LONG GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Commissioners Present: Charles Cohn, Joe Di Iorio, Michael A. Dvorak, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Wendy Parr
Commissioners Absent: Eduardo L. Acuna and Shelly Rubin
Chairman Present: Fred Phillips
Also Present: Village Superintendent Bob Block, Village Planner James Hogue, Plan Commission Secretary Jeff Kazmer, and Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf
1.
Call to
Order: Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at
2.
PUBLIC HEARING; Consideration of Comprehensive Amendments to the
Village of Long Grove Zoning Code. Discussion by full PCZBA.
Chairman Phillips explained to the audience that the Plan Commission had been
working on amendments to the Zoning Code for the past twelve months. He then
swore in all present who wished to testify to provide honesty.
Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that an overview of the proposed
Amendments includes:
Chapter 1. No substantive changes.
Chapter 2. Some reorganization. All land newly annexed into the village would be
classified as R1.
Chapter 3. Regulations for the Residential District. This chapter contains changes to
the roof height and floor area restrictions.
Chapter 4. Business District regulations have been modified to eliminate the 7,000
square foot maximum building size with a special use permit. Also eliminated was
the prohibition of business use of the attics and basements in the B1 District.
Chapter 5. Eliminates performance standards in the Office District.
Chapter 6. Mainly unchanged.
Chapters 7 & 8. Reserved for future use.
Chapter 9. Proposed procedures for temporary uses. Proposed off-street parking
regulations. The current parking relief provision has been replaced and new sign
variation regulations for the B1 District.
Chapter 10. This section is new and covers nonconforming uses.
Chapter 11. Zoning Administration and Enforcement. Part VII is new.
Chapter 12. Definitions.
The Commission moved on to letters and notes from the public:
Section
included, but deleting the rest.
.
Section
they require a special use permit.
Section
capacity is regulated by the Illinois Plumbing Code.
Hours of operation in the B1 District; some businesses are open past
10:00
approval. There was some discussion between members of the Commission and
members of the
audience. It was stated that the closing time used to be
but now it is
been open until
Attorney Tappendorf stated that the hours of operation of bars is governed by their
liquor license and restaurant hours are governed by the Village Code.
Commissioner Cohn stated that he was OK with restaurants staying open later, but
that he has a
problem with the entire Business District staying open past
Large malls, such as Hawthorn in Vernon Hills, all close earlier.
Commissioner
Dvorak said that if the businesses are open past
concerned with the risks, such as adequate lighting.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that it is likely that the current hours of operation were originally put into place to protect the nearby residents.
Commissioner Dvorak said that there are already two separate closing times.
Commissioner Fraley stated that there already is a business that wishes to stay open
late.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that it is not a typical zoning regulation of many villages to regulate hours of operation.
Commissioner Fraley stated that he wants the restriction removed.
Commissioner Jenkins said that he agrees that the restrictions should be removed.
Commissioner Dvorak said that he would like to know how it would impact the
residents.
Commissioner Fraley stated that we should ask the Commission Secretary if noise or
lights coming from the downtown business is an issue, because of his home’s
proximity to the downtown.
Secretary Kazmer replied that there is never any noticeable sound or light coming
from the businesses in the evening, and his home is within a hundred yards or so of
the downtown.
Commissioner Parr stated that maybe we should extend the hours of operation on a
trial basis for six months.
Commissioner Di Iorio said that all businesses affect the residents and wants some
restrictions and control over the hours.
Chairman Phillips then asked if there were any audience members against extending
the hours in the downtown.
No audience members spoke up.
The Commission decided to propose to extend the hours of all retail in the B1 District
to
closing hours.
Resident Mel
Towner, owner of Mel’s
through town are louder that any downtown business.
Section
Midwest Bank building is higher than thirty feet because it is part of a PUD, and was
so approved.
Concerning the difference between OR and O Districts (Page 34):
different for those districts.
Superintendent Bob Block stated that the criteria was set when the Village annexed
the Abbot Laboratory property to put them in compliance.
The Commission tabled this topic for later discussion.
Section
regulated if they are less than twenty-five inches in diameter. Amateur Radio
antennas are regulated by Federal Law.
Concerning outdoor dining hours, this subject has been covered with the B1 District
hours of operation.
Concerning temporary uses and events, the current practice is for them to be
submitted to the Village Board for approval. Under the proposed code, temporary
uses (events) would be reviewed by staff, with the Village Board reviewing all
festivals.
Section
parking space cost is a matter for the Village Board to decide.
Section
to be included in this Section.
Section
are no Bed & Breakfasts at the moment.
Section
height in this section? The current code has been kept in the proposed code.
Superintendent Block stated that the Village should regulate fences to include a 70%
opening.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that the Village could regulate opening size.
There was some discussion from the Commission. The subject was tabled for later.
Section
signs.
Section
and wetlands are removed before adding 15%. The definition in the proposed code
needs to be clarified.
Section
Architectural Board member Lori Lyman stated that if it is not a PUD, and if there is
no homeowners association or architectural review board in the development, then
the Village Architectural Review Board should review the plans.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that the B1 District currently requires Architectural Board review. All anti-monotony issues go before the Superintendent and he can send them to the Architectural Board. Under the proposed changes to the Code, all PUDs will go to the Architectural Board.
Superintendent Block said that PUDs are reviewed by the Architectural Board only if
it is in the PUD regulations. If the Superintendent checks the plans and doesn’t agree,
then he sends it to the Architectural Board for review.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that under
current
Commissioner Di Iorio said that if there is no homeowner’s architectural board, then
the review should be done by the Village Architectural board.
Architectural Board member Lyman stated that she wants additions reviewed by
the Architectural Board if over a certain square footage.
Commissioner Cohn stated that he thinks that the Architectural Board jurisdiction
should be expanded.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that the anti-monotony code is applied throughout the
Village. Architectural review is more subjective and subject to legal challenge.
There is
currently lobbying in
Standards. She suggested that the design review regulations be deferred until the Legislature acts on the proposed design regulations. Also some typos will be changed.
Section
could be made to include all Village court officials.
Resident Gerald
Ostick of
leave only 20% to open space?
Attorney Tappendorf stated that they still must comply with the County storm water
drainage requirements.
Chairman Phillips stated that the Village engineers consult on all storm water matters.
Superintendent Block said that this includes all developments.
John Maguire of the Long Grove Business and Community Partners, presented the
Commission with a handout. He stated that he was speaking for the businesses as a
whole. He stated that small businesses need equal signs. What hardship do they have
to show to get larger signs? He said there needs to be more use of sandwich boards.
Temporary signage is needed for sales and other events. What are the holiday
regulations? What are the outdoor display regulations and definitions? Concerning
outdoor dining, the fees are a deterrent. He also questioned whether the parking fees
were unfair to restaurants.
Bob Stoll, owner of Red Oaks in downtown Long Grove, asked how the parking
space requirements on Page 54 are determined.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that under the proposed changes to the Code, there is one parking requirement for all of the B1 district.
Trustee Hannon asked if there should be a separate parking requirement for any
future fast food restaurant.
Bob Stoll asked how floor space is determined in respect to parking requirements.
He stated that BDI did a study in 2005 that addressed capacity utilization. This study
showed that a customer goes from one business to another using the same parking
space. This means that there should be less restrictive parking requirements. He stated
that he wants the Commission to further review the parking space requirements. He
also said that he wants the Village Board to have more leeway in parking issues.
There was some discussion among the Commissioners. The subject of parking was
tabled for review later.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that concerning signs, the proposed code contains language authorizing sign variations for the B1 district.
John Maguire asked what is a hardship?
Attorney Tappendorf stated that the subject of hardship is a Zoning Board decision.
All applicants still have to go through the process.
Commissioner Parr stated that concerning
their letter of
From the LGBCP as to their needs. The subject was tabled for later.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that the outdoor dining fee was not a zoning issue, but up
to the Village Board. For zoning enforcement, it would begin immediately on new
signs, and existing signs would have at least one year to come into compliance.
Mike Bromelly, from Midas Muffler at Rt. 45 and Rt. 83, asked how does the new
sign code affect us. He asked how does it specifically affect the B2 District.
A representative
from Scotto’s at Rt. 22 and
neon ‘OPEN’ sign inside his building. It is the only way for customers to see that he
is in business.
Commissioner Parr said that the Commission should revisit the issue of neon signs.
Commissioner Di Iorio also stated that the Commission should revisit the issue.
Commissioner Cohn agreed.
The sign issue was tabled for later.
Phil Hurley said he was here about non-conforming lots. He said the ordinance
doesn’t provide for lots which fall through the cracks. He said his client, Mr. Slezak,
has a 1.4 acre lot in an R2 District. He applied for a building permit, but was
denied because no variance was allowed. He said the Commission needs to address
lots that were annexed from the county, that are now non-conforming. His client has
a small, obsolete home for which there is no relief.
Attorney Tappendorf said that there is a proposed new amendment which will cover
non-conforming lots. This proposed change was given to Mr. Hurley.
Mr. Hurley took a moment to read it then stated that, at face value,
having just read it quickly, it appears to be what his client needed. He
thanked Counsel for such a quick response.
Commissioner Fraley also thanked Attorney Tappendorf for creating this proposed
amendment in such a timely manner.
Resident Barbara Turner stated that she was concerned with drainage, water wells,
and septic fields on such properties.
Peter Di Iorio , a builder, stated that he was concerned with the new proposed
building height limits. He said that he wants those items referred to the Architectural
Board for review, so as not to limit building.
Attorney Tappendorf stated that language could be drafted to exempt PUD’s that have already been approved.
Peter Di Iorio stated that he was concerned that competition will drive homeowners to
other communities to build, creating a disadvantage for Long Grove.
Lee Guacomino , a resident and a builder, said people are looking for modern
architecture. Why would we go back in time with roof heights? He said that he can
understand these regulations for teardowns next to 50’s style ranches for continuity.
Mr. Roman, of JW Homes, stated that changing the square footage doesn’t make a
big change, but changing the roof height makes a big difference in roof lines and
architecture.
Terry Connolly, a resident and member of the Architectural Board, stated that he
wants to have the Architectural Board review the proposed roof height Ordinance.