Sangamon Sun

Village of La Grange Plan Commission met Dec. 10.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL OF PLAN COMMISSION

Chairman Paice called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Verify Quorum

Upon roll call the following were:

Present: Egan, Hoffenberg, O’Connor, Wentink, Paice

Absent: Mosher and Schwartz

Village Planner Heather Valone and Village Attorney Pro Tem Barbara Adams were also present.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NOVEMBER 12, 2019

Commissioner Wentink made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan to approve

the minutes from November 12, 2019 with one comment:

1. Commissioner Wentink provided staff with some typographical errors.

A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Motion passed

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. PC CASE #252 – TEXT AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ARTICLES X AND XVI OF THE LA GRANGE ZONING CODE PROPOSED BY VILLAGE STAFF (CONTINUED)

Chairman Paice asked for staff to make a presentation.

Staff Presentation

Heather Valone, Village Planner, said at the last Plan Commission meeting staff had presented some text amendments related to recreational cannabis and retail stores that exclusively or primarily sell CBD (Cannabidiol) and Kratom products. Staff is also taking advantage of the continuation to propose a couple of additional text amendments. Staff is proposing text amendments to change the Zoning Code related to live entertainment accessory to eating places and fence constructions details. Additionally, staff is proposing to clarify the language in the zoning code related to the expansions of non-conforming structures in corner side yards and definition of a patio.

The first text amendment this evening is the continuation from the previous meeting. Staff had provided information on CBD and Kratom, specifically stores that primarily or predominately sell these products. The Commission requested additional information on appearance of other existing stores and additional information on other community’s regulations. There are pictures included in agenda packet of other existing stores and a table provided of other communities’ regulations. Staff found that most municipalities do not have these standalone stores that predominately sell these products. Staff was only able to locate two municipalities with standalone stores that predominately sell CBD and Kratom, which likely means most have not had to react to these types of retailers. For most researched municipalities, CBD and Kartom fall under miscellaneous retail items.

Mrs. Valone stated at the last meeting the Commission was discussing two options. One option being that the stores would be prohibited in all districts. The second option being that these retailers would allow them but only in certain districts. She provided the zoning map for each of the Commissioners. She is available to answer any questions that they might have.

Chairman Paice asked the Commissioners that after having the opportunity to do more research and looking at what staff provided has anyone changed their position.

Commissioner O’Connor said he recommends that they could look at it again in another year but as of right now he would be against it.

Chairman Paice stated he did go to the one in Oak Brook. The store was very nice but he did not see the benefit of having the store from a sales tax perspective. He felt it was very expensive.

Commissioner Egan appreciated the pictures in the staff report. She feels it is a little premature to allow it and it should never be in the C-1 district, but feels that there are other things that they need to address first. When she saw the pictures of the signs the stores had, she feels that they need to address their sign code before they allow this type of store. She also thinks it should wait till they update the Comprehensive Plan before it is allowed in any district.

Mrs. Valone said the Zoning Code sign provisions do not allow signs to be misleading. Most of the signs in the photos appear to represent drug paraphernalia, specifically marijuana, as CBD and Kratom and not marijuana or other drugs those types of signs would not be permitted.

Commissioner Hoffenberg stated he does not believe it should be prohibited. He was in Whole Foods over the weekend and this is the first thing you see are these creams. He is a little surprised that they would take a position when you can go to all these stores and it is there. There are a lot of vacancies right now not in the downtown district. He felt the same way about the signage and that he feels they can address. He does not feel they should completely prohibit these types of stores.

Commissioner Wentink said he shares their concerns, but he agrees with Commissioner Hoffenberg. He feels it might be hard for someone to develop a business plan to support this type of business. He does not see it in the downtown district but if someone wanted to try it in another district he would support it.

Chairman Paice stated he does not think it is viable, but if someone wants to try he could see supporting it.

Commissioner Egan said her concern is if they amend the code to allow it then it is hard to pull it back. Completing the Comprehensive Plan and how they want La Grange to be for the next 20 years should come first. Also, they would need to amend their signage code. They could always go back next year and revisit this.

Mrs. Valone reiterated the Zoning Code provisions about signage. The start of the updated Comprehensive Plan will not be happening for about a year.

Discussion continued in regards to allowed signage for a business of this type.

Commissioner Hoffenberg said it is trying to balance the character of the store plus the location. This is a legal product and the product itself is not using drugs, alcohol, or fire arms. He had looked at the product and it is stuff that people use in everyday life. This is more about perception and that is a legitimate issue they do need to discuss. They need to look at the appearance of certain things to the character and nature of the Village. He does not see it succeeding but he does not feel it should be prohibited. He would restrict it outside of C-1 and C-2. His concern is if they do allow this do they need to have their signage updated first to make sure that a hemp leaf is not allowed as part of it.

Commissioner O’Connor stated he feels because it is new they should wait to discuss it when they redo the Comprehensive Plan. This way they can get the public input and not just their opinion.

Discussion continued in regards to if this would be discussed during the update and the process of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mrs. Valone said a lot of communities do not have these standalone stores, so they haven’t had to react to it. They sell it in other stores that sell other products like Walgreens. She did reach out to Countryside and they said their code does not address it at this moment.

Commissioner Hoffenberg asked if one of these companies wanted to come in right now would it be allowed.

Mrs. Valone stated it would be. There are certain components that wouldn’t be like the vaping or food products. If somebody wanted to bring in the creams and lotions currently it would be allowed right now under the code.

Commissioner Hoffenberg confirmed that after January 1st someone who was opening one of these CBD’s stores could not sell marijuana in them.

Mrs. Valone said they are two separate products. If the town does not allow recreational marijuana, then it would not be allowed.

Chairman Paice stated he does not feel that there is a consensus so it might be something they should wait on.

Commissioner Wentink said if they don’t do anything it is still permissible.

Mrs. Valone then provided the process if someone wanted to open up a store right now.

Chairman Paice asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to make a motion.

Plan Commission Recommendation

Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner O’Connor to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of Option 2 – Prohibiting CBD and Kratom in all districts until the Comprehensive Plan has been updated along with the signage code. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Egan, O’Connor, Wentink, Paice

Nays: Hoffenberg

Motion passed

Live Entertainment Accessory to Eating Places

Mrs. Valone said the next amendment is in regards to Live Entertainment Accessory to Eating Places section of the code. Right now under the code any live entertainment requires either a special use which would be reviewed by this Commission and by the Village Board or through a temporary special use permit reviewed by the Village Manager. This temporary permit would only allow them eight events per year. Both of those applications do require the applicant to provide information on security, noise, number of patrons, parking, or things of this nature.

There has been an increase in the popularity among restaurants to have live entertainment. Additionally, there are a number of restaurants that are already

offering live entertainment but they have not obtained a special use permit or the temporary special use. In addition, the Village has received new inquiries related to live entertainment. So staff reviewed other municipalities requirements related to this live entertainment. Eight of the thirteen have mixed use downtown similar to La Grange. The most common approach was to allow it as of right inside of eating places but not outside.

Mrs. Valone stated the proposed text amendment would establish indoor live entertainment as of right which is consistent with other communities. It is also consistent with the market assessment conducted in 2017 which looked at the downtown and its strengths and weaknesses. Outdoor live entertainment will still require either a special use or a temporary special use permits. In addition, staff is recommending reducing the number of temporary use permits to four instead of the eight. Since this is outside they do not want to have too many outdoor events that could potentially impose negative impacts on the neighbors. This concluded staff’s presentation for this section.

Chairman Paice asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for staff.

Commissioner Egan asked if staff felt that the current buildings that these restaurants are in have sufficient noise control for the neighbors or the tenants that live above.

Mrs. Valone said the reason they discovered that these restaurants were already allowing it was through Community Development staff noticing it. The Police Department has not received any noise complaints from the restaurants that are already doing it. There are businesses that do incorporate noise reduction in their buildout. Staff has already started to implement a recommendation for those businesses related to potential noise reducing materials. There are some materials out there from a building code standpoint that are less than suitable for some businesses.

Commissioner Egan asked if staff can explain the 25% area dedicated to the live entertainment.

Mrs. Valone stated some of the places it will depend on the design. Some of the places have a stage intermixed with their eating tables. So the 25% would be the stage and then any mechanical equipment. If they have an area that is maybe just stage and seating specifically for it then that would also be regulated only to the 25%.

It is only permitted as an accessory use to an eating place.

Chairman Paice asked how this will affect the new restaurant, The Elm that opened up where the upstairs outside is made for entertainment.

Mrs. Valone said that The Elm is one of the recent inquiries. They are interested in having some live entertainment. The area that they are proposing is actually indoor for the live entertainment. They might also propose live entertainment on the outdoor second story dining area. The Village Board is also reviewing the noise control standards as well. Staff has researched current noise control ordinances and will be proposing changes to the Village Board.

Chairman Paice asked how this will affect the type of businesses that have those garage doors.

Mrs. Valone stated the noise control ordinance would regulate the noise that could spill out of the eating establishment on the public streets.

Commissioner Hoffenberg asked how many restaurants downtown have residents on top.

Mrs. Valone said she does not have an exact number. The predominate feature on La Grange Road is mixed use. On some of the side streets you’re not seeing as much mixed use. They haven’t received any complaints currently on any of the businesses that are currently doing this. If they did allow it inside and there were complaints, then it would be more of a landlord issue or a condo association issue to really enforce.

Commissioner Hoffenberg asked if in their research of other municipalities, was there a difference in regards to times or noise levels with buildings that have residential above versus buildings that don’t.

Mrs. Valone stated they did not. The difference staff saw was with time and the day of the week limits. Currently, La Grange’s code uses 10 p.m. every day of the week as the start of reduced decibel requirements.

Commissioner Hoffenberg said what he sees as a potential loophole are the places that have open garden areas or rooftops. This amendment talks about live entertainment in the principal building. He asked if a roof top area would be considered the principal building.

Mrs. Valone the rooftop would be considered outside the principal building and require either a special or temporary use permit.

Commission Hoffenberg stated he loves this and feels it will bring more people to the downtown. He wants to make sure that they are not being overly restrictive by reducing the number from eight to four.

Chairman Paice said he loves the idea also and they need to discuss this outdoor number.

Commissioner Egan stated she could see once a week in the summer.

Commissioner Hoffenberg said people would think they are talking about these loud heavy metal bands but what if it is just two people playing acoustic guitar.

Chairman Paice stated it is all about decibels.

Mrs. Valone said if they want to restrict it, then the only way they can do this is through the special use. Through the special use they would be providing additional information that they are not going to be overburdening their neighbors. They are also planning on updating the noise ordinance to more current practices. The special use would allow the Commission to review each one.

Commissioner Wentink agreed that he liked if a restaurant was trying to set something up for the summer than they would come before them and the Village Board and explain the structure of it. It will work better than trying to constrain it by numbers.

Discussion continued in regards to the temporary special use and the number of days the Village Manager can approve.

Ms. Adams, Village Attorney Pro Tem, stated that if a restaurant wanted to have outside entertainment every weekend, then it might be better that it comes before the Commission. The Village Manager cannot get the full impact of an extended schedule and how it will affect the neighbors.

Commissioner Hoffenberg said the summer is only about 12 to 16 weeks long where you get nice weather. If you expand the number to 12 to 16 then you give these places the opportunity to at least do it at least once a week without having to go through the special use process.

Chairman Paice asked if they should restrict it to Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Hoffenberg stated he agreed.

Discussion continued in regards to how many restaurants this could impact.

Mrs. Valone said the recommendation could be to change D on page 5 of the packet, from 4 to 16. Then change F to also say something along the lines of “or be permitted no more than once per week during the months of June to September”.

Mrs. Adams asked what about Memorial Day.

Chairman Paice stated he thought they were going to restrict it to Friday and Saturday, but he would like to add national holidays.

Mrs. Valone said to clarify, they want to add to D, limit it to no more than two times per week, limited to only one time between Thursday through Saturday and national holiday weekends, from Memorial Day through September 30. She also wanted to confirm that they wanted to change D to from four dates to 16 dates and leave F alone.

All Commissioners agreed.

Chairman Paice then called for a motion for recommendation. Plan Commissioner Recommendation

Commissioner O’Connor made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hoffenberg to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of the Live Entertainment Accessory to Eating Places amendments as discussed this evening. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: O’Connor, Hoffenberg, Egan, Wentink, Paice 

Nays: None

Motion passed

Fence Construction Detail

Mrs. Valone said the next amendment relates to fence construction detail. Prior to 2018, the Village required a permit to install a fence or replace a fence but did not require inspections. Since fences can be located on the property line they can often be subject of concern between neighbors. In 2018, the Village started requiring two inspections for fence construction. The first is for post holes, to ensure that sure they are put in the correct areas and are dig to the right depth. The second inspection is conducted after the fence is fully constructed.

After implementing these inspections, staff discovered that approximately half of the fences were failing inspections because they were too tall. Per the Zoning Code, fences are limited to a maximum height of six feet. That is measured from grade to tallest point of the fence, meaning that the height maximum includes any decorative tops on them. Fence panels are generally manufactured in standard heights, but the way the code is written it doesn’t account for these decorative caps or if the fences have to be elevated above the ground. To address these fence requirement issues, staff is proposing to incorporate the detail shown on the screen into the code to more specifically indicate that there is room for the panel to vary off the ground and have these decorative posts. The panel would stay at six feet but the overall height cannot exceed six feet and six inches. Staff surveyed the open permits currently and of those the six feet six inches would generally accommodate most of the fences that are constructed and not cause too many issues with constructed fences.

Chairman Paice asked if there were any questions or comments.

Commissioner Hoffenberg wanted to confirm it was from grade at any point of measurement.

Mrs. Valone stated the fence companies want to keep their panels in line. So if there is a higher point then they are lifting the panels off the ground so that is why they did not specify it had to be so many feet or inches on the bottom or on the top. The area underneath can get a little bit taller depending on where you start the slope.

Commissioner O’Connor asked if there was a list of approved fence companies that must be used.

Mrs. Valone said they do not limit who can install but the contractor does need to be registered with the Village. She wants to clarify that this is for residential. Fences in commercial districts can be a height of six feet from combustible materials, but there are noncombustible fences that are currently permitted at eight feet. They are just trying to standardize this diagram to be able to allow this six-inch flexibility.

Chairman Paice asked if there were any further questions or comments regarding fences. None responded. He then called for a motion for recommendation.

Plan Commission Recommendation

Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Wentink to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of Fence Construction Detail as presented by staff. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Egan, Wentink, Hoffenberg, O’Connor, Paice 

Nays: None

Motion passed

Expansion of Nonconforming Structures in Corner Side Yards

Mrs. Valone stated in 2015, the Plan Commission at that time reviewed horizontal expansions of nonconforming structures of the Zoning Code. Based on Village records the intent of the 2015 amendment was to codify the Village’s existing interpretation of the nonconforming chapter. The goal was to reduce confusion for residents and design professional when interpreting these nonconforming regulations.

She showed on the overhead an example house and where the required yards are located. Under the current code a house that is nonconforming with respect to the rear and interior side yard is permitted to continue along those lines and put an addition. Under the existing code they are not permitted to do so into the corner side yard or into the front yard. Based on the intent of the 2015 code it appears they were codifying the existing requirements which would have allowed for expansions in the rear, interior side, and corner side yards. Staff is looking to clarify this language to match the intent of the 2015 amendment. Staff did review all of the permits for nonconforming corner side yard addition expansions since 2003 and did find that was the interpreted and implemented policy.

Commissioner Wentink clarified that it will still have to meet lot coverage.

Mrs. Valone said that is correct. Also included in staff’s agenda packet email is a resident letter in support of the change. There is a secondary letter placed on the dais tonight that is from another resident that is also in support of this text amendment that staff received today.

Commissioner Hoffenberg asked if there was any discussion in 2015 about there being a distinction between non-corner lots and your regular street of houses.

Mrs. Valone stated staff reviewed the minutes from the 2015 meeting and there was very little discussion. The way it was described in 2015 was a codification of existing practices. Where the issue came into play is that when it was written they wrote side lot line. When you review the definition in the code it only indicates interior. She believes the intent was there to allow it in both of the side yards, corner and interior, but the way it was written did not quite meet the intent. She did go and review how corner side yards are treated in the different districts. There are some areas where they do treat them differently and there are some where they do not. The residential district is where they treat the corner side yard as a quasi-front yard. In the residential district the front yard is generally 35 feet or an average of the neighbors, but no less than 25 feet. The corner side yard is generally 17 feet for most districts and the larger ones like R-1 and R-2’s you are seeing 24 feet. This applies only to single-family residential dwellings.

Chairman Paice asked if there was a clear definition of what is the front and what is the side of the house.

Mrs. Valone said the front yard is the shortest frontage along a public street. Discussion continued in regards to what is considered the front yard.

Mrs. Valone stated something to consider is that corner lots are permitted to have a higher building coverage than interiors. The intent behind that is because they are usually the lots that have more narrow widths.

Chairman Paice asked if there was any further comments or questions in regards to this amendment. None responded. He then called for a motion for recommendation.

Plan Commission Recommendation

Commissioner Hoffenberg made a motion, seconded by Commissioner O’Connor to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of Expansion of Nonconforming Structures in Corner Side Yards as presented by staff. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Hoffenberg, O’Connor, Wentink, Egan, Paice 

Nays: None

Motion passed

Definition of Patio

Mrs. Valone said from time to time the Village has received permit applications for service walks or driveway extensions when it seems that the actual intent is for the permitting to install a patio. Staff is proposing a definition of a patio to assist residents, contractors, and design professionals to better distinguish between other accessory structures and patios. Then to enable these residents, contractors, and design professionals to more effectively apply corresponding Zoning Code requirements for the appropriate accessory structure.

Commissioner Hoffenberg asked wouldn’t it be better to clarify those definitions if they were having it happen a lot with service walks or driveway extensions.

Mrs. Valone stated the reason why they decided to define the patio rather than service walks or driveways is because you are not seeing driveways that are in the middle of someone’s yard. Service walks and driveways generally have an understood definition. Patios can be a little bit different than both of them. There are some creative folks that are putting in these new types of patios for entertaining.

Commissioner Egan asked if the purpose of defining this is so it meets the required setback.

Mrs. Valone said patios have more regulation on them then some of these other accessory structures. Patios are required to be setback from the property lines to ensure that they do no create negative impact on the neighbors. There have been applications that came in where they are showing a patio all the way to the lot line. Staff would explain that they have to be so many feet off the lot line, and then they would change it saying that so many feet of the previous patio is a service walk. People are utilizing this loop hole because there is no definition of a patio.

Commissioner Hoffenberg asked if they would have to separately apply or deal with the service walk and patio.

Mrs. Valone stated the way they handled applications were they specifically stated on an approval that a specific portion was supposed to be used for a sidewalk and another section was supposed to be used for patio. If they get complaints from a neighbor and there is a patio table where the service walk is supposed to be, they can require them to move it back to the correct position.

Commissioner Wentink said this is where they get in trouble with the words “the intended use”. They are requiring someone to make an interpretation. He stated from which direction do they define the issue just like Commissioner Hoffenberg had stated.

Discussion continued in regards to the definition.

Mrs. Valone said what if they changed the definition to “without a roof and with no other intended use for pedestrian or vehicle access”.

Commissioner Hoffenberg stated he would eliminate the pedestrian part and leave it prohibiting vehicle access.

Mrs. Valone said they can take the definition of a patio and the definition of service walk and combine them. Service walks can be defined with a maximum width and for most municipalities it is five feet. Outside of that you would be looking at a recreation area or a dining area. So there would be a definition for patio and service walk. Part of the recommendation could be to direct staff to draft a definition for sidewalk that would include some of this pedestrian access piece that was discussed with a width maximum.

Commissioner Hoffenberg stated he would like to see the definition for the Commission to discuss.

Chairman Paice asked if there were any further questions or comments. None responded. He then called for a motion for recommendation.

Plan Commission Recommendation

Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hoffenberg to continue the amendment for the definition of patio until the next scheduled meeting. Staff is also directed to craft a definition for service walk for review. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Egan, Hoffenberg, O’Connor, Wentink, Paice 

Nays: None

Motion passed

IV. GENERAL DISCUSSION

None

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Paice called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Commissioner O’Connor made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hoffenberg to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

https://il-lagrange2.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2439