1981-10-26 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes 1}
L_ SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS, HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1981 ,
AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS.
President Clayton called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll call indicated
the following present: President Clayton; Trustees Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly,
Hartstein, Gerschefske, and Schwartz. Also present were: William Balling,
Village Manager; William Raysa, Village Attorney, James Doyle, Assistant
Village Manager; Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works; and Richard Kuenkler,
Village Engineer.
ATTORNEY REPORT
Mr. Raysa reported on the Home Rule Attorney's Meeting of the Municipal League
held Friday, October 23, 1981 , at which time a resolution was passed requesting
the Municipal League and the National Institute of Municipal Lawyers to oppose
HR4420 which has been introduced into the Congress; the representation is that
it could either remove the tax exempt status or severely limit Industrial
Revenue Bonds. It was requested that attorneys present inform their boards
of HR4420 and request that a resolution be passed and sent to all the legislatures
opposing HR4420. The Board has no objections to the preparation of this resolution
and staff was instructed to prepare same.
RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW FROM VAGA
President Clayton made the following comments : In 1979 the Village proposed to
the Lake Region Council of Mayors that Phase I & Phase II engineering for improve-
ment of Route 83 from Lake-Cook to Arlington Heights Road be funded with FAU
money and that construction be done with Crosstown Transfer money. Long Grove
also requested the same funding for Route 83 from Arlington Heights Road to
Route 45 which they subsequently withdrew when they realized they would be
required to fund a portion of the local match even though they made strong
statements that the road should be done, but not at their expense. Long Grove's
position and their opposition to the extension of Route 53 has been to offer an
alternative which was presented at our Board meeting and is also contained in
other documentation which we have that they made to Federal Highway administration
and to CATS. Their alternative was threefold: 1) to provide the slip ramps at
Route 12; 2) extend Route 53 to Lake-Cook; and 3) to four lane Route 83. When
phase I engineering was complete, part of the preparation for commencing with
Phase II was to have CATS council pass a resolution to transfer the appropriate
amount of money from FAU to FAP since Route 83 is a FAP route. The Council
stated that they did not want to spend FAU money on engineering of a project
that may never be constructed since there is a slow down in receiving Crosstown
Transfer money and requested we go to IDOT and get assurances and a time frame
for the construction. This was agreed to and a meeting was held with Mr.
Ziejewski , District I engineer,and members of his staff, Mr. Balling, Mr. Boysen,
and Mrs. Clayton. The results were that since Lincolnshire was opposing Route 22
and that project would probably not be done that the money could be diverted to
Route 83. This was presented to the council . Then a group of the mayors
decided that if the Route 22 money was going to be freed up, it should go to
Route 60. As far as Mrs. Clayton can tell , the mayors that met together
numerous times to develop strategy for accomplishing this were Vernon Hills,
Mundelein, Long Grove, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Libertyville.
The council has a technical committee which reviews projects and makes
recommendations to the council based on technical considerations and need;
the committee is comprised of village engineers and consultants. IDOT made
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 26, 1981
PAGE TWO
a presentation to them explaining that Route 22 would not be improved due to
Lincolnshire's opposition, they reviewed the improvements to Route 60 that are
already programmed - they already decided to do this, funds were allocated and
they are going to make certain improvements to Route 60, and then reviewed
statistics and need for Route 83. The recommendation coming out of this
technical committee comprised of professionals was to improve Route 83, one
member voted no. Some error was noted on the accident count on the three roads,
on the count for Route 83 between Lake Cook and Arlington Heights they showed
10 accidents with no fatalities, we had evidence with us to show 200+ accidents
with two fatalities. (DOT officials stated they would take that into considera-
tion in their review which information has been sent to them. IDOT said they
had received a call from the Mayor of Mettawa expressing opposition to widening
of Route 60 through their town; then IDOT presented six or seven different
alternatives for spending the seven million dollars freed up from Route 22.
These ranged from widening all of Route 60 to improving all of Route 83 and
various combinations of segments of each. Mayor Cooper made a motion to make
certain intersection improvements on Route 22 and spend the rest of the money
on Route 60. Before the vote was taken, in response to a question from Buffalo
Grove, IDOT representatives said that intersection improvements would not solve
the problem on Route 22. Buffalo Grove also pointed out that no presentation
nor definition had been presented on the proposal contained in this motion ,
no one knew exactly what improvements or need were contained in the motion.
One comment made before vote was taken was that by putting money into Route 83
would be helping Cook County. The motion passed with only four towns voting no.
Towns that voted yes in the technical committee changed their vote and voted
no at this meeting.
Mrs. Clayton stated that she wished there was enough money to address all of
the concerns expressed but finds it frustrating that this last seven million
dollars to be spent in Lake County was recommended by local officials to be
spent in such an undefined way and handled in a totally unprofessional manner -
it appears the facts were not considered at all . VAGA communities recognize the
need for the widening of Route 83, but when it came down for voting for money,
they not only voted in favor of diverting the funds to another road, one already
programmed for improvement, but also diligently worked to convince other towns
to vote with them. For this reason Mrs. Clayton strongly recommends withdrawing
from VAGA; she does not feel it is in the best interests of Buffalo Grove to
waste their time meeting with towns who are not willing to take our needs into
consideration; she has tried for 21 years to try to reach some kind of middle
ground between our difference of philosophy which she feels would have been
best for all of us. She believes their view of compromise is to do it their
way. All of the mayors, as they sat around the conference table, said that if
we are not going to accomplish anything there shouldn 't be a VAGA and this she
agrees with. There is no need to meet just for the sake of trying to work with
towns whose actions have proven that they do not want to work with us. She
believes their only reason for participating in VAGA is that they view it as a
means to impose their will on us. She will not accept any viewpoint that our
action of withdrawing from VAGA is contrary to intergovernmental cooperation and
thinks you have to look at the organization to know whether it is worthwhile or
not. She believes we have proven ourselves in the area of intergovernmental
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 26, 1981
\./ PAGE THREE
cooperation; examples are NWMC, our boundary agreement with Arlington Heights ,
improvement of Arlington Heights Road, tri-party agreement with forest preserve/
detention lake, Lake County sewer agreement, detention on Arlington Heights
Country Club, Northwest Water Commission, etc.
She will not accept the argument that we are a Cook County community and as
a Lake County resident strongly resents the statement. She urges passage of
the resolution, but does request that it be modified by Section 1 to read:
"The Village of Buffalo Grove goes on record as strongly disagreeing with
our neighbors efforts to meet and develop strategies on planning and public
improvement issues which effect the Village of Buffalo Grove without
seeking our advice and direction. The Village especially opposes the
actions of Vernon Hills, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Long Grove to
support undefined and unpublished improvements to Illinois 22 and
Illinois 60 which can only occur at the expense of the Illinois 83
reconstruction program. These activities are determined by Buffalo
Grove to be a breach of trust and a violation of the VAGA enabling
resolution, 78-17."
Mrs. Clayton stated that she did receive calls this evening from the Chairman
of the Lake County Board; Priscilla Richardson, Lake County Board member; and
George Dickson, Mayor of Long Grove; asking that we reconsider and not withdraw
from VAGA. They felt they had addressed our needs in the planning process
with regards to the county plan for Vernon Township; felt that we could take
care of our economic needs in the land south of Aptakisic Road; and felt we
were listened to in those deliberations.
The following comments were made by Trustee Hartstein: He shares many of
the concerns expressed relating to the way the transportation planning has
been gendered by some of our neighboring communities. He finds it most
unfortunate that the Village officials would ignore the expertise of their
own technicians who carefully studied and considered what should or should
not be done in terms of the significant allocation of funds for road improve-
ments within this portion of Lake County. He disagrees with many of the
planning objectives and approach regulating what will or will not happen
within Vernon Township as has been espoused by some of these neighboring
communities that are included in VAGA. On this road issue he does agree
that a statement along the line that is outlined in this modification which
in concept strongly goes on record as opposing the action of the neighboring
communities should be taken ; we cannot stand mute on an issue as important
as this. This is not a Buffalo Grove issue, it is a regional issue and is
recognized by our neighboring communities as a regional issue. We need to
encourage, request, demand that our neighboring communities reconsider the
position they have taken on these issues, pointing out inconsistencies in
their position, the inconsistencies from a safety standpoint, from a technical
standpoint, and from a need standpoint. He believes the resolution before the
Board tonight is misdirected; he does not agree with many of the positions that
have been taken by many members of VAGA. He feels it is significant to know,
as President Clayton noted, that these actions were not taken as a part of a
VAGA meeting, were not part of the VAGA activity as such yet they happen to
be the same mayors. He does not believe that just because we do not agree
\./
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 26, 1981
PAGE FOUR
and just because we should be speaking out strongly against these actions and
inconsistencies of our neighboring communities that this is sufficient reason
to in effect say we are not interested in talking to these people any more
because they do not agree with us. The purpose of VAGA was established to
open channels of communication with our neighboring communities in Lake County.
He feels we should continue to speak out, to continue to try and do whatever
we can to communicate with our neighboring communities. Cutting off that
communication, withdrawing from VAGA, is not the answer. He feels it is
important that we stand by the principal for which VAGA was formed in the
first place and that is bettering communications between our neighboring
communities. Although he feels we need to condemn and speak out against our
neighboring communities on this transportation planning issue and the improve-
ments of Route 83, he feels to withdraw from VAGA at this point in time is a
mistake and feels it is a misdirected action in response to that particular
type of problem.
Mrs . Clayton stated that in her conversation with Mayor Dickson that he was
not at the CATS meeting (a representative was) , was not aware we were not
invited to the meetings that Route 83 was discussed and that he said their
objections to Route 83 was that they did not want to have it be a funnel, that
it be four lanes and then be two lanes causing a problem in their town. Mrs.
Clayton informed him that one of the alternatives offered by the State was to
four lane it through their town and this would have taken care of this problem,
but that their representative did not respond to that alternative at all . She
told him that she did not know what the action of the Board would be, but
assured him that if we were not in VAGA any longer that we would be taking the
same posture that we took before there was a VAGA and reminded him of all of
the input that Long Grove had in the Crossings development. We are not cutting
off discussion, we were cutting off discussion in a group that outvoted us on
everything that came down the line and we still plan to have communication with
them.
Trustee O'Reilly made the following comments : She feels it is time to find a
different form whether it be a one on one basis, one community with another
community, rather than the whole group. What upsets her most about this whole
situation is that she has always opposed the development of Route 53 and was
always quite comfortable in the opposition because of the anticipation of the
improvement of Route 83. She also like many VAGA communities opposed our
growth beyond Aptakisic; however, she feels that this organization of elected
officials have disregarded the health and safety of not only our residents,
but their residents as well . Feels it may appear to be a negative blow to
us, but thinks it is more of a negative action towards all of the people who
use Route 83 and feels there are more people from other communities using
Route 83 than from our community. Mrs. O'Reilly objects to any Lake County
community who construes us to be a Cook County community, she has always paid
taxes to Lake County and did ask staff to accumulate some figures on Lake
County taxes and what Buffalo Grove pays into Lake County which is substantial .
We are not a Cook County Community, six of the Board members live in Lake
County, vote in Lake County and opposes anyone who tends to belittle our
community by calling us a Cook County Community. She feels it is a despicable act
that someone can group together to vote negative towards us on this road project
when it is a health and safety hazard to not only our residents but residents
of Lake County. She endorses our removal from VAGA.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 26, 1981
PAGE FIVE
Trustee Marienthal made the following comments: Referring to a clause of the
orginal resolution when we joined VAGA which said that this is a voluntary
organization which would be a vehicle for closer cooperation and not a new
layer of government nor a super-government, he feels it is apparent from what
has happened to VAGA it has gone away from this clause. He still favors the
exchange of ideas and of plans. He feels that VAGA has now decided that it now
wants to embark on becoming a new layer of government if, in fact, it can force
its will on particular communities that do not share the majority feeling on a
particular issue; that we are wasting our taxpayers dollars with our staff time
going into researching something in depth and then at someone's whim have it
discarded for no real reason. He requested a polling of the Board.
Trustee Stone made the following comments: He shares the concern about Route 83
and Trustee Hartstein 's feeling about the spirit of cooperation and if Route 83
was the only issue, was the only problem that we had in VAGA , was the only time
that VAGA has acted in almost an irresponsible manner, then he could share Trustee
Hartstein's feelings completely. But, as it stands, we have had a long record
of battles with VAGA where our input was ignored; we were not invited to
meetings where things concerning the future of Buffalo Grove were discussed
without our knowledge or input. He feels it is past due as far as time is
concerned for us to withdraw from VAGA.
Trustee Schwartz made the following comments: He thanked President Clayton
for all of her hard work and fighting on behalf of the Village in the uphill
battles that we have constantly fought with VAGA. His response to Trustee
Hartstein 's comments were that this resolution i$ not a _change in the policy
of the Village of Buffalo Grove; we have always had the spirit of cooperation
and hopefully always will ; we are just withdrawing from an organization that
no longer wishes to cooperate with our Village; and we are not going to change
our attitude, we will still work on an independent basis.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of placing the
resolution that we have discussed with the modification presented on the
consent agenda of next week's meeting; "No" indicates opposition:
YES : Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: Hartstein
This resolution will be on the consent agenda of the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Trustee Marienthal stated that the ordinance before the Board for discussion
is, he feels, a straight forward document, a memo from Greg Boysen explaining
the major changes is attached, and requested staff to make the presentation.
Mr. Balling stated that Mr. Boysen will explain the highlights of the
development ordinance; that this is the first cut the Village has had
legislatively with this ordinance and the Board's first action would be a
referral action to the Plan Commission for full review and public hearing
this being an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. Staff would like to
acquaint the Board with the basic provisions, the scope of the ordinance, any
major changes and, if favorable reception is received, to place the document
on the agenda November 2nd for referral to the Plan Commission.
L \./
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 26, 1981
PAGE SIX
Mr. Boysen stated that the basic thrust of the entire text is essentially to
codify the existing standards and procedures, many of which are not in the
current subdivision ordinance but currently in our Manual of Practice and
for development improvements in Buffalo Grove to make it easier to move
through the development process. He reviewed for the Board the changes
listed in his memo of October 23rd to Mr. Balling which is on file in the
Clerk's office and proposed to add some detailed drawings as attachments to
the ordinance for reference. He stated that one area of particular interest
is the Village street lighting requirements and staff has not made any proposal
to change that from its current status.
Mr. Raysa stated that it is his understanding that tonight is only a referral
to the Plan Commission so he will comment only on concepts. First conceptual
area to cover, previously discussed with the Board, is the City of Urbana case
concerning definition which he feels has been taken care of in this document.
The definition of a PUD or the developmental impact language of the City of
Urbana case wherein the effect of the PUD within a mile and a half of any county
would be covered by our development ordinance. Second, on page 3 in Section
16. 10.070 the first sentence is a little different from the current subdivision
regulations. It reads that the Village Board may vary with no exceptions as
provided in this ordinance, there is no "as provided" variations in the old
subdivision regulations. The new language gives the corporate authorities
the appropriate legislation to vary this ordinance and he feels that this is
a concept that this Board obviously want to get into and discuss further.
Third, time limits which basically is the time limit between the Plan Commission
and the Village Board and the developer. He would not like to have these time
limitations in there but, if the Board wants time limits, just say this is what
we are going to shoot for. Fourth, special use permit as far as vehicles are
concerned. New concept is that any developer within the Village has to come
to the Village for special use permit if they are going to drive a truck over
Village streets. He wants to check with the Police Department to see if it
is enforceable or not.
Lengthy discussion followed on various aspects of this ordinance. Concerns of
the Board are as follows :
1 . Street lighting issue in regards to major arteries in the community.
2. Pavement depth - can this be accomplished with different type of base.
3. Have a complete packet that a developer can obtain so he will know all
the requirements he is responsible for. Assembled in such a manner that
a developer clearly knows all the requirements in one location.
4. On Page 2, Item B, interpretations - are we safe in saying that the
Urbana case sets forth the right for adjacent land within 11 miles be
required to conform with the requirements of this ordinance. (In Mr.
Raysa's opinion he feels we are safe.)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 27, 1981
PAGE SEVEN
fir'
5. Page 3 - variations - is it necessary to include the number of votes
required - this section needs to be evaluated and discussed further - do
we want to be able to vary everything or are there certain things to maintain
certain standards on and do not wish to vary - distinction of what is required
in different types of variation.
6. Page 4 - approvals - Raysa will redraft.
7. Page 5 - under definitions of development and a developer - be made more
clear on these definitions to cover public agencies where appropriate.
8. Where there is a significant departure from other accepted standards or
generally accepted standards whether State standards, IDOT standards or
other municipalities ' standards, see what the rationale is and do some
comparative analysis in terms of requirements of other municipalities.
9. Terms of time limits need to be addressed and evaluated - approval within
a stated periof of time, but not locked in - some type of guidelines to
follow.
10. Terms of cash requirements need to be evaluated.
11 . What requirements should be in terms of land dedication for public
use or cash in lieu of especially for non-residential projects - is
not clear distinction on wording in the document.
President Clayton recognized Mr. Mastrandea, an area developer, who thanked
the Board for giving him the opportunity to review the development ordinance
and then commented on some of his concerns with the proposed ordinance. He
feels this ordinance does not encourage development by a developer and discussed
the fees required before obtaining a building permit. He suggested having some
developers to serve on a committee to help study this ordinance for a better
working relationship because the Village needs developers as much as the
developers need the Village. He briefly touched on other concerns he has with
the ordinance and stated he has more input he would like to contribute. President
Clayton suggested that he attend the Plan Commission meeting when this ordinance
is discussed.
President Clayton then polled the Board: "Yes" would indicate favor of referring
this document to the Plan Commission, "No" would indicate opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Marienthal , seconded by O'Reilly, to adjourn the meeting. Upon voice
vote, the motion was unanimously declared carried. Time: 9: 10 P.M.
Carol M. Hennenfent, Deputy Vi age Clerk —