of 5'6-58 be held in abeyance. Village Manager Appteby restated his belief that a ~*~$ o~ Special Census should be taken within the next few mouths. Re informed the Board that the cost of such a census to the Village would be $2,525.00; $1,075 which must be paid in advance with the balance of $1,250.00 to be paid when the census is taken. It was moved by Trustee Casterline and seconded by Trustee Airey that the Village U-~ager be author- ized to make application for a Special Census, and to advance the sum of $1,075.00 to the Bureau of Census, Washington 25, D.C. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response~ Ayes: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. Nays: None. Absent~ Trustee Schlaver; whereupon the President .declared the motion carried. Village Manager Appleby informed the Board of proposed meetings of the Special Problems Commissionand suggested that Board members consider problems they wish to present to the Commission. Mr. McCoy, representing Brickmau Rome Builders, inquired f the progress of preparing an ordinance concerning annexing property as petitioned for in Case 58-5. He also wished to know the progress of certain considerations by the Judicially Committee of Property known as ~dview Highlands. There being no further business to come before the Board, it was moved by Trustee Broad and seconded by TrUstee Norris that the meeting be adjourned. The President put the question and the vo~e war taken by accla~i~n; where- upon the President declared the motion carried and the meeting regularly adj&urned at 10:20 P.M. WilliAm H. Keith Village ~lerk