Loading...
12/20/19824. 155 December_20, 1982 The regular meeting`of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield was called to order by the Mayor in the Council Chamber of the.Village Hall on Monday, December. 20, 1982 at 8:03 P.M. The Clerk called the roll and announced that the following were Present: Bernard Forrest, Mayor Marvin W..Ehlers Jerold L. Heisler Cynthia J. Marty r Edwin B. Seidman j. J. Robert Yorl , Absent: Vernon. E. Swanson and that a quorum was present and in attendance. Also.present were Village Manager Robert D. Franz and Village Attorney.Richard V. Houpt. Trustee 'Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, that the minutes of Decem ber. 6, 1982 be accepted as presented. Motion carried :unanimously.: APPROVE WARRANT NO. W- 82 -1'2 Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by.Trustee Sei.dman,.that the bills and payroll, including transfers and reimbursements, be approved. Motion carried on following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisl'er,,Marty, Seidman, York (5)` NAYS: None (0) TREASURER'S REPORT Finance Director Geo..Valentine reported that.sales.tax.receipts continue to increase . and are actually a bit more than anticipated in the budget. He commented that, one could almost track when.the new Cadwell's Corners shopping center.opened up. He went onto say that expenditures, with the exception of those for sewers, are generally within or slightly below budget and that revenues are as anticipated. Mayor Forrest thanked Mr. Valentine for his report.. DRAPER & KRAMER /J. EMIL':ANDERSON Mgr..Franz stated that a Bearing had been LAKE -COOK RD. PROPERTY - S. SIDE held November 4,'1982..to consider the pe- (WEST OF GUN CLUB) tition of Draper & Kramer, contract pur PUD /SPECIAL USE /VARIATIONS chasers of the western ten acres of the J. Emil Anderson property on Lake -Cook Rd.,, for an I -1 /PUD including certain variations of perimeter setbacks,,parking. stall size and roping as well as a Special Use to'allow professional offices (non- medical). The Plan Commission, on a vote of 3 =1, recommended that .the. PUD be approved with the stipulation that an agreement be reached with Tera -.' dyne Central as to the landscape screening between the two properties:- Mr. Wayne Sliwa of Teradyne Central stated. they.had still not reach an agree - ment on landscaping but had an objection to sideyard encroachment for parking,: land-use, and the intensity of the development. He.presented Mr. Bruce Heck- man of Robert Teska Assoc., Urban Planners, who stated that Teradyne Central felt that the Draper & Kramer development would have a negative impact on the value of their property. Mr. Heckman submitted that Teradyne Central had carefully researched Village ordinances and had chosen Deerfield:over other sites in the belief they were locating in a "high quality corporate corridor." He stated that Teradyne had carefully re- designed their parking layout rather.than request variations, since they wished to present a good corporate image to the predominately resi- dential community.. He went on,toIstate, "It is Teradyne's position, quite simply, that the PUD before'you is not designed in a manner consistent with the objectives 'and intents of your ordinances and is merely a site plan using the PUD in order to maximize.the development of.the property." He added that while Teradyne had no objection to a 1 -story building, it should be located in such a way.as not to require sideyard parking. He suggested a 2 -story building might solve the problem. Mr. Sliwa stated that Teradyne had had one session with Draper and Kramer repre- sentatives whose interest had appeared to be at arriving at a landscape plan for their common property line. Mr. Sliwa didn't consider landscaping to be the,-,, true issue and preferred to have_.Draper & Kramer reconsider zoning ordinance regUIrements. 156 4. Mr. Marshall Moretta of Moretta,and Sheehy, Architects, stated that he had assisted Teradyne and had been charged to develop a corporate .facility . plan- compatible with what they considered the corporate headquarters area which . they felt should be strengthened. Mr. Richard Ungaretti, Attorney for Draper & Kramer, stated tk#t they had -started working with the Plan Commission many months ago and had furnished testimony and evidence by a land planner,.architect.engineer, landscape archi- tect and traffic engineer. He added that not once did Teradyne appear and offer any opposition other than "we're.not sure we like the plan." He sub- mitted that the Plan Commission, after hearing testimony and considering evidence, had made findings quite contrary.to Mr. Sliwa's statements. He pointed out that the Plan Commission found that the development would not impair the value of the surrounding.properties and found it compatible with. the community. He noted that the Plan Commission had approved all that had been requested and had even reduced the size on some parking stalls in.order to provide for additional parking, and had left only one issue open...land- caping the common border under some mutual agreement with Teradyne. "However'; . he continued, "when we met with Teradyne after being put off for several weeks, and after all our hearings before. the Plan Commission, Teradyne told us that we weren't designing a project. that fit into this industrial area." Mr. Steve Lenet of Levitt, Matheson, and.Lenet, Architects, Landscape Archi- tects, and Planners, stated that he had reviewed•Deerfield's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance as well as the trend of development along the Lake- Cook corridor with the goal of developing a marketable project with no im- pact on residential uses to the north-and one which would blend with other, developments in the 60 -65 acre area. He stated that decision was''made to develop with: 1) a 1- story. 14 ft. high.; office complex with laipdscaped in- terior courtyards, 2) heavy " berming -(two) along Lake -Co(bk Rd..,and heavy . landscaping to be significantly below the scale and site level. `of the homes north of Lake -Cook Rd., 3) heavy perimeter plantings,and 4) parking within 40 -64 feet of each office entrance. He stated that the Teradyne building is. 2.25 feet from the closest proposed parking stall and 300 feet from. the proposed building. He noted that Draper & Kramer's parking is farther from Teradyne's building than its own parking. Mr. Bernie Jacobs, Jacobs & Ryan Architects, described. the project as a very low building with a parapet (screening roof equipment). in a campus7;like setting, with gradual berming up to the windows permitting only about 9-feet of the building to be visible from the ground. He added that the proposed land- scaping outlay is twice as much as is usually spent, and that the trees would be expensive and large... instant impact plantings. Mr. Sliwa stated that the east side of the Teradyne building was preserved specifically for their employees with an attractive lake- like.retention basin. He said their primary concern is.that the property line and view point would be vitiated by the proposed sideyard parking and 5 -10 ton roof top.units:,, Mr. Jacobs then displayed sight line drawings showing the. screening proposed and how effective it would be. Mr..Ungaretti stated that they were still. willing to sit down with Teradyne and "make them'as happy as possible with the landscaping ", but that they still continue to talk about the development as a whole. Replying to a.question from Trustee Seidman as to why they can- not conform and delete the sideyard parking, Mr.. Ungaretti replied that in an. Industrial Zone, without the PUD, the .parking conforms. He stated that they_ wished to preserve the campus -like project and keep parking close to entrances. He stated that Draper & Kramer has offered to totally enframe Teradyne's lake with heavy landscaping so that there will be no view across.it whatsoever, He also submitted that a 14 -foot building with the type of berming and land- scaping proposed could not be seen by Teradyne. 1 Trustee Seidman noted that if Draper & Kramer was willing to raise, the berm and block the view of the parking, the major complaint.would be satisfied.., However, Trustee Heisler stated that, with all due respect to Teradyne whom ,he certainly welcomed as.part'of the community, they had.been presenting the argument of "Don't build in our woods ... don't ruin our view:" He added that the owners have the right to develop their property, and it.appears that Tera dyne will, in fact,.be viewing a lot of landscaping and not see the parking lot. He favored the low, single -story proposal and felt the Draper & Kramer develop- ment as outlined was reasonable. He pointed out that the Plan Commission had recommended approval with only the landscaping stipulation, but that now Draper & Kramer are being, asked to justify every aspect of the development. He said that Ile found nothing objectionable about the proposal, aid with the landscaping stipulation, the Board should be able to move ahead and approve the recommendation. 1 1 1 1 1 t57 Trustee York.stated That he did not wish.to vote on the recommendation that evening.as he was not familiar with any Draper & Kramer, developments. He also had reservations about landscape plans and.drawings and their,eventual realities. Trustee Marty pointed out that a developer must comply with landscape plans and drawings or be.denied an.occupancy: permit:? ',"*'.Trustee Ehlers commented.that he,much preferred a 1 -story to a more intrusive 2 -story building. Mr. Sliwa questioned the Board's ability to grant a modification to a'SO -foot perimeter set back. Attorney Houpt advised Mayor Forrest that as in the case of the Stein development, it has been held that the Board may allow modifications to all provisions of the I -1 classification and that the intent of the ordinance is clear. , Thereafter, Trustee Heisler moved, seconded by Trustee Marty, 'to approve the Plan Commission's recommendation subject to a landscaping agreement between the petitioner and Teradyne Central which meets preliminary Board approval. .Motion carried, Trustee York voting Nay. HOME SMOKE�DETECTORS. Captains Thomas Wilson and John Saroka of the URGED BY FIRE DEPT. Deerfield /Bannockburn Fire Department presented the Board with the first set of posters designed for a drive to get citizens to equip their homes and /or buildings with smoke'de- tectors. The-Board expressed its enthusiasm..for the drive and their appreciation of the posters which will be displayed in the Village Hall and the Police Station. BRICKYARDS - PUD /R -5 Mr. Alan.Stefaniak stated that the Plan Commis- LIFE-CARE FACILITY AMENDMENT sion had held, a public.hearing on October 28 PLAN COMM. REPORT /RECOMM. (continued.to.November 4) to consider'.the re- quest to amend the previously approved prelimi- nary plan of development for the northern portion of the..R -5 /PUD in,the Brick- yards to permit a R -5 /PUD and Special Use for Senior Citizen Housing. The Plan Commission due to lack of a'majority. vote (2.t0'2) recommended a denial, of the, petition. He stated that he understood that the two votes against the project' were due to failure to submit a'marke't study and lack.of,a definitely committed sponsor. .He added that a'market analysis had been since submitted and there have been discussions with.sponsors. He noted that discussions with sponsors had.`raised.another point, a suggested change in the health care units themselves. Whereas the original plans called for small care facilities in each of the four buildings, 'totaling about 8,318 square feet, potential sponsors have requested that those care unit facilities be centralized with 21,000 sq. feet, about 72,beds,.devot�d to4hat type of use on the fourth floor wing of one building. Such a change would not be in excess of the 35 7foot height limitation and 20 additional parking spaces can be'ac- commodated Mr. James Pollensbee, Planner, stated that since 'a marketing study has-been' made, and sponsors have been interviewed and changes suggested, they should be, .permitted to return to the Plan Commission for the presentation of that' additional information. Mayor Forrest stated that.he personally favored .sending the matter back to the Plan Commission but asked Attorney Houpt whether.the changes were substantial. enough to require another hearing. Mr.. Houpt.replied that the original legal notice did not indicate a nursing facility of the new size, and that a fourth-..' floor addition significantly.changes the building plans, and he felt.a republi- cation should be required. Ms. Barbara Ruffino, Planner, explained that the.' Plan Commission was presented a plan•for independent living with provisions for tAporary nursing care - during or after an illness, but that residents would re- turn to .independent living. However, if they could not, they must leave. Under the new proposal, a resident becoming incapable of- independent living could live out his life in the nursing facility. Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, that the matter be referred back to the Plan Commission for readvertising as soon,as possible for another,hearing. Trustee York stated that while the latest plans seem an improvement,_'over'those originally submitted, he favored some fixed.plan, since constant changes are-con- fusing. Trustee'Seidman pointed out that he as well as Trustees York and Swanson had stated at the last Board meeting that the study was inadequate. Moreover, a letter had just been received from a Plan Commission member originally favoring the plan who now states that she will not support it unless the study is improved. Hence, a.return to the Plan Commission calls for a .better market study analysis. .Mr. Follensbee replied that the feasibility.study presented to the Plan Commission �,ddr.esses the price value comparison between 5 existing life =care facilities -with- in northeastern Illinois, the only physically existing today,.plus- 3'others•plan 158 ned for the same market area. *There are no other market compaiables to address. He informed the Board there are two.potential sponsors in an ongoing dialogue, one the Glenkirk Foundation. He stated that while he could not reveal the name of the other.potential sponsor, they seem sufficiently interested as to contem- plate building the entire project. He stated.,. "I will be more than happy to bring in these marketing experts to address the issue regarding price value absorption aspects." Motion to refer the matter back to thOlan Commission carried unanimously.. The Board recessed at'9:57 and reconvened at 10:05 P.M., all members present and in attendance. FLOOD STUDIES Mayor.Forrest stated that: l) the status.of STATUS REPORT Deerfield regarding the Disaster Declaration . was not,known, 2) funds for cleaning of the Drainage Ditch will be supplied by execution of a loan agreement that evening between the Drainage District and the Village of Deerfield, 3) letters have . been sent to elected officials to get a clarification on efforts for acquiring the Bannockburn site for a retention basin after hearing conflicting opinions on funding, 4) a letter has been sent to Mr. ,Ted Anderson, Engineer, for in- formation on the organizational structure-of the Middle Fork creek, and . Commonwealth Edison's refusal to relocate transformers.that'are under water when the creek floods thereby resulting in loss of electrical power to homes,'.' 5) the Flood Advisory Committee will meet January 3 a 7:30 P '.M. in the Village Hall, 6) a floodproofing seminar at Chevy Chase Country Club was attended by 15 Deerfield residents, 7) Staff continues to study questions and suggestions for improvements in storm drainage, and 8).a discouraging report hat funding is being dropped for study by the Army Corps of.Engineers of �he retention basin -is being countered by contacting legislators. to encourage ongoing funding.for the study. CONSENT.AGENDA PARKING PROHIBITION WARWICK RD. (N. SIDE) ORDINANCE NO. 0 -82 -60 Ordinance prohibiting parking on the.north side of Warwick,Road from Waukegan Road east- ward to Warwick Ct. Mgr. Franz reported that all area residents had been.notified.. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, Motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler; Marty, Seidman, York. (5) NAYS: None (0) to adopt the Consent Agenda. 1 The\Mayor signed the ordinance indicating his approval.thereof. IBM PERSONAL COMPUTER Mgr. Franz stated that questions were.raised at AUTHORIZE PURCHASE the last Board meeting about compatibility-of the IBM Personal Computer system with various pieces of equipment. A check indicates that the equipment is compatible with:' a number of other systems. Other Board concerns had been ,about,'the-"training, avail -. able and software in the use of the computer as well as the back -up service. In- vestigation of vendors, led Staff to recommend further negotiations with Com - puterland of Lake County with the Board setting a maximum of $6,677 as the limit , within which to operate. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, that the IBM.Personal Com- puter be purchased at a.cost not to exceed $6,677. Motion carried on the follow - ing vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York (5) NAYS: None (0) CHI -CHI'S RESTAURANT Mr. Chas. Hug, Attorney with Carlson & Hug, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS bond counsel for the.issue of Industrial Revenue. ORDINANCE NO. 0 -82 -61 Bonds to Chi -Chi's Restaurant, asked that the ordinance be approved:at first reading. He stated that it was important to Chi -Chi's that the bond issue be closed before the end of the year due to certain changes in tax laws effective January 1, 1983. . After examination and approval by Vil. Att'y. Houpt and Bond Counsel for the Village,Ron Norene,of certain language changes in the ordinance (which they had requested), Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, that the rules be waived to permit passage of.the ordinance at first reading. Motion'carried unall i.mously. 1 Trustee Seidman.moved, seconded by Trustee Heisler, that the ordinance for issuance of Industrial;,Revenue Bonds for-Chi-Chi's Restaurant, be passed. Motion carried .on following.vote'; AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Seidman, York - (4),.,.:" NAYS., Marty._ (1) 159 CLAVINIA RESUB 415.(VALENTI).:' Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee LETTER OF CREDIT EXTENSION Ehlers, to grant an extension.of a Letter of Credit for Valenti Resubdivision, Clavi- nia 415. Motion carried unanimously. $500,000 CORPORATE PURPOSE.BOND Mayor.Forrest stated, "For the past several AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE months we have been considering capital pro ORDINANCE N U-82-62 jects-including street and utility improve - ments.... Recently, the Village Staff.completed a very thorough survey of all Village streets which concluded.-that approximately 25% of our streets need immediate attention. Throughout all our discussions on street improvements, we have been acutely aware of the localized storm and sanitary sewer pro- blems within the community. This coupled. with.the floods of July 22 and Decem- ber 2 caused us to reevaluate our capital.improvements program to give speci- fic emphasis to resolving.flooding problems in Deerfield. I propose that $500,000 in general obligation bonds be issued'.and,that the money be allocated as follows: Loan to Union Drainage District 411 for cleaning West Fork ditch.:...$175 ,,000 Legal and administrative fees in working with the Drainage'District to resolve current litigation and develop proper.tax assessment procedures... ............. .. .......25,000 Investigation of storm and sanitary sewer problems and-.pre- design engineering for related improvements.......... .................. .150,000 Implement Street Rehabilitation Program....... ...... ".100,000. * * - -See bottom of page While a large amount of this bond issue is committed to field work'.and investi- gation, it is nevertheless necessary if we are to determine.the extent of im- provements'needed to correct our storm and sanitary sewer.problems....Wherever possible this money will be used to correct problems.that/ ban be'�addr,essed by , our Public Works Department .... Consultants' services, hAwever,...in'.the'long run, save money in addressing these storm and sanitary sewer problems ... Flood- ing this past' year by no means mitigates the fact that our streets are in need of repair. That is why.I strongly recommend that a portion of the bond issue be used to begin the street rehabilitation program.... This is, for.the most part,.a general program at this point subject to alterations as we proceed." Trustee Marty moved, seconded by.Trustee Seidman, that the rules be waived to permit passage of the ordinance on first reading.. Motion passed..unanimously. Mr. Ron Norene, Bond Counsel who was at the bond opening representing.the Village,-reported that the Village's rating was reconfirmed at AA..'He stated that 6 bids were received with the best bid from American•Fletcher National Bank, Indianapolis, at 8.091% net interest rate. He commented that Deerfield.. "did very.well "...selling at 200 basis points less than average. Thereafter, Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Ehlers, that $500,000 Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 1982 -A, be awarded to American Fletcher National. Bank, Indianopolis, at a.net interest rate of 8.091 %. Motion carried'on follow- ing vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidraan, York -(5). NAYS.: None (0) UNION DRAINAGE DISTRICT 411 Following a short discussion with Drainage LOAN AGREEMENT District.Commissioner David Lacey about plans AUTHORIZE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE to appear in court to get confirmation of an assessment and the Village's intent to pro vide legal assistance if necessary, Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, to authorize the Mayor to sign a loan agreement.with Union Drainage District 411 with the interest rate set'at.8.09 %. Motion carried on the follow- ing vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York (5) NAYS: None (0) * *. Personnel and material costs for field work and utility improvements through- out the community.... .$50.,000, �- /` 1.60 ABATE 1982 TAX LEVY Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee ORDINANCE NO. 0 -82 -63 Heisler, that the rules be waived to permit passage of the ordinance on first reading. Motion carried unanimously. Finance Director Geo. Valentine explained that the need for abatement of taxes is due to.the fact that the County has been made aware, (many years in-advance) of the need for levies....typical of various debt service areas where monies for bonds are levied.automatically. When money.from.other sources become avail- able, levies can be stopped.by Board, action. Trustee Marty moved., seconded by Trustee Seidman,. to pass the ordinance.abating the Tax Levy of 1982 in the total amount of $246,084. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York (5) NAYS: None ..(0) DRIVEWAY CONNECTION AGREEMENT Mgr. Franz stated *that'while the owners of DEERBROOK /LAKE -COOK PLAZA Deerbrook and Lake -Cook Plaza were not yet in AUTHORIZE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE complete agreement regarding terms of the Driveway Connection Agreement, if the Mayor, signs it, subject to the other parties signing, action can go forward. He was of the opinion that the Village should not amend the agreement to permit unilateral action on the part of either property owner to close.the connection. Trustee Heisler concurred. Trustee Seidman noted that as the connection area was considered a fire lane, drive- through traffic is not illegal.',. Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, to authorize the Mayor to.sign the agreement regarding a driveway connection between Deerbrook and Lake -Cook Plaza, subject to execution by the other parties, Salvatore Buccola and Joseph Valenti. Motion carried unanimously. ELEVATOR INSPECTION FEES First reading of ordinance to increase semi- INCREASED TO $30 annual elevator inspection fees to $30. POLICE CARS (UNMARKED) Trustee Seidman moved,. seconded by Trustee AUTHORIZE PURCHASE Heisler, to authorize purchase from Schaum- burg Dodge,..under the State Purchasing Con - tract', two Dodge Diplomates at a price not to exceed $8,249 each. Motion carried'on following vote: AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York (5) NAYS: None (0) Trustee York stated that with the budget preparations about to�bdgin,,he favored. g P P ?� every effort being made to eliminate as much expense as possible and -the pre- paration of a "bare bones budget." There being no further business to come before the Board, Mayor Forrest adjourned the meeting at 10:55 P.M. i le