Loading...
10/07/1985October 7, 1985 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, October 7, 1985, at 8:00 P.M. The Clerk called the roll and announced the following were Present: Bernard Forrest, Mayor James L. Marovitz Cynthia J. Marty Harriet E. Rosenthal Edwin B. Seidman Vernon E. Swanson J. Robert York and that a quorum was present and in attendance. Also present were Village Manager Robert D. Franz and Village Attorney James K. Stucko. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VILLAGE CENTER PLANNING FIRMS VCDC REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION tact and set up interviews wit their qualifications in aiding in Deerfield's Village Center. The Village Center Development Commission (VCDC) submitted their recommendation that the Village Planner be authorized to con - z the VCDC and various planning firms regarding the Village in preparing a proposal for development Members of the VCDC were present. Discussion followed with Trustee Swanson favoring a check in depth with clients of the planning firms before interviewing them. He felt that the Village should work with surveys to establish goals and objectives before interviewing planning firms. He stated, "I think we can do most of the work ourselves. I think one of the best plans we've ever had was done by a volunteer, Don Wines, an architect and former Plan Commissioner." Trustee Marovitz commented that Mr. Wines was unusual, had more than architectural skill, and had planning expertise. Thus, he did not entirely agree with Trustee Swanson's position on the Village's "doing our own home- work." He felt it might be wise to consult planning firms before establishing goals and objectives. Mrs. Barbara Houpt, Village Planner, will make a search for the Wines report. Trustee Marovitz moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, to accept the recommendation of the Village Center Development Commission. Motion carried unanimously. SCHORSCH DEVELOPMENT A public hearing was held August 22, 1985 SW COR. DFLD. /WILMOT ROADS to consider the petition of Schorsch Devel- PLAN. COMM. REP. /RECOMM. opment Corportion for rezoning and resubdi- vision of property located at the southwest corner of Deerfield and Wilmot Roads. On a vote of 5 -0, the Plan Commission recom- mended that the northern Outlot (411) be rezoned to R -3 and resubdivided as proposed under the alternative scheme (all three lots over 12,000 square feet in size), that the setbacks as depicted on the plat be approved and that the rezoning and resub= division of the southern Outlot (412) be denied. It also recommended that ingress .and egress from the two outlots be restricted to Marcie Court as the other lots on Marcie Court are, and sidewalks should be provided in accordance with the Village Subdivision Code. Trustee Rosenthal moved, seconded by Trustee Marovitz, to accept the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Mr. Albert Schorsch, Financial Officer of the Schorsch Development Corporation, stated that he had withdrawn his proposal for Outlot 412. He went on to say that although he had originally petitioned for R -3 zoning (9,000 square foot lots), at the request of the Plan Commission he had submitted an alternative scheme. His revised layout was for three lots all over 12,000 square feet which actually met the higher R -2 zoning requirements. Mrs. Barbara Houpt stated that the alternative scheme met every requirement of R -2 zoning. While Attorney Stucko stated that R -2 characteristics could be maintained under a R -3 zoning classification by drafting the ordinance to require development in accord with the plat of subdivision which depicted lot sizes, set backs, etc. Trustee.Marovitz and Trustee Swanson . as well as Mayor Forrest favored actual re- zoning to R -2 instead of R -3. Trustee Marovitz moved, seconded by Trustee Seidman, to amend the original motion to rezone Outlot 411 to R -2. Motion carried unanimously. /9 The original motion as amended carried unanimously. FRANKEN /LOCUST PROPERTY A public hearing was held August 22, 1985 to FORMERLY POTTENGER PROPERTY consider the petition of Metropolitan Re- METROPOLITAN RESOURCE GROUP source Group for rezoning the former Potten- PLAN COMM. REP. /RECOMM. ger property at Franken and Locust Streets from R -3 to R -4 (single and two - family dis- trict), resubdivision into six lots, and certain variations. Upon a vote of 3 -2 the Plan- Commission recommended that the petition be denied. Two letters in sup- port of the petition were received from Ronald Schaefer, 413 Locust and Mary and George Schultz of 434 Locust. A petition containing 42 names was received in op- position to the development. Mr. Lawrence B. Rosser, President of Metropolitan Resource Group, appeared before the Board to appeal the Plan Commission's negative recommendation. At Mr. Rosser's request, a letter from his attorney, David L. Goldstein of Jacob & Lawrence S. Bloom, addressed to Mayor Forrest, as well as a list of persons comprising the development team are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Rosser submitted that surveying the community, they had concluded that a well designed, 2- bedroom townhouse development that "read" architecturally like single family homes would fill a housing need. They had held several meetings in the immediate neighborhood to assess community sentiment, and where concern had been expressed about a specific aspect of the development, the site plans were redesigned to remove.the potential problem. He stated he felt they had shown will- ingness to work withineighbors and Village Staff to create a successful develop- ment and were surprised by the Plan Commission's conclusion that the development would constitute "spot zoning ". He then introduced expert planning and zoning witness, Rolf Campbell, President of Rolf C. Campbell and Associates. Mr. Campbell stated that he had been brought into the picture after the Plan Commi- sion had acted... an unusual position for a planner to be in. To determine whether he could, with integrity, come before the Board of Trustees and support the pro- posal, he had met with Mr. Rosser and his professionals to ascertain what steps had been taken in arriving at their conclusions. He submitted that in his opinion they had done more than is normally expected of a developer when they had conferred with neighbors and modified site plans in accord with their wishes. After viewing the records, he had made an on -site examination to determine if the proposal was proper in that location and compatible with the neighborhood. He found it a "problem site, a left -over parcel of ground, with a school to the west, single family to the north, two single family lots on the east adjoining multifamily, and a few single family houses on the south abutting the brickyards property. He stated that the proposed clustered homes would function as single family homes with about six units per acre. He went on to say that whether termed "town house ", "duplex" or "attached single family" they would be more compatible with the area's single family homes than the multifamily complex just to the east. He stated that in his judgment, the key word is "compatibility" and that the proposed homes were fully compatible with single family homes and were, therefore, proper in that location. He added that compatible uses do not constitute "spot zoning ", and that "spot zoning" is a catchall term used to designate something undesirable. He stated that he had no hesitancy whatsoever in coming before the Board and recom- mending the proposal as a proper use of the property. "The residential use is needed. It will eliminate a problem property and allow a single family use in har- mony with that Area." Trustee Marty stated that she felt the proposed development was a very good use for that piece of property and was superior to the single family proposal pre' =, viously submitted for Board consideration. Trustee York agreed with Trustee Marty. For him, the proximity of the Village garage, the brickyards property, as well as the multiple family complex led him to favor the proposal. Trustee Marovitz discussed with Mr. Campbell the fact that in R -3 districts, the present ordinances do not permit clustered housing which Mr. Campbell feels are the best use of the property. He also pointed out that though Mr. Campbell, as a planner, feels that compatible use is not "spot zoning ", courts define "spot zoning" differently. Mr. Campbell acknowledged this, but added that there are many factors in courts' definition of "spot zoning." Mr. Raschman, member of the Metropolitan Group, stated he wished it to be under- stood that there are.seventy housing units in the Deerfield Crossings complex which is one -half block from the site in question. Mr. Mark Blumenthal of 849 Brookside stated that the majority of the neighbors surrounding the proposed development were not in favor of R -4 zoning. He cited the petition of forty -two signatures opposing rezoning. He stated that R -3 7 L] /O� zoning abutted the site on all sides, and that the school is simply a use permitted in all residential districts. He feared R -4 units might become rental units, and that the R -4 zoning might spread. 'It was pointed out that the two lots to the east are the only.vacant property left..,Mrs. Joel Levin of 843 Brookside and Mrs. Patri- cia DeCorrevant of 502 Elm Street concurred with Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Michael Schwartz, Plan Commission member, stated that the Plan Commission had wrestled with the matter. They recognized the good effort of the petitioner, and the vote had been close. But, to grant R -4 zoning to a site bounded on all sides by R -3 zoning would violate existing zoning ordinances and the tenets of the plan. Trustee Rosenthal, former Plan Commission member, agreed. Mayor Forrest pointed out that the Board had never granted a multiple family use on the property zoned R -3 lying to the east. The multiple family complex had been allowed by court order. Thereafter, Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Swanson, to accept the Plan Commission's recommendation to deny the petition for R -4 zoning. Motion carried as follows: AYES: MAROVITZ, ROSENTHAL, SEIDMAN, SWANSON (4) NAYS: MARTY, YORK (2) The Board recessed at 9:20 P.M. and reconvened at 9:25 P.M., all members being present and in attendance. SOIL TESTING /LINCOLN PROPERTY The Plan Commission recommended approval of PFINGSTEN & LAKE -COOK ROADS the Final Development Plan (A or B) for the FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Soil Testing /Lincoln Property. It also PLAN COMM. REP. /RECOMM. recommended that if the developer should ever decide to build a parking structure it should be required to return to the Village for approval of the structure. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee Marty, to approve the Final Development Plan for the Soil Testing /Lincoln Development and that the appropriate ordinance be prepared. Motion carried with Trustee Rosenthal dissenting and Trustee Marovitz abstaining due to possible conflict of interests. MATAS DEVELOPMENT Village Manager Robert Franz reported that ORDINANCE 0 -84 -64 CORRECTED Ordinance 0- 84 -64, granting a height varia- RE: BUILDING HEIGHT tion for the Matas Development, inadvertently specified the height of 52 feet including rather than excluding a mechanical penthouse. Due to the urgency in Matas' con- tinuing development, corrections of the minutes of the Board of Trustees for Decem- ber 17, 1984 and Ordinance 0 -84 -64 were made on September 27. 1985, siened by the Mayor and Clerk and certified by the Clerk. Board confirmation and ratification was being sought. Trustee Marovitz moved, seconded by Trustee Marty, to confirm and ratify the cor- rection of the Board minutes for December 17, 1984 and Ordinance No. 0- 84 -64. Motion.carried unanimously. INCREASE NUMBER OF Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee York, to' CLASS "C" LIQUOR LICENSES increase the number of Class "C" Liquor Licenses ORDINANCE NO. 0 -85 -44 from two to three. Motion carried on following vote: AYES: MAROVITZ, MARTY, ROSENTHAL, SEIDMAN, SWANSON, YORK (6) NAYS: NONE (0) STARWOOD BUILDERS, INC. Mr. Rolf Campbell of Rolf Campbell & Asso- EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAINAGE ciates, representing Starwood Builders, was present to discuss obtaining an easement across Deerfield property which they need for their proposed development in High- land Park. Deerfield owns 1.48 acres located in the flood plain east of the Middle Fork Creek. Discussion was had as to the advisability of granting such an easement and the liability which might be incurred. Trustee Swanson felt the flood plain acreage, which is actually in Highland Park, should be sold at a reasonable cost to Stan- wood Builders. Mr. Campbell will get an appraisal of the property. Mr. Sheldon Berke, the developer, stated that he was most anxious to have the matter resolved at the next Board meeting. VIADUCT BANNER REQUEST The College of Lake County requested per - COLLEGE OF LAKE COUNTY mission for a banner at the railroad via- duct from November 25 to December 9, 1985 to announce College of Lake County registrations. Discussion was had as to whether permits for banners should be restricted to local organizations. 183 While some felt the privilege should not be extended beyond Village organizations, others felt the request was legitimate as the College does serve Deerfield resi- dents. Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trustee York, to grant the College's banner request. Motion carried as follows: AYES: ROSENTHAL, SEIDMAN, YORK, FORREST (4) NAYS: MAROVITZ, MARTY, SWANSON (3) TEXT AMENDMENT HEARING Trustee Marty moved, seconded by Trustee PLAN COMMISSION REQUEST Marovitz, to approve a request from the Plan Commission to hold public hearings to consider text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Board of Trustees, upon motion by Trustee Marovitz and second by Trustee Rosenthal, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. ATTEST: VILLAGE CLE F___, r LAWRENCE S. BLOOM JACOB BLOOM RUTH S. GEIS f i LAW OFFICES OF JACOB AND LA`VRENCE S. BLOOM 35 EAST WACKER DRIVE - SUITE 1750 CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60601 September 3, 1985 Honorable Bernard Forrest, President Board of Trustees Village of Deerfield Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Attn: Mr. Robert Franz Re: Proposed Jordyn Subdivision Franken at Locust Deerfield, Illinois Dear Mr. Forrest: TELEPHONE (312) 236.1 896 Our firm represents Metropolitan Resources Group, Inc., of Wilmette, Illinois, the petitioner in the above - captioned matter. Our client appeared before the Village Plan Com- mission for consideration of its petition for subdivision and rezoning on August 22, 1985. At that meeting, by a vote of 3 -2, the Commission voted to deny the petition. My client has been advised that the Village Board will consider the recommendation of the Plan Commission at its regular meeting on October 7, 1985. We hereby respectfully request that members of the Board consider the following facts with respect to this matter: 1. Site Plan. The proposed site plan (copy attached for your information) was developed by our client after extensive consultations with neighbors from the area immediately surrounding the site and Village staff. Before our client's petition was submitted to the Plan Commission, the plan for the subject site had received the approval of the neighbors. As evidence of their support, a number of neighbors attended the public hearing and spoke in favor of the plan, and at least one neighboring owner who could not attend wrote in support of the proposal. None of those who attended opposed the petition. Honorable Bernard Forrest September 3, 1985 Page 2 r Furthermore, all five of the Commissioners present expressed considerable appreciation for various aspects of the plan, including its symmetry, preservation of open space, the use of clustering to make the townhomes more affordable, its atten- tion to the preservation of natural site features such as a number of mature trees, and its potential to provide additional numbers of a badly needed housing type (townhouses) for the Village. 2. Density. The zoning change requested in our client's application is from the present R -3 classification to R -4. The rationale for the request is twofold: the lack of any provision under R -3 for "culstering "; and the ability to increase slightly the density permitted from ten units (under R -3) to twelve units. The ability to cluster units in groups of two is crucial to our client's achieving the goals of pre- serving the maximum amount of useable open space, providing a symmetrical site plan that well serves both potential owners and neighbors, and making the housing affordable to young families and empty nesters. The request to increase the density from the ten units permitted under R -3 to twelve is based on the fact that the western edge of the property borders a large school site with substantial open I space. From a planning perspective, the two additional units can be considered as a bonus for abutting this open space, and therefore, as being "spread" over the school site. In addition, these additional two units are important, because they make the project economically feasible. 3. Transition Use. The three members who voted against the petition voiced the concern that our client's request did not conform to their understanding that R -4 zoning only be used to separate R -3 classifi- cations from adjacent and more intensive uses. Our client's rejoinder that the school use immediately to the western edge of the site represents a more intense use was rejected. After reviewing the facts, we feel that our client's claim is justified, particularly consider- ing that a small portion of the Shepard School is leased to-the for - profit Capital Cities Communications, Inc., thereby lending credence to our claim that Honorable Bernard Forrest September 3, 1985 Page 3 we abut a more intensive, non - residential use. 4. Precedent. Obviously, decisions about zoning are not made in a vacuum. Such decisions are made more difficult for public officials by their concern that a particular case will become a pre- cedent. Our client's petition does not seem, on its face, to create such a problem for the Village for the following reasons. Oursite abuts a non - residential use with sub- stantial attendant open space. The petition comes to the Board with the approval of the neigh- bors. The neighborhood already has (in close proximity to our site) a more intense, multi - family use, namely, Deerfield Crossings. For these reasons, not only does our petition not constitute "spot zoning" (as charged by a majority of the Plan Commission), but it also does not seem to lend itself to being used by other developers as a negative precedent against the Village's legitimate attempts to maintain com- patible land uses within its neighborhoods. 5. Village Benefits. In weighing a decision, the Board is asked to consider the overriding benefits that will accrue to the Village as a result of our client's petition being granted. These benefits include the following. a. Avoiding the economic inefficiencies and design problems associated with developing the site under the constraints of R -3. b. Achieving greater utilization of existing in- frastructure that adjoins the site. C. Creating better pedestrian access to the school by virtue of the sidewalk and parkway improvements planned by the developer. d. Increasing substantially the tax base of the Village and its associated taxing bodies not only above the taxes paid on the raw land, but also above the taxes that would be paid by the number of dwelling units previously approved. I Honorable September Page 4 Bernard Forrest 3, 1985 e. Increasing the population of pre - school and elementary children at a time when the Deerfield school census is declining. f. Providing housing that is targeted to the two groups least likely to move to or remain in the Village: namely, young families and "empty nesters." g. Insuring that the entire development will continue to have high standards of uniform exterior maintenance (buildings and grounds) due to the fact that the legal organization will be condominium rather than individual fee simple townhouses. (This is particu- larly important to the neighbors since in recent years some of them have become con- cerned about the lack of attention to "housekeeping" on the site.) h. Providing for the preservation of many of the mature trees on this former nursery site due to the siting of proposed struc- tures. i. Providing for adequate off - street parking for residents (2:1 ratio) with one garage and one open space per unit plus the availability of guest parking in the drive- ways and on one side of the two -way privately maintained access roads. z j. Creating substantial set -backs and pleasant site lines due to the better utilization of the entire site under the current pro- posal. k. Demonstrating to other developers that a cooperative planning process that involves the neighbors will be viewed favorably by the Village. These facts would seem to obviate the Plan Commission's finding that our client's petition constitutes "spot zoning" and should therefore be denied. The site in question with the intended use presented in the petition seems to conform to the requirements of the Village as surely as other "transitional" sites recognized in the Village's Comprehensive Plan. 1 Honorable Bernard Forrest September 3, 1985 Page 5 This assertion, along with the support of the immediately adjacent neighbors, and the substantial benefits that the Village will derive constitute compelling reasons for the Village Board to exercise its authority to reject the findings of the Plan Commission, and to vote approval of our client's petition at its meeting on October 7, 1985. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this matter, and look forward to your favorable decision. DLG:jrp Very truly yours, JACOB & LAWRENCE S. BLOOM By David L. Goldstein II a DEVELOPMENT TEAM REZONING AND RESUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF FRANFEN AND WEST OF ELM (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE POTTINGER PROPERTY) APPEARING BEFORE THE DEERFIELD, ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OCTOBER 7, 1985 DEVELOPER /SUBDIVIDER Lawrence B. Rosser, President Metropolitan Resources Group, Inc. Wilmette, Illinois ARCHITECT James E. Gallagher Daniel P. Coffey & Associates Chicago, Illinois PLANNING /ZONING CONSULTANT Rolf C. Campbell Rolf C. Campbell & Associates LaE::e Bluff, Illinois CIVIL ENGINEER /TRAFFIC CONSULTANT Richard A. Miller Richard A. Miller & Associates, Inc. Chicago, Illinois MARKET ANALYSIS John Urubek Realty Value Consultants Berwyn, Illinois COUNSEL David L. Goldstein Jacob & Lawrence Bloom Chicago, Illinois Metropolitan Resources Group Inc. 245 Greenleaf Wilmette, Illinois 60091 (312) 256 -6507