Loading...
11/16/198113 November 16, 1981 C. The regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield was called to order by the Clerk, in the absence of the President, in the Council Chamber of the Village Hall on Monday, November 16, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. The Clerk called the roll and announced that the following were Present: Marvin W.-Ehlers Jerold L. Heisler Cynthia J. Marty Edwin B. Seidman Vernon E. Swanson J. Robert York and that a quorum was present_ and in attendance. Also present were Village Attorney James Stucko and Village Manager Robert D. Franz. Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by Trustee York, that Trustee Swanson be appointed President Pro Tem. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the minutes of the November 2, 1981 Board meeting be accepted as presented. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE WARRANT Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee NO. W -81 -11 Ehlers, that the bills and payroll includ- ing transfers and reimbursements be ap- proved. Motion carried on the following vote: ' AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, Swanson, York (6) NAYS: None (0) TREASURER'S REPORT Finance Director George Valentine, reported that General Fund revenues as a whole are ahead of projections despite lower than projected sales tax receipts. As for expen- ditures, all operating departments are staying within their projected budgets. Trustee York took particular note that Sales Tax receipts are showing a smaller percent of increase over last year's receipts and will will no doubt level off. Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, to accept the Treasurer's report. Motion carried unanimously. TRAFFIC STUDY DFLD. COMMONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL Road entrances to the Deerfield Commons need for signalization at that location temporary and permanent signals and the Mgr. Franz stated that the Traffic Study made by Paul Box and Associates regarding a possible traffic signal at the Waukegan and First National Bank had substantiated the as well as setting forth options regarding inherent problems therein. After discussion of the report, Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee York, that the Board go on record affirming that traffic signals at the intersection of Waukegan Road and the entrances to the Deerfield Commons and the First National Bank are neces- sary and should be installed at that location. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, Swanson, York (6) NAYS: None (0) Mgr. Franz pointed out that the Village could opt to: 1)Seek 50% State funding of..a permanent signal.which probably could not be installed for 6 or 7 years, relying meantime on a temporary signal which could be operational in 30 to 60 days, 2) The Village in conjunction with the Merchants and Bank could undertake installation of a permanent signal which could be operational within a year while attempting to get. whe State to bear a percentage of the cost. Village Engineer James Soyka who had been investigating types and costs of temporary signals as well ,as the cost of a permanent signal stated, "This is a very, very com- plicated intersection ". He further submitted that under normal circumstances a tempo -. racy signal, using an old, second -hand, fixed -time controller, could be installed for $9- 12,000 or even rented at an attractive price.. But, in this particular case, that type of signal would not work and would be more detrimental to safety than the present unsi realized entrance. A temporary signal, suitable for this intersection, would cost $25- 30,000 of which $11,000 might be salvageable when permanent signals are finally installed. A permanent signal would cost about $75,000 at current prices. He could not estimate the cost of a permanent signal 6 or 7 years hence, due to the changing economic conditions. 1.4 sked about digital time ,base coordinanting (TBC) .units mentio ned in -the traffic'., Stu (1y, .. Mr. Soyka replied tha't,'theIy are a very sophisticated and recent development'--d.esigned to coordinate - -a'11 signals within a municipality. However, he did not- recommend..them.as they are not yet- sufficiently perfected to be relatively trouble.free, and Naperville and St.,Charles are having difficulties with them. Trustee Heisler remarked that the "job should be done right or not at all ". Mr. Robert Longtin, President-of the Deerfield Commons Association, concurred that a "top quality job was the only way to go" and that from a business man's standpoint it made sense to.choose to install a permanent signal at the present time. He stated that his con- tact with the State caused him to feel reasonably sure that they would still partici- pate "regardless of the period of time ". When Trustee Heisler inquired of Mr. Long - tin whether the Merchants and Bank would be willing to pay.50% of the cost of a perma- nent signal should the State refuse to participate as he felt they would, Mr. Long - tin replied that he was of the opinion that a 50% participation "between the Mer- chants, Bank and Frost people is possible." Following considerable discussion regarding possible methods and order of procedure in a project involving private as well as public funds, Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, that Manager Franz be authorized to notify the State that the Village Board is on record as desirous of proceeding with the installation of a perma- nent traffic signal and is requesting State participation in the funding of the project. Motion carried unanimously. BANNOCKBURN STREET CLOSINGS STAFF REPORT sulted in Bannockburn's decision 1981 report by Mr. Miller on the November 12, 1981 letter from Mr. closings. Mgr. Franz stated that Staff had received: 1) a January 1980 traffic study prepared by Richard Miller & Assoc. which had re- to restrict traffic on certain roads, 2) a March effect on traffic-of the street closings, and 3) a Miller clarifying his involvement in the street Through examination of the data, certain points became evidant to the Staff: 1) since there had been no previous-traffic count on.Greenwood Ave, and other streets in that area, it is impossible to measure accurately the effect Bannockburn street closings have had on Deerfield, 2) traffic counts by the Manager, Village Engineer, and Police Department suggest that traffic has been dispersed with no one route substituting for Wilmot Rd., 3) a significant portion of traffic using the Telegraph /Chestnut route appears to be avoiding construction work at Waukegan Rd. and Route 22, and will cease at the completion of that work. The Staff did not feel it could recommend any particular action the Board might take, but felt Deerfield should maintain its position with Bannockburn that the closing of streets is not a practical or permanent solution for traffic problems. Staff was also of the opinion that any attempt to deter or re -route traffic in Deerfield would result in greater problems than are now experienced, ,Trustee Heisler concurred with Staff's findings, stating that he favored maintaining the status quo and opposition to Bannockburn's traffic restrictions while waiting to see what Bannockburn may do. Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to accept the Staff's report. Motion. carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA SIDEYARD VARIATION 1041 HAZEL AVENUE (MITCHELL) not altering an existing 2.04' sideyard RELEASE ESCROW FUNDS LAUREL HILL WOODLANDS First reading of an ordinance granting permission to construct a room addition to an existing non - conforming building while which does not meet the required 8' minimum. $50,445 release to DiGioia Bros._ Construc- tion Co.,Inc. for completed partial surface= improvements in Laurel Hill Woodlands. Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. SIGN VARIATION - FLAG -LOGO AMLINGS FLOWERLAND fly a logo -flag was before the Board for Pres. Pro Tem Swanson stated that an�ordi- nanee granting a variation to the sign ordinance to permit Amlings Flowerland to consideration. Trustee Seidman stated that decision had been made at the previous Board meeting to grant the Amlings' petition for a 1 -ogo -flag by amending the Planned Unit: Development' agreement for Ca3well Corners. In reply to Trustee Seidman, Attorney Stuck*- explained. 15 that lie had not been present at the last Board meeting, but when consulted later about the motion, �he had advised that an amendment to the PUD agreement dealing with signage would require a separate hearing before the Plan Commission (which would require a month or longer before the Board could act on the matter). He was then instructed to prepare for Board consideration an ordinance granting a variation to the sign ordi- nance as an alternative to amending the PUD agreement. He pointed out that since all Board members were on record as favoring an Amlings logo -flag and would have approved inclusion.of a provision for such in the original PUD agreement,-the matter before the Board was choice of a method to rectify a procedural oversight. Thereupon, Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to reconsider the inap- propriate motion made at the November 2 Board meeting regarding amendment of the PUD agreement for Cadwell Corners. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Heisler went on to state that while reconsidering the inappropriate motion that had been made, he would suggest that the Board consider granting a variation from the sign ordinance. And, inasmuch as an ordinance granting such a variation had been prepared as an alternative, Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the ordinance before the Board be considered as having its first reading. Moticn carried, Trustee Seidman dissenting. In explanation of his negative vote, Trustee Seidman stated that lie had no objection to Amlings' logo -flag but favored amending the PUD agreement, though time'is required for the hearing process, in order to protect everyone,includ- ing Mr. Buccola, the developer. He took strong objection to the variation method which requires finding of hardship. 'r•1.;OVE FINAL PLAT Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee ;'.�,oWICH /KRAFT RESUBDIVISION Heisler, that the Mayor be authorized to _)UNT.RY LANE /GORDON TERRACE sign the final plat of the Lipowich /Kraft - Resubdiv,ision, which divides two deep lots fronting on Gordon into four lots with the two new lots fronting on Country Lane. Motion carried unanimously. BRICKYARD PROPERTY Mgr. Franz stated that on June 1, 1981 NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS the Board tabled a plan Commission report (FLODSTROM & FINK) and recommendation regarding the zoning of the Brickyard property inasmuch as the Village and Mr. Sven Flodstrom- one of the developers, needed to work out details ,of a land swap, financing, etc. Since that time,both potential developers -.(Mr. Sven Flodstrom* and Mr. George Fink) have indicated they have new ideas regarding the development and wished to present their revised plans and sound out the Board. He stated that the presentation of possible changes was not intended to circumvent the Plan Commission and that the Board could refer the entire matter .-ack to the Plan Com- mision for further review. President Pro Tem Swanson stated that the original. conceptual plan had shown a resi- dential planned unit development in the northwest corner, commercial along Lake -Cook Road, a general industrial area behind the commercial, as well as park land. Mr. Flodstrom stated that she residential planned unit condominimum development origi- nally proposed for the northwest corner had consisted of property Mr. Flodstrom hoped to own (through a land swap with the Village) as well as abutting property on the south (on which there are presently radio towers) owned by Mr. Geo. Fink. He stated that whereas he had sought to build condominium units, he had recently been approached by a firm to construct a life -time -care residence which would consist of approximately 250 one and two bedroom complete apartments as well as central dining facilities and a health care center staffed with skilled medical personnel. He pointed out that the proposed condominium development had been platted in such a way as to permit develop- went of his property independent of the Fink property on the south. Mr. George Fink stated that he had waited patiently eight months for Mr. Flodstrom to iron out his difficulties in land swap, financing, etc. in order that they could develop simultaneously, but that his own business commitments now required that he request zoning and, development (as recommended by the Plan Commission) independent of Mr. Flodstrom. He stated that since the owners of the radio station on his property had an option to buy his property he needed an established R -5 PUD zoning classification or an indication of the Village's intent so that the appraised value of his property would be too high to be attractive to the owners of the radio station when their option period begins January 1, 1981. He proposed to swap land with,the Village, moving hiseproperty 60 feet to the east. He also proposed a road from his property (through an easement on Village property) to Lake -Cook Rd. and stated lie was willing to bear the cost of a bridge over the creek so that the road would be aligned with Pfiogsten Rd. Mr. Fink was advised by the Board that he would have to submit his requests to the Plan Commission.. Re;lyding_the non- residential plans for the Brickyard property, Mr. Flodstrom informed t'-e•,Board of another proposed change in the southeast portion along the railroad tracks,. oi':iginall.y planned to include a commercial as well an industrial area. Mr. Flodstrom 16 now proposed'that` the entire area be zoned"I -1 for a•1 -story office and light indus -- ' trial building,.a.l -story office building, a 4 -story office:building (a .mirror image lr of his btx l #ing on-the south side of Lake -Cook Rd.) and perhaps'a railroad commuter, F stop. 'He stated that he had been approached by two high class restaurants wi:shing.. 3..to locate in that.'area.'.Attorney St'ucko advised Mr.- Flodstrom that his proposed changes would require new petitibIns and a hearing by the '.Plan Commission. ACCEPT '1981 ANNUAL AUDIT Trustee Marty.moved,.seconded by Trus- tee $eidman',..that the 1981 Annual Audit be accepted and placed -on file. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, S'eidmari,,Swanson, York (6) NAYS: None (0) Reports: G Trustee York inquired about the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" presented at the Deer - brook Cinema starting at midnight every Friday and Saturday. -Trustee'Heisler, who stated that "unfortunately" lie had seen'the show in Chicago; described it as a "wild, affair, and young pe6ple'seem to go back.to see it six, eight, and ten times....it's a 'happening'." Trustee inquired of.Mgr. Franz as to how much trouble the movie was causing, and Mgr. Franz stated that'jthe police,records show numerous "problems of curfew violations, drinking by minors, fights and vagdalism, which the staff r feels are directly attributable to the Rocky Horror Picture Show which lets out at i 2 A.M." He reported that charges have been filed ( not done until mush effort to resolve ' the problem had.been made administratively) and contacts had been made well beyond the manager. He will keep the Board advised on the matter. Mr. Franz stated that the Architectural and'Engineering Committee has recommended E that the second public informational meeting on'-Wilmot Rd. be field with the consul- tant responding to questions previously raised by the Board and residents as well as presenting additional information on'the project. The Boards e November 30, 1981 at 8 P.M. for the meeting. \ There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion by Trustee Seidman and second by Trustee York,.the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 P.M. APPROVED: Village President 0 ATTEST: _ r Villag Cler fi r r