1980-01-21 - Village Board Regular Meeting - Minutes 5594
1/21/80
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO
GROVE, ILLINOIS, HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
VILLAGE HALL, JANUARY 21 , 1980.
President Clayton called the meeting to order at 7:40 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 Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske.
Also present were: William Balling, Village Manager; William
Raysa, Village Attorney; William Sommer, Assistant Village
Manager; William Brimm, Finance Director; Gregory Boysen,
Director of Public Works; Paul Kochendorfer, Village Treasurer.
Moved by Hartstein, seconded by O'Reilly, to approve the minutes APPROVAL OF
of the January 7, 1980 Regular Meeting. Upon roll call , MINUTES
Trustees voted as follows :
AYES: 5 - Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt, Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
ABSTAIN: 1 - Marienthal
Motion declared carried.
Village Treasurer Paul Kochendorfer read Warrant #419. WARRANT #419
Mr. Brimm answered questions from Trustees regarding the
Warrant. Moved by Stone, seconded by Gerschefske to approve
Warrant #419 in the amount of $271 , 192. 13 authorizing payment
of bills listed. Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES : 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
President Clayton made Trustee liaison appointments to Village TRUSTEE LIAISON
Commissions as follows: APPOINTMENTS
Trustee Marienthal : Plan Commission, Electrical Commission
Trustee Stone: Appearance Commission, Blood Donor Commission
Trustee O'Reilly: Zoning Board of Appeals, Police & Fire
Commission
Trustee Hartstein: Transportation Commission, Business District
Development Commission
Trustee Kavitt: Youth Commission, all Intergovernmental functions
Trustee Gerschefske: Finance Committee, Police Pension Board,
Board of Health
Liaisons to short-term committees will be appointed at the time
the committees are created. Examples of this are the Library
Committee (Trustee Marienthal) , Fire Service Referendum (Trustee
Stone) , Home Rule Referendum (Trustee Hartstein) , Buffalo Grove
Days Committee (Trustee Gerschefske) .
l
5595
1/21/80
President Clayton congratulated Village Manager William VILLAGE
Balling on his appointment as a Regional Director to the MANAGER
Metropolitan Section of the Illinois City Managers Association.
President Clayton stated that, at the January meeting of the LAKE COUNTY
Lake County CATS, Buffalo Grove was successful in their agree- CATS
ing to use FAUS funds for a preliminary engineering study for
Route 83. The contract for same is on the Consent Agenda.
Buffalo Grove also requested construction of Route 83 with the
Burnam Corridor money. This request was put on a "B" list. If
Route 53 is extended, they do not feel that it will be necessary
to improve Route 83. If Route 53 is not extended, it appears
that improvements to Route 83 will have a very high priority.
Trustee Hartstein reported that the Home Rule Referendum HOME RULE
Committee is working on a fact sheet, which should be ready REFERENDUM
for distribution within the next two weeks. COMMITTEE
Also, four information meetings have been scheduled as follows :
February 13, 1980 - Kilmer School at 8:00 P.M.
February 14, 1980 - Twin Groves School at 8:00 P.M.
February 19, 1980 Kingswood Methodist Church at 8:00 P.M.
February 21 , 1980 - Village Hall at 8:00 P.M.
Trustee Kavitt reported that he had attended the NWMC meeting NWMC MEETING
on January 9, 1980, at which the guest speakers were from (NORTRAN)
NORTRAN. They discussed various NORTRAN services, as well
as the possibilities of coming out to various municipalities
who are not members of NORTRAN. Mr. Kavitt discussed this
with Mr. Steve Goldspiel , and it was decided that it would
be beneficial to have NORTRAN make a presentation to the
Village Board at a workshop meeting, with members of the
Transportation Commission also present. There would be no
commitment by the Village to join NORTRAN. The staff will
set up this meeting.
The second topic of discussion at the January 9 meeting was (CABLE TV)
CABLE TV. The sentiment of the members was that, prior to
making any definite commitment by the Northwest suburbs, the
conference explore the possibility of the municipalities
becoming involved in the Cable TV situation.
On January 15, Trustee Kavitt took part in a panel discussion PARENTAL
at Cooper Jr. High School , where the topic of discussion was LIABILITY
Deviant Youth Behavior. During the discussion, Mr. Kavitt
brought up Section 948.050 of the Buffalo Grove Municipal
Code which indicates liability of parents or legal guardians
for acts committed by their children. Many members of the
audience were not aware of this section, and felt that it
would be worthwhile if this could be published in the newspapers
and the Village newsletter. Mr. Kavitt asked the Village Attorney
to write an article regarding that section to make the residents
aware of it.
5596
1/21/80
Regarding the limit of $500 for damages, Trustee Kavitt said
that he pointed out to the audience that, if the Village were
a home rule community, there would not have to be a $500 limit
set for restitution, and he said that the vast majority of the
audience was in favor of the more stringent ordinance.
President Clayton reported that she had attended a NWMC meeting NWMC - CABLE TV
at the Northbrook Library regarding Cable TV franchising, and
stated that there would be another meeting on Saturday, January
26, 1980, and encouraged all Board members to attend.
Mr. Balling reported that the Village has not been successful SIDEWALK SNOW
in negotiating a contract for sidewalk snow removal . The REMOVAL
staff, however, is moving in a positive direction with the
R. J. Helms Landscaping Company. Mr. Helms is unsure of his
firm's capability to handle the contract for the Village;
however, he has agreed to handle at least one 6" snowfall at
the $50/mile price. Both Mr. Helms and the Village will
re-evaluate the possibility of a contract after this occurrence.
Mr. Balling stated that, if there were no objections from the
Board, he would proceed on this basis. There were no objections.
Mr. Balling reported on the status of the proposed State Tax STATE TAX
Ceiling Bill . He stated that it is a very confusing issue, CEILING BILL
and that it would have a substantial impact on local govern-
ment generally, although there would not be a major impact
on Buffalo Grove specifically. There is a concern regarding
the growth factor formula which would be fed into the tax
limitation act. If growth is factored, it would have an
adverse impact on rapidly growing units of local government.
Assurance was received from Representatives that they would
seek to eliminate the growth factor from the bill .
It is anticipated that there will be a favorable vote on the
bill tomorrow. The Village has endorsed the position of the
Northwest Municipal Conference.
President Clayton asked if there were any questions from the QUESTIONS FROM
audience. There were none. THE AUDIENCE
President Clayton explained the Consent Agenda, and stated that CONSENT AGENDA
any member of the audience or the Board could ask that an item
be removed for full discussion. There were no such requests.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt to pass Ordinance #80-1 ORDINANCE #80-1
authorizing the sale of surplus Golf Course equipment. (SURPLUS GOLF
EQUIPMENT)
This equipment , due to Village equipment rotation policies,
has become surplus and will be disposed of through auction.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
��
�/
i
5597
1/21/80
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt to pass Ordinance #80-2, ORDINANCE #80-2
amending the Subdivision Regulations of Buffalo Grove (1 .5 (SUBDIVISION
mile authority - P.U. D.) . REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT)
The legislation is required to fill a legislature gap in our
extra-territorial authority for planned unit developments.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O 'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt to pass Resolution #80-4 RESOLUTION #80-4
to approve contract addendum for engineering services for (ROUTE 83 IMPROVE-
Mundelein Road (IL 83) Improvement Study. MENT STUDY)
This consulting service is required to implement the recently
approved design study for IL 83.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt to approve Final Plat of HIGHLAND GROVE
Resubdivision - Highland Grove Unit 2A. UNIT 2A
The resubdivision solves the pending yard encroachment problems
in the Highland's subdivision.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O 'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt to authorize the Village 1980 DATA PRO-
President to execute contract renewal with AIMS for 1980 CESSING CONTRACT
Data Processing Service.
This annual contract is for data processing involving financial
reporting.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O 'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt to authorize bid for FY80-81 VEHICLE
2/80 award of FY80-81 Vehicles (staff vehicles and squads) . BIDS
5598
1/21/80
Bidding for FY80-81 police and staff vehicles pursuant to
our established rotating schedules adopted in the central
garage program are required to be bid at this time to meet
the manufacturers ordering deadlines. No expansion of our
fleet will occur as a result of this bid.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows :
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt, to uphold Appearance SUFFIELD PLACE
Commission approval of the Suffield Place change in models.
The Appearance Commission recommends approval of a choice of
building models for Suffield Place.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAVES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Discussion took place regarding whether or not the reduced SENIOR CITIZEN
rate for senior citizen vehicle stickers should include VEHICLE STICKER
recreational vehicles. DISCOUNT
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of
permitting only one vehicle at the reduced rate; "No" indicates
favor of permitting more than one vehicle at the reduced rate.
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt, Gerschefske
NO: None
President Clayton again polled the Board regarding whether or
not to charge $1 for transfers in this classification: "Yes"
indicates favor of the suggestion to charge $1 for transfers
in this classification; "No" indicates opposition.
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt, Gerschefske
NO: None
Mr. Raysa stated that the following sentence should be added to
the ordinance: "Any person 65 years of age or older shall be
limited to one such license per year." He also stated that the
transfer fees would be in a separate section, so another ordinance
will have to be drafted.
President Clayton stated that the Village Attorney could redraft
the ordinance according to the direction of the Board, and have it
on Consent Agenda at the next Regular meeting.
Discussion followed regarding whether the senior citizen discount
should apply to one per family or one person.erson.
per
5599
1/21/80
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of
Trustee Marienthal 's suggestion to limit the discount to one
per address; "No" indicates opposition.
YES: Marienthal
NO: Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt, Gerschefske
The ordinance will be redrafted and put on Consent Agenda for the
February 4, 1980 meeting.
Mr. Boysen stated that the staff has observed the intersection NO PARKING AREAS
of Bernard and White Pine, and found that the intersection did ALONG BERNARD
not warrant a stop sign. However, the staff does agree that DRIVE
there is a traffic problem at this intersection. Mr. Boysen
identified the suggested solutions outlined in the January 3, Ordinance #80-3
1980 from Keith Maclntyre to Richard Kuenkler, which is on file
in the Clerk's Office.
In answer to a question from Trustee O'Reilly, Mr. Boysen stated
that the speed is related to the curvature of the road, and the
parked cars on that curve accentuate the curve itself.
Mr. John Panella stated that he does not feel that lowering the
speed limit will solve the problem. He feels that STOP signs
are necessary.
Mr. Boysen stated that the Village Board does have the authority
to issue STOP signs , even if the State feels they are not
warranted.
President Clayton asked if it would be effective to prohibit
parking on just one side of the street. Mr. Boysen stated that
it would help, but the staff feels that it would be most effective
to prohibit parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Boysen did
state that if parking were to be prohibited on only one side of
the street, he feels the South side of the street would be most
effective.
Trustee Hartstein stated that this may be an instance where the
state standards are overly strict regarding what standards must
be met in order to post STOP signs. He thinks each situation
must be evaluated and dealt with individually. He feels the
staff should investigate the removal of trees from the residence
on the corner, investigate limiting parking to only one side of
the street, and take a closer look at the STOP sign situation.
Mr. Hartstein would like to see the ordinance put in proper form
and put on Consent Agenda for the next meeting.
Trustee Marienthal stated that, in the essence of time, he does
not wish to see this ordinance postponed until the next meeting.
Moved by Hartstein, seconded by O 'Reilly, to adopt Ordinance #80-3
as amended, which would delete Paragraph 30 under Section 1 , and
changing Paragraph 31 to Paragraph 30; and adding the standard
penalty clause to the ordinance. Upon roll call , Trustees voted
as follows :
5600
1/21/80
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES: 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Mr. Raysa stated that, in line with Trustee Hartstein 's
request that removal of trees on the corner residence be
looked into, there were two recent court cases which indicated
that a municipality is liable for blocking sight with vehicles
at an intersection.
Trustee Hartstein stated that he requests the staff to check
into removal of said trees, and reconsideration of the STOP
sign situation, with a report to the Board at the next meeting.
Trustee Marienthal noted that the attorney for the Early EARLY LEARNING
Learning Center was not present. CENTER
Trustee Marienthal moved not to change the zoning buffer
requirements for the Strathmore Shopping Center. Trustee
Stone seconded the motion.
President Clayton asked Trustee Marienthal if he meant that
the fence should be moved back onto the parking lot. Trustee
Marienthal stated that was correct.
Trustee O'Reilly stated that the residents do not want the
fence moved back.
President Clayton stated that Mrs. Aguilar very emphatically
stated that she wants the fence where it is right now.
Mr. Balling stated that he understands that Mr. Olson wants to
relocate his entire fence at the property line, and that Mr.
Olson has indicated that he is not willing to leave the fence
where it now stands .
President Clayton stated that she feels we should be concerned
with what is going to be best in that location, and the way it
stands right now makes the most sense.
Mr. Bradley Olsen, attorney for the residents , stated that the
way the fence presently stands makes the most sense for everyone
concerned. Mr. Olsen explained what has taken place regarding
this fence.
Mr. Balling stated that Mr. Arvid Olson is fully prepared to live
with the approved fence line. He has instructed his fence con-
tractor that no payments will be made on the entire project until
that fence is installed pursuant to contract, which is encroaching
on the pavement approximately 15 or 20 feet.
5601
1/21/80
Mr. Balling stated that the fence contractor did exercise
proper installation initially pursuant to the contract, and then,
based on direction from Mr. Balling to put the fence where it
logically should go, met with resistance from Mr. Arvid Olson
to put it back per contract prior to payment.
Mr. William Moore stated that he and his client have asked to
have this item brought up once again as a last resort. He
said this particular issue was with the prior Board.
Mr. Moore stated that they "had a gun to their heads", they
had a building that was built, thousands of dollars in existing
landscaping, and they could not continue to sit without the use
of the property so they agreed to what was, at best, a silly
solution to a problem which he doesn 't feel was as eloquent
as the neighbors have felt that it was. Mr. Moore said that
the lucicrous element of this was exhibited beautifully by
the fact that, by taking this arbitrary 12 ' , they lopped the
fence line along the east side of that property, which slashed
along part of the parking lot, dumped part of the curbing of
the parking lot in the back yard of the neighbors to the east,
deprived them of all visual advantage of the landscaping, which
the ordinance insists upon for the benefit of the shopping center
and the tenants of the center, not the neighbors.
Trustee Marienthal stated that that is not true. Mr. Moore said
that is at least his posture for the moment.
Mr. Moore stated that there cannot be any representation that
it is for the benefit of the neighbors if there is a fence
between them and the neighbors, and the landscaping is on their
side. Mr. Moore said that it doesn ' t do the patrons of the
shopping center or their patrons any good to have $3,000 -
$5,000 worth of landscaping that is on the other side of an
8' fence. Then later on, to have it rectified by mysteriously
moving it, is simply another example of the fact that this does
not make any sense.
Mr. Moore said that there is a PUD which requires a certain
amount of parking, and they can't use all the parking because
there is a fence across some of the spaces. The curbing is on
the other side of the fence on the neighbor's side. He asked
what is to prevent them from going in and recapturing the use
of their property by putting up another fence along the fence,
and growing noxious weeds. He said it doesn 't make sense to take
this property from the property owner without any compensation,
which has been done. It is not benefiting the patrons of the
shopping center. It is certainly deprivation of his client 's
property rights, and he thinks they agreed under the most extreme
case of duress at the time because they had an investment in the
property and the inability to get the property open and utilized.
Mr. Moore said that this may be something that the Board loathes
having to hear again, but he thinks the Board should have the
opportunity to look at it again before they follow up on whatever
resources are available to them. He thinks it is a bad solution.
5602
1/21/80
Trustee Marienthal stated that he loathes listening to this
again, and seeing them here before the Board again. He said
this was not done to deprive the shopping center of any sort
of buffer, but was there for a specific reason, and that was
for the single family homeowners that abutted the center. He
said this was agreed to on their final plan, and on their
landscape plan which was reviewed by not only the previous
Village Board, but the Architectural Control Commission, the
Plan Commission, and just about every commission that the Village
has at its disposal . It was for the benefit of the single
family homeowners, and not the shopping center. They did agree
to it during the discussions that were held before these different
commissions and committees, and now what they are asking the
Board to do is to turn this decision around, and tell the home-
owners that they were just given the landscaping for 6 months.
Mr. Marienthal stated that he thinks that is very arbitrary
and capricious on their part.
Mr. Moore stated that the Board has the right to say "no"
and he never had any question in his mind but that they would
say "no". The fact of the matter is that, before we end up
jousting in a different forum, the Board ought to at least
have the opportunity to look at it again after it was implemented
and see how ridiculous it was. Mr. Moore said they did not agree
to it voluntarily. He said it was "rammed down their throat"
with a "gun to their heads".
Trustee Marienthal said that the above was not a true statement.
Trustee Stone said that they did agree when it was convenient
for them to agree to it, and now that they are in the building
and using the facility, they no longer feel it is in their best
interest to agree to it, so they want to change the whole deal .
Mr. Moore said they are here tonight because it was suggested
that they come instead of filing a lawsuit. He said he does
not wish to get huffy with the Board. He knows that Mr.
Marienthal doesn't like this project, but the fact of the matter
is that this thing is not that clear in black and white, because
the various plans were approved at different times for different
line-ups on the fence. Mr. Moore stated that what is clear to
him is that they have lost the use of 12 ' of their land.
Trustee Marienthal stated that he wanted Mr. Moore to retract the
statement made about Mr. Marienthal . Mr. Moore stated that he
would not retract any statement.
Trustee Stone said that they did make a deal , and now they want
to change it.
Mr. Arvid Olson stated that they are here tonight for one reason.
He said they had everything done the way the Village required, the
way the ordinance was passed, and what the Board requested. He went
over to the building one day, and about 20' of fence had been
moved. The Village went on his property, without his permission,
5603
1/21/80
and moved the fence and stole his gate. He said he is mad
about this . They went and talked to Mr. Balling, who suggested
they come back to the Village Board to present their case again.
He said they are here tonight because Mr. Balling asked them
to be here, and they are going to go further with this, because
he is not happy with the resolution that they now have.
President Clayton stated that, in looking at it the way it stands
right now, it is a lot better than the way it was. It gives
them more parking spaces, it looks better, and the alignment
that is now existing makes more sense. She asked why they disagree.
Mr. Olson said he does not agree. The way it was before, there
was an even fence line. His big objection to what was done is the
manner in which it was done. He said no one is entitled to come
on his property and do something without his permission. That
is what happened, and he is upset about it. He doesn 't care
where the blame or fault is; he is upset about it. It is an
invasion of his rights.
President Clayton stated that perhaps it was felt that they
weren't really taking away anything, but were giving back his
parking lot.
Mr. Olson said that there could have been very good reasons, but
the fact is that it was done and he is upset about it. He is
upset about the fence. He said they are here tonight asking
the Board to re-evaluate it, and if the decision is "no", then
they will progress with whatever legal recourse is available
to them.
President Clayton said that there are two choices: they either
want it back on the property line, or they want it as approved
originally, which was having the fence go in the parking lot.
Mr. Olson said they are really asking for it back on the property
line.
Trustee Hartstein said that he wished to appeal to Mr. Olson 's
sense of community. He said he does not know the specific facts
about what happened in terms of the particular movement of the
fence. Based upon what has been presented this evening, it
clearly appears that the fence was going across and taking up a
portion of the parking adjacent to Mr. Olson 's place of business.
There is no question in his mind that many hours were spent
trying to deal with the problem affecting the citizens surrounding
this piece of property. Based upon all of those hours', they came
up with what appeared to be the best possible solution. In spite
of the fact that something was done notwholly to Mr. Olson 's
liking in terms of this one section of fence, it appears that
this is probably the best possible situation. He asked Mr. Olson
to think about going along with what exists now because it appears
to be the best solution for everyone. He asked Mr. Olson to provide
that type of goodwill and try and put this behind us .
V
V
5604
1/21/80
Mr. Olson said Mr. Hartstein was missing the whole point. He
said he doesn't think the Village can come on his property and
take his gate and move his fence. He said he was very hot about
it when it happened. He said he was ready to claim criminal
trespassing; he did not know at that point that the Village did
it. He did not know who did it. He called Mr. Moore, who
suggested that Mr. Olson talk with the Village first. He said
he has come a long way since that fence was moved.
Mr. Bradley Olsen said there are two separate issues involved. He
said Mr. Olson was rightfully upset that someone came on his
property and moved his fence. His clients had nothing to do with
that. Mr. Olsen said that Mr. Olson is using this as a convenient
was to raise a very dead issue. Mr. Moore eloquently informs the
Board that his client had a "gun to his head", but in fact, the
memorandum that the Village Manager prepared for the prior Board
back at the time this whole issue was discussed in February of
1979, states "our research for the fence location reveals that
the approved conditions of the Village Board and the approved
working drawings from the building department require the Early
Learning Center fence to be located 12 ' inside the Early Learning
Center property." Mr. Moore is trying to raise an issue which
the prior Board and the Village staff indicated was not an issue.
The approvals by the Village Board and the building department
drawings agree that 12 ' in is where the fence belongs. There
is another memo dated February 16, 1979 from the Village Manager
which says "all Village plans concerning the fence location are
compatible and require it to be located 12 ' inside the Early
Learning Center property." The backup memo from Mr. Delaney,
which Mr. Olsen feels is important, states that on October 3,
1977, the Village Board approved the final plans of a subdivision
for this PUD. To quote Mr. Delaney's memo, "Trustee Keister
reported that the developer (Mr. Conrardy) agreed to install a
6' stockade fence along the lot line, except in the area of the
ELC, where it will be installed 12' from the lot line." The only
thing that changed over those two years was that the fence would be
increased to 7' . From October of 1977 on, the fence has been
located 12 ' inside the property line. Mr. Arvid Olson stated that
Mr. Conrardy did not speak for him, but Mr. Bradley Olsen said that
he (Mr. Conrardy) did, in fact, speak for him as the owner of that
property. There was no "gun to anyone's head" in October of 1977.
Those minutes are clear, as are all other documents, that the fence
was to be 12 ' in. That protects the 12 ' buffered landscaped area
that the zoning ordinance requires, not for the benefit of the
shopping center, but clearly for the benefit of the neighboring
property owners to provide a landscaped buffer from the shopping
center.
Mr. Olsen said the Board should not confuse the two issues of whether
the fence belongs on the property line, or 12 ' , or 10 and 1/2 ' where
it is right now.
Moved by Hartstein, seconded by Kavitt, to go to Executive Session
for the purpose of discussing threatened litigation. Upon roll call ,
Trustees voted as follows :
5605
1/21/80
AYES: 4 - Hartstein, Kavitt, Gerschefske, President Clayton -
(because of the Village Attorney's recommendation)
NAYES: 3 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly
The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 9:02 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9: 15 P.M.
Mr. Moore stated that their reason for coming this evening was
to get the Board to reconsider.
L./ Trustee Marienthal restated his motion not to consider a change
in the zoning buffer requirement for the Strathmore Shopping
Center as described in the letter received January 14, 1980
directed to William Balling, Village Manager, and direct staff
to contact the fence company and, at Village expense, to move
the fence to its prior location as approved on the site plan
for this particular center. Trustee O'Reilly seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bradley Olsen asked one last time that Mr. Arvid Olson
reconsider his position and agree to leave the fence where
it stands right now.
Trustee Marienthal made the above request of Mr. Olson.
Mr. Moore stated that, prior to the time the Village acts, they
will either acquiesce in that or decline.
President Clayton said that the Village would appreciate their
affirmative consideration of that.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES : 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Trustee Stone explained the recommendations which were received PEDESTRIAN
from the Concerned Parents of Longfellow School . (On file in SAFETY/ARL.
the Clerk's office) . HEIGHTS ROAD
Mrs . Marlene Rubin, of the above group, explained the situation
which is causing a problem at the corner of Arlington Heights
and Bernard. She stated that the sidewalk is too close to the
corner, and Lhat cars turning right from Arlington Heights
Road onto Bernard Drive cut the corner and run right over the
sidewalk where the school children must stand. Their request
is that the sidewalk be moved east a few feet so that the
children would not be standing right where the cars cut the
corner. Mrs. Rubin also said that the crossing guard was present
to verify the situation.
5606
1/21/80
The other request was for a "No Turn On Red" sign when the
traffic signal is installed, at all times, because there is a
park at Longfellow, so children are present at all times, and
not just school times.
Moved by Stone, seconded by O'Reilly, to relocate the sidewalks
in accordance with the illustration shown, at the corner of
Arlington Heights Road and Bernard Drive, and that staff be
authorized to implement other actions which do not require Board
approval .
Trustee Stone pointed out that his motion does not include a
barricade on Arlington Heights Road.
There was discussion on whether the "No Turn On Red" should be
posted for a time limited to when there are children present,
or at all times.
Upon roll call , Trustees voted as follows:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Kavitt,
Gerschefske
NAYES : 0 - None
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Kavitt, seconded by Hartstein, that when the traffic
signal is erected on Arlington Heights Road and Bernard Drive
in the Village of Buffalo Grove, that the Village place a
"No Turn On Red" sign at the intersection of Bernard and
Arlington Heights Road, which would affect the eastbound traffic
going onto Bernard off of Arlington Heights Road, and that this
sign be installed subject to approval by the County.
There was discussion on whether or not the County would approve
an unlimited "No Turn On Red" sign.
AYES: 4 - Marienthal (based on the fact that there will be some
input both from the County and the Village staff) ,
Hartstein, Kavitt, Gerschefske
NAYES: 2 - Stone, O'Reilly
Moved by Gerschefske, seconded by Hartstein, to move to ADJOURNMENT
Executive Session to discuss personnel . Upon voice vote,
the motion was unanimously declared carried. The meeting
adjourned to Executive Session at 9:45 P.M.
The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
� n
+'Lt L I r r �.t Ft.{;ct,r1
Janet tL✓Sirabian, Village Clerk
APPROVED BY ME THIS 'ITh DAY
OF ���u� 1980.
i lage President