Village of Sugar Grove Board met May 21.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
President Michels opened the meeting at 6:00 PM and asked that Trustee Walter lead the Pledge.
The roll was then called.
Present: President Michels, Trustee Lendi, Trustee Herron, Trustee Montalto, Trustee Walter, Trustee Konen and Trustee Koch
Quorum Established.
Also Present:
Administrator Eichelberger, Clerk Galbreath, Chief of Police Rollins, Public Works Director Speciale, Community Development Director Magdziarz, Utilities Supervisor Merkel and Senior Management Analysts Murphy.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
President Michels opened the Public Hearings for the Boundary Agreement with North Aurora, Boundary Agreement with Batavia, and the Boundary Agreement with Aurora and called for public comments on any of the proposed agreements. No member of the audience stepped forward and this portion of the agenda was then closed.
APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
President Michels called for public comments on items scheduled for action. A member of the audience asked for an update on where the Village was with the signing of the Boundary agreements. Administrator Eichelberger stated that the ones on the agenda tonight would be signed and then sent to the other municipalities for signing after their Board approved them. The speaker asked if the Village had agreements with Big Rock and Yorkville. It was answered with Yorkville yes, Big Rock no.
President Michels stated that it should be noted that the City of Aurora owns the airport. In 1956 it was relocated to the current area. In 1957 Sugar Grove incorporated to hopefully stop the expansion of the airport to much. Sugar Grove does have a separate IGA with Aurora regarding Airport water provision and some police services and other small issues.
President Michels explained the importance of boundary agreements and. Other members of the Audience asked if Sugar Grove can protect a boundary without an agreement. President Michels answered only a boundary agreement is binding. The Village can comment within 1 1/2 miles of its boundary’s but it is comments. Only. Other discussion incurred regarding boundary agreements and staff was asked to reach out to Kaneville and Big Rock for boundary agreements. It is noted that discussions with Elburn have halted for boundary agreement due to the Crown Development property. Hearing no further discussion this portion of the agenda was closed. Clerk Galbreath stated that for the record Tobacco Sales Regulations would not be discussed and that the minutes were amended to reflect that former Trustee Johnson and Paluch did not attend, nor vote at the 5-7-2019 meeting and that Trustee Konen and Walter were present and voted.
CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval: Minutes of the May 7, 2019 meeting
b. Approval: Vouchers
c. Approval: Treasurer’s Report
d. Proclamation: Recognizing “Buddy Poppy”
e. Ordinance: Amending 1-8-2, Meetings Rules & Procedures – Public Comment
f. Resolution: Approving an Agreement for Water Supply Testing with PDC
Laboratory
Trustee Montalto moved to Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Trustee Herron seconded the motion. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with North Aurora – STAR
Trustee Herron moved to adopt an Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with North Aurora – subject to attorney review. Trustee Montalto seconded the motion. Some discussion took place regarding Crown and how well the boundary agreement this evening would keep the development under the control of Sugar Grove. It is understood and pointed out that Crown is speaking with Elburn. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Batavia – STAR
Trustee Montalto moved to adopt an Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Batavia – subject to attorney review. Trustee Herron seconded the motion. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Aurora – STAR
Trustee Herron moved to adopt an Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Aurora – subject to attorney review. Trustee Montalto seconded the motion. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Sugar Grove Parkway and Park Avenue Traffic Signal
President Michels stated that he felt the Board should purse a traffic signal at this location. Staff stated that the information presented this evening is to help the Board determine if Phase I Engineering costs should be gathered.
Background on the Study was presented. The Study consisted of obtaining a 24-hour traffic count including an hourly breakdown by movement and an investigation into existing conditions including crash data (supplied by the Sugar Grove Police Department) to determine if the minimum criteria as outlined by the MUTCD have been met. There is no set expiration time for a traffic signal warrant study; however, if there are changes in traffic volumes, development or crash volumes, additional studies or data collection may be required by IDOT.
A letter from the Village was sent to IDOT on April 24, 2019 outlining the request to install a traffic signal with the data indicating that the Warrant Criteria has been met. A follow up phone call to IDOT indicated that another month was needed for IDOT to review our request.
Given the accident history at this intersection, staff believes it is appropriate to begin Phase I Engineering. Given the low likelihood of a Federally funded grant, staff believes the local funding process is appropriate.
No portion of this project is included in the current budget. The Infrastructure Maintenance Fund does have adequate unrestricted reserve funds that could be utilized. Phase I Engineering costs under a locally funded project scenario are estimated at $65,000, which while unbudgeted, could be covered by unrestricted reserve fund balance in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund.
The Village Board discussed the merits of a signal at this location. The discussions entailed safety, needs and funding. It was questioned if doing a right turn lane only would lessen accidents at this intersection. It was questioned if this would hurt the current retail and future by limiting the access. Also discussed was the amount of funding and that it is not currently within Sugar Grove’s budget. This intersection is under IDOT’s approval and all the information has been submitted and staff has been informed that it is under review. Outside of that it does not meet spacing requirements all other warrants for a signal have been met. The Board was leaning towards restricting movements however as it was further explained that doing so could become a permeant solution and no signal would ever be placed here it did not continue to be a viable discussion option.
The majority of the Board supported obtaining a quote for Phase I Engineering and supported a signal at this intersection. The Director of Public Works will send all Board members information previously presented regarding the intersection.
Open Meetings Act
Administrator Eichelberger stated that Attorney Julien had planned on being in attendance however a conflict occurred. He asked if the Board preferred to delay the discussion until the June meeting. The Board asked to discuss briefly and continue discussion at the next meeting.
Trustee Walter asked if a clearer answer on Board member attendance at Plan Commission meetings. Administrator Eichelberger stated that there are no restrictions on attendance. The only concern is that a quorum of the Board (3 or more) not speak about the issue. Typically, Board members have not attended nor given opinions until after the Plan Commission has time make there only decision with no perception of being influenced by a Board member opinion. Trustee Walter stated that the public was asking why no Board members attended these meetings during the Crown Discussion. It was answered that if Board members wanted to attend they could and that at times there were members in attendance however as they didn’t speak no one was that aware that they were not in attendance.
REPORTS
President Michels inquired if the rains had caused any flooding. Director Speciale stated that property was experiencing some heavy standing water however no homes have reported any flooding.
Trustee Montalto asked if staff had purchased the portable electronic sign yet. Supervisor Merkel stated that it had not yet been purchased.
Trustee Konen asked about the discussion of Lane Use that would occur at the next meeting. She said she would like to discuss the Visio of Sugar Grove with the Board and the need to set Sugar Grove apart from other communities. She stated that Sugar Grove does not have to fit the corporate mold for buildings that we Sugar Grove should insist they blend with the Village.
President Michels referred to the Forces City Town Center Plan and how the Board did discuss and talk about the need to be different. The Plan was taken the ISCS show in Las Vegas and then the recession hit and all the big boxes and developers backed off. The Board had big plans for building and even designed a standout Police Station. The Village has planned for that for yetis, unfortunately things have changed since the recession, although the dreams and plans remain.
Trustee Konen stated that the Board needs to give staff direction on their vision so they know which way the Board wants to see the Village go.
Administrator Eichelberger stated that the presenter for the next meeting has talked about many types of development from industrial to something social like Crocker Park or the Village’s. However, staff spoke with the developers of Crocker Park, the Village’s and that they are not interested in developing that in Sugar Grove.
Director Magdziarz stated that Forest City’s proposed development was high in density and that what was made it work for the time. Right now developers, commercial in particular rules have changed, they are all relying on data that is fixed. Sugar Grove is too far out for them to make commercial development work. The residential growth has slowed, job growth is slow and therefore the population numbers just are not there.
Trustee Montalto stated that right now Sugar grove is fortunate not to have big stores that would probably be sitting empty.
Trustee Konen stated we need activities, restaurant things for seniors, kids, people start out. Everyone wants amenities. We need small business we need to be special and be a pedestrian community. We need mom and pop.
Director Magdziarz stated that Sugar Grove does not have any available space for mom and pop type startups. Mom and pops want buildings that are ready built as they are not building developers.
President Michels stated that in the Route 47 Corridor study, which he encouraged all to read, there are restrictions on buildings and many requirements for landscaping, lighting, signage etc. Businesses do push back and sometimes the Village has to give up a little.
Trustee Koch stated that Sugar Grove needs to be special and unique and asked Board member and others to talk to people they know about coming to Sugar Grove.
President Michels stated MetroWest would be holding a BBQ on June 27 and encouraged members to attend.
President Michels further stated that he had heard that the Route 47 funds from Cross to Yorkville have been pulled and not in the Capital plan. We had hope it would be done is 2022. Hankes Road will be resurfaced this year.
AIRPORT REPORT
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
An audience member stated that light is the only thing to control traffic at Park. Limiting would make a bigger problem and training people to use a different way is just on viable. Trustee Montalto stated that the Village wants a light but it will take awhile.
Another audience member stated that Sugar Grove should be bring in business’s like Grace in Yorkville, and the Turf Room. The owner of the Turn Room lives in Sugar Grove, someone should talk to him. President Michels stated that the Village has and he is not interested. Another audience member stated that find your vision, find the people. President Michels stated the
Village is and has been working on building the Village in a great manner. What the Village needs is developers to come in put in the infrastructure put up buildings and the Village has to work with them to make it worth their while, and in the long run it will be good for the Village.
Another audience member stated that Sugar Grove needs to create a Village, create a downtown to get investors to come. We need to create a vision of our quietness and cuteness.
Trustee Konen stated we need some type of identity, monuments that are unique at our entrances. She also asked about the sign that is leaning on cross street. It was stated that it is in an insurance claim and that staff is working on. Trustee Walter asked about the trailers and junk at Harter and Rt. 47. President Michels stated that is within the county.
Trusgtee Koch stated he still would like a sign at Bliss and Denny.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion adjourn at 7:50 p.m. by Trustee Herron, seconded by Trustee Montalto.
Motion Carried.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with North Aurora – STAR
Trustee Herron moved to adopt an Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with
North Aurora – subject to attorney review. Trustee Montalto seconded the motion. Some discussion took place regarding Crown and how well the boundary agreement this evening would keep the development under the control of Sugar Grove. It is understood and pointed out that Crown is speaking with Elburn. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Batavia – STAR
Trustee Montalto moved to adopt an Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Batavia – subject to attorney review. Trustee Herron seconded the motion. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Aurora – STAR
Trustee Herron moved to adopt an Ordinance Approving a Boundary Agreement with Aurora – subject to attorney review. Trustee Montalto seconded the motion. President Michels then called for a roll call vote.
Motion Carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Sugar Grove Parkway and Park Avenue Traffic Signal
President Michels stated that he felt the Board should purse a traffic signal at this location. Staff stated that the information presented this evening is to help the Board determine if Phase I Engineering costs should be gathered.
Background on the Study was presented. The Study consisted of obtaining a 24-hour traffic count including an hourly breakdown by movement and an investigation into existing conditions including crash data (supplied by the Sugar Grove Police Department) to determine if the minimum criteria as outlined by the MUTCD have been met. There is no set expiration time for a traffic signal warrant study; however, if there are changes in traffic volumes, development or crash volumes, additional studies or data collection may be required by IDOT.
A letter from the Village was sent to IDOT on April 24, 2019 outlining the request to install a traffic signal with the data indicating that the Warrant Criteria has been met. A follow up phone call to IDOT indicated that another month was needed for IDOT to review our request.
Given the accident history at this intersection, staff believes it is appropriate to begin Phase I Engineering. Given the low likelihood of a Federally funded grant, staff believes the local funding process is appropriate.
No portion of this project is included in the current budget. The Infrastructure Maintenance Fund does have adequate unrestricted reserve funds that could be utilized. Phase I Engineering costs under a locally funded project scenario are estimated at $65,000, which while unbudgeted, could be covered by unrestricted reserve fund balance in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund.
The Village Board discussed the merits of a signal at this location. The discussions entailed safety, needs and funding. It was questioned if doing a right turn lane only would lessen accidents at this intersection. It was questioned if this would hurt the current retail and future by limiting the access. Also discussed was the amount of funding and that it is not currently within Sugar Grove’s budget. This intersection is under IDOT’s approval and all the information has been submitted and staff has been informed that it is under review. Outside of that it does not meet spacing requirements all other warrants for a signal have been met. The Board was leaning towards restricting movements however as it was further explained that doing so could become a permeant solution and no signal would ever be placed here it did not continue to be a viable discussion option.
The majority of the Board supported obtaining a quote for Phase I Engineering and supported a signal at this intersection. The Director of Public Works will send all Board members information previously presented regarding the intersection.
Open Meetings Act
Administrator Eichelberger stated that Attorney Julien had planned on being in attendance however a conflict occurred. He asked if the Board preferred to delay the discussion until the June meeting. The Board asked to discuss briefly and continue discussion at the next meeting. Trustee Walter asked if a clearer answer on Board member attendance at Plan Commission meetings. Administrator Eichelberger stated that there are no restrictions on attendance. The only concern is that a quorum of the Board (3 or more) not speak about the issue. Typically, Board members have not attended nor given opinions until after the Plan Commission has time make there only decision with no perception of being influenced by a Board member opinion. Trustee Walter stated that the public was asking why no Board members attended these meetings during the Crown Discussion. It was answered that if Board members wanted to attend they could and that at times there were members in attendance however as they didn’t speak no one was that aware that they were not in attendance.
REPORTS
President Michels inquired if the rains had caused any flooding. Director Speciale stated that property was experiencing some heavy standing water however no homes have reported any flooding.
Trustee Montalto asked if staff had purchased the portable electronic sign yet. Supervisor Merkel stated that it had not yet been purchased.
Trustee Konen asked about the discussion of Lane Use that would occur at the next meeting.
She said she would like to discuss the Visio of Sugar Grove with the Board and the need to set Sugar Grove apart from other communities. She stated that Sugar Grove does not have to fit the corporate mold for buildings that we Sugar Grove should insist they blend with the Village.
President Michels referred to the Forces City Town Center Plan and how the Board did discuss and talk about the need to be different. The Plan was taken the ISCS show in Las Vegas and then the recession hit and all the big boxes and developers backed off. The Board had big plans for building and even designed a standout Police Station. The Village has planned for that for yetis, unfortunately things have changed since the recession, although the dreams and plans remain.
Trustee Konen stated that the Board needs to give staff direction on their vision so they know which way the Board wants to see the Village go.
Administrator Eichelberger stated that the presenter for the next meeting has talked about many types of development from industrial to something social like Crocker Park or the Village’s.
However, staff spoke with the developers of Crocker Park, the Village’s and that they are not interested in developing that in Sugar Grove.
Director Magdziarz stated that Forest City’s proposed development was high in density and that what was made it work for the time. Right now developers, commercial in particular rules have changed, they are all relying on data that is fixed. Sugar Grove is too far out for them to make commercial development work. The residential growth has slowed, job growth is slow and therefore the population numbers just are not there.
Trustee Montalto stated that right now Sugar grove is fortunate not to have big stores that would probably be sitting empty.
Trustee Konen stated we need activities, restaurant things for seniors, kids, people start out.
Everyone wants amenities. We need small business we need to be special and be a pedestrian community. We need mom and pop.
Director Magdziarz stated that Sugar Grove does not have any available space for mom and pop type startups. Mom and pops want buildings that are ready built as they are not building developers.
President Michels stated that in the Route 47 Corridor study, which he encouraged all to read, there are restrictions on buildings and many requirements for landscaping, lighting, signage etc.
Businesses do push back and sometimes the Village has to give up a little.
Trustee Koch stated that Sugar Grove needs to be special and unique and asked Board member
and others to talk to people they know about coming to Sugar Grove.
President Michels stated MetroWest would be holding a BBQ on June 27 and encouraged members to attend.
President Michels further stated that he had heard that the Route 47 funds from Cross to Yorkville have been pulled and not in the Capital plan. We had hope it would be done is 2022. Hankes Road will be resurfaced this year.
AIRPORT REPORT
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
An audience member stated that light is the only thing to control traffic at Park. Limiting would make a bigger problem and training people to use a different way is just on viable. Trustee
Montalto stated that the Village wants a light but it will take awhile.
Another audience member stated that Sugar Grove should be bring in business’s like Grace in Yorkville, and the Turf Room. The owner of the Turn Room lives in Sugar Grove, someone should talk to him. President Michels stated that the Village has and he is not interested. Another audience member stated that find your vision, find the people. President Michels stated the Village is and has been working on building the Village in a great manner. What the Village needs is developers to come in put in the infrastructure put up buildings and the Village has to work with them to make it worth their while, and in the long run it will be good for the Village.
Another audience member stated that Sugar Grove needs to create a Village, create a downtown to get investors to come. We need to create a vision of our quietness and cuteness.
Trustee Konen stated we need some type of identity, monuments that are unique at our entrances.
She also asked about the sign that is leaning on cross street. It was stated that it is in an insurance claim and that staff is working on. Trustee Walter asked about the trailers and junk at Harter and Rt. 47. President Michels stated that is within the county.
Trusgtee Koch stated he still would like a sign at Bliss and Denny.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion adjourn at 7:50 p.m. by Trustee Herron, seconded by Trustee Montalto.
http://www.sugargroveil.gov/download/Minutes/2019/05212019.pdf
Alerts Sign-up