Long Grove Plan Commission

July 18, 2006 Meeting Minutes

Chairman Present: Fred Phillips

Commissioners Present: Eduardo L. Acuna, Charles Cohn, Joseph Di Iorio, Michael A. Dvorak, Tobin Fraley, Robert Jenkins, and Shelly Rubin (arriving at 9:35 p.m.)

Commissioners Absent: Nicholas Fasano

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 8:04 p.m.

2. PLAN COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING (continuation): Consideration of a request by Eleftherios & Niki Shinas in connection with a petition for special use permits to allow (i) an amusement / arcade use (“other business use” per 5-5-2-3 (A) of the Village Code), including limited food service and (ii) a “tavern” (per 5-5-2-3 (E) of the Village Code) and other zoning relief as necessary. Discussion by full PCZBA

Chairman Phillips swore in all those present who planned to give testimony at the hearing.

Village Planner Hogue provided a summary of the action items from the previous meeting and the updated information provided by the petitioner: floor and site plans. He stated that he has reviewed the plans and the details are provided in his report. He noted that it would be up to the Village Board to resolve how the parking issue must be dealt with as 13 parking spaces are required. He described the proposed business and the standards necessary for the special use.

Commissioner Fraley asked to read a statement he had prepared into the minutes:

“The members of the Planning Commission have a mandate from the residents of Long Grove to represent their best interests, to interpret the Village Code, and to uphold the Comprehensive Plan. When a petitioner presents a plan for our consideration, we must take into account each of these aspects of Long Grove village government. And although we are all volunteers, each of the commissioners on this board takes their job very seriously. Each submission is weighed using criteria that will work best for the current and future health of this community.

In the past, there have been cases where petitioners have come before this commission after construction had already begun or in some cases already completed. They assumed that this commission would approve their plans because it was what was “best for the village”, at least in the eyes of the petitioner. Fortunately for the petitioners, in most cases, the petitions were approved, but not without some controversy.

We now have another petitioner who has already begun aspects of a project prior to final approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees assuming that we have no choice but to approve this plan. As a Planning Commissioner I will do my best to make a decision on this project based on the merits of the project, input from the public and what is best for the Village of Long Grove. But a petitioner that makes these kinds of assumptions about the approval process and appears before this commission with a sense of entitlement, makes my job much more difficult.

Personally, I am very much in favor of property owners within the Historic District becoming more involved in the businesses within the walls of their buildings. I believe that if we had more property owners who were also business owners that it would translate into greater care taken of the current buildings and more attention paid to the maintenance of the downtown area. Yet owning a property does not entitle the property owner to create whatever business they choose without regard to the public or the governing bodies of Long Grove. That is why we have a Planning Commission, Board of Trustees, Zoning Board, and public hearings. They bodies were created, as I mentioned before, to ensure a certain quality of life within the Village of Long Grove and as members of this commission, we are the representatives and stewards of this village.

I am reading this statement into the minutes, not so much as an admonishment to the current petitioner, but as a notice to future petitioners who make this same assumption. With each new plan submitted to this commission, I will do my best to evaluate that plan on its own merits, but if the petitioner begins the construction process prior to approval by this commission, I will vote against it no matter how good this project may appear to be for the Village of Long Grove. We are here for a reason and approval of any plan cannot and must not be taken for granted.”

The Petitioner, Niki Shinas, responded by saying that yes, pool tables have been put into the building and redecorating has been done. However, she was not going to use that as a bargaining chip.

Chairman Phillips asked the petitioner for an update. She stated that she had nothing more to add but her architect did want to make a statement. Architect, George Prosiliakos reported that he reviewed the structural load of the pool tables on the building and the structure is adequate. The only issue is if the building meets code and he is confident that any issues can be worked out.

Resident Huey Adams of 3904 RFD requested Commissioner Fraley to re-read the last paragraph of his statement which Commissioner Fraley did. Mr. Adams suggested that Commissioner Fraley recuse himself from the vote. Village Attorney stated that there is no legal conflict to require that Commissioner Fraley abstain or recuse himself.

Resident Mel Towner of 4110 Three Lakes Drive stated that we need a business like this. He has paid over $8,000 this year to the Village and has not seen any benefit. Some business needs to go into the vacant building.

Resident Dee McLaughlin of 4560 RFD stated that she does not understand why arcade is considered general retail. Village Planner Hogue explained how the classifications were applied per the current code. She wanted to know why it is the Plan Commission’s job to determine if the proposed business is appropriate. Village Attorney Tappendorf explained that this is part of the process of determining whether the special use permit standards are met.

Architect, George Prosiliakos stated that the original building, proposed in 1973 included 14 parking spaces but they were replaced with a walkway. Bob Borg of 4363 RFD stated that originally there was a setback issue; therefore, the building was pushed back.

Susan Van Der Bosch of 3253 RFD stated that she appreciates the petitioners efforts to put a business into the vacant building but questions the appropriateness of a tavern to attract children. The petitioner stated that her plan was not to attract children to attend the place by themselves with liquor being served.

Commissioner Acuna stated that the Special Use Permit is granted to the location, not the owner, and the SUP is conveyed to the new owner, if the building is ever sold. He further stated that if the Plan Commission grants this use to For Pete’s Sake Saloon, then the Plan Commission is also granting the same use to the next owner who may have a different business plan. He stated that he does not think it is appropriate to combine an arcade with a bar.

The petitioner pointed out that the building is very small. She does not think this business will attract small children. She has already explained how to keep unattended children out of the saloon. She read off a list of similar businesses in the area where ages are limited after a certain time. Commissioner Acuna stated that his concern was with the arcade and its proximity to the tavern use.

Commissioner Cohn asked if anyone knows of any other business in Long Grove where the primary business purpose is a tavern versus a restaurant with liquor service. The issue is whether we want a tavern in Long Grove. The business purpose is not clear because it can’t be both a family oriented establishment and a tavern. He does not think this business use is appropriate in this location in the downtown.

Marsha Marshall of 4512 RFD stated that she loves the Stable Shops but can’t imagine the proposed business is compatible with the character of Long Grove.

Commissioner Jenkins stated that he does not think this small building can compete with the likes of the Cubby Bear, which was described by the petitioner as similar to the proposed business, because the Cubby Bear is much larger and is typically packed. He agrees with Commissioner Acuna that we need to look down the road to the next owner. He stated that he does not think it is an appropriate business for Long Grove as described by the petitioner and the business use seems to be a moving target.

Commissioner Cohn agreed with Commissioner Jenkins.

Commissioner Fraley asked Village Attorney Tappendorf if an arcade is the same as a pool hall. The attorney stated that there is not a separate category for pool halls. Commissioner Fraley asked if the petitioner could revise the plan to obtain approval. Commissioner Fraley stated that they need to close at 10:00 p.m. which makes the place less desirable as a tavern. Commissioner Fraley suggested limiting the size of the bar relative to the restaurant and take “saloon” out of the name.

Commissioner Acuna stated that the commission should not be required to suggest how the petitioner should change their business plan in order to obtain approval.

Commissioner Di Iorio stated that he agrees with Commissioner Fraley’s earlier statement. He inquired about music. The petitioner stated that she will install microphones at various locations throughout the saloon so that people can sing along with the juke box.

The architect stated that the kitchen is full size to prepare all types of food. Commissioner Di Iorio asked if the architect has the specific load capacity figures for the second floor and the architect stated that he did not.

Commissioner Dvorak stated that he concurred with his fellow commissioners. He stated that while he wants to see the building used, he envisions a small grill so that the primary use is a restaurant. Commissioner Dvorak asked how many pool tables and/or arcade games in a
restaurant/tavern could be included before requiring a special use permit. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that regardless of how many, it must meet the tavern special use conditions if they plan to serve liquor and would require a liquor license.

Commissioner Acuna stated that the petition should be put to a vote.

Commissioner Cohn moved to recommend denial of the special use permits to allow an amusement / arcade and a tavern, per the proposed petition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Acuna. All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried. The petition was recommended for denial.

Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that this vote is a recommendation of denial to the Village Board. Chairman Phillips stated that the job of the commission is not to help design the business but to vote on the proposal presented.

3. PLAN COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request by the Long Grove Park District for a Special Use Permit to allow a man made structure (garage / storage building) within the OS-N Zoning District for property known as the Reed-Turner Woodland. Discussion by full PCZBZ

Village Planner Hogue read a summary and his analysis of the proposal.

Commissioner Acuna moved to recommend approval of the petition for the special use permit, as described in the petition. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dvorak.

Chairman Phillips requested public comment for the record. There was none. The vote was taken.

All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

4. Approval of Minutes: June 6, 2006

Commissioner Jenkins moved to accept the June 6, 2006 minutes as corrected. Commissioner Cohn seconded the motion. All ayes. No nayes. Commissioners Acuna and Di Iorio abstained because they were absent during the meeting. The motion carried.

5. PLAN COMMISSION WORKSHOP SESSION: (Chapters 9, 10, 11 & 12) Discussion by full PCZBA

Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that the Plan Commission was currently on page 69 of Chapter 9, section 5-9-7. Currently landscape plans and buffer yards do not apply to office districts and the Plan Commission should consider expanding this section to the B-1 office districts. The consensus was to do so.

Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that on page 73, screening was added and on page 74 general landscaping and maintenance requirements were added. Section 5-9-8 - Permitted Obstructions in required yards, is typical of these codes. Commissioner Acuna questioned allowing 6’ fences in section 5-9-8 (a) as the wording is somewhat awkward. Also, it is not clear that a garage can be built in a back yard. There was a general discussion about fences and Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that back yard structures still must meet setback requirements. (Commissioner Rubin arrived at 9:35 p.m.) Commissioner Acuna suggested that section 5-9-8 (a) be clarified so that it is clearly understood that setback requirements must be met for back yard structures. Village Attorney Tappendorf agreed to add appropriate working. She will also bring examples of fence restrictions used in other communities to the Plan Commission to review at the next meeting. Commissioner Acuna suggested that additional fence rules be added.

Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that there were no changes to section 5-9-9 – Exterior Lighting because there was feedback from the Village Superintendent that the current code works fine. Commissioner Acuna asked for clarification of the words pertaining to style: “turn-of-century” on page 76. Which century? He also noted that on page 57 – wattage is not an appropriate measure of brightness; lumens are a more appropriate measure.

Commissioner Cohn asked what a “foot-lambert” is on page 77. No one seemed to know. Village Attorney Tappendorf will make appropriate changes.

There was a general discussion about lighting. The consensus was for the attorney to bring in samples of other lighting codes for the Plan Commission to review.

Village Attorney Tappendorf noted that section 5-9-10 – Expanded Agriculture Uses was discussed previously. Commissioner Acuna asked about section 5-9-10(c) - vehicles permitted to be parked on-site. There was a general discussion.

There was a general discussion about section 5-9-11 – Bed and Breakfast Accommodations. Commissioner Jenkins asked what is meant by “Long Grove style” on page 81; if that is defined. Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that Long Grove style is defined in the Architectural Code. B-1 buildings must be in the “Long Grove style.” There was a general discussion about the application of “Long Grove style” to bed and breakfasts.

Village Attorney Tappendorf stated that section 5-9-12 – Public Assembles, was added about 6 years ago. This section has been upheld by the State and Federal courts. She added ‘lot’ to “minimum lot area” on page 85. This was the only change. There was a general discussion.

6. Other Business.

There is nothing on the schedule for the August 1, 2006 meeting so the calendar will be clear to work on Chapter 10 of the draft code.

Commissioner Fraley stated that he has done some research on how to make Long Grove a greener place and he will review the research with the Village Attorney before presenting it to the Plan Commission. Commissioner Acuna asked about Commissioner Fraley’s recent activities as Co-Chair of the Design Committee. Commissioner Fraley provided a brief explanation of the committee’s projects.

7. Adjournment;

Commissioner Fraley moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Acuna seconded the motion. All ayes. No nays. The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

8. Next Regular Meeting – August 1, 2006 at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wendy Parr

Plan Commission Secretary