02/18/1985.1/6'
February 18, 1985
The regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Deerfield was called
to order in the Council Chamber of the Village Hall 'on Monddy, February 18, 1985
at 8:04 P.M. by the Mayor. The Clerk called the roll and announced that the follow-
ing were
Present: Bernard Forrest, Mayor
Stephen 0. Jackson
James L. Marovitz
Cynthia J. Marty
Edwin B. Seidman
J. Robert York
Absent: Vernon E. Swanson
and that _a quorum was present and in attendance. Also present were Robert D. Franz,
Village Manager, and James K. Stucko, Village Attorney.
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Jackson, to approve the minutes of the
previous Board meeting with the following correction: Under RTA Grant Agreement,
fifth line, following the word "Trustee" add "Seidman ". Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE WARRANT
W- 85 -02'
Motion carried on the following vote:
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee
Jackson, to approve the bills and payroll,
including transfers and reimbursements.
AYES: JACKSON, MAROVIT7., MARTY, SEIDMAN, YORK (5) NAYS: NONE (0)
TREASURER'S REPORT Finance Director George Valentine stated
that "the Sales Tax Receipts have been down
for the past four months since the State has not picked up tax revenues from the
new business which replaced Montgomery Ward. A check with the State's Revenue
Accounting Office indicated that Spiege.ls, which opened in August, is shown in
quarterly reports as contributing revenue to Deerfield. He felt, however, that
the revenue "may not have yet found its way into the revenuestream ", judging from
past State procedures. K- Mart's Designer Depot and Service Merchandise Mart have
not yet reported revenue for Deerfield. The Department of Revenue will be watch-
ing for their remittances and check to be certain Deerfield is being credited with
their sales taxes.
Mayor Forrest stated he would
rate shortterm demand bonds.
the weekly rates Deerfield is
with the same kind of rating)
Deerfield is getting an almos
for the Village.
like a report on Deerfield's recent issue of variable
He asked Mr. Valentine to track,.on a continuing basis,
getting compared with rates other similar issues (set
are getting in a municipal bond market. At present
t unheard of rate of 4.88%...a considerable savings
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROVISIONS The Plan Commission held a public hearing on
N.W. CORNER CHESTNUT & DFLD.' RD. January 24, 1985 to consider the extension of
PL•AN'.ICOM. REP. /RECOMMENDATION Development Incentive Provisions (DIPs) to
the property on the northwest corner of Deer-
field Road and Chestnut Street. The Plan Commission recommended that DIPs not be
extended to the subject property (5 -0 vote). In addition, they recommended, on a
vote of 5 -0, that DIPs be considered for extension to other areas in light of
the Purpose and Intent Section (Article 12.7.1),and that they not be used in the
manner of spot zoning but as a planning tool in relation to comprehensive planning
for an area.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded.by Trustee Seidman, to accept the Plan Commission
recommendation not to extend DIPs to the subject property.
Much discussion followed. Trustee Marovitz stated he felt that: 1) the Plan Commis-
sion was "dead wrong ", 2) the concept of DIPs is to create better developments than
the zoning ordinance ordinarily requires, and 3) the term "spot zoning" is inappro-
priate. He further stated that the developers of property along the tracks, or any
other property that may be developed in the Village, iiilhis opinion, should be given
the option of getting more from the Village for giving more. He added that consid-
eration of the the subject propert as an isolated site for which the standard zoning
requirements are sufficient and DIPs should not apply is misguided thinking. He
stated that while he felt the subject property was a prime example of where DIPs
would work, he was more interested in having the Plan Commission develop a sliding
scale of trade- offs...extra units for extra amenities (underground parking, extra
landscaping, etc.).
WA
//a
Trustee Seidman asked why the Plan Commission termed the granting of DIPS to the
subject property "spot zoning." Attorney Stucko replied that technically it was
not spot zoning, but since the necessary text amendment would be limited to a
3 -lot area, it-was in fact equivalent to spot zoning.
Mayor Forrest stated he was strongly opposed to Trustee Marovitz's position. "I
really think this cons titutesspot zoning, and that a consideration such as this
would only raise the prices property owners, who.want to develop, will ask for
their property. Price is somewhat determined by how many units can be put on the
property ... the more units a developer can put on property, the more he will pay for
it, and the Village ends up in a detrimental position."
Mayor Forrest went on to say that the Board had originally reviewed the DIPs ordi-
nance and agreed it applied in the downtown business district, but extension to
the subject property would in effect be spot zoning. He asked Mr. Charles Slavis,
Plan Commission member, to comment.
Mr. Slavis stated that the purpose of the DIPs had been to encourage change and
development south of the Commons. He added that the Plan Commission saw nothing
wrong in extending DIPs to areas west of the tracks if the purpose is to change
housing there and redevelop as multi - family or something else. But to apply DIPs
to an individual piece of property after something has already come in and been
approved is not in accord with the purpose of DIPs to encourage redevelopment.
Moreover, the Plan Commission felt DIPs should be applied to an area at least as i
large as an entire block, hence their second recommendation, if the Board wished
to pursue DIPs extension.
Trustee York stated that the subject property was an ideal location for an apart-
ment building and the Village needed more apartments. Mayor Forrest reminded the
Board that the Village had approved a plan for apartments on the site (the maxi-
mum of 22 allowed by ordinance), but the developer had not chosen to develop them
because he feels he can't make enough: profit. He added that additional density
causes problems for the Village facilities which were not designed for such density.
Motion to accept the Plan Commission's recommendation not to extend DIPs to the
subject property failed on the following vote:
AYES: MARTY, SEIDMAN (2) NAYS: JACKSON, MAROVITZ, YORK (3)
Attorney Stucko advised the Board that he will draft an ordinance amending the
Zoning Text to permit DIPs for the subject property. Trustee Marovitz suggested
that the consideration of the ordinance might be tabled to permit'the Plan Com-
mission to hold a public hearing on DIPs for areas designated for multi - housing.
After further discussion, Trustee Marovitz moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman,
that the Board direct the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing on the question
of DIPs to be applied to those properties within the Comprehensive Master Plan
which are designated for multi- family use and such other areas within the Village
,the Plan Commission deems appropriate. Motion carried unanimously.
VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS Mayor Forrest and the Board expressed appre-
TO ZONING ORDINANCE ciation to Mrs. Barbara Ruffino and the Plan
PLAN COMM. REP. /REDOMMENDATION Commission for an excellent job in bringing
the Zoning Ordinance into conformity with
various decisions made by the Board in the past.
Manager Franz reported that several hearingshad been held by the Plan Commission,
the latest on January 24, 085, and had recommended the following revisions:
I. OVERHEAD BANNERS
Recommendation (6 -0 vote):
The text of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so as to restrict overhead
banners to placement on the railroad overpass structure.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz,to approve the recommendation
for Overhead Banners. Motion carried unanimously.
II. ROPING OF INTERMESHED PARKING STALLS
Recommendation (6 -0 vote):
The requirement of roping of intermeshed parking stalls should be eliminated
from the Zoning Ordinance.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee York, to,approve the recom=mendation to
eliminate Roping for Parking Stalls. Motion carried unanimously.
III. LANDSCAPED SCREENING OF PARKING AREAS OF NON- RESIDENTIAL USES
Recommendation (6 -0 vote):
;.The existing provisions should remain except that an addition should: be made so
as.to require screening of dhy`park.ing lot for more than 4 cars when located in
a multi - family residential area.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to approve the recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PARKING REQUIREMENTS
A. REDUCTION IN SIZE OF STALLS
Recommendation (6 -0 vote):
The existing provisions should remain unchanged at this time until
sufficient experience is available with the reduced stall size devel-
opments which the Village has approved.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman,to accept the recommenda-
tion for size of parking stalls. Motion carried unanimously.
B. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
Recommendation (6 -0 vote):
The existing provisions should remain unchanged at this time as they
are part of the mechanism by which the Village controls density.
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Marty, to approve the recom-
mendation. Motion carried unanimously.
C. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF COMPUTING REQUIRED PARKING FOR CERTAIN USERS
Recommendation (6 -0 vote):
The term "clinic" should be deleted and "facility" used in its place.
The existing Zoning Ordinance parking provisions should remain until
the Seifried medical facility on Osterman Avenue is in operation in
order,to determine how the present Ordinance is working.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee York, to accept the recommenda-
tion. Motion carried unanimously.
V. BUILDING HEIGHT AS PART OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION
Recommendation (5 -0 vote):
The PUD portion of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to permit the Plan
Commission to consider height modifications in conjunction with PUD proposals.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to approve the recommendation
regarding building heights for PUDs. Motion carried unanimously.
VI. MEASUREMENT OF BUILDING HEIGHT
Recommendation (5 -0 vote):
The building height definition should be changed so that the first floor fin-
ished floor elevation will be used to determine the "bottom" point of the
height measurement. The first floor finished floor elevation should not be
permitted to be greater than the mean natural grade of the property.. The portion
of the existing definition which is used to determine the "high point" of the
measurement should remain as is.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to table the amendment on
building height definitions for further study. Motion carried unanimously.
VII. I -1 PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES
SPECIAL USES - RETAIL BUSINESS USES
Recommendation (5 -0):
Consideration of inclusion of beauty shops and barbershops tabled
pending submission of additional information regarding the origin of
the clientele likely to utilize those facilities in an office
complex.
Recommendation (continued) - (4 -1 vote):
The existing provisions of 6.1 -3,2 of the Zoning Ordinance should
remain, but the I -1 PUDs of twenty acres or larger, additional re-
tail space may be granted as a Special Use when located within an
office building and operated primarily for the convenience of the tenants of the
buildings in the PUD for the following uses in addition to those uses provided for
in Article 6.1 -3, 2:
a. Automatic teller machine b..Travel Agencies i
c. Newstands /drugstore d.. Florist
e. Photocopy or print shop
The operation of these uses should be limited to the traditional operating hours
of an office building. The maximum amount of floor space which may he granted
for the above uses shall be no more than is deemed reasonable by the Village to
serve the tenants of the building in the PUD.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to accept the Plan Commission's
forthcoming recommendation regarding inclusion of beauty shops and barbershops
and their recommendation regarding expansion of the list of retail business uses
under Special Uses in I -1 PUDs. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. David Ashe, attorney for Matas Corporation, stated that they had requested
the addition of those retail uses recommended by the Plan Commision as well as
a bank which the Plan Commission did not recommend. He stated they were not
looking for a typical bank but rather for a small facility which would accommondate
about 3,000 workers in their development for check cashing, checking accounts, and
possibly small commercial business matters. He requested the Board to include
a bank in the expanded list of uses.
Mayor Forrest asked for Mr. Slavis's comments. Mr. Slavis stated that the Plan
Commission had considered the list of uses prepared by Mrs. Ruffino in light of
What they considered useful.for the development and whether they might relieve
or attract traffic. The bank was not included as it was feared it would attract
traffic. Mayor Forrest stated the Board would accept the Plan Commission's
decision.
Recommendation (Continued) - (5 -0 vote):
The existing provisions regarding Professional Offices and the review
system presently utilized by the Village should be retained as it is.
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz to approve-the Plan Commission
recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
ARBORLAKE TEMPORARY SIGNS Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee
ORDINANCE NO. 0-85-07 Seidman, to waive the rules to permit
passage of the ordinance on first reading.
Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to
pass 'the ordinance authorizing an amendment to the Temporary Signage Plan for
the Arborlake Centre. Motion carried as follows:
AYES: JACKSON, MAROVITZ, MARTY, SEIDMAN, YORK (5) NAYS: NONE (0)
HIGH SCHOOL DRIVE /NORTH TRAILS SUB.
IMPROVEMENTS DISCUSSED
tion begins in the North Trails Sub,
formation as to whether the Village
revert to adjoining property owners
right- of -kway: if a pedestrian walkway
Mayor. Forrest stated that the matter of
improvements to High School Drive needed
to be resolved before street reconstruc-
livision. He noted that the Board had no in-
would,be compensated for land which would
through vacation of part of the present
is constructed in lieu of a full street.
Manager Franz stated that Staff had had meetings with Messrs. Alan Garfield
and Lowell Roseman, the adjoining property owners. They have advised by letter
that they do not feel, vacated land should be purchased by them, though they
would be -willing to contribute $3,200 to improvements. Staff had advised
them, and would so advise the Board, that the Village must be cautious not to
set a precedent of non - payment in vacation of public property. In the past
the Village has required compensation in such instances and should adhere to
that policy in this instance. He stated that the Board has two options, either
of which would be an improvement of the present conditions:
1. Resurface the existing street for approximately $2,000 and fix the fence.
2. Construct a fully landscaped pedestrian walkway and emergency access for
$12,000.
Mayor Forrest asked about the cost to each property owner for acquisition of the
vacated land. Manager Franz Mated that if $1 per square foot (the sale price
of recent public land) was charged, each owner would pay $2,700.
Mr. Roseman stated that the suggestion for improvement.of High School Drive had
been made to approve the appearance of the area and possible discourage loiterers
from the high school which has a smoking problem. He stated that he felt their
f .
offer of $3,200 was an adequate.contribution toward funding a $12,000 pedestrian
walkway. He recognized that the other alternative was, of course, resurfacing
the present street and adding a fence. Asked whether they had a preference, he
replied, "Not really ". He pointed out there was more involved'than just tacking
on additional footage to their property.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding vacated property returning to tax rolls,
maintenance by owners and North Trails Homeowners Assoc. of hedges, fences, etc.
Mr. Garfield stated they had never considered the possibility of acquiring vacated
property; that suggestion had been made by Trustee York. He felt that realign-
ment of backyards by moving present fences, etc. was more than equal to their
offered contribution. Vacated property would expand their yards, go back on the
tax rolls, but was not really useable property.
Mayor Forrest asked what Staff recommended. Manager Franz stated that if the
choice was between the $12,000 pedestrian walkway, with the Village paying
$9,000 as its cost, or resurfacing the present street for $2,000, Staff would
choose the latter. However, if the property owners contributed more, the Board
should look at the total improvement for the pedestrian walkway.
Trustee Jackson wondered whether a more modest plan for a pedestrian walkway
might not be considered. Village Engineer James Soyka stated that the bare essen-
tials would cost $6,083 which included no hedges or fencing. Mr. Roseman stated
that hedges had been considered as an attempt to avert spray painting which occurs
along Waukegan Road fencing. Manager Franz stated there was ,a possibility that
the High School might pay for replacing the gates. After further discussion Staff
was instructed to determine the price of the property which might be vacated and
notify the property owners. The matter will be further discussed at the next
Board meeting.
DEER RUN SUBDIVISION Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz,
LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCED to approve the request of Kennedy Development Corp.
to reduce their letter of credit for'Deer Run Sub-
division. Motion carried on the following vote:
AYES: JACKSON, MAROVITZ, MARTY, SEIDMAN, YORK (5) NAYS: NONE (0)
BANNER - "DFLD. EXPO '85"
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUEST.
Trustee Marovitz moved, secoi
Motion carried, Trustee York
banner for three weeks prior
other request is received.
ENDORSE DCFDA'S
,PARENT PEER GROUP LETTER
The Chamber of Commerce requested permission
to erect a banner advertising " Deerfield
Expo '85" at the railroad underpass,.
Zded by Trustee Marty, that the request be granted.
abstaining. Permission was granted to display the
to April 13 -14, rather than for two weeks, if no
Manager Franz stated that a letter had
been received from the Deerfield Citizens
For Drug Abuse Group explaining their
effort to enlarge parent networks to reinforce mutually agreed upon parenting
tools. They seek major agency approval and endorsement of their concepts by
Schools, Park District; Village Board, etc. so that parents, recognizing the
backing of such agencies, will be encouraged to join the "Instant Parent Peer
Group ".
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Jackson, to approve and endorse the
"Instant Parent Peer Group" program initiated by the Deerfield Citizens for Drug
Abuse. Motion carried unanimously.
AMEND LIQUOR LICENSE ORDINANCE Mayor Forrest stated that a licensee no
ORDINANCE NO. 0 -85 -08 longer wishes a license for this year and
an ordinance reducing the number of licenses
is appropriate.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, to waive the rules to pass the
ordinance on first reading. -Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Marty moved,
seconded by Trustee Seidman, to pass the ordinance reducing the number of liquor
licenses. Motion carried on the following vote:
AYES: JACKSON, MAROVITZ, MARTY, SEIDMAN, YORK (5) NAYS: NONE (0)
I
(� IA°
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF LAND Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee
ALONG DEERFIELD ROAD AT CASTLEWOOD York, to take the necessary steps to acquire
the strip along the north side of Deerfield
Road (20'x342.48') identified as parcels 16 -30- 409 -017 and 018, which extend
east and west of Castlewood Lane, by sending a bid in the amount of $1034 to
Lake County. Motion carried on the following vote:
AYES: JACKSON, MAROVITZ, MARTY, SEIDMAN, YORK (5) NAYS: NONE (0)
Village Attorney Stucko stated that a technical amendment is necessary to correct
an erroneous cross reference in the Zoning Ordinance which occurred when Density
Incentive Provisions for the South of Commons area were enacted in 1981.
Trustee Marovitz moved, seconded by Trustee Marty, to direct the Plan Commission
to hold a.public hearing regarding the text amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
Manager Franz reported that the High School wanted to erect a banner the week of
March 6 advertising their production of the Pirates of Penzance on March 14, 15, 16.
Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee York, to grant permission for the banner.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion by Trustee
Seidman, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
ATTEST:
•� 6M
AP VED:
Mayor