Long Grove Plan Commission
Chairman Present: Fred Phillips.
Commissioners Present: Eduardo L. Acuna, Joseph Di Iorio, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, Charles Cohn, Michael A. Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Lisa Schultz Phillips, and Shelly Rubin
Commissioners Absent: None
Also Present: Village Attorney Steven C. Bauer, Plan Commission Secretary Wendy Parr, Village Planner James Hogue, and Village Engineer Chiczenski
Call to Order - Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at
1. Public Hearing (Continued from 8/16 Special Meeting): Consideration of a petition under the Village of Long Grove zoning code for amendment(s) to the Red Oaks Planned Unit Development subdivision, existing conditional use permits and/or additional relief necessary and/or appropriate under the zoning code that may be necessary to allow “The Studio” to create a wine cellar/wine shop, banquet and wine dinner facility and an enclosed patio & roof deck at 360 Historical Lane, submitted by Tom Hilligoss.
Chairman Phillips swore in all those who planned to give testimony during the hearing.
Village Planner Hogue provided a brief summary and update of the petition:
Status: Forwarded by the Village
Board July 19, 2005. Petition-related
items delivered to Village Staff on
Follow-up: At the public
hearing held at the Special Meeting of
A letter was hand delivered to Mr.
Hilligoss on August 19th outlining items which he should
address. A copy of this letter (dated
In summary, the petitioner can build a 100 seat restaurant today, per the permit granted in 1995 (but not the 306 seat restaurant proposed). The issues identified during the last meeting which had been addressed by the Village Attorney and Village staff is as follows:
• Landscape: parking and paving – The petitioner can not provide adequate parking so the Plan Commission must consider if the use of public parking is appropriate. The Village Attorney has identified several options.
• Phase I zoning designation
• Basement issue: we still need to see elevations of surrounding properties to determine if the structure meets the basement definition – see letter from Village Attorney.
• Well – see letter from well contractor
• Customer/space ratio
•
Financial viability – see memo from
• Building size: Based on research by the Village Planner, there must be an interpretation issue as to the reason for the discrepancy in square footage. As to the 5000 ft2 limit, there does not seem to be any information in the old Village minutes as to the reasoning. The letter from the Village Attorney defines several options for exceeding the 5000 ft2 limit.
• Storm water drainage: This does not seem to be an issue
• Architectural review
Commissioner Fasano stated, for clarification purposes, that the 1995 approval was for a restaurant significantly smaller than the current petition.
Village Attorney Bauer referred to the letter from Village Attorney Tappendorf and reviewed the main points related to the definition for lower levels, outdoor dining and amending the PUD.
Chairman Phillips asked the petitioner if he had any statements to make. The petitioner stated that his current proposal is for the same 100 seat restaurant and that the bar, seasonal outdoor seats and group dining area should not be included in the seat total of 306.
Chairman Phillips asked the commissions to begin with their questions.
Commissioner Fasano stated that regarding the previous approval, the backlot parking approval for 33 spaces needs to be included in the current petition. He asked if there has been any comment from the Fire Department. He asked Village Planner Hogue to follow up with the Fire Department to obtain a response.
Commissioner Fasano asked for clarification on the building’s square footage. Village Attorney Bauer referred the Commissioner to Village Attorney Tappendorf’s letter for the space analysis. Chairman Phillips commented that one reason for the measurement discrepancy is that the method of measurement has changed. He suggested that the existing facility be re-measured to obtain a new base-line measurement.
Commissioner Fasano asked about the original PUD wording versus the 1995 wording where the space reverts back to office use if the art studio or restaurant is no longer in the space. The Village Attorney confirmed that the wording does in fact mean that.
Commissioner Fasano referred to page 2 of the petitioner’s proposal regarding Phase II and the plan to use public parking. He asked if it is appropriate to use public parking. He asked what the seat plan is for Phase II. Village Planner Hogue stated that he did not know the answer to that question. Commissioner Lisa Phillips and Chairman Phillips stated that there is no petition for Phase II at this time.
Commissioner Fasano suggested that if the zoning is changed, that the B-1 designation not be used; a new code should be used. He stated that he likes the PUD approach; not a Special Use Permit. Regarding the basement, he asked if the code specifically addresses walkouts and if not then this can be a distinguishing feature of the new PUD. Regarding page 6 – parking spaces, he wanted to know the base cost per parking space so that the board is aware of the cost of expanding the parking. On page 8, items 4, 5 & 7, he wanted to know what the net increase in restroom facilities will be. Chairman Phillips stated that restroom facilities are regulated by county code.
Commissioner Acuna stated that the second well to be drilled must support any additional facility expansion.
Regarding, attachment A – point system, Commissioner Fasano stated that he would like to ensure that the petition meets the point criteria. Village Attorney Bauer stated that since it is a PUD, the point system does not apply. He went on to explain that if the Plan Commission is to approve the petition they would need to amend two PUDs and the zoning code.
Commissioner Fasano requested the landscape calculation. Village Planner Hogue: 25%.
Regarding his request to recalculate the average ft2 ratio, the petitioner quoted from the Knaur letter: 25 – 27 ft2.
Commissioner Fasano asked if outdoor amplified sound has been addressed. Chairman Phillips stated that the petition did not ask for this, therefore we should not discuss it. The petitioner stated that there will be sound outside but no loud music and bands. The petitioner was advised that he was to have no amplified sound of any kind on the outdoor patio and he agreed.
Commissioner Acuna asked who commissioned the BDI report. Village Planner Hogue – The Village Board.
Commissioner Fasano stated that he would like to see more detail on landscaping. Otherwise, he likes the project and just wants to make sure some of the administrative details are taken care of.
Commissioner Acuna stated that he does not see a problem with the basement since there is already activity there; the wording just needs to be worked out. Regarding size, since the footprint does not really change, the increased size of the building is not of concern. He is not convinced that the second well at the same depth would work during a drought. Village Engineer Chiczenski confirmed what the petitioner’s well consultant told him: The restaurant currently has a deep water well. He stated that additional tests can be run in the future to determine if anything has changed.
Commissioner Acuna stated that he recommends that the property use be specified in the PUD and he does not recommend a new zoning code. He stated that the commission needs to discuss the outside music issue based on prior policy.
Commissioner Acuna stated that he, as a resident, is still concerned that there is a contradiction; the petitioner says this project is financially viable yet the petitioner is asking the Village for funding.
However, Commissioner Acuna stated that the biggest issue is still parking. The available parking space calculation is not correct. Some of the existing space can and will be converted to retail space per the PUDs. He suggested that off-site parking be secured to ensure adequate parking. He identified a lot on the map asking if the land was available for potential parking. Commissioner Acuna stated that parking demands can not be underestimated since he foresees restaurant customers walking around Long Grove leaving their cars parked longer than normal. Chairman Phillips stated that he shares Commissioner Acuna’s concern about parking.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips expressed concern that if the details of this plan are not carefully considered then there will be problems in the future. She was concerned about the number of amendments to be made. Commissioner Acuna sated that there are some amendments that will be changed and they are not real significant -- like the size issue. Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that she could recall a meeting where fellow commissioners had indicated the 5000 ft2 limit was set to maintain character. Commissioner Fasano stated that some issues can be addressed at a later date if there are problems. Commissioner Acuna disagreed.
Chairman Phillips stated that the board has a policy decision to make. Commissioner Dvorak stated that the board needs to look to the future and he agrees with Commissioner Acuna. Regarding page 6 of the BDI report, Commissioner Dvorak observed that the report seems to suggest that for the restaurant to succeed, it may need many off-site signs so people can find it. Chairman Phillips asked the petitioner about signage.
The petitioner stated that he will be requesting signage by the bridge and by the parking lot entrance. He added that the only time the lot fills up is during festivals; it does not fill up any more. The petitioner stated that all business owners are entitled to a share of the public parking lot. The petitioner stated that he has served as president of the CDC and he thinks that the Village needs to evaluate its needs and thinks this project will really help the Village. Commissioner Acuna agrees the project is a great idea but there is a cost associated with every project and he wants to ensure that the cost of this project is known.
The Petitioner described the project and its attributes. He stated that the signage on Routes 53 & 83 will be necessary so that people can find the restaurant. Commissioner Fasano agreed that perhaps the Village does need better signage. A discussion ensued in which the Commission told the Petitioner that he has not included signage in this petition and would have to return if he wants to add signage.
Village resident Vernadene Martlock, 3458 RFD, asked the Village Engineer about the depth of the aquifer stating that she had different information. Commissioner Acuna expressed a concern about the report and the water usage. The Village Engineer recommended that once the Plan Commission approved the project, supplemental testing information could be requested. The Village Engineer believes that the information provided is consistent with the information and experience they have had in the area and he is not especially concerned. He stated that what the consultant said in the report seems to be reasonable and appropriate. Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked if this supplemental testing would determine if the restaurant is or is not on the same aquifer as the residents. The Village Engineer stated that the supplemental testing would provide helpful information. Commissioner Lisa Phillips also noted for the record that the well “consultant” was not a consultant, but a contractor and that a hydrologist should be consulted regarding the aquifer status. Also, Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked that accurate numbers for water usage by restaurants be obtained from a restaurant association or from other knowledgeable sources.
Commissioner Di Iorio stated that as far as he is concerned, there is no issue with the walk-out lower level. Chairman Phillips stated that it is up to Robert Block and the attorneys to come up with appropriate wording. Regarding square footage discrepancies, Commissioner Di Iorio referred to the Knaur drawings and added the square footage for each floor, which totaled 11,253 ft2. Commissioner Di Iorio asked if a text amendment would be necessary. Village Attorney Bauer confirmed that it would be necessary but nothing definitive.
Commissioner Rubin had no comments.
Commissioner Cohn stated that it seems that most of the time the restaurant will be operating, they will not be competing with parking spaces. He asked if there is a way to restrict banquets during Village festivals. The petitioner stated that he would not have banquets during a festival anyway, except if it were specifically related to his business. Chairman Phillips asked if the petitioner would be agreeable to a stipulation restricting banquets during festivals.
Commissioner Cohn stated that he does not really think parking is a problem since the stores’ hours are mostly different from the restaurants’; at least at this point in time.
Chairman Phillips stated that the Village Board will need to address signage. He agreed with the petitioner that all of Long Grove needs better signage.
Commissioner Fraley asked if it is
legal to park along
Commissioner Fraley suggested that roadside parking is an overflow parking option. Commissioner Fraley asked the petitioner how many staff will he have working and can they be asked to park across the street? The petitioner stated that once there is a need for the staff to park across the street, he would ask his employees to do so.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that the petition indicates 306 seats, yet the petitioner repeatedly referred to 100 seats and she asked for clarification. She wanted to confirm this is for Phase I. She voiced a concern about the adequacy of parking and suggested that there be additional discussion on the topic. Regarding creating a new zoning code, Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that on the main streets, the Village should stick with 5000 ft2 limits; therefore, the B-1 code should not change for the main streets. She indicated it would make sense to create a new zoning district for this petition. She stated that she would like the well issue resolved before approval asking again for water usage data and legitimate information about the residential aquifer.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked
if neighbors have had any input and several commissioners stated that one homeowner
was at the last meeting and was concerned about water. Commissioner Lisa Phillips also asked if security
was discussed. Several commissioners
stated that it was discussed at the last meeting and it is not an issue. Commissioner Lisa Phillips asked how late the
restaurant would be open –
Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that she would like to see a lighting and signage plan. She is also concerned about financials and if the participants in the project are interested in Long Grove’s long term success. In response to Commissioner Lisa Phillips’ concerns over the financial viability of the project, Mr. Hilligoss responded that all the money backing this project was his and his alone. She was concerned that the Plan Commission was not privy to this information. She stated that even if some Board members seemed to be backing this project, the Plan Commission needs to exercise appropriate caution.
Commissioner Fasano asked the Village Attorney to confirm that the 1990 ordinance plus the 1995 ordinance together resulted in the current PUD and what specific steps need to be taken. Village Attorney Bauer stated that the first decision that must be made is how to classify the lower level of the building. After that, there is no particular order of required decisions. Decisions can be made on all 5 items noted in the letter but it sounds like the Plan Commission still needs additional information in order to make a decision.
Commissioner Acuna stated that if the lower level is not a basement then the square footage increases. If the lower level is a basement then the building will be less than 7000 ft2. Commissioner Acuna suggested that it should be called a basement and just make a text amendment. This method would have minimal impact on the B-1 and another zone district is not required. Commissioner Acuna thought that the other issues can be resolved later.
Village Attorney Bauer stated that regardless of whether this is a PUD or a Special Use Permit (SUP); the attorneys can craft the language to be specific enough to apply only to properties of this type.
There was a general discussion about PUDs versus SUPs.
Commissioner Fasano stated that he is recommending a PUD and the committee generally agreed. Commissioner Fasano stated that he wants to see the final draft of the PUD before it goes to the Village Board. He suggested that while the petitioner gets additional information, the attorneys can be drafting the PUD.
The Commissioners suggested that a list be made of the information they still need.
• Fire Department Response in writing
• Signage & lighting plan
• Parking
• Basement – waiting for Robert Block
• Well / information on the aquifers
• Additional information on restaurant water usage
• PUD wording from the Village Attorneys (note: the PUD to include maintenance of the parking lot and the petitioner will not have to pave and stripe the lot)
• The hours of operation of the other restaurants
Commissioner Fasano stated that in regard to the parking issue, he recommended that the Board of Trustees need to decide what the public parking policy is. Commissioner Acuna suggested that the petitioner also have a back up parking plan and it is not enough to contract the parking spots.
There was a general discussion among commissioners about parking.
Commissioner Fasano asked the petitioner if there is a way to obtain additional space. The petitioner stated that Red Oaks has a spare lot that can be used if necessary; that is his backup plan. After another discussion, several commissioners stated that the Commission wants a copy of this backup plan. The petitioner stated that he has an option on the Alberts lot.
Commissioner Fasano stated that use of the Stempel lot is acceptable but the petitioner must have a formal agreement for a backup lot.
The Village Engineer recommended that a fixed target utilization rate be established and that utilization be monitored. Once the target is hit, then the backup plan is initiated.
There was a general discussion about the utilization rate concept.
Commissioner Acuna recommended a charge for the Stempel lot and if parking becomes a problem, then the utilization can be monitored and the petitioner can be asked to build another lot if the allocation has been exceeded.
Commissioner Fasano proposed that the PUD have a parking fee and allow the Village to cancel if parking becomes a problem to force the petitioner to obtain additional parking.
Commissioner Lisa Phillips suggested that the Plan Commission allow attorneys to draft wording to address the parking issue. Commissioner Acuna requested that the attorneys address the following:
• Use of the Stempel lot in lieu of fee
• Petitioner to provide 78 physical spots (Note: The actual number of parking spots will be worked out between the Village Planner and the petitioner)
• A backup agreement is in place with a trigger point.
Chairman Phillips stated that parking is a Village Board policy decision. Commissioner Acuna stated that parking is a Plan Commission decision. Commissioner Fasano thought that a recommendation should be made to the Village Board.
There was additional discussion about parking. During the discussion it was noted that just because valet parking is used, the total number of required parking spaces does not decrease. The commissioners agreed.
Chairman Phillips stated that review of the plan by the police is not necessary.
Commissioner Fraley asked Village Attorney Bauer which is better for the Village: to call the lower level of the existing building a basement or not? Chairman Phillips stated that the attorneys and Robert Block need to make a determination on the basement.
Commissioner Acuna asked the other
commissioners if they were comfortable using the PUD and use whatever wording
necessary (Ref. option #2, page 5 in the letter from Village Attorney Tappendorf
dated
Commissioner Acuna stated that in reference to the points list, he wanted to know what the Village will get in return for approving this project. Commissioner Lisa Phillips stated that the revitalization to downtown is a contribution. Commissioner Fasano stated that bringing art to Long Grove is a good contribution. Commissioner Lisa Phillips pointed out that most of the points identified should really be attributed to the previous PUD, not the current petition.
Commissioner Acuna, speaking as a private citizen, stated that he is still concerned about financial arrangements and Commissioners Fasano and Phillips agreed. Chairman Phillips stated that the BDI report should have alleviated those concerns. Commissioner Lisa Phillips responded that the BDI report was commissioned and is therefore not necessarily to be considered an unbiased source. She also noted that the BDI report indicated success of this project would be specifically dependent upon off site signage which has yet to be addressed by this petitioner.
Commissioner Acuna asked what the Village would get in return for the PUD. Village Planner Hogue pointed out that the Commission is not granting a new PUD; the Commission is amending a PUD. The petitioner stated that he did give the Village things for the original PUD. The petitioner stated that he is spending $3.5 million on the project and what he is giving is the risk he is taking to help revitalize downtown. Commissioner Acuna suggested that the Village Board talk with the Plan Commission about the issue.
There was a general discussion about what the benefit of the PUD is to the Village.
The petitioner stated that he has no financial partners. There was a general discussion about the gift of sculptures to the Village by the signage for the restaurant. Commissioner Acuna suggested that the petitioner help pay for new signs at the entrances to Long Grove. The petitioner stated that the policy of extracting a “pound of flesh” from petitioners may have worked when the Village was viable but the Village is not in a viable position at this juncture.
Commissioner Fraley asked if the Plan Commission always asked for something when PUDs are amended. Chairman Phillips stated that the Plan Commission always has the right to ask.
The petitioner stated that timing is a problem and if he does not open the restaurant by January, he will be broke. He stated that he needs to get his petition approved tonight. Chairman Phillips asked the Village Attorney if a contingent recommendation can be made; contingent upon the results of the basement ruling. Village Attorney Bauer said yes.
Commissioner Di Iorio moved that (Ref. option 2: PUD, page 3) the Plan
Commission approve a text amendment to Chapter 9 of the Zoning Code regarding
planed unit developments to authorize flexibility and relieve from the
otherwise applicable B-1 district regulations (such as the basement use
restrictions) pursuant to a PUD, then approval of an amendment to the existing
PUD to grant such relief to authorize the owner's proposed banquet facility and related use in
the basement of the existing building on the property. Final approval is predicated on review by
the Village Attorney as to whether the existing structure contains a basement.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rubin.
There was a general discussion about the motion. Commissioner Fasano did not feel comfortable approving the project without all of the facts. There was a general discussion about possible dates of a special meeting and timing of when the Village Attorneys could draft all of the wording.
Commissioner Di Iorio withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Acuna moved to continue this public hearing until the next
meeting,
2. Approval of the
Commissioner Fasano moved to postpone approval of meeting minutes until
the next meeting. Commissioner Dvorak
seconded the motion. All ayes, no
nays. The motion carried.
3. Adjournment
Commissioner Di Iorio moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lisa
Phillips. All ayes, no nays. The motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at
The next meeting is
Respectfully submitted,
Wendy Parr
Plan Commission Secretary