1981-10-05 - Village Board Regular Meeting - Minutes 5923
10/5/81
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO
GROVE , ILLINOIS , HELD IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBERS , VILLAGE HALL, OCTOBER 5, 1981 .
President Clayton called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
Those present stood and pledged allegiance to the Flag.
Roll call indicated the following present: President Clayton; ROLL CALL
Trustees Stone, O 'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz.
Trustee Marienthal arrived at 7:45 P.M. Also present were:
William Balling, Village Manager; William Raysa, Village
Attorney; James Doyle, Assistant Village Manager; James
Truesdell , Village Planner, Gregory Boysen, Director of
Public Works ; Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer; and Paul
Kochendorfer, Village Treasurer.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Hartstein , to approve the minutes APPROVAL OF
of the September 21 , 1981 Regular Meeting. Trustee O' Reilly MINUTES
made the following correction to the minutes:
Page 5921 , 2nd paragraph from the bottom, third line
should read : "it was stated that the Center could
formally request a time extension from the Board in
two years ."
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES : 5 - Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAPES: 0 - None
ABSENT: 1 - Marienthal
Motion declared carried.
Mr. Kochendorfer read Warrant #464. Moved by O' Reilly, WARRANT #464
seconded by Hartstein, to approve Warrant #464 in the
amount of $419,978.68, authorizing payment of bills listed.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows :
AYES : 5 - Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein , Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAPES: 0 - None
ABSENT: 1 - Marienthal
Motion declared carried.
President Clayton explained the new Trustee Signalization CERTIFICATE OF
System, which was installed, at no cost to the Village, by APPRECIATION
Donald Korstanje of Vernon Hills . Mrs . Clayton then read (Donald Korstanje)
the Certificate of Appreciation which will be sent to Mr.
Korstanje.
President Clayton then noted a Certificate of Appreciation CERTIFICATE OF
to be sent to Jordan Shifrin for his years of service on the APPRECIATION
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission. (Jordan Shifrin)
5924
10/5/81
President Clayton read a letter of thanks to Carl Schulien, LETTER OF THANKS
a paid on-call volunteer for the Buffalo Grove Fire Depart- (Carl Schulien)
ment. Mr. Schulien resigned from the Fire Department due to
other commitments.
Mr. Balling Noted the submission of the August Monthly ADMINISTRATIVE
Activities Report. He noted an error on the last page of ACTIVITIES REPORT
the report, and stated that corrected numbers will be
published .
President Clayton asked if there were any questions from QUESTIONS FROM
the audience. There were none. THE AUDIENCE
President Clayton explained the Consent Agenda, and stated CONSENT AGENDA
that any member of the audience or the Board could request
that any item be removed for full discussion. There were no
such requests .
Moved by O' Reilly, seconded by Stone, to approve final UPTOWN FEDERAL
acceptance for Uptown Federal Savings. All final inspections SAVINGS
have been satisfied , and staff recommends acceptance of
improvements for this development. Upon roll call , Trustees
voted as follows :
AYES: 5 - Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAYES: 0 - None
ABSENT: 1 - Marienthal
Motion declared carried.
Moved by O' Reilly, seconded by Stone, to approve Plat of UPTOWN FEDERAL
Easement for Uptown Federal Savings . This easement is SAVINGS
required to accommodate a portion of an on-site public
watermain. Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows :
AYES : 5 - Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein , Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAYES: 0 - None
ABSENT: 1 - Marienthal
Motion declared carried.
Moved by O' Reilly, seconded by Stone, to approve Appearance BUFFALO GROVE
Commission recommendation for Buffalo Grove Commerce Center COMMERCE CENTER
landscaping, Lots 5 and 7 and exterior lighting fixtures,
Lots 38 and 39. The Appearance Commission recommends approval
of the subject aesthetic elements for this project. Upon roll
call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 5 - Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAYES : 0 - None
ABSENT: 1 - Marienthal
Motion declared carried .
President Clayton read a Proclamation proclaiming the week PROCLAMATION -
of October 18, 1981 as Junior Women 's Club Week in the Buffalo Grove
Village of Buffalo Grove. Junior Women's
Club
5925
10/5/81
President Clayton read a proclamation proclaiming October 3, PROCLAMATION -
1981 through October 11 , 1981 as Mindpower Week in the Mindpower Week
Village of Buffalo Grove.
Mr. Ted Uskali gave a brief history of the Buffalo Grove HISTORICAL
Historical Society, the Buffalo Grove Historical Museum, LANDMARK
and the Village of Buffalo Grove itself. Mr. Uskali then PRESERVATION
gave a slide presentation showing some of the 36 sites
considered to have significant historical value in Buffalo
Grove. Mr. Uskali stated that the proposed ordinance is
very important to the Historical Society, and would be a
tool which would help them preserve historic sites for
future generations.
Mr. Uskali then answered questions from the Board. Among
those questions , was the criteria to be used for the use
of the word "substantial" in Section 4, B. Mr. Raysa stated
that, if the BOCA Code required a permit for work being done,
it would be considered "substantial". It was requested that
said definition be put into the ordinance. Under the proposed
ordinance, the Village could designate a building or a site as
a landmark without the owner's approval . There was discussion
on the possibility of putting a safeguard into the ordinance so
that the Board could designate a building as a landmark, even
after a subdivision was approved. The reason for this would be
to prevent a potential landmark being overlooked before approval .
Mr. Raysa stated that there would be no legal problem with
inserting this into the ordinance.
Discussion followed on the fact that no reapplication for
designation as a historic landmark may be made for said
building or site prior to 5 years from the date of denial
by the Board.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of
keeping the 5 year time on page 5 in Section 5, E. ; "No"
indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: O' Reilly
Mr. Uskali stated that the Historical Society would have a
budget to include all drawings and documents which would be
required for the hearing process in declaring a site as a
historic landmark. It was stated that the Building Commissioner
should examine the structure of the building before the hearing
is held.
After discussion, President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes"
indicates favor of adding wording in the ordinance that part of
the staff review process of any new development would include
comment on historical preservation within that particular
development; "No" indicates opposition :
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
5926
10/5/81
It was stated that, once this ordinance is passed, the
Historical Society would make application on historic
landmarks already existing in the Village.
Mr. Raysa stated that this ordinance deals with historic
preservation of landmarks ; this ordinance would not give
any tax advantage to the owner of the property. Mr. Uskali
stated that, if a building is designated as a landmark, it
would qualify for a historic preservation grant, for the
restoration or rebuilding or preservation of the building.
This is not federal money, but would come from the Historic
Preservation Society of Washington, D.C. The Historical
Society would pay for all drawings, etc. which would need
to be submitted to the Village to request landmark designation
on a building which was donated to the Historical Society.
However, they probably would not be able to pay for these
items if the landmark designation were requested by a
private homeowner; they could assist the homeowner in
applying for a grant from the Historic Preservation
Society to pay for these drawings. Mr. Uskali stated
that the Historical Society does not necessarily expect
that all possible historical buildings be donated to them.
President Clayton polled the Board" "Yes" indicates favor
of putting this ordinance into final form for action at a
future Board meeting; "No" indicates opposition :
YES : Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske,
Schwartz
NO: None
President Clayton declared a recess from 8 :56 P.M. until RECESS
9: 12 P.M.
President Clayton stated that the next item of business on PRE-APPLICATION
the agenda is the Pre-Application Conference for the Commercial CONFERENCE
Center located on the east side of Illinois 83 at Lake-Cook (Commercial Center
Road. on east side of
83 at Lake-Cook)
Trustee Marienthal stated that Ken Tucker & Associates is
before the Board this evening to present a Jewel/Osco food
store and a commercial center which would be approximately
10 acres. Mr. Marienthal stated that he personally did not
care for the plan. Mr. Harold Eisenberg of Ken Tucker &
Associates, then introduced Ken Tucker. Mr. Eisenberg stated
that they are proposing to develop approximately 10 acres of
property at the northeast corner of Lake-Cook Road and Route
83. They have a food store of 52,717 square feet that is
interested in locating on the site; the food store would
have expansion capability of approximately 10,000 square
feet. They are proposing approximately 40,000 square feet
of ancillary shops in an L-shaped configuration. There are
two outlots on the property. Mr. Eisenberg pointed out where
the approximately 530 parking spaces would be located.
5927
10/5/81
Access to the center for service would be at the far southeast
corner of the site. Mr. Eisenberg pointed out the two points
of ingress/egress for customers, one being on Lake-Cook Road
and one being on Route 83. The shopping center would be
designed in a first-class fashion to be compatible with
surrounding buildings.
Trustee Marienthal stated that he had some serious problems
with the traffic situation on that site. He also does not
think the plan is very original .
Trustee Gerschefske stated that he thinks that this is an
excellent site for a food store. His major concern is that
there is no enough commercial shopping to go along with the
food store. He also thinks that the view on Lake-Cook Road
from east to west would be unattractive.
Trustee Hartstein stated that he shares some of the concern
with the traffic problem at this particular intersection.
He thinks there should be limited access or redesign of the
intersection to provide some type of systematic way to handle
the traffic. Trustee Hartstein stated that there is a policy
determination which. the Board must address, that being whether
the east side of Route 83 should be developed in a commercial
manner, or whether the Town Center route should be pursued.
He asked that the Board- reconsider participation in the Town
Center Plan which was turned down recently. Mr. Hartstein
stated that he is not unalterably opposed to this plan, but
does favor the development of the Town Center.
Trustee O 'Reilly stated that staff has recommended pursuing
the parcel to the north , and shifting the buildings on this
plan. Mr. Eisenberg stated that their broker, David Cole,
has had discussion relative to that piece of property, which
has several beneficiaries in the estate. Mr. Eisenberg
stated that they believe it will be very difficult to gain
control of that property, but they are working on it. With
regard to shifting the buildings , Mr. Tucker stated that it
could be a timing problem; however, if the property were to
become available soon, they would consider shifting the
buildings.
Trustee Marienthal asked if Ken Tucker & Associates would
secure a bond, if the Village were to backstop the Town
Center, so that there would be no properties in the Village
of Buffalo Grove that could be affected by a default. Mr.
Tucker stated that they had worked very hard on the Town
Center to make it an exciting project; however, the Town
Center project is now behind them. The options on that
property are_ gone and they are not interested in resurrecting
them. Mr. Tucker also stated that his company would not be
interested in underwriting the bonds as suggested by Trustee
Marienthal .
5928
10/5/81
Regarding the traffic problems on this particular piece of
property, Mr. Tucker stated that they recognize that there
are problems. They believe that they can come up with
solutions to these problems by working with staff and traffic
engineers . 1r. Tucker stated that if the Board is interested
in having his company pursue the present project, they will do
so; if the Board is not interested, they will back away from
the project. If the latter is the case, they will try and
work with Jewel Food Store to select a site elsewhere to serve
that market. With regard to Trustee Marienthal 's comments
regarding originality, Mr. Tucker stated that they know that
this is the type of shopping center which works for the
merchants. He stated that his company is very proud of the
shopping centers that they have developed. Mr. Tucker stated
that if they cannot get to the point of breaking ground for
this project in March or April , they will pass on the project.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" would indicate favor
of the developer pursuing this particular development to the
point that they would be making application to the Village;
"No" indicates opposition :
YES : Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein*, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: Marienthal
-Subject to the resolution of the traffic situation.
Mr. Balling brought the Board up to date on all that has EMMERICH PARK
transpired with regard to the Emmerich. Park East site. This EAST
site was identified as a park site in the Village Master
Plan of 1973; the Village pursued this through litigation
to block zoning for condominium and commercial development
in the late 70's. The Park District pursued the project
through funding, and was successful in passing a referendum
based on active use for the site. The project has proceeded
through the design phases. The Village is confronted with a
dilemma between the Park and the Village which relates to the
design requirements of the Village of Buffalo Grove. Apparently
the project has been designed without consideration of the storm
water management requirements for the Village of Buffalo Grove,
which creates a conflict between the Village and the Park
District in necessary permitting for proceeding with the project.
In July of this year, the Park District petitioned the Village
to consider a waiver of the storm water detention requirements;
the Village indicated that they were not in a position to consider
such a variation and denied their request. Subsequently, staff
was informed that storm water detention would be provided on
the site. Subsequent to that act, an additional matter
surfaced in the design relating to the Village's mandatory
100' statutory flood plain limit for properties adjacent to
the Buffalo Creek. The flood plain ordinance does not provide
clearly for variation other than through public hearing at the
Plan Commission level .
5929
10/5/81
After a meeting with President Clayton and Park District
staff and officials, Mr. Balling 's recollection was that
the Park District would puruse the necessary design work
required to present the Village Engineer with data sufficient
so that he could consider a variance which could be pre-
sented to the Board. At the conclusion of that meeting,
there was consensus that redesign work was necessary. The
Village is currently awaiting that redesign work. The Board
had indicated that there would be support for that variation.
The Village was awaiting the design for the necessary cross
sections of Buffalo Creek, when they were presented with
a letter from the Park District attorney indicating that
the Park District raised questions with the basic authority
of the storm water detention ordinance. The letter was
followed up by a meeting with Mr. Balling and Mr. DeLance
last Monday, at which time Mr. DeLance indicated that the
District was not in a position to submit the necessary
drawings requested by the Village Engineer for the
evaluation , and that the variance was not going to be
pursued, and that the storm water detention system as
identified by the Village Engineer conceptually was not
going to be considered due to cost. Mr. DeLance was also
interested in pursuing the signature of the Village as co
permitee to the Metropolitan Sanitary District 's permit for
sanitary sewer and storm water management. The Village
position was presented clearly to Mr. DeLance, which was
that the Village could not issue permits which were in
clear violation of its ordinance. The policy of the
Village had been unchanged, which was that the Village
would pursue a legal variation of the flood plain issue
provided that it would not aggravate flooding, and could
be done so in a legal manner not jeopardizing the federal
flood insurance program or setting precedence for decisions
that may affect future developments. The result is an
impasse. The Park District needs direction on how to
proceed. The Village is in a position on a staff basis
that they are unable to execute the necessary permits on
design which does not comply with Village ordinances.
The Park District is apparently not interested in pursuing
the storm water detention , which would be a reversal of the
earlier commitment that followed the denial of the Village
to consider detention variation.
Mrs. Prudy Knaak distributed a packet of information
regarding the position taken by the Park District in this
matter. Mrs. Knaak introduced the Park District attorney,
Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Roland Schapanski , the project architect;
and several Park District Board members . Mrs . Knaak then
read a statement of the Park District 's version of chronological
events regarding this parcel of land. The entire packet of
material distributed, as well as the full text of Mrs. Knaak's
statement, are on file in the Clerk 's office. Summarizing
5930
10/5/81
Mrs. Knaak's statement, she stated that , now that the plans
have met IDOT and MSD approval , the Park District attorney has
given legal opinion that the Park District is not subject to
Village ordinances. With IDOT approval , and with the attorney's
opinion , work will begin tomorrow on Emmerich Park East. In
appearing before the Board this evening, Mrs . Knaak has tried
to present the Park District 's side of this problem; it is
not the District 's intent to disregard Village ordinances;
it is with a genuine concern for the taxpayers and the
community that the District has taken its stand. The District
has met state agency requirements and have their approval ;
these agencies have stated that they will act on the District 's
behalf if so requested. The District would not pursue the
project if increased flooding would occur; they have been assured
by IDOT, MSD, and the project engineer that the project would
not contribute to flooding.
President Clayton responded to Mrs. Knaak by stating that this
Board does not want to hinder the development of the Park;
however, the Village Board must be responsive to other needs
in the Village, such as the flood insurance program, and to
be sure that this project does not increase flooding in any
other part of town. The drainage plan is needed so that if
there is an amendment prepared to the flood plain ordinance
to provide a vehicle for a variance to be granted in the
development of this park, a more detailed plan is necessary.
It must be a very specialized type of vehicle so that the
Board is not subjected to having to grant a variance in
another area.
Park District Commissioner Borowski stated that it is the
advice of their project engineer and attorney that the cross
sections that the Village is requiring are totally unnecessary
for what the Park District is trying to do. Mr. Borowski
stated that if the Park District does not get a substantial
amount of work done on the site this year, the active use of
the park itself will be postponed until 1983.
Mr. Balling stated that the Division of Water Resources,
Department of Transportation, has authority over the channel
itself and over the floodway. The MSD has jurisdiction with
respect to sanitary sewers and storm water detention. In
both cases , MSD and IDOT have ordinances which are more
narrow in scope than the municipal ordinance. The representation
that MSD approvals have been acquired are not relevant to the
point, which is : how does the Village as a municipal corporation
act with respect to the application? The other point is that the
Park District knew of the 100' requirement before August or
September of this year. Mr. Balling stated that he had an
exhibit in his office which is dated 1978 which represents
the 100 ' limitation, and it was presented and shared with
the Park District with respect to pricing of the site.
5931
10/5/81
Mr. Balling stated that he did not think anyone left any of
the meetings which were held with any question that the Village
intended for its ordinances to be met.
Trustee Marienthal pointed out that the Village tried to help
the Park District in the acquisition of this site; many past
and present Trustees helped in the passage of the Park District
referendum.
Mr. Balling pointed out that the problem is that the Village
ordinances, which do not have clear variation authority, are
not being met with respect to storm water detention and with
respect to flood plain management. The issue is that the
statutory floodway, which is the amount of land needed to
reserve in its existing state which cannot be reconfigured,
must be 100 ' from the center line of the Creek. It was stated
by a resident that, what the Park District is planning to do
to make the site a finished piece of land, should provide better
run-off and flood control than now exists. Another resident
stated that, if there is better flood control and run-off, then
the intent of the ordinance has been satisfied.
Trustee Hartstein asked Mr. Raysa if there is any question as
to whether a park is or is not covered by these regulations.
Mr. Raysa stated that there is no specific exemption for any
park or publicly owned land.
Trustee Hartstein asked Mr. Kuenkler if, in his professional
opinion as an engineer, based upon the information that he has
seen, there would be a flooding problem. Mr. Kuenkler responded
that he has not had any calculations submitted ; he also stated
that no single one development anywhere in the Village would
have a significant impact on flooding. Trustee Gerschefske stated
that it is impossible to have the Village Engineer form an opinion
without calculations. Park Commissioner Karen Larson- stated that
the Park District had a qualified architect draw up the plans andfigures
which were submitted; she stated that they are detailed drawings.
Mr. Roland Schapanski , architect for the Park District, pointed out
the problem on a plan.
Mr. Kuenkler gave a summary of the information requested and why
it was requested. He stated that they had asked the Park District
to give the Village cross sections of before and after conditions,
along with a hydraulic analysis of the floodway in that area. Mr.
Kuenkler stated that he did not think that anyone informed the
Y./ Park District that the land had to be resurveyed. Mr. Schapanski
stated that in other communities in which he has done work, the
Park District informs the Village what they are going to do, and
then goes ahead with the work. He said there is usually not
approval by the city of the Park District development.
A number of members of the BGRA stated that they felt the Village
should allow the park to be built on the site because of the lack
of active playgrounds for Park District programs.
5932
10/5/81
Trustee Hartstein stated that the issue here is the possible
flooding of resident 's homes , and it is not something that the
Village Board can treat lightly. Mr. Hartstein asked. Mr. Kuenkler
if he thought that there is going to be a real problem with this
situation; Mr. Kuenkler replied that he thinks there is good
potential for problem. Mr. Bill Schwebke of the BGRA stated that
the restrictions that are forthcoming will make the field un-
useable next year; he also asked the Board to be aware of the
dimensions necessary for baseball and soccer fields. President
Clayton assured him that the entire Board is aware of the needs
of the Park District, and also wants to see the park developed.
President Clayton stated that, at the present time, this Board
has not had the opportunity to discuss with the Village Attorney
certain items which need to be discussed. By law, these items
may be discussed in Executive Session. There is legal advice
which the Board must have. Mrs. Clayton stated that the Board
does want to resolve the problem.
Mrs. Knaak stated that their attorney has given them the legal
opinion that they are not subject to the Village ordinances
with regard to the detention and the floodway. As far as the
Park District is concerned, they are beginning construction
tomorrow morning on everything except the concession stand.
Moved by Hartstein, seconded by Gerschefske, to adjourn to EXECUTIVE
Executive Session, with the understanding that the Board return SESSION
to Open Session tonight with an explanation of this particular
issue. Mr. Raysa 's opinion on whether or not it is appropriate
to go into Executive Session on this subject was requested. Mr.
Raysa stated that, based on the last paragraph of Mr. Sullivan 's
letter, it would be an appropriate matter to discuss in Executive
Session. Upon voice vote, all Trustees voted "Yes" except for
Trustee O'Reilly, who voted "No". The meeting adjourned to
Executive Session at 10 :53 P.M. The Regular Meeting resumed
at 12 : 14 A.M.
Moved by Hartstein , seconded by Marienthal , to direct the Village
Attorney to prepare an ordinance wich exempts the Park District
from the 100' flood plain requirements with regard to the
Emmerich Park East flood plain requirements , and that the Park
District otherwise be required to comply with all Village
ordinances. Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows :
AYES : 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein ,
Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAYES : 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Schwartz, seconded by Stone, to adjourn the meeting. ADJOURNMENT
Upon voice vote, the motion was unanimously declared carried, -
The meeting was adjourned at 12: 15 A.M.
*ft± atAilkt. u_
Janet M. S' abian , Village Clerk
APPROVED BY ME THIS 19- g
DAY Chew , 1981 .
•
ViJJaae President _____