Long Grove Plan Commission

March 21, 2006 Meeting Minutes

                                                                                                                            

 

Chairman Present:  Fred Phillips 

 

Commissioners Present:  Charles Cohn, Joseph, Di Iorio, Michael A. Dvorak, Nicholas Fasano, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Shelly Rubin

 

Commissioners Absent:  Eduardo L. Acuna 

 

Also Present:  Village Planner James Hogue, Plan Commission Secretary Wendy Parr, and Village Attorney Julie Tappendorf

 

 

1.    Call to Order: Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.

 

 

2.    Approval of Minutes: 

 

Commissioner Rubin moved to accept the minutes as amended.  Commissioner Di Iorio seconded the motion.  All Ayes.  No Nays. Commissioner Fasano abstained due to his absence from the previous meeting. The motion carried.

 

 

3.    Workshop session:  Zoning ordinance text amendment 

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf summarized the changes made to the zoning in Chapter 4 of the draft document noting that most changes were not substantive.  There was a change related to the definition of dwelling units in retail establishments.  There was also a general discussion related to the definition of non-retail (businesses that do not generate sales tax) and the amount of non-retail businesses (15% - reference section 5-4-9 in the draft code) permitted in the downtown area.  The original intent of that limitation was to encourage sales tax revenue, as well as preserve the character of the downtown shopping district.  Some businesses have a mixture of non-retail and retail business, which makes the provision sometimes difficult to enforce.  Also, there is no clear authority to allow a non-home rule municipality to impose a tax on non-retail establishments.

 

There was a general discussion that the Plan Commission must not show a preference to certain non-retail establishments.  Permits should be awarded on a first-come-first-serve basis.  Village Attorney Tappendorf recommended that the Village only make the distinction between retail and non-retail when allocating SUPs to stay within the limitations in section 5-4-9.  Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that it is possible to limit business types but allow for a variation procedure upon demonstration of a hardship.  Village Attorney will draft some “relief” wording to insert into that section to allow some flexibility beyond the 15%, in those cases where it makes sense, for example, when there is vacancy space which needs to be filled.

 

Commissioner Fasano stated that he prefers not to have residential dwellings on the first floor of downtown buildings and would like to have wording added to that effect.

 

Commissioner Cohn inquired as to why it is necessary to list all types of B-1 business.  Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that they are listed in order to control specific uses in B-1 because of the non-retail limitation.  However in B-1, all businesses are included so limitations are not necessary.  She also noted that special uses (reference section 5-4-4) have not changed from the old code.

 

Commissioner Fraley asked about section 5-4-5-A-3-e.  This section addresses no music or amplified sound in an outdoor dining area.  He stated that many stores do in fact use amplified sound.  Chairman Phillips stated that special use permits should be obtained for events.  Commissioner Fraley stated that he would like the wording clarified.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf addressed section 5-4-5-A-6 regarding limiting buildings to 5,000 ft2.  The manner in which space is measured will be addressed in the definitions section of the document.  Commissioner Fasano stated that he prefers “not to exceed” wording to apply to an increased limit of 7,000 ft2.  However, the consensus of the commissioners was that the 7,000 ft2 limit is not really needed because petitioners will come before the Plan Commission for a SUP anyway.

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf reviewed section 5-4-5-B.  This section addresses the B-2 district.  She pointed out that buildings in the B-2 district shall not be more than 60% of the lot area. In reference to page 27 of the draft code, the consensus was to leave out the 75% but keep 60% in.

 

The section addressing use limitations was reviewed.  Commissioner Fraley asked about item #3 on page 29 which related to artists downtown who may want to sell their works at wholesale prices vs. retail prices.  Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that an exception can be made for art under the category of “goods or foodstuffs” to encourage retail ‘type’ businesses.  The intent of that section is to preserve the character of the Village by restricting manufacturing businesses.  She suggested that The Village look into determining if the 5% number in item #3 in that section is reasonable.  She also pointed out that if the wholesale is done as an “art studio” it implies that manufacturing is done on-site.

 

Regarding item #4 on page 29, Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that she was not sure why the original code was specifically restricting the hours of operations of downtown establishments.  Commissioner Fraley stated that he would like to see the hours extended to 10 PM at least on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.  The consensus was to extend the hours to 10 PM, 7 days per week. 

 

Village Attorney Tappendorf pointed out that item ‘c’ on page 29, Special B-2 District Use Limitations, applies to “grandfathered” B-2 properties.

 

Continuing the review of the document, Village Attorney Tappendorf reported that in section 5-4-10, various building heights were permitted within the B-2 depending upon use.  For consistency, this was changed to 30’ in B-2 and 20’ in B-1.  As discussed, items #8 and #9 on page 32 will be eliminated.

 

Chapter 5 pertains to office districts.  Performance standards related to nuisance issues such as noise and odor were removed since the village has no enforcement authority.  It was replaced with item, F on page 35.

 

In Chapter 6, Village Attorney Tappendorf reported that nothing really changed, although, it was not clear why there are three designations for open space i.e. OS-N, SO-P, and OS-R.

 

At the next meeting, Village Attorney Tappendorf thought the Plan Commission should review just Chapter 9.  When the review is complete, a complete edited copy will be provided to commissioners, which will be prior to a public hearing.

 

 

4.    Other business: 

 

None.

 

 

5.    Adjournment

 

Commissioner Jenkins moved to adjourn the meeting.  Commissioner Dvorak seconded the motion. All ayes, no nays.  The motion carried.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

 

 

 The next meeting is April 4, 2006.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Wendy Parr

Plan Commission Secretary