1982-08-23 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS, HELD MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1982,
AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS.
President Clayton called the meeting to order at 7:38 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; Gregory Boysen, Director of Public Works;
and Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer.
CONTINENTAL BANK/BUFFALO NATIONAL
Mr. Balling stated that the Board had turned down a request from Continental
Bank for a Money Network sign on August 2, 1982; he has since received a
request from Elizabeth Antonopoulos to submit additional information to the
Board. Some of this additional information relates to testimony regarding
the use and function of the sign, and there is also a modification to reduce
the size of the sign from 7 ' to 41' in length, and from 1 ' 3" to 10" in
height. Mr. Balling asked if the Board would be inclined, based on the new
information, to discuss this subject as an amended petition on September 7,
1982. President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the
Board considering the amended petition of Continental Bank for the Money
Network sign; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Schwartz
NO: Marienthal , Gerschefske
The subject will be on the agenda for the September 7, 1982 Board meeting.
It was suggested that the Appearance Commission have an opportunity to review
the sign.
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Trustee Schwartz reviewed the history of the goals and objectives of the
Development Ordinance Committee. Mr. Schwartz also thanked Greg Boysen,
Dick Kuenkler, Jim Doyle, and Bill Raysa for their time and effort in
compiling the Development Ordinance. Mr. Kuenkler stated that there was
one conflict between the Plan Commission recommendation, and the Development
Ordinance Committee recommendation, that being the maximum slope of driveways.
The Development Ordinance Committee would like the opportunity, under certain
circumstances, to go up to 10%, whereas the Plan Commission would like the
slope limited to no more than 8%. Plan Commissioner Reid stated that the
concern of the Plan Commission would be for homes with such driveways during
a bad storm. Mr. Kuenkler stated that these driveway slopes would be positive,
rather than negative, and stated that he thinks the limit should certainly
be no more than 10%.
Trustee Schwartz stated that the Development Ordinance Committee's recommendation
would be to go along with the recommendation of the Village Engineer. There
was discussion as to the criteria to be used for allowing 10%. Mr. Raysa stated
that variation authority rests with the corporate authorities, but stated
that there must be parameters and guidelines to follow. Trustee Schwartz
stated that the purpose of the Development Ordinance is to work through the
Village ordinances in a more cohesive manner; therefore, rather than forcing
\/
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AUGUST 23, 1982
PAGE TWO
a developer to appear before the Board, the Village Engineer should be
given parameters so that he would be able to make the decision as to whether
a 10% driveway slope would be allowed. Mr. Boysen suggested adding the
phrase "due to topographical conditions" to paragraph 3 on page 5 of the
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CHANGES (Section 16.50. 130,
Paragraph B, of the Development Ordinance) .
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the wording
included in the Development Ordinance Committee Recommended Changes on Page 5,
with the change as recommended by Mr. Boysen; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
Trustee Schwartz stated that the next major difference between the Plan
Commission and Development Ordinance Committee recommendations is in
Section 16.20.020. The Development Ordinance Committee recommended that
the developer be given the opportunity to consolidate the activities of the
first and second Plan Commission workshops into a single meeting, providing
all submittal requirements for both meetings are completed; whereas the
Plan Commission recommendation reads that a second Plan Commission workshop
will be scheduled within 21 days following submittal of all necessary informa-
tion. During discussion that followed, the points were made that the purpose
of the Development Ordinance is consolidation and streamlining, but that a
situation should not arise where a developer forces the Plan Commission to
move forward when they feel that a second meeting is necessary. President
Clayton suggested that the wording of the Development Ordinance Committee
recommendation on Section 16.20.020, Paragraph F, be changed to read:
"The Plan Commission may consolidate the activities of first and second Plan
Commission workshop meetings into a single meeting if the developer completes
all submittal requirements for both meetings in advance of the first work-
shop meeting."
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the Development
Ordinance Committee recommendation on Section 16.20.020, Paragraph F, with
the change as stated in the above paragraph; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: None
Trustee O'Reilly suggested that the section from "B" forward be retyped so
that all changes from the Development Ordinance Committee, the Plan Commission,
and the Village Attorney are incorporated.
President Clayton suggested starting at the beginning of the Development
Ordinance, and going through it page by page. Before beginning this procedure,
Trustee Schwartz gave the concerns voiced by the developers during meetings
of the Development Ordinance Committee:
The ordinance does not provide for simple subdivisions, but is
set up just for annexation; another developer thought the ordinance
provided for subdivisions and annexations.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AUGUST 23, 1982
PAGE THREE
Reduction of the to engineering fee.
Amounts charged; should staff keep time records; should Village
charge hourly fee
15% cash bond
Definition of subdivision is considered to be too broad, and was
asked to be clarified.
The necessity of bonding private improvements.
The need for televising of storm sewers.
The Village requires too many monuments for surveys.
Pavement requirements in shopping centers.
Trustee Schwartz stated that a sincere concern of everyone is the one year
extension of any approvals and preliminary plans which have been incorporated
into this ordinance, which is subject to the discretion of the Board rather
than going through the entire process again. Because of the economic environ-
ment, some developers did not think that they could build out in a short time.
A concern was also raised regarding the spacing between sanitary sewer manholes.
Mr. Schwartz also said that the developers that have been in the Village who
were involved in this process were complimentary towards our existing ordinances,
and were appreciative at being invited to discuss the new changes; many suggestions
were good, and were acted upon by the Committee. Trustee Schwartz stated that
the developers think that the to fee is fair, but they do not like the time
when payment is due.
Mr. Balling stated that there is a correlation between the money spent by the
Village and the time that the fees are due from developers. President Clayton
proceeded to go through the document, stating that if there were no questions
or comments from Trustees, she would understand that the Trustees were in agree-
ment with the Village Attorney's recommended changes:
Page 1 - No questions or comments.
Page 2 - Mr. Balling pointed out that staff is working on providing
wording in Section 16. 10.040, to permit improvements which
would have public benefit to be done prior to recording of the
final plat. The final draft will be somewhat different than the
present draft, and will respond to that situation. Mr. Raysa
stated that in Section 16. 10.040, if. the Board so approves, his
version would be the one to be. adopted.
Page 3 - Trustee O'Reilly asked if it were necessary for minor variations
to have to come before the Board, as stated in Section 16. 10.070.
Mr. Raysa stated that he does not like the phrase "minor changes",
the Board has always kept variation authority to itself; he does
not want the staff or the Board to have the authority to issue
variances without specific parameters. Trustee Hartstein suggested
that staff highlight highly technical sections of the ordinances
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AUGUST 23, 1982
PAGE FOUR
with an asterisk. Mr. Balling stated that, ideally, there
would be no variances allowed. Trustee Schwartz wants the Village
Engineer to have some latitude. Trustee Marienthal stated that
the Board should be informed of any variances made by the Village
Engineer for informational purposes. Mr. Raysa pointed out that,
if a developer acts upon the recommendation of a staff member,
even though the staff member did not have that authority, a developer
could report to a court that he had spent a great sum of money
because of the recommendation by the staff member, and the court
would be likely to rule in favor of the developer. Mr. Balling
stated that it is much easier to work with very limited variation
authority; he will highlight the places in the ordinance where
latitude is needed.
Page 4 - No questions or comments.
Page 5 - Plan Commission recommendations are acceptable.
Page 6 - No questions or comments.
Page 7 - No questions or comments.
Page 8 - Mr. Raysa pointed out that this gives the Village more authority
than it has had in the past.
Page 9 - No questions or comments.
Page 10 - No questions or comments.
Page 11 - No questions or comments.
Page 12 - Trustee O'Reilly thought that a representative from the Park
District should be brought into discussions earlier than is
outlined. After discussion, there was no change in this matter.
There was also discussion on whether the Village Planner "shall"
or "may" transmit the concept plan and application to the
Corporate Authorities. It was decided that the word "shall" will
remain as is.
Page 13 - No questions or comments.
Page 14 - Mr. Raysa explained the reason for deleting Item 1 in Paragraph B.
Page 15 - The recommended changes were acceptable. Staff answered questions
from the Board.
Page 16 - No questions or comments.
Page 17 No questions or comments.
Page 18 - No questions or comments.
Page 19 - No questions or comments.
Page 20 - No questions or comments.
Page 21 - No questions or comments.
Page 22 - No questions or comments.
Page 23 - No questions or comments.
Page 24 - After discussion regarding Section 16.30.020, it was decided
to agree with the recommendations of the Village Attorney.
Page 25 - No questions or comments.
Page 26 - No questions or comments.
Page 27 - No questions or comments.
Page 28 - No questions or comments.
Page 29 No questions or comments.
\ft./ Page 30 - No questions or comments.
Page 31 - No questions or comments.
Page 32 - No questions or comments.
Page 33 - No questions or comments.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AUGUST 23, 1982
PAGE FIVE
Page 34 - No questions or comments.
Page 35 - No questions or comments.
Page 36 No questions or comments.
Page 37 - No questions or comments.
Page 38 - No questions or comments.
Page 39 - No questions or comments.
Page 40 - No questions or comments.
Page 41 - No questions or comments.
Page 42 - No questions or comments.
Page 43 - No questions or comments.
Page 44 - There was discussion on Section 16.50.040, Paragraphs 3 and 4
regarding the changing of the word "parks" to "active recreation"
because of the definition of active recreation, and also because
it could put it in conflict with the donation ordinance. Mr.
Raysa said that he and staff will review this verbage to insure
that there is no conflict between the park and Title 19.
Page 45 - No questions or comments.
Page 46 - No questions or comments.
Page 47 - No questions or comments.
Page 48 - No questions or comments.
Page 49 - No questions or comments.
Page 50 - No questions or comments.
Page 51 - No questions or comments.
Page 52 - No questions or comments.
Page 53 - No questions or comments.
Page 54 - No questions or comments.
Page 55 - No questions or comments.
Page 56 - No questions or comments.
Page 57 - No questions or comments.
Page 58 - No questions or comments.
Page 59 - No questions or comments.
Page 60 - No questions or comments.
Page 61 There was no opposition to the Plan Commission recommendation.
Page 62 - No questions or comments.
Page 63 - No questions or comments.
Page 64 - No questions or comments.
Page 65 - No questions or comments.
Page 66 - No questions or comments.
Page 67 - No questions or comments.
Page 68 - No questions or comments.
Page 69 - Mr. Raysa explained the changes that he had made.
Page 70 - No questions or comments.
Page 71 - No questions or comments.
Page 72 - No questions or comments.
Page 73 - No questions or comments.
Page 74 - No questions or comments.
Page 75 - No questions or comments.
Page 76 No questions or comments.
Page 77 - No questions or comments.
Page 78 - No questions or comments.
Page 79 - No questions or comments.
Page 80 - No questions or comments.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AUGUST 23, 1982
PAGE SIX
Page 81 - No questions or comments.
Page 82 - No questions or comments.
Page 83 - No questions or comments.
Page 84 - No questions or comments.
There were no questions or comments on any of the attachments.
There was discussion on other requirements an. where they fit into the process.
It was suggested that a flow chart be include.. in the attachments. There should
be something which spells out exactly what a .eveloper must do in order to develop
in the Village. President Clayton asked Mr. :ailing to address the concerns
raised by the Board in this regard, and bring his recommendations to the Board.
Regarding the cost of assembling the Developm-nt Ordinance, Mr. Balling stated
that staff is now investigating word processi g, and he thinks that this Ordinance
would be sold for a fee of $10 to $15 each.
Mr. Balling stated that he will distribute Ji Truesdell 's Developer Checklist
to each Board member, and noted that Step 16 :ddresses the Appearance Commission.
Plan Commissioner Reid stated that the Plan Commission dealt with this Ordinance
on January 6 and 20, February 3, March 3, and April 7, 1982.
ADJOURNMENT
President Clayton adjourned the meeting at 9:c5 P.M.
Janet Ds rabian, Village Clerk
`./