December 03, 2013

1. Call to Order

Mayor Martin Tully called the regular meeting of the Village Council of the Village of Downers Grove to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Downers Grove Village Hall.

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

Mayor Tully led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

2. Roll Call

Present: Commissioner Bob Barnett, Commissioner Sean P. Durkin, Commissioner Becky Rheintgen, Commissioner Geoff Neustadt, Commissioner Greg Hosé, Commissioner David S. Olsen and Mayor Martin Tully  Non Voting: Village Manager David Fieldman, Village Attorney Enza Petrarca and Village Clerk April Holden  T he Council meeting is broadcast over the local FM radio station, WDGC.  In addition, a tape recording and videotape of the meeting are being made using Village owned equipment.  The videotape of the meeting will be used for later rebroadcast of the Council meeting over the Village cable television Channel 6.

The Council will follow the rules of conduct for this meeting as provided in Sec. 2.5 of the Downers Grove Municipal Code.  These offer the public the opportunity to comment at several points in the meeting.  First, immediately following approval of the minutes of the past meetings, an opportunity will be given for public comments and questions of a general matter.  If a public hearing is scheduled for this meeting, an opportunity is given for public comments and questions related to the subject of the hearing.  Finally, an opportunity is given for public comments and questions on items appearing on the Consent Agenda, the Active Agenda and the First Reading.

The presiding officer will ask, at the appropriate time, if there are any comments from the public.  If anyone wishes to speak, the individual should raise their hand to be recognized and, after acknowledgment from the presiding officer, approach the microphone and state their name and address.  Remarks should be limited to five minutes, and asked that individuals refrain from making repetitive statements.

Mayor Tully said there are agendas located on either side of the Council Chambers, and he invited the audience to pick up an agenda and follow the progress of the Council meeting.

3. Minutes of Council Meetings

Council Meeting - November 19, 2013 M ayor Tully asked for a Motion to approve the minutes as submitted.

Commissioner Neustadt moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Commissioner Durkin seconded the motion.

The Mayor declared the Motion carried by voice vote.

4. Public Comments - General Comments on Matters Not Appearing on Tonight's Agenda

Mike Ryan, 1927 Bending Oaks Court, spoke regarding the structure of the stormwater fee.  He is the Parish Administrator of St. Mary of Gostyn Church, and has been a resident of the Village for over 30 years.  He has a background in finance, and is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the budget for the parish. He thanked the Council members for their willingness to hear general comments on various topics.

Mr. Ryan said churches are a key component and element in the community and this fee impacts them as churches stretch each dollar.  The Village has made cuts to social service programs and the churches have gladly filled the gap.  This fee will impact their ministries.  St. Mary's has already paid over $3,900 this year for the stormwater fee.  The perception is that this fee is the easy way out.  Mr. Ryan said Downers Grove is a special community.  He then distributed a summary sheet regarding a study sponsored by the Partners for Sacred Places of the Halo Effect of Historic Houses of Worship.  According to this study, the Partners for Sacred Places projects a public value of St. Mary's at $16,188,219.

Frank Braman, 6560 Hillcrest Road, read an e-mail he sent to Council regarding the leaf waste dump at Hillcrest and Palmer and the debris resulting from dumping yard waste next to his house.  He called the Village and was told a new site will be found, but the yard waste continues to be dumped there.  Each time the contractor drops leaves off, they blow onto his private property.  He asked if this site could be moved to an industrial area.  His yard continues to be filled with leaves.  He hopes a better program is developed next year.

The Mayor said this matter has been referred to staff for follow-up.

Brian Deady, 6508 Hathaway, complimented the Village on the Halloween window paining event.  It was a job well done.

The Mayor thanked Mr. Deady for sharing this information.  He said the Downers Grove Rotary Club and Downtown Management work on this event.

5. Council Member Reports

Commissioner Neustadt reminded everyone that Christmas lights can be recycled at the Public Works Facility, 5101 Walnut.  He also invited the public to participate in the Coat Drive by donating gently used coats at Village Hall or the Police Department through January 13, 2014.

Mayor Tully thanked everyone for their involvement in the annual tree lighting ceremony.  He spoke of the timing of the ceremony and noted that efforts will be made to better coordinate the timing of the tree lighting in the future.

The Mayor congratulated those who participated in the Gingerbread Festival by building gingerbread houses.  This event was done in conjunction with the Habitat for Humanity, and he hopes this activity continues.

The Mayor then said he will provide a ComEd update later in the meeting.

6. Public Hearings

Village of Downers Grove Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (Avery Coonley School Project)  Mayor Tully called the public hearing to order at 7:20 p.m. to consider issuance by the Village of Downers Grove Revenue Bonds, Series 2013, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,300,000 with respect to the Avery Coonley School facility located in the Village of Downers Grove.  Notice of this hearing was published in the Downers Grove Suburban Life on November 13, 2013.  He then summarized the procedures to be followed for the public hearing.  He introduced Jim Snyder, bond counsel for the Village.

Jim Snyder, bond counsel, said the hearing is required by the Internal Revenue code because this is a private activity bond.  He said the Village is not pledging any revenue, tax base, or promise.  It will be paid solely by the promise of the borrower.  It is a conduit bond.  The Internal Revenue code permits a private entity to receive federal tax exempt benefits of tax exempt bond financing if a Village issues the bond.  He said there is no liability for the Village of Downers Grove.  Further, this does not go against the Village's credit or debt limit.  The Village is fully indemnified by the borrower.  The bond issue is for the benefit of Avery Coonley School.  It will be used to refund a prior bond issue and for expansion of the facility.

There being no further questions or discussion, Mayor Tully adjourned this public hearing at 7:24 p.m.

7. Consent Agenda

COR 00-05419 A.  Claim Ordinances:  No. 6029, Payroll, November 1, 2013 & No. 6031, Payroll, November 15, 2013

Sponsors: Accounting A motion was made to Approve this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: N/A

BIL 00-05420 B.  List of Bills Payable:  No. 6086, December 3, 2013

Sponsors: Accounting A motion was made to Approve this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: N/A

MOT 00-05418 C.  Motion:  Accept the Village of Downers Grove Architectural and Historical Survey Report  

Sponsors: Community Development A motion was made to Accept this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: Historical Preservation

MOT 00-05429 D.  Motion:  Note Receipt of Minutes of Boards and Commissions

Summary of Item: Library Board - October 23, 2013 A motion was made to Note Receipt Of this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: Boards and Commissions Minutes

Passed The Consent Agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner Neustadt, seconded by Commissioner Durkin, that the consent agenda be passed. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Y ea: Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Durkin, Commissioner Rheintgen, Commissioner Neustadt, Commissioner Hosé, Commissioner Olsen and Mayor Tully

8. Active Agenda

ORD 00-05417 A.  Ordinance:  Amend Stormwater Utility Fees for 2014

Sponsors: Manager's Office

Summary of Item: This amends the Municipal Code regarding stormwater utility fees effective January 1, 2014.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STORMWATER UTILITY FEES FOR 2014

ORDINANCE NO. 5347 C ommissioner Olsen said he has already clearly expressed his views.  He is opposed to this increase and he asked for the consent of the Council that his full comments be included in the record.

The following is a transcript of Commissioner Olsen's written comments:

Tonight we are voting on one component - a 6.4% increase to the stormwater utility fee - of a multi-million dollar budget which will fund the essential services the Village of Downers Grove provides to our residents, businesses, visitors, and other stakeholders in our community in 2014.  The hard work of our Village staff as well as my colleagues on the Village Council in a very open and public process has led us to adopt a budget which funds essential services and generally recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility to keep taxes low for residents and businesses in a still-challenging economic environment.  It is notable that debate on the Village's 2014 budget has almost exclusively focused on the newly-implemented stormwater utility.  However, given those discussions and my commitment to the taxpayers of Downers Grove, I cannot support the proposed 6.4% increase in the stormwater utility fee which we will be voting upon tonight.

A stormwater utility in concept is not new to those involved in governing the Village of Downers Grove nor to frequent observers of this Council. This concept has been discussed with varying degrees of seriousness for more than a decade.  However, a stormwater utility in practice is new to the Village of Downers Grove and its property owners, as the utility was only implemented earlier this year.

Since its implementation, this Council has heard repeated requests for relief from the cost of the utility from local churches, their leadership, and their members.  This Council has indicated that it will continue to work with the faith community to address their concerns without undermining the structure of the stormwater utility, though a specific resolution has not yet been achieved.  In addition, many residents and business owners remained concerned about the impact of the stormwater utility, though they have largely not been present at our Council meetings.  As I attend functions sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, I have been approached with concerns from business owners and managers about the negative impact the cost of the utility has had on their businesses, as well as worries about a perceived loss of competitiveness for Downers Grove as we seek to attract new businesses to locate in our community.  Residents, especially those on fixed incomes, have had to readjust their budgets to ensure they can pay the increased water/stormwater bill every two months, and are concerned about the impact of future increases on their ability to stay in the community they love.

Despite these concerns, I do not believe we should repeal the stormwater utility at this time.  As with any new concept, it takes time for all stakeholders to understand and react to its implementation.  Though I was not a part of the Council at the time of its passage, a majority of the Village Council representing the people of Downers Grove voted to implement a stormwater utility in 2012.  And despite efforts to help property owners understand the concept both before and during implementation, many are still adjusting to the new system and are just now starting to react with suggestions, concerns, and other feedback.  Thus, I believe it is imperative that we not hastily retreat from this innovative concept and instead work with all stakeholders to refine and continually reassess the stormwater utility to ensure it is needed and structured appropriately for the Village of Downers Grove.

But given the continued dialogue this Council intends to have with the faith community regarding their concerns and the feedback we continue to receive from all property owners, I do not believe a significant increase in the stormwater fee is appropriate this year.  The stormwater fee is still new to our community and all property owners are still adjusting to this new concept - the first of its kind in DuPage County.  To increase the fee at greater than the rate of inflation at this time is, in my opinion, not in the fiscally responsible tradition of this Village, especially when we are still working with stakeholders to respond to and address their concerns.

Furthermore, the revenue which will be raised by this 6.4% increase in the stormwater fee is not necessary to accomplish the objectives and priorities to improve our stormwater system which this Council has set out for 2014. The Village issued a $25 million bond in 2008 to fund badly-needed stormwater projects; however the Village has not yet fully spent down the proceeds of this bond and intends to utilize approximately $9 million of the existing stormwater fund balance and bond proceeds in 2014 to fund additional stormwater projects.  The proposed 6.4% increase represents approximately $200,000 of additional revenue for the stormwater fund in 2014 - arguably a rounding error when considering the full $12.7 million stormwater fund budget which was approved for 2014.

As a representative of the thousands of residents, taxpayers, and rate payers in the Village of Downers Grove, I cannot in good conscience support the proposed 6.4% increase to the stormwater fee for 2014, especially when the implementation of the stormwater utility concept is so new to our community.  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this excessive increase.

Commissioner Rheintgen said that at the last meeting she asked for information regarding the impact of charging churches a lower stormwater fee.  She said she will support this ordinance, but asked that the additional information be considered when the cost share program is reviewed.  A motion was made by Commissioner Neustadt, seconded by Commissioner Hosé, to Adopt this file.  Mayor declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Y ea: Commissioner Rheintgen, Commissioner Neustadt, Commissioner Hosé and Mayor Tully  Nay: Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Durkin and Commissioner Olsen  Indexes: Fee Increases, Fee Schedule, Stormwater Utility

ORD 00-05388 B.  Ordinance:  Amend Water Utility Fees for 2014

Sponsors: Manager's Office

Summary of Item: This amends the Municipal Code regarding water utility fees effective January 1, 2014.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING WATER UTILITY FEES FOR 2014

ORDINANCE NO. 5348 A motion was made by Commissioner Neustadt, seconded by Commissioner Hosé, to Adopt this file.  Mayor declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Y ea: Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Durkin, Commissioner Rheintgen, Commissioner Neustadt, Commissioner Hosé, Commissioner Olsen and Mayor Tully  Indexes: Fee Increases, Water Rates, Fee Schedule

ORD 00-05413 C.  Ordinance: Rezone Property Located at 4245 Belle Aire Lane from R-2, Single Family Residence, to B-3. General Services and Highway Business

Sponsors: Community Development and Plan Commission

Summary of Item: This rezones property located at 4245 Belle Aire Lane.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE, ILLINOIS, CODIFIED AS CHAPTER 28 OF THE DOWNERS GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE, AS AMENDED TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4245 BELLE AIRE LANE

ORDINANCE NO. 5349 A motion was made by Commissioner Barnett, seconded by Commissioner Durkin, to Adopt this file. Mayor declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Y ea: Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Durkin, Commissioner Rheintgen, Commissioner Neustadt, Commissioner Hosé, Commissioner Olsen and Mayor Tully  Indexes: Rezone 4245 Belle Aire Lane - R-2 to B-3

ORD 00-05385 D.  Ordinance:  Amending Provisions Concerning Medical Cannabis

Sponsors: Community Development and Plan Commission

Summary of Item: This amends provisions concerning medical cannabis.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS CONCERNING MEDICAL CANNABIS

ORDINANCE NO. 5350 C ommissioner Barnett said he is opposed to this as it is written because it provides too much opportunity to those areas that need more protection.  He would like a far more restrictive version of this ordinance.

Commissioner Olsen said he plans to support this, although the State law is not something he would have supported.  A prospective dispensing organization would be required to come before the Council for a special use, and he is pleased with that requirement.

Commissioner Rheintgen said she will vote against this ordinance.  She would have preferred that private recreational businesses had been part of the exclusion.

Commissioner Durkin said he will not support this ordinance.  He feels Council is too lenient in supporting staff's recommendation.

Commissioner Hosé said he shares the concerns of his colleagues, but the restrictions in the proposed ordinance are sufficient.  The special use provision gives Council flexibility to take into account some of the concerns expressed by other Council members.  To go against this would run the risk of costly litigation.

Commissioner Neustadt said this proposed ordinance is a good starting point.  Creating a special use allows the Council to review petitions.  He will support this.

Mayor Tully said this action is required due to the passage of a State statute; it is a fact, not a choice.  Council needs to deal with this in a reasonable and rational manner.  The provision of the special use in the proposed ordinance provides a safety net which allows Council to address any concerns. A motion was made by Commissioner Neustadt, seconded by Commissioner Olsen, to Adopt this file. Mayor declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Y ea: Commissioner Neustadt, Commissioner Hosé, Commissioner Olsen and Mayor Tully  Nay: Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Durkin and Commissioner Rheintgen  Indexes: Medical Cannabis

9. First Reading

RES 00-05414 A.  Resolution:  Approve the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for Dunham Subdivision with Conditions

Sponsors: Community Development and Plan Commission T om Dabareiner, Director, Community Development, explained that a resolution of a preliminary plat of subdivision has been prepared to subdivide the subject property at 7143 Dunham into three new lots.  It includes an exception to permit Lot 2 to be 120.35 feet deep instead of the required minimum of 140 feet.  The Plan Commission discussed this on October 28 and found it to be consistent with the trend of development, found that it met the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and found that the requested exception meets the standards per Section 20.602 of the Subdivision Ordinance.  The Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision.

Mr. Dabareiner then said the preliminary plat typically shows site features.  Once approved, final plat approval is needed.  The preliminary plat tests the appropriateness of the concept and whether it is a proper fit for the area.  He then showed the location, which is north of 75th Street along the curve on Lemont Road.  He reviewed the zoning, which is R-5A north and west of Lemont.  He said without a subdivision, townhouses could be built into a large series in one building.  Further, staff could ask for, but not require, improvements.  He showed a slide of the area including potential boundaries for the subdivision.  With a subdivision, the Village can require improvements under Chapter 28 of the Municipal Code.  There is a 6-unit, 4-unit and 2-unit building proposed along Crystal Avenue.  Without a subdivision there could be 16 units allowed; however, this subdivision reduces the units to 12, which is more compatible with the single-family units to the north and to the west.  Actions related to the subdivision would be:  1) one exception - the north-south dimension of the middle lot would be reduced to 120.35 feet from 140 feet; 2) Crystal Avenue right-of-way would be widened from 35 feet to 70 feet; 3) a widening of the pavement; 4) installation of a 5' wide sidewalk; 5)  payment in lieu of parkway trees; and 6) park and school donations.  As a result of a subdivision, traffic would be minimized and stormwater and public safety improvements would be made.  It would comply with the Comprehensive Plan for transitional uses and diversified housing stock, and the high price point means that property values would be preserved.

Chester Tom, 7205 Matthias Road, expressed concerns and issues with the preliminary proposal and how it is laid out.  Mr. Tom showed an overlay depicting the location of existing single-family homes.  There is a single-family home on the property now.  He said that the proposal has dense housing in the middle of a single-family community and it will be next to an established area for single-family homes.  All the homes in the immediate area of Crystal, Dunham, Matthias and Stanford are single-family homes.  He noted that the Village has the responsibility and the right to preserve good planning, and unsound Village planning adversely affects the community.  He said that one of the buildings is immediately adjacent to an existing single-family home.  Mr. Tom then referenced Section 3 of the Village's Land Use Plan, and quoted a section from Page 29 of that Plan.  He said that the Comprehensive Plan shows single-family detached homes for this area.  He referenced townhomes to the east, with a natural transition.  This is not the case in this proposal.  Mr. Tom then addressed some safety concerns.  There is a single point of ingress/egress on Crystal, with no additional outlet and no cul de sac.  Large vehicles currently back into or out of Crystal from Dunham, and Dunham has a dedicated bike lane.  He noted that Crystal is too narrow for emergency vehicles, and it will have to absorb an additional 24 vehicles.  The proposal does not include provisions or space for a cul de sac.  Stanford Avenue, which is directly to the north, has a cul de sac.  He noted the tight turning radius at Crystal & Dunham.

Mr. Tom then discussed possible alternatives including developing the property into single-family homes.  A 6-unit townhouse is too imposing for the area and the proposed townhouse at the east end has zero transition into the single-family community.  He suggested that they consider a single-family home on easterly Lot 3.  Continuing to use a slide presentation, Mr. Tom then pointed out some issues that developers should address in their development proposals.  He said there has to be consideration given to the established surroundings, and maintaining consistency with the existing neighborhood character.  He also recommended widening the road from 27 feet to 30 feet, which is similar to Matthias and Stanford Streets.

Mr. Tom then referenced the developers' townhome project in Burr Ridge showing photos of those townhomes that, in his opinion, do not maintain the character of the single-family homes surrounding the proposed townhouses.  He then showed the Planning staff report from the October 28 public hearing in which the developer sought an exemption.  According to the report, many of the requirements are shown as "met," which Mr. Tom challenges.   He then showed a video of the area with single-family homes along Crystal and Matthias, and the proposed location of the townhomes.  He said the development proposal as is needs more work, and he urged the Council not to approve it.  The concern is if the Council allows this proposal, what else might it allow in the future.  The 6-4-2 units are not enough of a compromise.  One breakdown could be a 4-4-2-1, which would be a reduction of one unit from the proposal.

Mayor Tully thanked Mr. Tom for his presentation, and complimented him on his organization and the work put into his report.

Steve Auernhamer, 1160 Crystal, said that he is not opposed to the issue of this property being subdivided.  They prefer that scenario to a one-building containing multiple units.  They oppose the zoning for townhome developments, as the majority of the area was developed in the late '90s into single-family homes.  Mr. Auernhamer noted that the single entrance off of Dunham is significant and is more of an issue than it might appear.  The proximity to Lemont and Dunham might make as much as half of the traffic on Crystal inadvertent.  That will be worse with 12 townhomes.  As to the existing character of the neighborhood, this proposal is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. Auernhamer said that the right thing to do with it would be to preserve the land as a green space.  The developer claims a price point of $500,000, but has a poor track record of meeting their price points.  These units will affect the home values of the existing single-family homes.  Some of their Burr Ridge developments only came to about 60%-70% of their estimated price point.

Don Harkins, 1130 Crystal Avenue, expressed the unity of the neighbors in regard to this proposal. The zoning does not match the single-family homes.

Carol Wang, 1170 Crystal Avenue, said that Plan Commission members told her that economic concerns were not a part of this consideration; however, she feels they are.  Her home is a single-family home and these units will face her street.  She chose to live in Downers Grove, but she thinks this is an economic decision.  Townhomes will make more money than single-family homes.  The schools and Park District will gain from this.  She said the Council should consider the long-standing residents. The townhomes will bring an additional 24 cars to the neighborhood.  She believes the decisions made by the Plan Commission were made based on economics.  She was shocked by the Plan Commission's decision.  Ms. Wang asked for the Council's consideration of the residents who already live there.  Her realtor told her that this is not a good proposal.  Ms. Wang pointed out that the townhomes in Burr Ridge should be seen before any decision is made.

Hsien-Hau Wang, 1170 Crystal Avenue, said his main concern is that the traffic will be much worse on Crystal Avenue when these units are added.  Every unit will come with a two-car garage.  He does not understand the traffic study that says that the townhomes will be the equivalent of six single-family homes.  In his understanding, six single-family homes would be the equivalent of 12 cars, not 24.  The issue of hammerhead turns and street width will also seriously affect traffic issues.  He referred to the proposal, which states they want to extend the street to 29 feet, which actually results in only 28 feet.  He believes the developer is looking to provide only the minimum in the requirements.

Mayor Tully reminded everyone that this is a Workshop and no decisions would be made this evening.

Mr. Tom asked who makes the decision on a cul-de-sac, the Village or the developer.  The Mayor responded that it would be the Village.

Commissioner Barnett said that, based on some of the comments made, he needs a better understanding of what is allowed today given the lot size and zoning as is.

Mr. Dabareiner responded that they could fit 14-16 smaller units depending upon the size under the R5-A zoning.  He said the setbacks are being met.

Commissioner Barnett then asked what the purpose is for seeking a subdivision.

Mr. Dabareiner replied that typically you see a preliminary plat when there are questions as to how to fit units on properties, the impact on easements, rights-of-way, etc.  When the developer originally came they had more units proposed and learned that they could not maximize the number of units.  He explained that this is early in the process.

Commissioner Barnett then asked about the density of the Pinewood development.

Mr. Dabareiner said he would get back to him with that number.

Commissioner Barnett then asked how much latitude the Village has in terms of requiring that certain things be done with regard to design, etc.  He is interested in the Council/Village's flexibility.  He then asked again what the reason is for the subdivision request.

Mr. Fieldman said that the petitioner is present and can address that question.

Commissioner Neustadt said he took a ride through the neighborhood.  He would like more information regarding the hammerhead or cul-de-sac.

Mr. Dabareiner said the hammerhead is part of the developer's proposal.

Commissioner Rheintgen asked for the slide showing the 14 units versus three buildings.  She asked whether the 14 units take into account the setback requirements.

Mr. Dabareiner said it is an approximation but it is farther north because the Subdivision Ordinance does not regulate this.  Commissioner Rheintgen said backyard space could be maximized with the 14-unit structure, and road would not have to be improved.   She asked if the petitioner is considering a subdivision to try and work better with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Barnett said the concerns that have been raised make all the sense in the world to him, particularly when you see photos of the single-family homes versus blocks on an aerial photo.  If the petitioner does not seek a subdivision, the Village has very little control over this.  He thinks the ability to put this "compromise" into place hinges on whether or not there is a subdivisio