1981-06-08 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE ON MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1981 , AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS.
GROVE TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS
President Clayton called the Public Hearing to order at 8:53 P.M. Mrs.
Clayton stated that the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Buffalo
Grove Herald on April 25, 1981 . The Public Hearing was originally scheduled
and called to order on May 11 , 1981 , and on that date, was continued until
June 8, 1981 .
President Clayton then stated the purpose of this Public Hearing. Mr.
Gerald Tenner, attorney for Bernard Katz & Company; Mr. Zorak Rabin,
architect; Mr. Jerry Weiss, Bernard Katz & Company; and Mr. George Anderson,
engineer; were sworn in as witnesses by President Clayton to give testimony
regarding this development. Mr. Tenner stated that they are here tonight
for consideration of the Second Amendment of the Annexation Agreement. He
stated that the main thrust of the Amendment is a change in configuration
of the development from 2 buildings of 51 units each, to 3 buildings con-
sisting of 42 units each. Mr. Rabin stated that each of the newly proposed
buildings will contain 14 one-bedroom units, and 28 two-bedroom units. The
total parcel of land is 5.68 acres , and with the new configuration of buildings,
will have a density of 22.2 units per acre. Mr. Rabin stated that the building
itself is allowed to cover 35% of the land, and they are actually occupying
approximately 19% of the land. The yards proposed meet or exceed all Village
requirements. The proposed buildings are essentially the same as the original
buildings with regard to the contents. Mr. Rabin stated that their parking
spaces also exceed requirements; he noted that there are two parking stalls
in each building to be used as handicapped spaces.
Mr. Kuenkler stated that all items in his memo of March 10, 1981 have been
satisfactorily met, with the exception of item #4. Mr. Kuenkler stated that
the developer has stated that he will make every effort to comply with the
2% minimum bottom grade in the detention basin; however, since the water
backs up into the basin, rather than passing through the basin, Mr. Kuenkler
stated that they would not have a problem with a slightly less than 2% grade.
Mr. Kuenkler also stated that the water flow onto the property from the golf
course has been satisfactorily resolved.
Trustee Hartstein stated that he disliked the location of the additional
parking. Mr. Rabin explained the reason for this location, and the berming
and landscaping which is planned to shield this parking.
President Clayton asked if there were any other public agencies in attendance
who would wish to make comments. There were none. President Clayton asked
if there were any questions from the public. There were none.
In answer to a question from the Board, Mr. Balling explained how the street
lighting will be handled. It was noted that there should be specific reference
to the fact that the developer has agreed to provide intersection lighting.
6/8/81
PUBLIC HEARING
GROVE TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS
,01 PAGE TWO
There was discussion as to the necessity of the 8' bike path, and it
was decided that it would be left as is .
There was discussion of item #7 in the Second Amendment as to why the
wording of the condominium declaration was changed. Mr. Raysa stated
that it still must pass his review, and his standards will be the same
as for the original agreement.
Discussion took place regarding changing the life of the agreement from
5 to 10 years, and Paragraph 21 in the Annexation Agreement. President
Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of Paragraph 21 , which
is the reverter clause, remaining in the Annexation Agreement; "No"
indicates opposition:
YES: Stone, O'Reilly
NO: Marienthal , Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
Mr. Raysa reminded that it will require five affirmative votes to pass the
final Ordinance.
Trustee Marienthal made a recommendation to ask that the Village Attorney
put the Second Amendment of the Annexation Agreement into final form, and
take into consideration the points in the March 10, 1981 memo from Richard
Kuenkler, and also James Truesdell 's memo of March 12, 1981 , and that the
problem in regard to the outside waterflow and the items that have been
discussed this evening and made part of the public record of this hearing
be incorporated into same. President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes"
indicates favor of Trustee Marienthal 's comments; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
Mr. Raysa stated that this will be ready for Board action on June 15,
1981 . President Clayton closed the Public Hearing at 9:26 P.M.
, 7
,
Janet M L irabian, Village Clerk
uJ"`
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE ON MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1981 , AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS.
CEDARVIEW
Trustee Schwartz stated that he is a principal in the law firm representing
Cedarview, and to avoid any speculation of an ethical conflict, he will
abstain from voting or participating on this development.
President Clayton called the Public Hearing to order at 9:27 P.M. This is
an application by R & S Development Corporation, David Haller, owner/developer.
Mrs . Clayton then read the Notice of Public Hearing published in the Buffalo
Grove Herald on May 20, 1981 . Mrs. Clayton then stated that the purpose of
the Public Hearing is the same as outlined for the previous development
heard tonight.
President Clayton then swore in Mr. Irving Capitel , Attorney; Mr. Ralph
Campbell , Land Planner; David Haller, Developer; and Gary Weiss, Civil
Engineer; as witnesses to give testimony at this Public Hearing.
Mr. Capitel then gave a presentation on the development. He stated that
this is 5.3 acres of land adjacent on the east side to Kingswood Methodist
Church. He displayed a rendering of the office complex. This will be a
3-building office unit complex, with two buildings running east/west, and
one building running north/south. The building will comprise 82,500 square
feet of office space. Mr. Capitel then displayed the landscaping plan.
Mr. Capitel stated that the only variance that they are asking to be
considered is the building running in the north/south plane parallel to
the easterly edge of the Kingswood Methodist Church property; they are
asking that the side yard requirement be reduced from 50' to 40' . With
respect to the northern portion, the building setback from the road is
approximately 127' .
Mr. Capitel stated that they have included all of the comments from Mr.
Balling, Mr. Kuenkler, and Mr. Truesdell , in hopes that they could have
as clean an annexation as possible. Mr. Capitel stated that staff has
proposed sidewalks on both sides of Golfview Terrace. He stated that it
does not appear to the developer that a sidewalk would perform any sub-
stantial function on the east side of Golfview Terrace.
The next item they wish to address is the 5% recapture administrative fee.
They would like this 5% added on to the amount recaptured from future property
developers , inasmuch as taking the 5% fee from the existing developer on the
recapture would actually amount to a net recapture for the developer of only
95%. They are asking the Village to reconsider the possibility of amending
the existing petition to allow for the 5% to be added on to the future developer
in terms of the recapture with respect to the Village portion of their collection
fee.
Mr. Capitel stated that it appears that the area to the east and north of
the property is in need of some sanitary sewer renovation. They have been
asked to include a relief system to hook into the sanitary system to provide
some kind of additional facility for the northern residential portion. Staff
CEDARVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE TWO
6 6/8/81
has agreed that that expense by Mr. Haller would be an addition that would not
benefit or be required for the property or the development, and would be done
for the convenience of the Village. In the event that the Village does ask
Mr. Haller to expend this substantial amount of money, they are asking the
Village to give some consideration to Mr. Haller's development in another
area. It was discussed that a special taxing district may be established
for the purposes of sewer renovation. Since Mr. Haller would have to put
out additional funds without the hope of recapture or any assistance from
the Village, they are asking that, if the Village does decide at some point
in the future to create a special tax, this development would be exempted
from same. In other words, the Village would agree not to tax Mr. Haller
again. Also, with respect to the installation, the installation would be
withheld at the developer's option until the installation of Phase II of the
project. They would like to withhold the sanitary installation until the
second building is erected. From conversations with staff, it does not
appear to make a difference whether this installation is done initially or
in Phase II .
Staff has also requested the installation of a looped water system to provide
secondary source water supply in the event the initial system goes out. Mr.
Capitel understands that this is not a requirement; however, Mr. Haller thinks
it is a good idea, but would like to also put off this system until the
installation of Phase II . They would like to obtain the approval of the
Board as far as the current document presented, since they have been informed
that it does incorporate all of the items of discussion with staff, and
put the other items into the SIA. Mr. Balling explained the points which
Mr. Capitel has raised.
Trustee Hartstein commented on the requested variation. He stated that he
is not bothered by it conceptually, but he is bothered by it from a legal
standpoint. According to our Zoning Ordinance, the only body which can
make variations is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hartstein asked for
the Village Attorney's opinion on this subject. Mr. Raysa stated that it
is the opinion of his office that, because of the vote required in an
Annexation Agreement, and because of the nature of annexation and bringing
parcels into the Village, through the Annexation Agreement, the Board has
in the past, and in this case would, grant variations pursuant to the
Annexation authority in Section 11-15. 1 -1 . Trustee Hartstein stated that
he has a concern with that, because the Village is in effect violating its
own Ordinance, and he is concerned about setting a precedent.
Trustee Marienthal stated that he looks at the Annexation Agreement as a
contract between the developer and the corporate authority, which would
have precedence over other ordinances and regulations.
Mr. Raysa stated that, because of the contractual nature of the Annexation
Agreement, and the vote that is necessary, i .e. a greater vote than is
necessary to amend the Zoning Ordinance, the Annexation Agreement can be a
document that could grant variances. Trustee Marienthal stated that the
Plan Commission did approve the variation unanimously. Mrs. Diana Mendenhall ,
a Trustee of Kingswood Methodist Church, stated that the church has no
problem at all with the variation.
CEDARVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE THREE
6/8/81
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of permitting the
variation requested on the west property line; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske
NO: Hartstein
ABSENT: Schwartz
Lengthy discussion took place regarding whether or not to allow the 50
administrative fee on the recapture to be added onto any benefitted property
owners. It was requested that staff prepare a report on this, and the
decision be made at a later date. Mr. Balling stated that, assuming
concensus is reached on other points, staff will prepare that section and
two pages in the alternative and give the Board the options as far as the
actual dollars and cents. Mr. Raysa requested that Mr. Balling get his
input before preparing the report.
The next item of discussion was the request that this property be relieved
from any future assessment or taxing that may result in our sanitary sewer
improvements because the developer is putting in an improvement at this time.
It was asked if this could legally be done. Mr. Balling replied that it would
not be an uncon4itional exemption, but an exemption to the extent warranted.
He stated that they could not be exempt from a general obligation tax on the
Village; however, he stated that there are vehicles which could be used which
can be explored. Mr. Raysa stated that he could not give a legal opinion right
now. He would not like to see an Annexation Agreement exempt them from a
special service district or special assessment without knowing the special
circumstances.
Mr. Capitel stated that they would like to receive credit on any tax for the
amount which they have paid. Mr. Raysa stated that it could be reflected in
the minutes that consideration would be given to a credit because the developer
did something which was not required for his property, but which would benefit
the entire Village. It was asked if the same type of concept could be taken care
of through the SIA. Mr. Raysa stated that he could not give a legal opinion
without more specifics. Mr. Capitel asked if the Board could indicate to
Mr. Raysa that they are in conceptual agreement with that form of recapture,
in which case he would have no objection to including such a recapture
formula, if any, in the SIA for later reference.
Trustee O'Reilly suggested that staff report on the vehicles which could be
considered. Mr. Kuenkler explained the original concept of the proposed
sewer improvement.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of considering
a type of relief to the developer in the event there is a future special
assessment or type of tax for sanitary sewers, and that we would give relief
to the developer, and that we would want the staff to determine the best way
that this can be accomplished; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske
NO: None
ABSENT: Schwartz
•• \ d
CEDARVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE FOUR
r 6/8/81
The next request by the developer regarding the sanitary sewer is that it not
be installed until the time when building #2 is built. President Clayton polled
the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of that request; "No" indicates opposition:
Mr. Kuenkler stated that the sewer being discussed runs from the west property
line of this development along the south side of Dundee Road to the east side of
Golfview Terrace. Mr. Balling stated that Golfview would be a new road, and
would need to be put in immediately in order to complete Phase I of the project;
therefore, if the sewer was not installed until Phase II , the pavement would
either have to be cut, or they would have to go under it. Mr. Haller stated
that they could leave a conduit there to install the sewer. Mr. Capitel stated
that there are options available where Golfview Terrace would not have to be
disturbed.
The polling continued:
YES: Stone (with the stipulation that there be no cuts in Golfview Terrace) ;
O'Reilly (subject to Trustee Stone's stipulation) ; Hartstein (also subject
to Trustee Stone's stipulation) ; Gerschefske
NO: Marienthal
ABSENT: Schwartz
Mr. Capitel stated that Mr. Haller had indicated that an acceptable time period
on this system would be 3 years after completion and acceptance of Phase I . Mr.
Kuenkler stated that 24 months would be acceptable to staff. President Clayton
polled the Board as to the time period to be allowed for the installation
of this system:
Marienthal - 24 months
Stone - 24 months
O'Reilly - Abstain because of lack of information
Hartstein - 36 months
Gerschefske - 24 months
Schwartz - Absent
The next item for consideration is the allowable time period for the installa-
tion of the looped water system. After discussion of same, President Clayton
polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of delaying the installation of the
looped water system until Phase II completion, or 24 months , whichever occurs
first; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske
NO: None
ABSENT: Schwartz
The next item for consideration is the deletion of the sidewalk on the east
side of Golfview Terrace. President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates
CEDARVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE FIVE
r
6/8/81
favor of the developer's request to delete the sidewalk on the east side of
Golfview Terrace; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske
NO: None
ABSENT: Schwartz
In response to a question from the Board regarding his June 4, 1981 memo, Mr.
Truesdell stated that the reference to Paragraph 16 stems from a concern that,
when Phase I begins, the Village does not want the areas for Phase II or III to
become a dirtpile, but to be maintained and kept an attractive area. Mr. Capitel
stated that the developer does not intend to use the property he owns to the
south as a dumping ground, or as a parking area for construction trailers. Mr.
Raysa was asked where the Village could provide for that specifically so that
the area is maintained; Mr. Raysa 's reply was that it should be in the Annexation
Agreement. It was requested that the Village Attorney prepare the appropriate
language regarding this for the Annexation Agreement.
Mrs. Adams, President of the Northgate Civic Association, stated their concern
is that the weeds on the property are left to grow without ever being cut, and
the problem that it presents to the residents. She stated that the residents
would like it known that they would like some kind of protection for the weeds.
Mrs. Adams stated that there has been a brush fire there already. Mr. Adams
stated that they have written to Mr. Haller regarding the weeds, rats, mice,
etc. , and have never received an answer; therefore, they would appreciate some
help from the Village in that direction.
In answer to a question from the Board, Mr. Raysa stated that the Village
could require the developer to cut the weeds through a contractual agreement;
however, the practical problems presented by that are: 1) it is county land,
and Village ordinances do not cover it; 2) a policy argument as to whether
the Village should become involved with county land; 3) the Village would be
doing this for the benefit of a third party; 4) the Village is then taking
on a liability for the benefit of the third party. Mr. Raysa questioned whether
the Village should do this, as they would be setting up a liability that they
did not have before. Once the third party beneficiary is set up, if the
Village does not instruct the owner to cut the grass, and something happens,
the Village could be sued because it failed to enforce the contract. Trustee
Gerschefske stated that he would rather see the developer commit to this on
his own; he thinks we can all work together on it, but does not think the
Village should be involved in it.
Mr. Capitel stated that the Annexation Agreement speaks to the fact that the
developer will keep the property in a neat and orderly fashion, and that it
will be complimentary to the surrounding area. Mr. Adams stated that they
would be happy if the entire 17 acres was cut twice per year, which is what
the previous owners did.
Trustee Marienthal stated that this property abuts what should be a fine
business center, and if the remaining property is not in the best state, it
will detract from the development.
`/ ‘•...1 `.K.
\ft/
CEDARVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
PAGE SIX
6/8/81
Mr. Haller stated that he has cut strips adjacent to the property owners at
various times, although he has not cut the entire 17 acres. Mr. Adams stated
that Mr. Haller has only cut approximately 6 to 8 feet behind their property.
Mr. Capitel stated that they would commit to cut a 20' to 30' strip behind the
homes. Trustee Hartstein stated that he does not think it is unreasonable to
ask the developer to cut the entire 17 acres twice per year. Trustee Marienthal
stated that this land will be annexed to the Village at a future date, and also
that other undeveloped property in the Village is mowed on a regular basis
(once or twice per year) .
Mr. Raysa stated that the language he would propose would be that the developer
"shall" cut the area twice per year, and the Village "may" cut it twice, and
bill the developer. He stated that he emphasized these words because they
would take care of the Village's liability. Mr. Raysa stated that he would
also have to put in language regarding trespassing, so that the Village has
the right to go on the property, and he must also put in language stating
that if the Village does cut the area, they have the right to bill the developer.
After further discussion, Mr. Haller agreed to a "gentlemen's agreement" to
cut the entire parcel twice per year, and that no construction trailers or
construction debris will be allowed on the remaining property.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11 :05 P.M.
Trustee Marienthal requested a polling that the Cedarview business center
Annexation Agreement be put in final form, and be subject to Jim Truesdell 's
memo of June 4, 1981 , and all agreements that are part of the public record
of the Public Hearing be so incorporated into that Annexation Agreement, and
in another instance, that they would be included in the SIA to be drafted
in the future, and that they would be in accordance with the Plan Commission
recommendation #21022 dated March 26, 1981 . President Clayton polled the
Board: "Yes" indicates favor of Trustee Marienthal 's recommendation; "No"
indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske
NO: None
ABSENT: Schwartz
The Cedarview business center will be on the July 6, 1981 agenda.
Moved by Hartstein, seconded by Gerschefske, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon voice vote, the motion was unanimously declared carried. The meeting
was adjourned at 11 :10 P.M.
Janet Sirabian, Village Clerk