Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1959 VB minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, VILEAGE OF MT. PROSPECT, TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1959 The meeting was called to order at 8:12 P.M. by President Lams. Upon roll call, the following trustees answered Present: roll call Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Absent, none. Ail trustees having previously received copies of the minutes minutes of March 24th, Trustee Broad, seconded by Trustee Casterline, moved that the minutes be accepted with the correction of a typographical error on the first page. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Airey, seconded by Trustee Schlaver, moved that the bills for the last ~o weeks ending April 7, 1959 be approved as follows: General $14,430.28 bills Garbage 4,905.54 Library 587.89 Water 8,894.05 ,Parking System Rev Fund 754.50 $29,582.26 The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Schlaver asked Mr. Arthur Lewis of Consoer, Townsend to explain to the Board about the choice of a site for Well #6. Mr. Lewis arose and pointed to a site on the map, which was near the corner of Well #6 Foundry Road and Rte. 83 on Carson, Pirie Scott's property. He also recommended that to save time the Board allow the engineers to proceed with the plans and specifications for this well while plans for mains, etc., are taken care of at leisure. Tru~ee Schlaver moved, seconded by Trustee Willer, that the Village Engineers be authorized to prepare detailed plans and specifications for proposed Well #8 on Carson, Pirie property at the Northeast corner of Foundry and Elmhurst Roads. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following regponse: Ayes, ~rustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Schlaver, seconded by Trustee Norris, moved that the Village Attorney be instructed to prepare a financing proposal for Finance prop. the Village with respect to Well #6. The President put the question Well #6 and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. With regard to the fire truck and pumper bids, President Lams requested that the following letter be put into the minutes: April 2, 1959 Mr. H. G. Appleby Fire truck Mt. Prospect, Ill. bids Dear Harold: Re: Fire Truck and Pumper Bids Reference is made to the minutes of the meeting of March 24, 1959 wherein the bid of American La France Corp. for fire t~ucks be accepted subject to the approval of the bid and specifications by the Village Attorney and Chapman & Cutler. April 7, 1959 At the outset I have been authorized by a representative of Chapman & Cutler to inform you that they do not feel this matter is within the scope of their representation on the approval of the bonds and therefore decline to consider the matter. You hate forwarded a copy of the notice to dealers and a copy of the notice of bids and specifications. You have also forwarded the bids as received from Seagrave Corporation and American LaFrance Corporation. Telegraphic communication from Mack Trucks, Inc. and the letter from Illinois F.W.,D. Truck and Equipment Company were also received. Letter of opinion from We have not m~de a detailed analysis of the specifications Attorney either as set forth in the bid proposal as circularized by your office Downing on or the specifications from those who have submitted bids. We believe Fire Truck this to be a technical problem and seriously doubt whether or not bids we would be able to properly advise in connection therewith. Based upon the information which we have been furnished, and in view of the bids which have been received, it is our opinion that if either of the bids from American La France Corp. or Seagrave Corp. with the specifications which they have attached to their bids are, in your opinion, in substantial compliance with the specifications as promulgated at the time of the request forbids, th~n the acceptance of the American La France bid by the Board would not, in m~ opinion, of itself have any effect on the sale of the $?5,000 Fi~e Fighting Equipment Bonds. Inasmuch as each of the bids received were conditioned on the specifications which the bidder attached to their proposals, the impo~tant question is whether or not the bidders' specifications are satisfactory and in substantial compliance with the specifications promulgated at the time of the bidding. We are returning under separate cover the file heretofore forwarded to this office in connection herewith. Sincerely, S/ Robert J. Downing Trustee Airey, after reading proposed resolution 12-59, moved for the adoption of said resolution. Trustee Norris seconded this mo~ion. - Res. 12-59 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MT. PROSPECT BANK AS DEPOSITORY OF FIRE EQUIPMENT BOND AND INTEREST FUND OF THE VILLAGE OF MT. PROSPECT The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried and Resolution 12-59 adopted. Mr. Wm. Mott of the Water Commission arose and stated that within §0 days a recommendation will be made to the Board on the best water possibl~and least expensive source of water supply for the Village. He also indicated that the Commission would welcome any adviee on this question. In regard to Case 59-2, St. Mark's Church, Trustee Willer, seconded by Trustee Casterline, made the following motion: "that Case 59-2, heard in public hearing by the Mount Prospect Board of Appeals, be returned to said Board so that they may in turn submit to the Board of Trustees a finding of fact in this case. Part of the reason for this action is that the Board of Trustees, in agree- ment with the Attorney, feels that the Board of Appeals could not amend the petition to ask for change in zoning but could not amend the petition to ask for chan~e in zoning, but could properly recommend a variation as petitioned. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Willer brought up Case 59-1, Boesche property on Prospect Avenue. The petitioner asks for rezoning from R-i to Industrial~ and the Zoning Board of Appeals sees no reason why this request should Case 59-1 not be granted. Trustee Willer put the following motion before the Boesche Board: "that the Village Board concur with the recommendation of the Board of Appeals, and direct the Village Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance to effect rezoning of the Boesche property". A discussion followed, in which the point was brought out that Maple Street if extended would run along the west side of this property, and no dedication had been made for his half of the street. Mr. Ward, attorney for Mr. Boesche, arose and stated that they are only asking for zoning, and the Village can condemn a street at any time. Trustee Broad stated that property zoned Industrial would cost a lot more than Residential to condemn, and if a building also rested on this 33 feet,.complications would ensue. President Lams again put forth this motion before the Board, which had bee~ seconded by Trustee Airey, and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustee Schlaver. Nays, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris and Willer. The President thereupon declared the motion defeated. Trustee Willer read proposed Resolution 13-59 and moved for the adoption of said resolution. Trustee Casterline seconded this motion. A ~ESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A RESTRICTIVE Maple Crest COVENANT PERTAINING TO LOT 3 IN M~PLE CREST SUBDIVISION gubdivi~ion The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following respunse: Ayes, Trustees B~oad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. N~ys, Trustee Airey. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried and the resolution adopted. Trustee Willer brought out the fact that the Mt. Prospect Mt. Prospect Country Club has changed hands and the new owners want to put on Country Club a new additien. This matter has been looked into, and the following letter from James Wax was read to the Board: March 31, 1959 Mr. R. L. Willer Chairman, Judiciary Committee Mt. Prospect Village Board Dear Sir: As discussed Monday night, March 30, the Architectural Commission received a verbal request for a temporary permit to allow the commencement of remodeling and expansion of the Mt. Prospect Country Club. The Country Club people are extremely urgent in their demand to complete the proposed project in time to meet commitments to their private club members. They did not in the initial meeting have a survey, and were thereby unable to properly plot the proposed addition. Because of the urgency to get this project under way, they wish to present this mateial to us within the next two days. It was pointed out to them that we are willing to cooperate with them, but there are some questions that should be answered before, a temporary permit could be considered. A temporary permit can only be allowed ,~nder the following section of the Building Code: TEMPORARY PERMITS - Chapter B~ Paragraph 3 "For the purpose of facilitating commencement of construction, at the discretion of the Superintendent of Buildings, a April ?, 1959 52 temporary permit m~?be issued for a limited time, provided the owner has satisfied the Superintendent of Buildings and the Building Committee by submitting preliminary plans of his ability and willingness to file at a later date complete plans which will fully comply with the building and zoning codes. Temporary permits are revocable at any time for reasonable cause by the Superintendent of Buildings". You wilt note in the above paragraph there is a statement relative to compliance with building and zoning codes. We understand that they have changed specifications of the proposed building from maaonry and frame to all masonry, and this would seem initially to satisfy the Building Code. However, there is a zoning problem in this case; the plot on which the Country Club building stands is in the R-1 classifi- cation and to my best knowledge it was listed as a non-conforming use at the time the Zoning Ordinance was approved on May 6, 1944. Non- conforming uses are covered in Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance and reads as follows: "Any use, lawfully existing or under construction on the adoption date of this ordinance or of a later amendment thereto, which does not conform to the use provisions of said ordinance or amendment shall be known as a non- conforming use. Such non-conforming use,.building or structure may be continued, maintained, or changed to a conforming use; but a non-conforming use shall not be (a) changed to a use of a less restricted class, nor (b) ~xpanded, nor (c) reestablished if discontinu~-or changed to a conforming use for one year or more, nor (d) continued if the building or structure be destroyed or damaged to the extent of 50 per cent or more of its value". You will note in the above that a non-conforming use cannot be expanded; therefore it appears that we cannot proceed with a temporary permit until this property is rezoned to B-3 classification which permits private clubs and swimming pools. Since this Zoning Code was passed, there has been at least two occasions on which the Country Club has bean expanded. The first, the building of Men and Women's Lounge, and second, the expansion of the Bar & Grill. I do not know whether the zoning question was raised at the time the permits were granted for these expansions. We would appreciate legal opinion or interpretation of our building and zoning codes in this matter. Yours truly, S/ James Wax, Chairman Architectural Commission Mr. Hadff, representing the Country Club interests, was asked to speak. Mr Hauff stated that there are no object&o~s from anyone regarding the proposed changes - - in fact, some of the neighbors are members and are anxious that it be done. Also he would like to invite the Ladies' National Golf Tournament this season, but cannot do so unless the locker rooms are finished. After some discussion, it was decided that the quickest and easist way to accomplish the end desire was to ma~e~a change in the description of the R-1 classification. The Board offered to make this appeal through the r~ular channels of the Zoning Board if Mr. Hauff would agree to put up the regular $125 deposit. Mr. Hauff did so agree. Trustee Willer, seconded by Trustee Schlaver, moved that private country clubs be included in the R-1 classification of the Zoning Code, and that the Board of Appeals be directed to hold a public hearing on the motion of this Board. April ?, 1959 The President put 'the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes,. Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterllue, Norris, ScBlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President 'aeclared the motion carried. Country Club Case 59-14 The above zonLng case will be No. 59-14 and will be heard on April 24th. ~ Trustee Wilier read ~he following letter re swimming pools from Mr. James Wax of the A~chitectural Committee: swimming pools March BI, 1959 Mr. R. L. Willer ChAirman, Judiciary Committee Mt. Prospect Village Board Dear Sir: As discussed Monday .night, March BOth, the Architectural CommisSion'has the following application for a building permit which appears to require an LuterDretation of our Building Code. The application is for construction of an Esther Williams, above-the-ground type swimming pool, at ~he corner of Northwest Highway and School Street. The location is properly zoned for business. The swimming pool .is not a pe.rmanent building and is not of masonry construction. We underStand that it is to be used primarily for the purpose of Showing and selling prospective clients the type of pool that can be constructed on their own property. The size of the building does not permit approval under Paragraph B,~ Chapter 5 of our .Building Code relative to temporary office or sales building. Provisions of the Code are as follows: Paragraph B - "Temporary Offi~ce or sales buildilngs which are of frame or incombustible construction, one story in heigkt, having a floor ares of less than ?~0 square feet and without a masonry foundation, may be erected subject to the aP~roval of She Building Committee. Any such temporary building shall be demolished and completely removed from premises two years after erection. The Build~ Committee may extend this time from year to y~ar, 'on payment of an additional permit fee, providing the building is being pr.operly maintained, occapied and has not increased the fire hazard of adjoining permanent buildings". .Paragraph 5 - "A building, the or occupancy of which does' not Come under the foregoing classifications, shall be classified as to its occupancy and construction by the Building Committee" ~ It appears that approval may be given this project under Chapter 2, Paragraph 9,~ which reads as follows:  Paragraph 9 - "Whenever the Committee shall Building reject · or refuse to approve the mode or manner of construction proposed to be followed, or materials to be used in the erection er alteration of a building or structure, or When it is Claimed that the provisions of this code or of any duly adopted rules do not apply, or that an equally April 7, 1959 specific case, the owner o2 such building or structure, or his duly authorized agent, my appeal from the deci~ie~ of the .Building Committee to the Beard of Trustees, who shall act as .the Board of Appeals and whose decision 'shall supersede that of the Building Committee and shall ..be final". The Architectural Commission has refused to approve the construction called for on the .basis that ~ar Building Code does not cover this type of construction, thereby leaving the~wa~ open for appeal to the Board of Trustees under the above quoted paragraph. We would appreciate your adi-ice as to whether this is the proper approach. Yours truly, S/ James.~W~x, Chairman. Architectural Commission Trustee Broad, seconded by Trustee Willer, moved for the issuance of a peNait to build a swimming pool for display, at School Street and Northwest Highway. Some discussion £ollewed regarding t-he setting up of a swimming pool ordinance. The President stated the motion,' the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Broad, Norris and Schlaver. Nays,~ Airey, Casterline and Willer. The deciding nay was casm by President L~, and the motion defeated. Trustee Willer thereupon made the following motion, seconded by Trustee Broad, "that the Village~ Attorney be directed to prepare a swimming pool ordinance under ~he direction of the Building Committee". ~-~ The President put the question, the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayres, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Zoning re Trustee Willer~ read a letter from Attorney Downing giving residentia~ suggested revision of the wording of the Zoning Ordinance in order use in business to restrict residential uses in the various bus'ness and industrial and. industrial districts, and ~ade the ~ollowing motion:- ":that the Zoning Board districts of Appeals be asked to~ hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance ~nder Section 7.1 and 8, and that the Case 59-17 Villag~ Attorney represent the Village at said hea~ring". This motion was seconded by Trustee Airey. · The. President put the question and the Clerk called the. roll-, with the following .response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared ther'motion carried. Trustee Willed, seconded by Trustee Norris, moved that Judith Ann the President and Clerk, on behalf o£ the Village, be directed to Serafine' s sign the plat of Judith Ann Serafine'~s Resubdivision. -The President Resubdivisinn put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays,~ none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Willer, seconded by.. Trustee Cast~rline, moved that the tentative plat of proposed subdivision offered~by Annen & Annen & Busse' s Busse be referred to the Plan Commission for study and recommendation. Plat of This proper~y consists of about five and a half acres on,the east Subdivision side of Linneman Road, 1/4 mile south of Golf Road. The President put the question and the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. April 7, 1959 Trustee Schlaver stated that he would like to see the Letter to invitation of the Village Board to United Air Lines put into the United Air L~ form of a letter, even though there have been phone calls on the subject. President Lams directed the Clerk to write this letter. Trustee Willer, seconded by Trustee Casterline, moved that Brickman Mane the tentative plat of Brickman Manor First Addition between Euclid 1st Addn btwr and Foundry Roads be referred to the Plan Commission for study and Euclid & recommendation. This motion was carried by acclamation. Foundry Trustee Willer read a copy of a letter from Village _ Manager Harold Appleby which was sent to all property owners on Pine Street Pine Street between Central and Northwest Highway, informing them Property that the Village contemplated selling its Onion House and vacating the street. This is the letter: March 20, 1959 Gentlemen: The development guide plan for the Mount Prospect Central Business District prepared by Evert Kincaid & Associates and adopted by the Village Board suggested the vacation of Pine Street by the Village Board after duly receiving thereon petitions or concurrence of property fronting thereon. This procedure has been followed in a number of communities where general modernization of old central business districts has been attempted. To aid in the improvement of the central business district, the Village is considering selling its lots on the east side of Pine Street for commercial development. The Board would like to find out how the property owners along Pine Street fee~ about furthering the proposed development plan byvacating the street at~ this time. If a street is vacated, one half of it (usually BB feet) reverts to the owner of the property on one side thereof, and the other half to the owner on the other side. The Board has directed that a letter be sent to All of the property owners on Pine Street asking them to express in a letter to the Board their feelings in connection with the vacation of the street at this time. The Board will appr&ciate receiving your comments as soon as possible. A return envelope is enclosed for your convenience in replying. Sincerely yours, S/ Harold G. Appleby Village Manager Trustee Broad also read letters of reply from two of the property owners addressed, registering protest for various reasons. The first was from Meyer Coal & Material: March 2?, 1959 Dear Sir: In response to your letter of March 2C, addressed to the owners of property on Pine Street, between Northwest Highway and Central, please advise the Village Board that we wish to say that we are always interested in the general improvement of the Village and modernization of older districts. Many times in the past we have cooperated wholeheartedly in such programs for the good of the entire community. However, in connection with the current proposal to vacate P~ne Street beeween Northwest Highway and Central Road, we must register vigorous opposition. Our property is located on the east side of Pine Street, with the sole and only access to the building located on the lot being Pine Street. If the street is vacated, the only possible access April 7, 1959 to,our building would be thirty-three feet to the present street, title to which would revert to us. We presume we could not even use this strip for access to our building because the plan calls for parking areas in this general location. Therefore, the vacation of the street would eliminate all access to our building. If, on the other hand, the street is not closed, and title to thirSty-three feet of the present street reverted to us, we could hardly use a strip bhirty-three feet wide for access to our property. Such a program would substantially depreciate the value of our property. In addition, the program would raise many problems as far as safety to travel in the area is concerned. In conclusion, because of the hardships above pointed out, we are strongly opposed to that part of the plan calling for vacation of Pine Street between Northwest Highway and Central. We have heard of another program whereby the Village plans to offer Village property in this area for sale. In the event this progr~mbecomes a reality, we will be interested in submitting a bid for such property. Will you please advise us if any such program materializes? Sincerely, S/ Bernard Meyer, President Meyer Coal & Material Co. The second letter was from Bishop, Schwager & Hill of 9B1 Glen Flora Avenue, W~ukegan, Illinois. April 2, 1959 Dear Mr. Appleby: As the owners of the~property on the northeast corner of Pine Street and Northwest Highway, we are very much against the clos~ug of Pine Street, as reco~ended by the Kincaid Plan. Our property is leased to the Jewel Tea Co., Inc., of Piue St. Melrose Park, Illinois, who operate the Jewel Food Store and parking lot. To close Pine Street will present an almost impossible situation to brin~ big trucks in loom Northwest Highway. Our parking lot is.already limited, since we have had to devote a portion of it for an alleyway in order to back the big trucks in from Pine Street. The daily deliver~6sc~are necessary to stock the needs of their fine super market. Our access must be from Pine Street for safety reasons. U.S. 14 is too much in use to be jockeying big semi-trailers to the rear of the store for unloading. Our property value will be greatly impaired by the 91osing of Piue Street. We object strenuously to such a plan and trust the cit~ officials will take into account all of the objectionable factors relating to the Kincaid proposal. Cordially yours, S/Wm. Schwager Bishop~ Schwager & Hill Howard Wilson The Village Board received a note of thanks for the expression of sympathy,from the family of Howard J. Wilson. (See minutes of March 24th). Apmil 7, 1959 Mr. Schuppenhauer, Zoning Case 58-20, arose from the Schuppenhau~ audience and protested against the manner in which his zoning Zoning hearing had been held the previous November. After some discussion, Case 5@-20 Clerk Reynolds was asked to read the following letter from the Board of Appeals to Mr. Broad: April 6, 1959 Mr. Frank Broad, Trustee Village of Mount Prospect Dear Frank: We have, at your request, talked over our unanimous decision in the Schuppenhauer case (#58-20). Although our decision was based entirely on the evidence presented at the hearing (as we are obliged to do by law) and not by making personal visits, through courtesy to you a number of our Board members did make ~ personal inspection. As a result of the visit, it appears that there is nothing unusual- in the Petitioner's problem that is not found also in many parcels throughout the Village. The fact that someone allowed a similar condition to exist in the past does not influence us to allow it today. Regulations are meant to be enforced. Records show that Schuppenhauer failed to show hardship. If the petitioner has a hardship he should ask for another hearing and we will listen but guarantee nothing. The Acting Secretary for November, 1958 hearing has recommended to the ChAirman that Case 58-20 not be re-opened. Accordingly, the decision is final and the case remains closed. Reconsidering this case carries the inference that our decision was ill considered. This, of course, is not so. All of our decisions are care- fully arrived at. Also, we take pride that we are completely detached from all problems, are non-political, and are influence-proof. We are all proud of our village. It's uniform pattern of growth is due considerably to strict enforcement of the building regulations. Perhaps even the petitioner was attracted to our Village because the laws are enforced. ~ould he then favor relaxing the laws so that he can build a garage his way? The Petitioner has the constitutional right to seek relief through a court of law. The Board of Appeals E. F. Martin H.L. Ross M. G. Young R.T. Leekley C. L. Long N.L. Gorny S. W. Goodenough Trustee Willer, seconded by Trustee Casterline, moved to give the Board of Appeals a vote of confidence regarding this letter. The President put the question, the Clerk called the roll, with the follc~ing response: Ayes, Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver mud Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Trustee Norris, seconded by Trustee Broad, moved that the plans and specifications for public improvements in Louis Munao's First Louis Addition as prepared by Robert H. West & Associates and approved Munao's by our Village engineers, C. T. & A., and given the designation First C.T.&A. #59-51, be approved subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Addn. Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, with the provision that construction of the said public improvements including the sewer and water house services be under the supervision and ihsp.~ction of the Village Engineers. The President put the question, the Clerk called the roll, with the following response: Trustees Airey, Broad, Casterline, Norris, Schlaver and Willer. Nays, none. Whereupon the President declared the motion carried. Village Manager Appleby informed the Board that he attended the County Zoning BoArd of Appeals hearing on the Brickman First Brickman County ' Zoning Appeal rickmau County Addition appeal, (land adjoining Carson~ Pirie Scott on the east) Zoning Appeal and presented the facts in writing. The Village has twenty days to present its comments to the County Board of Appeals. Trustee Broad, seconded by Trustee Norris, moved for __ adjournment, and the meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /E. Robert Reyno~s Clerk April 7, 1959