1983-01-10 - 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, JANUARY 10, 1983,
AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS.
President Clayton called the meeting to order at 7:41 P.M. Roll call indicated
the following present: President Clayton, Trustees Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly,
Hartstein, Gerschefske, and Schwartz. Also present were William R. Balling,
Village Manager; William G. Raysa, Village Attorney; James Doyle, Assistant
Village Manager; James Truesdell , Village Planner; and Richard Kuenkler,
Village Engineer.
PUBLIC HEARING - SUFFIELD PLACE
The notice for this Public Hearing was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald
on December 24, 1982. President Clayton called the Public Hearing to order
at 7:43 P.M. , and then stated the purpose of the Public Hearing. The petitioner
for the extension of an annexation agreement is Mr. Robert Gamades, United
Development Company. President Clayton then read the common description of
the property.
Mr. Balling stated that this is an extension initiated by the Village of
Buffalo Grove for Suffield Place Subdivision, which is a reactivated sub-
division; approximately 70% of the subdivision is yet to be built out; most
of the utilities are in, but most of the building permits have not yet been
issued. There was a 5 year term on the original annexation agreement; the
Village identified benefit to extend the existing terms and conditions of the
1978 agreement, and also add two provisions :
1 . To expand the school , park and library donations, pursuant to Title XIX.
2. To assure in the agreement that all annexation fees would be paid for
this subdivision prior to the expiration of this agreement.
It is thought that an additional extension of 5 years would be adequate for
this subdivision to be completed.
Mr. Raysa pointed out the technical modifications to the agreement, which do
not change the substance of the agreement.
President Clayton asked if there were any groups, agencies, or individuals
present to give testimony. President Clayton then asked if there were any other
questions from the Board. There were none. President Clayton closed the Public
Hearing at 7:49 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - SPOERLEIN/STAHL PROPERTY
The notice for this Public Hearing was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald
on December 24, 1982. President Clayton called the Public Hearing to order
at 7:49 P.M. The petitioner for annexation agreement approval , preliminary
plan approval , and R-9 P.U. D. and B-3 zoning is Mr. James Mastandrea, Midwest
Development Corporation. President Clayton then read the common description
of the property. President Clayton then stated the purpose of the Public Hearing.
. V
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 10, 1983
PAGE TWO
President Clayton swore in the witnesses to give testimony: Mr. Ted Shapero,
Attorney; Mr. James Mastandrea, Midwest Development Corporation; and Mr. Rick
Burton, Land Consultant. Mr. Ron Cothern, Mobil Oil Company was also present.
Mr. Rick Burton presented the preliminary plan, and pointed out the changes
made by the Plan Commission. The residential area is 15.2 acres, with 176
units proposed on that area, for a density of 11 .6 units per acre. There are
5. 1 acres proposed in a B-3 zoning, basically along the Route 83 frontage a
combination of one-story and two-story buildings are proposed, with retail
space on the first floor and office space on the second floor. Mr. Burton
stated that, to the best of his knowledge, there are no variations to the
Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations shown on the plan.
Mr. Burton then reviewed the landscape plan. Mr. Burton pointed out that
there are two phasing plans which have been distributed, and he reviewed both
of those plans. Phasing Plan A shows the first phase of residential along
the east, progressing to Phase la, lb, Phase 2, Phase 3; the commercial area
is Phase lc along Route 83, Phase 4, and the Mobil area in Phase la. Phasing
Plan B is essentially the same plan with one difference, that being that, rather
than having commercial in the first phase, all of the commercial is in Phase 3
and Phase 4. Mr. Burton stated that the developer has agreed to provide the
sidewalk extension from this development, along Route 83 off-site, to the
intersection of the major entryway of the Devonshire development. The developer
has agreed to some additional pavement improvements along Route 83, as well as
the landscaping plan.
Mr. Shapero thanked the staff for their cooperation with this development. Mr.
Shapero stated that the Plan Commission approved the Phasing Plan with the east
commercial to take place in either Phase 3 or Phase 4. Mr. Shapero stated that,
since all the shops proposed are boutique-type, there is a considerable amount
of risk to the developer. The developer does not wish to be locked into doing
the commercial development as part of Phase I if it is not economically feasible.
If the Board wishes to see commercial as part of Phase I , the developer would
like to utilize Industrial Revenue Bonds at a favorable rate. If this is not
possible, the developer would like to have the commercial development pushed
back to Phase III . Mr. Shapero then reviewed paragraph 30, B, found on page 20.
Trustee Stone stated that he strongly thinks that the commercial should be in
Phase I , and reviewed the background on this situation. Trustee Stone pointed
out that the Village has no control over whether or not the developer is able
to obtain a favorable interest rate. Trustee Hartstein stated that he is not
happy with the density, and also that, without the commercial , he does not think
that the property would be an asset to the Village. He stated that, if this
type of density is permitted, the Village must be assured of the commercial
property.
In answer to a question from Trustee O'Reilly, Mr. Goldspiel explained the Plan
Commission 's reasons for approving the developer's phasing plan, stating that
their main reason was a market study which was done. Mr. Goldspiel urged the
Board not to hamper the completion of the entire development by pushing the
commercial too early. He stated that, if the commercial is developed before
there are many residents of the area, there would be no one to patronize the
shops to be built.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 10, 1983
PAGE THREE
Trustee Marienthal pointed out that, originally on the Master Plan, this
area was shown as entirely commercial . He also pointed out that there is
a parcel across the street from the subject property which is designated
as commercial , which has never been built, and he does not wish to see the
same situation with this property. Trustee Gerschefske stated that he does
not wish to see this property eventually consist of just a gasoline station
and residential property, without the commercial . Trustee Hartstein stated
that he would find this project far more acceptable if, in lieu of getting the
commercial that he would like to see, there was a way to insure that the quality
of the residential would be on a higher plane, i .e. more clustering, more open
space, less traditional density, more creativity. Mr. Mastandrea stated that
the lack of creativity stems from the regulations imposed on the developer by
the Village. Mr. Shapero explained the developer's methods in response to
some of the comments made by the Board.
Trustee O'Reilly stated that she agrees that the creativity of the plan was
hampered by trying to appease various Trustees and Commissions. Trustee
Marienthal stated that he had wanted to see more commercial development from
the inception of this development. Trustee Schwartz stated that he has a
serious problem with the phasing plan at this point. Mr. Balling reviewed the
staff discussions with the developer, and stated that he believes the character
of the proposed development would be an asset. Mr. Mastandrea reviewed his
dealings with the Village on this project; he stated that he thinks that the
plan is one of quality; he stated that he is willing to work with the Village,
but would like to have the financial advantage of Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Mr. Mastandrea stated that he has responded to the direction given to him by
the Village. There was then discussion on a favorable rate for an Industrial
Revenue Bond issue.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of Phasing Plan C
dated January 10, 1983 that would include commercial in Phase I without any
indication of IRB involvement. Mr. Goldspiel stated that the basis for the
Plan Commission recommendation on the Phasing Plan that they recommended was
a combination of the market study, roads, and utilities. Mr. Glover stated
that he has a concern about the possibility of the option on the Stahl property
never being exercised. The results of the polling were:
YES : Marienthal , O' Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: Stone
Mr. Balling explained that the concept of working within the agreement would
stipulate that, if the preferred interest rate (whatever that number would be
determined to be) cannot be attained, then the Phasing segment would revert
to Phasing Plan B.
Trustee Hartstein stated that he thinks that, once a figure for Industrial
Revenue Bonds is agreed upon, in no event should construction go beyond
Phase II until the eastern commercial development is done. Mr. Mastandrea
v stated that he thinks that is a fair recommendation. Trustee Hartstein stated
that if we go with the IRB's, and the developer gets 9 and 3/4% or better, he
must begin construction on the eastern commercial before commencing on Phase II ;
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 10, 1983
PAGE FOUR
in the event that the developer cannot obtain 9 and 3/4% or better IRB rate,
he can proceed with Phase II , but cannot commence any construction on Phase III
until he has commenced construction on the eastern commercial .
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of Trustee Hartstein 's
explanation; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz, President Clayton*
NO: Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly
-President Clayton voted "Yes" in an effort to compromise, but pointed out that
there must be 5 votes for an annexation.
President Clayton declared a recess from 9:30 P.M. until 9:58 P.M.
Mr. Rick Burton then gave a brief presentation of the total project, explaining
various exhibits in the process.
Trustee Stone outlined his proposal for an alternative phasing plan: Phase Ia
remaining as is; Phase lb becoming Phase IIa, Phase II becoming Phase lib;
original Phase III remaining as is, but what was originally Phase IV would
become part of Phase III and would be done simultaneously with the original
Phase Ill ; what was originally Phase lc would become Phase IV. This would
insure that the commercial part of Phase III would be completed. The Village
would help the developer to secure a favorable rate for Industrial Revenue Bonds,
but the plan would not be dependent upon the Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Trustee O'Reilly proposed the following Phasing Plan: Phase Ia and b would
remain as Phase I ; the Phase I commercial would hopefully remain in Phase I ,
but, if not, it could be in Phase II , but, in any event, if it is not in Phase II ,
the developer may not move forward with Phase III , with no mention of the Industrial
Revenue Bonds, although the Village would do everything possible to secure a
favorable rate for the Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Mr. Mastandrea stated that because of the economic conditions, the second
proposal would be the best, although he would work with either alternative.
President Clayton stated that she could live with either plan; she sees both
advantages and disadvantages in each plan. There was then further discussion
between the developer and the Board.
President Clayton polled the Board as to their preference for either Phasing
Plan C or Phasing Plan D.
Marienthal - Plan D, but will go with Plan C subject to certain conditions.
Stone - Plan D
O'Reilly - Plan C
Hartstein - Plan C, but could live with D
Gerschefske - Plan C
Schwartz - Plan C
President Clayton - Plan C
President Clayton stated that the preference of the Board is Phasing Plan C,
with no Industrial Revenue Bond rate contingency, but the Village will help
the developer to obtain a favorable rate.
•
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 10, 1983
PAGE FIVE
For the benefit of the audience, Mr. Raysa explained Industrial Revenue Bonds.
He also pointed out to the Board that there has been legislation proposed which
would do away with Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Trustee Marienthal stated that, although his preference is Plan D, since the
majority of the Board supports Plan C, he will also support Plan C.
Trustee Marienthal requested that the rest of the Workshop agenda be deferred
until after the January 17, 1983 Regular Meeting.
Mr. Balling pointed out two other points which need reconciliation: Paragraph 14,
and Paragraph 30, C and E. Pragraph 30, C relates to the temporary and marketing
signage to be placed on the site, and a variation would be necessary. Mr.
Shapero explained the signs requested by the developer. Mr. Raysa stated that
it is his opinion that the Board can grant the above variation in the Annexation
Agreement. Mr. Mastandrea stated that he is requesting 3 temporary signs in
addition to 2 monuments.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the developers
request for 3 temporary signs plus 2 monuments; "No" indicates opposition:
AYES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NAPES: 0 - None
Mr. Balling explained Paragraph 30, E, regarding right-turn bays on Route 83.
Mr. Mastandrea stated that there is substantial cost to installing right-turn
baysi , when he understands that Route 83 will eventually be widened to 4 lanes.
President Clayton clarified that Mr. Mastandrea has agreed to the right-turn
bays, and he will be coming back with a proposal to consider on driveways.
There was no objection from the Board on same.
Mr. Truesdell pointed out that, at this time, there is no variation authority
in the Zoning Ordinance, although the Zoning Ordinance is being revised. Mr.
Shapero suggested that, if the proposal is agreeable to the Board, there could
be an amendment to the Annexation Agreement.
Mr. Balling stated that one remaining item relates to a plan disagreement
concerning the curb cuts on the Mobil station. The Plan Commission recommends
that the station have two curb cuts; the Village Engineer and IDOT have raised
question with the two cuts. Mr. Kuenkler stated that his concern is people
making a right-turn movement off of Arlington Heights Road and attempting to
cut across into the gas station.
President Clayton swore in Mr. Cothern of Mobil Oil ; Mr. Cothern explained the
driveway situation and the traffic flow. Mr. Gary Glover stated that, because
of ingress/egress, it is very important to have 2 driveways in a gas station.
Mr. Kuenkler stated that the 2 curb cuts are his only concern.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 10, 1983
`./ PAGE SIX
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the plan as
shown; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: 6 - Marienthal , Stone, O' Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske, Schwartz
NO: 0 - None
Mr. Balling explained that Paragraph 14 deals with the Village Attorney's request
for a Letter of Credit posted from a financial institution which does not have a
vested interest in the subject development. Mr. Mastandrea explained the involve-
ment in obtaining the proposed Letter of Credit, and pointed out his previous
record in the Village. Mr. Raysa explained his reasons for his request. Mr.
Shapero stated that a financial institution cannot dishonor a Letter of Credit.
President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor of the Village
Attorney's recommendation to have the Letter of Credit with a financial
institution not connected with the financing of the project; "No" indicates
opposition :
YES : Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly*, Gerschefske
NO: Hartstein, Schwartz
`Would be willing to listen to any justification otherwise.
Mr. Mastandrea stated that he cannot comply with that request, he stated that
he would provide any language that the Village wanted. Mr. Raysa and Mr. Shapero
will work together to come up with suitable wording to make it comfortable for
the Village to accept the Letter of Credit from a financial institution with an
interest in the project.
Trustee Hartstein stated that he has a concern with the language contained
in the last sentence of Paragraph 7 of the Annexation Agreement, i .e. "minor
changes". Mr. Balling stated that this would relate to questions considering
the size and scale of the footprint, minor realignments due to final survey
work of the street system in platting; anything relating to basic zoning or
density would be considered major changes and be brought back to the Board. Mr.
Raysa will attempt to "tighten up" the language in this paragraph.
Trustee O'Reilly questioned the ownership on the detention areas; Mr. Shapero
stated that they will give the Park District the option, and if they do not
accept the title, the Association will retain ownership.
Mr. Raysa clarified the fact that Paragraph D on Page 20 would be deleted.
The Village will attempt to secure favorable financing for Industrial Revenue
Bonds for the developer. The developer could not proceed with the final plat
of Phase III until a building permit has been issued on Phase Ic, and Phase Ic
must be fully platted, recorded, bonds must be filed, and the public improvements
must be in.
President Clayton asked if there were any questions from the audience or
any other agencies. There were none. President Clayton closed the Public
Hearing at 11 :05 P.M. The Annexation Agreement will be on the agenda for a
Special Meeting on January 24, 1983.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 10, 1983
`./ PAGE SEVEN
EXPANDED VILLAGE CLERK DUTIES
Mr. Balling reviewed his memos of December 23, 1982 and January 6, 1983
regarding the subject. It was suggested that the additional compensation be
paid to the Clerk as Village Collector; there was discussion on the description
of the duties of the Collector. The major concern of the Board was the fact
that the salary increase request comes after the close of filing for the
position. Another point raised was that many of the items in Mr. Balling's
memo of December 23, 1982 are already being handled, and that the duties go
along with the office. It was stated that the salary set at the present time
fits the needs of the Village.
After discussion, President Clayton polled the Board: "Yes" indicates favor
of the Village Attorney investigating the responsibilities of Village Collector,
with the idea that the end result would be appointing Janet Sirabian as Village
Collector; "No" indicates opposition:
YES: Marienthal , Stone, Hartstein, Gerschefske*
NO: O'Reilly, Schwartz
*To clarify for the purpose of defining roles of the Collector.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Stone, seconded by Marienthal , to adjourn the meeting. Upon voice
vote, the motion was unanimously declared carried. The meeting was adjourned
at 11 :34 P.M.
Janet ) . Sirabian, Village Clerk