Loading...
05/17/198272 May 17, 1982 The regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield was called to order by the President in the Council Chamber of the Village Hall on Monday, May .17, 1982'at 8:01 P.M. The Clerk called the roll and announced that the following were Present: Bernard Forrest, President Marvin W. Ehlers Jerold L. Heisler Edwin B. Seidman Vernon E. Swanson J. Robert York Absent: Cynthia J. Marty and that a quorum was present and in attendance. Also present were Village Manager Robert D. Franz and Village Attorney James Stucko. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, that the minutes of the last meeting be approved with the following correction: under TOWN & COUNTRY PUD, ninth paragraph, the name "Jelent" be spelled "Zelent ". Motion carried unani- mously. APPROVE Trustee Heisler moved, seconde4�,by Trus- WARRANT NO. 0 -82 -05 tee Seidman, that the bills and payroll, including transfers and reimbursements, be approved. Motion carried on following vote: AYES:, Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5) NAYS: None (0)' DEPARTMENTAL OBJECTIVES BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Building and Zoning Director Charles Smalley was present to answer Board inquiries regarding his report on Depart- mental Objectives previously submitted. The Board had no questions regarding his report, and Mayor Forrest thanked Mr. Smalley for it. PROCLAMATION Mayor Forrest read his proclamation desig- BICYCLE SAFETY WEEK IN DEERFIELD nating May 23 -29 as Bicycle Safety Week in MAY 23 -29 Deerfield. Trustee Swanson moved, second- ed.. by Trustee York, to approve the proc- lamation. Motion carried unanimously. REAL ESTATE SIGNS Mgr. Franz read a report from the Ad Hoc AD HOC COMMITTEE:. Committee regarding real estate.signs REPORT &RECOMMENDATION wherein they stated that a lengthy dis- cussion revealed that the main concern of both realtors and the Village was the number of open -house signs (on public property) for each listing and the time periods these signs are needed. After considering all points discussed, the Committee recommended that the Board of Trustees direct the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing at the earliest date to.consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Specifically, they recommended that realtors be permitted a maximum of two di- rectional signs and one open -house sign for each listing, with signs permitted on Wednesdays between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m., and on Sundays between noon and 6 p.m. Trustee Seidman stated that he did not favor a PlanyCommission hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance but favored la 90 -day trial period since he�dd not feel that realtors had shown "any mark of cooperation'!. on the weekend following the committee meeting where the realtors had agreed to; two signs per house. He cited the large number of signs, in excess of the agreement, which he had observed around the Village over the weekend. Discussion ensued regarding allowing open- house /directional signs immediately, under the temporary sign provisions, which-_,would- meetrealtors' needs now, their busiest season. Attorney Stucko stated that indemnification agreements could be required of each real estate firm, holding the Village harmless should any accidents occur relating to such signs. Such indemnification agreements would afford some protection for the Village. Trustee York stated that he did not want the Village "junked.up" and that it was the responsibility of each real estate firm to see that its sales people complied with the ordinance. However, he added,,;,enforcement of the ordinance belonged to the Village and.would be maintained by the Village. 1 1 73 Mr. Henry Zander of Continental Realty Co., stated that realtors needed help from the Village. He stated that the day before (Sunday) he had "taken a calculated. risk, violated the ordinance, and lost eight signs through confiscation." Mr. J. Chmiel , 423 Elm Street, submitted that if ordinances can be violated.at will, as it suits a citizen's convenience,.no ordinance has any value. Trustee Ehlers moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, that staff be directed to ad- ministratively enforce, under the temporary sign provisions of the ordinance, the erection of "open- house" signs and refer to the Plan Commission a request for a public hearing to consider a text amendment to the real.estate sign sec - tion of.the zoning ordinance. Motion carried, Trustee Seidman voting Nay. OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL /SOCIAL FACILITY. Mgr. Franz reported that the Plan Com- TEXT AMENDMENT - I -1 /SPECIAL USE mission had held a public hearing,on April 29,,1982 to consider. the request of United Conveyor Corp.,300 Wilmot Rd., to amend the text of the Zoning Ordi- nance to permit Outdoor Recreation /Social Facilities as a Special Use in the I -1 district. A short discussion ensued wherein Trustee Swanson termed such facilities appropriate,and it was determined that "social facilities" would permit picnic and outdoor eating, etc. Trustee Swanson moved, seconded by Trustee York, that.the.Village Attorney be instructed to prepare the neces -. sary ordinance to allow Outdoor. Recreational and Social Facilities as Special Uses in an I -1 district. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE - OUTDOOR Mgr. Franz stated that the owners of RECREATIONAL /SOCIAL FACILITIES the Deerfield Center property (former BAXTER TRAVENOL /FISHMAN Strub farm) had requested on behalf of DEERFIELD CENTER -LAKE COOK RD. the lessees, Baxter - Travenol, amend- ment of their Special Use to allow out- door"recreational and social facilities accessory to the office development. A public hearing had been held April 29, 1982, and.the Plan Commission had recommended (on a vote of 5 to 1with 1 abstention) that the Special Use granted to Fishman, et al be amended to permit, for one year only, certain out - door recreational and social facilities as accessory uses to the existing Baxter - Travenol office development. Mayor Forrest read a letter from Trustee Marty who stated that her remarks were not directed at the lessee,-Baxter- Travenol, but were intended for Fishman et al, owners.of the property. She pointed out that while the owners may have obeyed the letter of the law regarding landscaping, they had not acted in good faith and put in the landscaping.depicted on the model they had presented to the Plan Commission and the Board. She submitted that.their vacant property had "never had anything but weeds and long grass" and felt that a baseball diamond (the facility for which the amendment was requested) would further detract from an "already tacky development." She.noted that the owners had been uncooperative on the matter of Huehl Road. Therefore, she opposed granting the amendment to their Special Use. Mr. O'Halleran, one of the owners, stated that landscaping was the lessee's responsibility, 'and that the use of the property for recreation purposes would be for only a sh'orttime as buildings are planned for that location. Trustee Seidman moved to table the matter. The motion failed for lack of a second. Trustee Swanson moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, to accept the Plan Commission's recommendation to amend the Special use, granted for.the Deerfield Center, to permit recreational and social facilities for a period of one year. Motion carried, Trustee Seidman voting Nay. Trustee Swanson moved,.seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the ordinance, granting a Special Use for the property at 756 Hoffman Lane to permit.retail sales and customer service uses as accessory to a principal wholesale use, be passed. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5), NAYS: None. (0) . NON - CONFORMING. STRUCTURES First reading of ordinance. TEXT AMENDMENT NORTH SHORE AUTO PARTS Trustee ..Swanson moved, seconded by 756 HOFFMAN-LANE­- (BOATRIGHT)` '" Trustee York" `to waive the rules to .SPECIAL USE permit passage of,.the ordinance on ORDINANCE NO. 0 -82 -26 first reading. Motion carried unani- mously. Trustee Swanson moved,.seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the ordinance, granting a Special Use for the property at 756 Hoffman Lane to permit.retail sales and customer service uses as accessory to a principal wholesale use, be passed. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5), NAYS: None. (0) . NON - CONFORMING. STRUCTURES First reading of ordinance. TEXT AMENDMENT 74 STEIN PROPERTY - LAKE -COOK RD. First reading of the ordinance. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 0 -82 -27 Ms. Ruth Wuorenma, representing the owner, stated that at the previous. Board meeting, it had been agreed that when Phase I was developed, landscaping would be completed across the entire Lake -Cook Rd. frontage (not the perimeter) of the.parking lots of Phase I and II. It was agreed that the ordinance.be corrected accordingly. Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by Trustee Swanson, to waive the rules to permit passage of the ordinance at first reading. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the ordinance approving the.final development plan of the Stein property on Lake =Cook Road be passed., Motion car- ried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5) NAYS: None (0) ABANDON SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.#115 First reading of ordinance abandoning ELM STREET IMPROVEMENT Special Assessment No. 115 for the,improve- ORDINANCE NO. 0 -82 -28 ment of Elm Street,inasmuch as Federal grant funds are no longer available nor are there any Village funds for their replacement. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the rules be waived to permit passage of the ordinance on first reading. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the ordinance abandoning Special Assessment No. 115 be passed. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5) NAYS: None (0) MARSHALL /MENENOH PROPERTY Mr. Larry Johannesen of Town and Country RECONSIDER NEW PROPOSAL Builders requested the Board to reconsider TOWN & COUNTRY BUILDERS its denial of their previous proposal (on May 3, 1982) in order to permit them to return to the Plan Commission with a revised plan of 56 housing units (two less than the. maximum stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan and eight less than proposed on May 3, 1982). Trustee Seidman moved,,seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the Board reconsider the Town and Country proposal. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Swanson was of the opinion that a number, of problems regarding sewers, etc. needed.to be addressed by the Staff before referral to the Plan Commission. However, Trustee York moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that a legally adver- tised public hearing be held by the Plan Commission to consider the matter from a fresh start. A number of Northwoods Drive residents, who had appeared previously, were again very vocal and opposed further reconsideration. Mr. Robert Mackin submitted that the matter was "being pursued to death ".by Town & Country Builders and the owners. Trustee Seidman pointed out that if proper procedures are followed, anyone has the right to present a new proposal. Mrs. Lillian Marshall, one of the property owners, stated that Northwoods Drive residents had registered concern about storm water, but asked, , "Where do.they expect it to.go since they don't have,-.storm sewers,,(never having..paid.for their installation) ?" -She noted that if the property was developed as single family, there might be ten curb cuts along Waukegan Rd. She challenged the statement of one Northwoods Drive resident who had deplored the lack of inlets for storm water along the east side of Waukegan Rd. She submitted that she had counted three inlets. She went on to say that,contrary to the opinions of some North - woods Drive.residents, there was a sanitary sewer on the west side of Waukegan Rd. capable of handling four times the amount of sewage it is presently taking care of. She pointed out that the "sinking lot" described by one resident was not actually sinking, but that Waukegan Road was increasingly elevated each E, ANALYSIS & AWARD OF BID Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee TREE AND STUMP REMOVAL Heisler, that the bid,in an amount not to exceed $9,047.50 for tree and stump re- moval, be awarded Sunrise Tree Service of Long Grove, Illinois. Motion carried on following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5) NAYS: None (0) MARSHALL /MENENOH PROPERTY Mr. Larry Johannesen of Town and Country RECONSIDER NEW PROPOSAL Builders requested the Board to reconsider TOWN & COUNTRY BUILDERS its denial of their previous proposal (on May 3, 1982) in order to permit them to return to the Plan Commission with a revised plan of 56 housing units (two less than the. maximum stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan and eight less than proposed on May 3, 1982). Trustee Seidman moved,,seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the Board reconsider the Town and Country proposal. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Swanson was of the opinion that a number, of problems regarding sewers, etc. needed.to be addressed by the Staff before referral to the Plan Commission. However, Trustee York moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that a legally adver- tised public hearing be held by the Plan Commission to consider the matter from a fresh start. A number of Northwoods Drive residents, who had appeared previously, were again very vocal and opposed further reconsideration. Mr. Robert Mackin submitted that the matter was "being pursued to death ".by Town & Country Builders and the owners. Trustee Seidman pointed out that if proper procedures are followed, anyone has the right to present a new proposal. Mrs. Lillian Marshall, one of the property owners, stated that Northwoods Drive residents had registered concern about storm water, but asked, , "Where do.they expect it to.go since they don't have,-.storm sewers,,(never having..paid.for their installation) ?" -She noted that if the property was developed as single family, there might be ten curb cuts along Waukegan Rd. She challenged the statement of one Northwoods Drive resident who had deplored the lack of inlets for storm water along the east side of Waukegan Rd. She submitted that she had counted three inlets. She went on to say that,contrary to the opinions of some North - woods Drive.residents, there was a sanitary sewer on the west side of Waukegan Rd. capable of handling four times the amount of sewage it is presently taking care of. She pointed out that the "sinking lot" described by one resident was not actually sinking, but that Waukegan Road was increasingly elevated each E, 75 time it was resurfaced, thereby causing the lot to "seem lower." She further stated that she wished citizens would "get their facts straight" before com- plaining to the Board. Trustee York commended-Mrs. Marshall for presenting the Board with "facts rather than mere personal opinions." He stated that he personally wanted to see the property developed and had only voted against it at.the last Board meeting because;.he was not satisfied with the "sewer situation ". He advised Mr. Johannesen to do a more thorough job in planning and design. Mr. Johannessen'stated that he had submitted thorough plans but did not know why Staff had not. reviewed the sewer line proposals. Mgr. Franz stated that the Village Engineeer had made it clear at the last Board meeting that con= ceptually this plan could work, but that detailed engineering would have to be resolved at a later date. He stated that surrounding area conditions and the history of the sewers had to be reviewed and examined before any plan de- tails are considered,since Staff must make certain that the project will not cause problems'for adjacent properties. He added that Staff must be satis= fied that all conditions. and requirements are met before any building permits are issued. Mr. Eugene Counsellor, 1438 Waukegan Rd., stated that for a considerable period of time the area under consideration was held by Village Boards to be suitable for.multi- family developments,, and he agreed .with.this view. The motion to refer the matter back to the Plan Commission and start anew with a legally publicized hearing carried. unanimously. Mayor 'Forrest excused himself from consideration of the Brickyard.matters to be heard during the meeting and turned the gavel over to Trustee Heisler. The Board recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:39 p.m., all members being present and in attendance. BRICKYARD PROPOSALS Mayor pro_ tem Heisler announced that complicated procedures were involved in handling the Brickyards matter and asked Attorney Stucko to give an overview of the,issues: before the Board that evening. Attorney Stucko stated that the three main issues were: 1) zoning consideration of the Brickyards property, 2) formation of a Tax Increment Financing District and authorization to sell bonds pursuant to the formation of that district, and 3) consideration of the exhange of property between the developer and the Village in the Brickyards Attorney Stucko went.on to say that on March 18, 1982 the Board did not approve proposed C -2 and I -1 PUDs along the.Lake -Cook Rd: boundary. Also, wishing to consider the development as a whole, the Board voted down the previously favor- able recommendations of the Plan Commission regarding the R -5 PUD and the I -1 PUD along the,eastern boundary of the property. At the next Board meeting, the petitioners' attorney indicated that a new pro- posal was to be brought forward for the C -2 and I- 1,(west) PUDs and asked that the Board reconsider its previous denial of the R -5 PUD and the I -1 (east) PUD and that these two considerations be tabled pending a hearing on revised C -2 and I -1 (west) PUDs. The two items were tabled, a hearing was held by the Plan Commission to consider the revised proposal, and the Plan Commission's recom- mendation was before..,the,, ;Board for consideration. Upon motion by Trustee Ehlers,.second by Trustee.Swanson; and.unanimous Board approval, the R -5 and I -1 (east).PUDs were moved from.the table. Thereupon, Mr. Alan,Stefaniak, attorney for the petitioner, described the re- vised'C -2 PUD as two!franchise restaurants (Chi -Chi's on Lake -Cook Rd. on the west side of the entry road and Wags on Lake -Cook Rd. on the east side of the entry road) aid the revised I -1. (west) as a 126,000 sq. ft. office building just .north and west of the Chi -Chi restaurant. Mgr. Franz stated that the Plan Commission had voted (5 -1) to approve the C -2 . and I -1 (west) rezoning and Special Uses for PUDs subject to: 1. Both ponds (retention) be built as part of Phase I. 2. An agreement be entered into with the petitioners in which the main- tenance of all utilities, whether public or private, shall be.the respon- sibility of the petitioners for ten years. 6 BRICKYARDS PROPOSALS (Continued) 3. Landscaping along Lake -Cook Road from the railroad tracks.to the western property line be completed as part of Phase I. 4. Costs of the proposed traffic light be borne by the petitioner:: Addressing.- the first Plan Commission recommendation, Mr. Stefaniak stated that 1) the eastern retention pond by Wags Restaurant (shown on the drawings) is not part of the proposed.Phase I development, (Wags, Chi -Chi's and I -1 (west),2) their engineer states that storm water can be retained on the Wags parcel itself and released to the west retention pond, 3) Mr. Flodstrom would prefer to build the pond but can not, at this time, acquire the property to do so, and 4) the east- ern pond will be constructed during Phase III. Regarding recommendation No. 2, Mr. Stefaniak.stated that their engineer had been monitoring the soil conditions, and felt that five years was sufficient for peti- tioner maintenance of the utilities as any unforeseeable conditions would surface during that time. Trustee Swanson and Trustee_ Heisler, however, both favored a ten year period, especially since it is not known just how "disturbed soil" will affect utility lines and streets. The question was raised whether utility lines in fill soil could be viewed differently from lines in virgin soil. Mgr. Franz advised the Board that a recent Staff discussion.indicated that ten years seemed appropriate, though there is no certainty that trouble will not appear after 10 years. Staff was directed..to reexamine the matter and report back to the Board. Mr. Stefaniak stated that recommendations Nos.3 and 4 posed no problem, except that the proposed traffic light would be paid for by both petitioners. Attorney Stucko inquired about commitments from the restaurants. Mr. Stefaniak replied that Chi -Chi's is presently under contract. He added that a letter from Mr. Flodstrom can be submitted which states that before he requests Board approv- al of the C -2 and I- 1(west) PUDs,he will submit to the Village Manager copies of the contract with Chi - Chi's, a letter of intent or contract with Wags, and also a letter of commitment on the financing for the I -1 (west) PUD. Attorney Stucko advised that it was most important that the Board have these assurances before consideration of.the final plan. Regarding the R -5 PUD, Mgr. Franz read the March 26, 1981 Plan Commission recom- mendation that the subject property be rezoned as requested and an overall PUD be granted for the entire property with the specific R -5 preliminary plan being approved subject to ten modifications. Discussion was had regarding each of the ten modifications. Regarding modification No. 1 which required that the Fink portion of the R -5 PUD be moved, 60 feet eastward to give the Village access to its property ad- jacent to the sewage treatment facility from the proposed storm water reten- tion area to the south, Mr. Stefaniak pointed out that such a move would further complicate matters by involving Mr. Fink.in land swap negotiations between Mr. Flodstrom and the Village. Attorney Stucko agreed and advised that modifica- tion No. 1 not be adopted. Mgr. Franz stated that Staff feels that an easement, perhaps for .a pedestrian path, to move people from'the public land north of the Fink development to the IDOT /Village property to the south, would be sufficient. He stated that Mr. Fink had agreed to give whatever easement is needed on the west. Decision was made, therefore, to strike modification No. 1 and require Mr. Fink to provide a satisfactory easement to be included in the final plan for the R -5 PUD. Modifications Nos. 2 through 7 and No. 10 were acceptable to the Village and peti- tioners, No. 8 was no longer.applicable, and No. 9 pertained to the petitioners' maintenance of utilities, discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Stefaniak sug- gested that a suitable arrangement be made with respect to maintenance of utili- ties-and an agreement be reached-before-final--development plan - approval for the C -2 and I- 1(west) PUDs... Mr. Stucko stated that "when the final plan for the C -2 and I1(west) PUDs is submitted, the Village and developers should be satisfied. as to the protection on all utilities throughout the entire development.' After further general discussion, Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to approve the preliminary plan for the C -2and I- 1(west) PUDs including the recommendations of the Plan Commission as agreed between the developers and the Board. Mrs. Harriet Rosenthal, Chairman of the Plan Commission, read a statement where- in she opposed the two franchise restaurants, fearing they could cause commercial uses to.spread.east and west and might even be the basis for pleas for further commercial development within the brickyards area itself should it fail to de- velop completely as planned.. 1 I 1 1 1 BRICKYARD PROPOSALS (Continued) Mr. 'C. Bechler, 119 Willow, concurred with Mrs. Rosenthal, and stated that I -1 was the appropriate zoning along Lake -Cook Road frontage. Trustee York stated tha.t'the.brickyards was difficult land to work with and it posed a hazardous financial problem to anyone attempting to develop it. He added that Mr. Flodstrom was willing to risk a great deal of money on the pro - ject, and that to date, no one else had been interested. He further commented that, given the soil conditions,;.it.can't be a perfect development, but that the plan is good, and the Board should proceed with it. C -2 & I- 1(WEST) PRELIMINARY .-PLAN APPROVED tied on the following vote: The previous motion to approve the C -2 and I- 1(west) PUDs preliminary plans car- AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5).. NAYS: None (0) u I- 1(EAST) PRELIMINARY.PLAN.APPROVED Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to accept the Plan Commission recommendation that the 1-1(east) PUD preliminary plan be approved .including the variations of required set back-.and screening., Motion carried -on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler,'Swidman, Swanson, York (5) NAYS : ' None (0) R -5 PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVED Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to approve the R -5 PUD preliminary plan including the recommendations.of the Plan Commission as agreed between the developers and the Board . Motion carried by following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York. (5) NAYS: None (0) BRICKYARDS R -5 HEIGHT VARIATION BZA RECOMMENDATION_ (TABLED 6 =1 =81) ' 77 Trustee Ehlers, moved, seconded by.Trustee Seidman, to move the matter from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Swanson moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to.accept the April 28, 1981 recommendation of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variation to permit the construction of five condominiums at a height of 38.5 feet in lieu of the required 35 feet.'in the R -5 portion of the brickyards property, and instruct the Village attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to be acted qn when the final development plan for the R -5 PUD is presented. Motion carried on the following vote:.: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson (4)' (Trustee York was briefly absent NAYS: None, (0) from the meeting and did not vote) Mayor pro tem.Heisler read the following statement: Over the past two years, the Village has been considering development of the brickyards property. In addition to.reviewing,development proposals for that area, we have.considered two major'issues: 1) Trading of land with the petitioner, Sven Flodstrom; and 2) Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District along Lake -Cook Rd. u 1Tn June, 1981, both the Village and petitioner conducted independent appraisals of the properties to be traded. Subsequent meetings resulted in an agreed -to value for the respective parcels. Action request of the Board tonight involves direction to the Attorney to prepare an agreement to effectuate this land swap of approximately 17 acres in the northern section of the brickyards. The exact dimensions of the land to be traded must await.a survey of the property and preparation of legal descriptions. 'On March 18, 1982, the.Village Board held a public hearing on a proposed re- development plan in connection with establishing a.Tax Increment Financing District in Deerfield. The Village has until June 16, 1982, to decide on whether to proceed with the District. Tonight's action involves direction to the Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances for establishing the district. If established, the assessed valuations of the properties within the - district would be frozen at the current.levels.. Originally, the Board was considering the sale of $2 million in General Obligation Bonds to acquire property and improvements within the district. BRICKYARD PROPOSALS (Continued) 78' "We have.sinc.e concluded that the Village's financial participation should not exceed $500,000. Accordingly, the Village Board this evening will consider ap- proval of a bond sale date of June 21, 1982, for $500,000 in General Obligation Bonds. Bids would be opened on that date and the Village would be in a position that evening, to award the bond sale." TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Trustee Swanson moved, seconded by Trustee ESTABLISHED - Seidman, that the attorney be instructed to prepare an ordinance establishing a Tax Increment Financing District (shown on exhibit.which was part of the minutes of March 18, 1982 hearing). Ms. Jean Schwaba of High School District.No. 113 inquired whether the reduction of the originally proposed Bond Sale of $2,000,000 to $500,000 would affect the time period for the proposed assessment freeze. Mgr. Franz stated that the re- development plan called for a period ending in,the year 2004, but the Board by ordinance can end the district at any time it sees fit to do so.. Ms. Schwaba also inquired whether a public service building was still planned for Phase III. Mgr. Franz stated that the plans are still intact, and that whether the improve- ment is built or not, the potential is still there. Trustee Ehlers suggested that it might be mutually beneficial if a joint meeting of some Village Board members and members of School. Districts Nos. 109 and 113 could be arranged in order to present more details about the district and afford a question and answer session. Mgr. Franz will make the.appropriate arrangements. The motion to form a Tax Increment Financing District carried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5) NAYS: None (0) Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, to designate June 21, 1982 as the bid opening date_for_the proposed $500,000 bond sale. Motion carried unani- mously. LAND TRADE Village Attorney Stucko explained that two BRICKYARDS PROPERTY different appraisals were made of the re- spective land parcels to be'traded, and each showed the Village property more -valuable than the Flodstrom property.. One appraisal determined that the,Village was entitled to a credit of $218,370; the other showed a credit'of $205,829 due the.Village. He further. explained that Mr. Flodstrom proposed that the differences be evenly divided with a resultant cre- dit of $212,000 due the Village. He added that Mr. Flodstrom would like to pay this amount when an. occupancy permit for. the R -5 area is issued. Attorney Stucko advised, however, that the Village would be better served by "a)getting those monies up front or as early as possible or, b) securing their payment by some such device as-an irrevocable letter of credit which would enable drawing of funds.on a date certain." Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that the attorney be instructed to prepare an agieement for trading brickyard land, and that the closing 'of the land swap transaction be conditioned upon approval of the final development plan for the C -2 and I- 1(west) PUDs and the availability of the proceeds of the bond sale, and to also include the agreements between the Board and the developer with respect to the payment of the cash difference in the appraised values. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, Swanson, York (5)' NAYS:- None (0) REPORTS: Trustee Seidman reported that the Human Relations Commission has spent.$11,000 of its $15,000 and would like to retain the rest in case emergencies occur. The Board instructed Mgr. Franz to .advise them to continue to assess the senior citizen needs, with the,Board still retaining final approval of any expenditures.'beyond.the $11,000. There being no further business to come before.the.Board, upon motion by Trustee Seidman, second by Trustee Ehlers, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Village Clerk Village President