Long Grove Plan Commission
Chairman
present: Fred Phillips
Commissioners present: Joseph Di Iorio, Michael
Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Camy Gould, Robert Jenkins, and Lisa Phillips.
Commissioners Absent: Ed Acuna.
Also Present: Village Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman F.Phillips called
the meeting to order at
2. MINUTES OF
Commissioner Fasano motioned to move the
3. Continued Public Hearing for the
consideration of the following requests for the Long Grove Cafe (Formerly the
Pond View Inn Restaurant): (1) Text Amendment to allow businesses in the B-1
Historic Business District to exceed 5,000 square feet as permitted special
uses; (2) Special Use to expand the existing restaurant by 690 square feet to
the north, with the resulting total square footage of the building exceeding
5,000 square feet; Located at 235 Robert Parker Coffin Road, Submitted by
Miriam and Sherman Gerber. Referred
to the Commission From the
Petitioners Sherman and Miriam Gerber were
present.
Petition
Item (1)
Chairman
F.Phillips clarified the public hearing process for those present and informed
the public that there is a Conduct of Public Hearing sheet located by the
agenda sheets on the table at the rear of the Village Hall. The Staff Report dated
There
were some changes made to the Staff Report.
Item number one was important and therefore the number of criteria
points was increased from 10 to 12 points.
Item numbers two and three were seen as similar items and were therefore
combined into one with a total criteria points of 12 points. Item number six was discussed and the number
of criteria points was reduced from 8 to 6 points and the Plan Commission
thought it was important to add that this criteria would be achieved through
the PUD process. Item number seven was
discussed as being very important. A new
item number was added which would allocate 4 points for the type of business
and if it was consistent with those businesses listed in the B-1A list found in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Village
Attorney Tappendorf recommended that some language be clarified including that
if the applicant met the 40-point total that this would not guarantee the
approval of a special use. The process
for an application was clarified, initially Staff would review the application
and whether it meets the proposed criteria, then via the Special Use process,
the Plan Commission would get the opportunity to review the application in regards
to meeting the criteria before any action is taken.
Commissioner L.Phillips motioned that the Plan
Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Regulation Text Amendment that
would allow businesses in the B-1 Historic Business District to exceed 5,000
square feet as permitted special uses subject to the criteria depicted in the
Staff Report dated June 25, 2003 and revised July 14, 2003 and subject to the
revisions made to the Staff Report by the Plan Commission, Commissioner Di
Iorio seconded. Ayes, all. Nays, none, motion carried.
Petition
Item (2)
The
Long Grove Café
application for a Special Use to exceed the 5,000 square feet was then
discussed by the Plan Commission.
Village Planner Cage explained the rationale behind the Staff Report
dated
Village Manager Lothspeich, who was
in attendance in the audience, suggested that the applicant have an alternative
landscape plan if the proposed landscape plan did not provide an effective
buffer for the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Gould suggested that the additional landscape plan could be
the originally proposed landscape plan that illustrated 5-foot on-center
evergreens.
Commissioner Fasano motioned that the Plan Commission recommend approval of a
Special Use Permit to allow for a 690 square foot addition to the north of the
existing building as illustrated in Exhibit B and dated June 18, 2003 and
subject to the Staff Report dated June 25, 2003 and revised July 14, 2003, this
is subject to the recommendation that if the proposed landscape buffering does
not sufficiently buffer the automobile headlights as reviewed by Village Staff,
then the alternative landscape plan be installed, Commissioner L.Phillips seconded. Ayes, all.
Nays, none, motion carried.
4. Public Hearing For a Text Amendment and Special Use Permit
to Operate a Day Care Center for Approximately 22 Children Within the Existing
Residence Located at 7155 RFD (Lot #29 Towner Subdivision), Submitted by
Dmitriy Makhovik.
Attorney, Elliott Hartstein
representing the petitioner, was present and discussed the potential
project. The applicant committed to
comply with all the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the
Fire District regulations. The parking
lot design, signage information and the petitioner’s experience were discussed.
Carol Orlando, 7852 Osage
Lane, had
some concerns about wildlife in the area and recommended that the petitioner
use a wooden fence to enclose this property rather than chain-link and had
questions about whether any mature trees would be removed. She also had worries about whether this
design provide a safe drop-off area for children.
Bill McCormick, 7065 Osage
Lane, had
some concerns about water usage by the proposed use and can it be
provided. He also had concerns about the
Fire District requiring sprinklers.
Frank Wallick, 7061 Osage
Lane, had
some concerns about the drainage for the parking and that it not adversely
affect the area. He also had questions
about whether the water association would provide service to a business and
asked if the existing shed would be removed.
Lastly, he questioned whether this facility would be
John Anderson, 7050 Osage
Lane, had
some concerns with the septic system and with runoff.
Jim Vanko, 25860 Route 83, had concerns about what
development limitations would be placed on his property, which is next door to
the petitioner’s property, with the issuance of a special use for the property
next door, he had put his concerns in writing and the Plan Commission
acknowledged that they had received his letter.
Elliott Hartstein was to
look into whether an easement exists at the rear of the subject property as
none was shown on the recent plat of survey and a member of the public thought
one existed at that location.
Commissioner Gould had
concerns about signage, the enforcement of the no parking requirements, the
transfer of the special use should not be permitted, the details of DCFS
inspections, the fencing of the back yard from the parking lot, that no evening
hours or weekend hours be permitted and that the petitioner should comply with
all State requirements. Commissioner
Gould also questioned whether any dead trees would be removed and that the shed
should be removed, that the building could not be expanded without an amendment
to the special use and that the petitioner should confirm the easement if
indeed there is one at the rear of the property.
Commissioner Dvorak had some
concerns about the driveway width and the parking lot design and that possibly
the second last parking space could be used as a turn-around parking area. Commissioner Dvorak also noted that the
foliage shown on the plan at the front of the property should be relocated
elsewhere on the property.
Commissioner Jenkins had
concerns about the parking lot, the number of parking spaces and where would
children be dropped-off within the parking lot.
A question was asked of the petitioner, why was the play area so far
away form the house?
Staff indicated that any
expansion to this facility would require the petitioner to go through the
special use process again at the time an expansion was contemplated.
Commissioner Fasano had a
question on the exact wording of the signage as it was illustrated with a
number of different names and should be shown with one correct name only. He also had questions on the sprinkler
requirements and weekend hours.
Commissioner Fasano also questioned whether there would be weekend hours
and what about handicapped parking spaces and
Commissioner L.Phillips had
concerns about the text amendment, safety concerns for parking lot drop-off and
that maybe a better-designed parking lot would function better for drop-offs,
environmental concerns and concerns on the septic system and drainage concerns.
Commissioner Di Iorio had concerns about
ingress and egress to the property and suggested either an oval or a teardrop
design would be appropriate for the parking lot. Commissioner Di Iorio felt that the fence was
important and what height it would be, what are the buffer yard requirements in
this commercial zoning district and the petitioner should show the existing
grassed areas and leave the existing trees at the rear of the lot for buffering
from the neighboring properties.
The petitioner would be
leasing the property from another individual who would be the owner of the
property. The septic field is a major
concern to the plan commission and the projects viability. Commissioner Gould recommended that any tree
removal be reflected on the site plan.
Elliott Hartstein indicated
that the petitioner will comply with all the applicable requirements. He also stated that the one car garage would
be used for employee parking.
Commissioner Fasano stated
that this petition was a major issue because it was for a text amendment and a
special use.
Village Staff explained the
zoning of the property and the area to the public to clarify that this property
is zoned B-2 Commercial, even though there is an existing single family house
located on the property at this time.
Commissioner Gould motioned
that the Plan Commission table this public hearing to the
5. MINUTES
OF
There were a number of
changes to the draft minutes dated
Commissioner Gould motioned to approve the
6. Public Hearing For the Consideration of a
Text Amendment That Would Permit Outdoor Dining and Patios as Either Permitted
Uses or Special Uses Within the B-1 Historic Business District and B-2 Suburban
Business District.
The commission discussed the
merits of setting the 40% limit on the outdoor dining. Commissioner Gould had a concern about the
40% being too high and how it would be calculated into the overall capacity of
such a facility when not in use.
Commissioner L.Phillips felt that the 40% was too limiting to some businesses. Village Attorney Tappendorf recommended that
a maximum percentage is useful to have within the Ordinance and that such an
outdoor dining area would always remain as an accessory use to the principal
use or business.
Vernadine Martlock, 3458 W.Mardan
Drive, had
some questions on what kind of standards there were in place to keep such
outdoor areas clean and in order and what distance the tables were setback from
the sidewalks.
Commissioner Gould had some
concerns about the garbage doors on dumpster enclosures and how they appeared
sloppy. There was a desire to allow
“seasonal” lighting under item #6 on page 3 of 4 of the Staff Report dated
Commissioner Gould motioned
that the Plan Commission continue this public hearing to the
7. Planner's
Report.
There was some discussion of
the conduct of public hearings and open meeting requirements and the need for a
quorum of five Plan Commission members to hold a meeting.
8. New Business – Next Special
Meeting - Tuesday,
Next Regular Meeting -
9. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by
Commissioner Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Dvorak.
Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted by,
Village Planner
Village of Long Grove