Good evening and uh like to call to
order the village of Riverside Board of
Trustees regular meeting of Thursday,
April 16th, 2026.
Uh please stand as you're able and join
me in the pledge of allegiance.
I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» Clerk Stenzel, please call the role.
>> Trusty Marsha here.
>> Trusty Gallaga.
>> Trusty CS
>> here.
>> Trusty Evans here.
>> Trusty Matteo here.
>> Trusty Fitzgerald
>> here. President Pollock
>> here,
>> manager Francis here, attorney pickroll
here.
>> Also, President Clerk Stenzel.
>> So, under president's report, we have uh
three proclamations. I will start with
the Arbor Day proclamation.
Whereas in 1872, J. Sterling Morton
proposed to the Nebraska Board of
Agriculture that a special day be set
aside for the planting of trees. And
whereas the holiday called Arbor Day was
first observed with the planting of more
than a million trees in Nebraska.
And whereas Arbor Day is now observed
throughout the nation and the world. And
whereas trees can reduce erosion of top
soil by wind and water, purify the air
and water by reducing pollution,
and create plant and wildlife diversity.
And whereas trees have been shown to
reduce crime, increase property values,
reduce heating and cooling cost, and
conserve energy use. And whereas trees
can beautify our parks and streets,
improve the quality of our urban
environment, and carry on the tradition
planned by the inventive vision of
Frederick Lawstead.
And whereas trees wherever they are
planted are a source of joy and
spiritual renewal. Where and whereas the
village of Riverside plans to plant a
sweet birch and pecan tree at the Repton
South Coat triangle to celebrate Arbor
Day. Now therefore, be it resolved that
I, Doug Py, village president, proclaim
the day of April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day
in the village of Riverside. And I urge
all citizens to plant and care for trees
to gladden the heart and promote the
protection and care of trees within our
community and woodlands. In witness
hereof, I have set my hand and fix the
seal of the village of Riverside the
16th day of April 2026.
We also have uh two other proclamations
which I would like to call on trustees
to read. The first is uh world migratory
bird day proclamation. Trusty Matteo.
>> Thank you, President Polly. Whereas
World Migratory Bird Day helps to focus
public attention on the nearly 350
species that travel between nesting
habitats in our communities and
throughout North America and their
wintering grounds in South America,
Central America, and Southern North
America. And whereas the village of
Riverside has celebrated migratory birds
as part of Global Big Day events since
2024.
Whereas Global Big Day is an annual
event organized by the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology in which bird watchers from
around the world come together to
document as many bird species as
possible in a 24-hour period. And
whereas World Migratory Bird Day and
Global Big Day, both held annually on
the second Saturday in May, provide a
unique opportunity for people around the
world to come together through the
shared love of birds. And whereas
migratory birds and their habitats are
declining throughout the Americas and
are facing a growing number of threats
on their migration routes and in their
summer and winter homes. And whereas
citizen scientists and bird enthusiasts
of all ages and abilities are encouraged
to participate in Global Big Day by
spending time observing and recording
birds in their local communities. And
whereas these collective observations
contribute valuable data to scientific
research, helping to monitor bird
populations, track migration patterns,
and identify conservation needs. And
whereas by participating, we foster a
deeper connection with nature and
promote the importance of bird
conservation. And whereas the
Displayplains River Corridor in
Riverside is designated by the National
Ottabon Society as an important bird
area offering food and shelter to
migrating birds. Now therefore, be it
resolved that we, the members of the
village of Village Board of Trustees, do
hereby proclaim May 9th, 2026 as World
Migratory Bird Day in Riverside,
Illinois.
» Thank you. Uh and then we have a third
proclamation uh international dark sky
week proclamation and I would like to
ask Trusty Evans to read that
proclamation.
>> Whereas the aesthetic beauty and wonder
of a natural night sky is a shared
heritage of all humankind and a
foundational element of the village of
Riverside's historic character. And
whereas the experience of standing
beneath a starry night sky inspires
feelings of wonder and awe, encouraging
interest in science and nature while
fostering a deep connection to the
natural world. Whereas light pollution,
excessive artificial lighting at night
that disrupts natural darkness has
scientifically established consequences
impacting human health, the environment,
and the economy. And whereas Riverside
is situated within the Mississippi
flyway where hundreds of millions of
birds navigate by stars during peak
migration seasons and light pollution
acts as a major disruptor to these
species and other nocturnal wildlife and
pollinators. And whereas the village of
Riverside has demonstrated its
commitment to sustainability through the
road to 2050 climate action and
resilience plan which prioritizes the
reduction of energy waste and the
protection of our local ecosystem.
And whereas Riverside is actively pursuing designation as an
international dark sky community joining
the global movement to implement best
practices and sustainable outdoor
lighting. And whereas International Dark
Sky Week is a global celebration
intended to raise awareness of light
pollution and provide education on
responsible lighting solutions that
protect the night sky while maintaining
safety and security. Now therefore, be
it resolved that we, the trustees of the
village of Riverside Board, do hereby
proclaim April 13 through April 20, 2026
as International Dark Sky Week in the
Village of Riverside and encourage all
residents and businesses to join in this
observation observance by assessing
their outdoor lighting, using shielded
and downward-facing fixtures, and
turning off non-essential lights to help
preserve the beauty of our night's guys
for generations to come.
>> Thank you, Trusty Evans. Um,
one item uh before I get into upcoming
meetings, one item that I did want to
ask the uh trustees about uh it recently
came to my attention uh that one of our
restaurants in town, Choo Choo, was
celebrating their 30th anniversary,
right? Mhm.
>> And uh I was asked, you know, should we
recognize that or acknowledge that? And
it got me to thinking about that in a
broader sense. And I would like to ask
the board if you're interested in
directing our economic development
commission to look into uh business
anniversary recognition program.
>> Yes, I would.
So we will uh push that to the economic
development commission and we look
forward to
>> longevity. Absolutely.
>> Yeah. Yeah. They they can tell us you
know 1 5 10 whatever.
Leave leave the details up to that.
>> Great.
>> And let's not forget the milestone about
legalizing alcohol sales in restaurants
too. happens.
» Upcoming meetings include
>> I have a quick trustee report just um
sort of dovetailing on the um
>> Sure. Go ahead.
>> migratory birds and the dark skies.
Wednesday of next week is Earth Day
>> and the uh Riverside Community Garden is
having a Earth Day celebration,
familyfriendly. all kinds of
organizations from throughout the
village will be there with um activities
that are, you know, geared towards being
friendly to the planet. So that's at 3
PM at the Ascension Lutheran Church at
400 Nuttal Kitty Corner from Ames. So
hope to see you all there.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Okay. So also the Knights of Columbus
will have their annual pasta night on
the 25th of April. That'll be at St.
Mary's from 4:30 to 8. And then uh Lions
will have the annual chicken dinner on
May 3rd, which is a Sunday here at
Township Hall. And that'll be from 12:00
to 5:00. So when it comes to food, I I
hope people pay attention because I sure
do.
>> Great.
I I did want to announce upcoming
meetings. Uh that includes April 22nd,
Planning and Zoning Commission regular
meeting, uh Village Hall, 6:30 p.m. Uh
April 23rd, Police Pension Board regular
meeting, Riverside Village Hall, room
22.
It does 6:30 p.m.
>> for police pension. That's at 1:00.
>> 1:00 1 p.m. at Village Hall. Uh, April
27th, parks parks and recreation board
regular meeting at the Riverside Public
Library, 6:30 p.m. And uh, our next
meeting of the village board is two
weeks from tonight or three weeks from
tonight actually. Right. Anyway, it's
May 7th. Um, is our next re regular
meeting 6:30 p.m. here at the village
hall as as usual. Uh, are there any
additional trustee reports?
>> Yes. So, we've talked about World
Migratory Bird Day and Global Big Day
that are both happening on May 9th. That
may sound like a kind of odd thing for
the village to wrap its arms around, but
over the past 50 years, North America
has lost three billion breeding birds.
And that's because of loss of habitat
where they spend their winters, where
they spend their summers on their treks
north. Some some birds travel 12,000
miles one way to get to the breeding
grounds. So, they're they're very
threatened. And so that's why we want to
document and conserve and celebrate the
birds that come through here and some of
them find Riverside their home for the
summer. Um there are a lot of activities
that are being planned for the 9th. I'd
like people to put it on their schedule
just carve out a little bit of time that
morning. I know it's a really busy
weekend. Parks and Recreation will be
the host at the Scout Cabin. We'll get
more details about what's happening, but
we'll have a bird walk starting at 9:00.
Wings and Talons will be bringing birds
of prey for people to look at and learn
from. Brookfield Zoo and landscape um
advisory commission will be there with
materials. Um we'll have a raffle giving
away bird feeders donated by Wild Birds
Unlimited. Um thank you to Laura and Mel
Tracy who live in Brookfield, but also
appreciate Riverid's birds. Um there's
going to be a bug eating challenge and I
hope all of my fellow trustees will be
there to take on that challenge.
protein. It's good for the environment.
Uh there's going to be scavenger hunt,
arts and craft for kids, and a photo
opportunity. I understand a very large
nest with eggs that kids can sit in and
get their pictures taken. So again, May
9th in the morning at Scout Cabin. Hope
you can make it. If you can't make it
that day, and I'll be very brief here in
the future, there are other things you
can do to protect birds. You can turn
off your lights during migration, both
spring and fall. You can plant native
plants and so that the birds will have
food for themselves and for their kids
if they're breeding here. And finally,
touchy subject I know, but maybe next
year think about delaying your yard
cleanup by a few weeks. Allow some
insects to come out of the ground, come
out of the leaf litter again for those
birds. Just some ideas to put out there.
Hope to see a bunch of folks on May 9th.
Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> What time was May 9th?
>> The birdwalk is 9 to 11. Thank you for
asking. The other activities start are
from 10:30 to 12 again at the scout
cabin. So if you can come for 5 minutes
or come for 3 hours, you're welcome.
>> The other trustee reports
are good. Uh manager report, manager
Francis.
>> Thank you. I have a couple of um things
that I wanted to recognize. Uh this is
telecommun telecommunicator week. Um, so
I wanted to recognize our dispatchers
from West Central Consolidated
Communications Center and also our
executive director. So I'm actually
going to go really quick through their
names because I think it's important to
recognize them individually. So Tom
Perfect, our executive director, Greg
Ryel, our communication operations
analyst, and here are full-time
employees. Gina Place Placia, Dena
Wetszler, Kizzy Smith, Kristen
Roasovich, Jacqueline James, Nelly
Santana, Steve Espinosa, Amanda
Phillips, Irene Luki, Michael Quan,
Nikki Mal Malusio, Christina Chavez,
Cheryl Renie, Lara, Selena Villa,
Jennerquila, Christine
Eujenowski, sorry if I pronounced it
incorrectly, John Fernowski, and Neri
para Francco. So, thank you to all of
their work. They are a huge lifeline to
our public safety personnel and um
because typically you never see them um
you know sometimes we want to make sure
that they are recognized even more
importantly so for all their important
work that they do because they are the
ones that you talk to when you call 911
or are non-emergency.
Additionally, I wanted to recognize
Riverside staff members um that are
having some milestones in the month of
April and they include Janette Owano who
is our aerobics instructor and has been
for 24 years. Frank Koopa Krupa, our
code enforcement inspector, has been
with the village for four years. Um Mike
Panic, who is a police sergeant, has
been with the village for 15 years.
Hunter Duzek, who has been with both
Riverside TV and as a full-time employee
in total for five years. Laura Burstein,
who's an admin assistant in the police
department, has been with the village
for two years. Michael Jeruski, uh,
public works maintenance operator, 13
years. Kevin Delgado, patrol officer,
three years. Joseph Vargas, police
officer, one year. and Ron Melchiode,
director of parks and recreation, 23
years.
» Thank you to all those employees.
>> And I have one final announcement um
with more information to come, but it's
important and I would equally like
residents to mark their calendars. We
will be doing an open house relative to
our public safety facility with Williams
on May 19th from 5 to 7:00 p.m. It will
be at station 2. And why is it at at
station two, you may ask? Because all
the other areas within
um the town hall are unavailable. And so
I think it is appropriately suited that
it would be in station I'm sorry, I
think I said station two. Station one.
Um and so everything will be set up in
station one. They will initially do
anformational program um explaining the
facility and other pieces and then they
will do different exercises and have
different groups um for gathering
community feedback on the facility which
will also include not just different
materials and finishes but also will
touch upon um different sustainability
items. So, we'll be beginning that
discussion. Ultimately, all of that
feedback will then be brought back to
the village board at a later date, but
May 19th
>> and station one being the fire station
adjacent to the village hall and police
offices.
>> Correct. Thank you.
>> Uh public comments, non-aggenda items.
Is uh this is the opportunity for anyone
in the public to address the board on a
non-aggenda item?
I see no one here to address the board
on the non-aggenda items. So, I will
move on. Uh, clerk Stenzel, please call
or please read the consent agenda.
>> Ratify voucher list of bills, April 2nd,
2026. Approve voucher list of bills,
April 16th, 2026. Approve village board
of trustees regular meeting minutes,
March 19th, 2026. Review and file board
and commission minutes. Planning and
Zoning Commission, regular meeting
minutes, January 28th, 2026. Riverside
TV Commission, regular meeting minutes,
February 2nd, 2026. Preservation
Commission, regular meeting minutes,
February 12th, 2026. Parks and
Recreation Board, regular meeting
minutes, February 23rd, 2026.
Review and file department reports.
Community development January 2026.
Community development February 2026. Uh,
community development March 2026.
Sorry. Uh, public works March 2026,
finance department, March 2026.
A resolution of the village of
Riverside, Illinois, waving competitive
bidding and authorizing the village
manager to execute an agreement with US
tennis court construction for a total
amount not to exceed $53,000 for the BLE
multi-use court project.
A resolution of the village of
Riverside, Illinois, waving competitive
bidding
and authorizing the village manager to
enter into various purchase orders. Oh,
pardon. I skipped through two of them.
Motion to approve a resolution waving
competitive bidding and authorizing the
village manager to enter into various
purchase orders. a resolution
authorizing a $360,000
interfund transfer from the general fund
and a $72,517
interfund transfer from the parks and
recreation fund to the capital projects
fund to fund capital expenditures. A
resolution authorizing a $250
uh,000 interfund transfer from the
general fund to the street improvement
fund for reimbursement of maintenance
expenses and an ordinance amending the
village code relative to crossing by
vehicles and amending a fee schedule.
» Do any of these items need to be
removed?
>> None. Um, could I have a motion and a
second to approve the consent agenda?
>> Second.
>> Motion and second. Um, clerk stenzel.
>> Trusty Marshauska. Hi,
>> Trusty Gallagh. Hi,
>> Trusty Evans. Hi,
>> Trusty Mattail. Hi,
>> Trusty Fitzgerald.
>> Hi.
>> Uh, motion carries. Consent agenda is
approved. Uh, we go on to department,
board, and commission reports. We have a
preservation commission report tonight
from Director Siren.
>> Thank you very much. I have two brief
updates uh for you from the preservation
commission. The commission recommends
that the village landmark the stone
gutter in Harrington Park. This is the
last remaining example of the
construction of the Riverside roadway
system designed by Mstead and Box and it
exemplifies a design detail and
construction method conceived to achieve
a specific aesthetic intent while
preserving the structural and
operational integrity of the roadway
system. Unless the board objects, the
application will proceed to the
preservation commission for a public
hearing on June 1st and an ordinance to
designate the stone curb as a landmark
structure would be presented to the
board at a meeting this summer.
>> Should we take that one first? Any
objection on it? No. Pardon?
>> We're not voting on it.
>> No, just direction to proceed.
>> Just direction as to proceed.
>> Yeah, I'm in favor of it. In
>> Okay, thank you.
>> I just was wondering how are we going to
preserve this from further erosion?
Is anybody ever anybody thinking about
that? It's going to erode. It's so It
looks very fragile. And
>> what are we going to do about that? I
don't think it's going to be around
forever.
>> It's a question that that needs to be
addressed, but it's been there for a
long long time.
Um, but
take that under advisement.
>> I'll uh ask for research from the state
historic preservation office and see if
they have any guidance they can provide
to us and I'll report back to the board.
>> Thanks.
>> Of course.
>> Then you had another one.
>> I do. I I had an update on the public
safety facility. Williams architects
presented the designs to the
preservation commission and asked for
feedback on schemes one and two. Um they
also had schemes three and four
available to them and they reviewed
those as well. Uh generally the
commissioners felt that all felt that
seeing the proposed materials and colors
would really be helpful. They felt that
you know the buildings were a little
heavy without those. Um they all agreed
on that. Regarding scheme two, uh the
commission did not express a clear
consensus in favor of scheme one or
scheme two. Uh they did note that scheme
two is more successful in connecting the
street to the river and that the area
near the river uh appears to be more
developed um and has potential as a
public amenity. Um they thought the
horizontal datams were more evident in
scheme 2 and that breaking up uh the
long horizontal surfaces they saw as an
improvement um as the uninterrupted
horizontal planes can feel overpowering.
Three commissioners expressed support
for scheme three, noting it was the most
contemporary of the designs which they
supported. It was described as similar
to scheme one but more successfully
engaging the river.
Regarding the river elevation and
pedestrian experience, the commissioners
noted that many people will walk past
this building daily. Uh making the
relationship between the building's form
and the river one of the most important
design considerations for the building
and the site.
The river-facing facade, particularly on
the eastern portion of the building near
the swing bridge, was described as stark
and uninviting. Uh the sheer wall with
slit windows at the top were described
as unwelcoming for pedestrians. So the
commission uh suggested ways to uh
soften the appearance of the building.
Um I think in using different materials
um and textures, understanding that they
can't have windows in that portion of
the building due to the operation of it.
Um, the commission also uh suggested
ways uh to soften the river uh using
plant materials or limestone
outcroppings that step down toward the
river and recommending researching
examples of pathways that actually
extend out over the water as an option.
Um they also suggested considering if
possible a way to improve the connection
between the pathway and the swing
bridge. They thought that was a little
awkward. When you exit the pathway you'd
have to go double back to get on the
swing bridge, though we're not sure if
there's a solution to that. And that was
the feedback from the commission. Thank
you. Any questions or comments from the
board?
Um so that information uh our architects
will take that under advisement
uh and after the open house uh they will
begin working on updates, revisions and
bring something back to us at that time.
Correct.
>> Thank you.
Next on the agenda under pending
business is discussion regarding
annually licensed food trucks. Director
Siren.
>> Thank you. The board has discussed this
several times and uh most recently on
February 19th, the board generally
agreed on a set of standards for food
trucks. Those are summarized uh starting
on page six of the agenda history sheet.
The board requested the planning and
zoning commission's input on these
standards, one of which is to require a
special use, which is a type of zoning
review, to allow food trucks to operate
as a licensed business in the central
business district. Uh the majority of
the commission, four out of the six
commissioners did not support allowing
food trucks in the central business
district even with a special use. Uh
they listed a few reasons for that. Uh
the community is trying to have more
transit oriented development which
includes more housing in the central
business district and it may not be
desirable for folks living uh in that
area to have a food truck and a parking
lot nearby. They felt that food trucks
would be inconsistent with the character
of the CBD particularly where a parking
lot is next to a residence which is uh
tied to the first point that the the
community is trying to promote brick and
mortar uh businesses which food trucks
would not be. Uh there aren't any
pending requests for food trucks
currently. Um the village can reconsider
the issue if it receives many requests
for permits in the central business
district and a um a property owner could
have a special event with a food truck
without a special use permit. Um they
just couldn't operate every day of the
week. So they think there's an
alternative option to getting a special
use permit. Uh the remainder of the
commission's feedback is included in the
agenda history sheet and I can review
those comments at your request. Um I
would like to note a few things. Um
there was an issue that was previously
mentioned by staff but not discussed by
the board. Um the issue was whether the
owner of a multi-unit commercial
shopping center should be able to wave
the 100 foot separation requirement
between a food truck on their property
and a brickandmortar restaurant on the
same property. So the one example of
this would be the Shining Smiles
shopping center. There's a location uh
on the property that would meet the
residential separation requirement. if
the property owner wanted to allow a
food truck. However, he would be unable
to because of the 100 foot food
separation of uh between the food truck
and the existing restaurant on site. So,
staff had mentioned this previously, but
it wasn't brought before the board for
specific direction. Um, if the board
would like, we can uh have you wave that
requirement at the property owner's
discretion. So, they could wave their
own separation requirement. And again,
it would only apply to the Shining Smile
Shopping Center. Um, so that's I
included that as at the list that I'll
show you of uh your request for your
feedback. Um,
also following the board's discussion on
February 19th, two additional amendments
were identified for the board's
consideration and those were listed in
the agenda history sheet. Very simply,
the first is the definition of f of
mobile food unit will need to be amended
if the board wants to allow stationary
licensed food trucks to be able to sell
ice cream and other frozen desserts. uh
because you cannot currently sell ice
cream and other frozen desserts from a
mobile food unit in the village and
that's a long-standing issue in the
code. So if the mobile food unit is
stationary and licensed and would like
to sell ice cream, we would just need to
amend the code to be able to do that.
» I'm sorry.
» I don't don't remember but I don't
remember the language being uh ice cream
truck.
Oh. Um I think the the definition is
mobile food unit.
>> Yes.
Yes, that's correct. Um I'm sorry
if I misspoke. Um second, um if if the
board supports allowing uh bicycles or
other non-motorized food units to
operize to operate as licensed uh excuse
me, as mobile food units, uh staff
recommends uh recommends amending the
code to specify that. Uh currently the
definition of mobile food unit says a a
vehicle or other cart can be used and
it's not quite clear if you have a
bicycle with uh storage and you wanted
to use that as a as a uh mobile food
unit that you'd be able to do that. So
we could clarify that by just amending
the definition of mobile food unit in
the code to specify that you could use a
bicycle with storage.
Um, so staff is requesting that the
board provide feedback and direction to
the staff on the remaining items that uh
were remaining from the board's
discussion and the the items that I
mentioned tonight and any other feedback
that you might have. Um, one of the
remaining items that the board discussed
but didn't settle on were the operating
hours. Um, staff initially suggested 7
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. to roughly align with
the hours when construction is allowed.
Um, but there wasn't consensus on that point. Um,
» should we take this one at a time or we
talk about
>> We could take them one at a time. So,
the first question is, uh, should the
operating hours be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m.
>> And this is for is this both for special
event food trucks or just for
>> this business license?
>> This is just for licensed food trucks.
>> Licensed food trucks.
>> Is it possible for them to Could you get
in? could you apply for? Is there a
process for getting an exemption? Again,
I use my exemption, my example of a
coffee truck, like a coffee breakfast
thing might want to start earlier than 7
a.m.
>> Um,
>> is there a process for saying, can we
open at five?
» Okay.
I was just want I mean there's no
reason to legislate for something that
doesn't exist yet but if somebody wanted
to say open at five
>> could it maybe be an appeal process
where there it would come before the
board
special they could unless you know we
could have a standard with I mean the concern here with with time is is
>> traffic and other we could say it's like
well this is something our our business
model it's we're going to be located
here and we're serving this type of
product which will not obstruct and they
can establish that our our overall goals
are being achieved so we can we can wave
that requirement upon a certain showing.
I'll come up with the right words for it
but we'd have to change the process.
>> Perfect. Then then I would be okay with
the 7 to9.
>> Any other comments on the hours? If not
they take that as consensus based on the
amendments uh suggested by trustee
costs. So number two,
>> number two is should the owner of a
multi-unit commercial shopping center be
able to wave the 100 foot separation
requirement from a brick and mortar
restaurant on the same property in our
example of Shining Smiles?
>> I think yes.
>> Also yes.
>> So does that take the the power away
from the restaurant?
>> Yeah.
>> If the owner if the owner of the
property allowed it, then the restaurant
wouldn't be able to object. That's
correct.
>> I say no.
I would say yes if the brickandmortar
restaurant agrees for each case.
>> I'd piggy back off that and say there
should be an appeal for the restaurant
as well.
>> I I agree with Trusty Mateo in that if
they obtain the consent of the business
owner then they should be allowed to
receive.
>> I I have a question for attorney
pickroll.
I I I don't disagree with the sentiment
of asking the the tenant, but on the
other hand, from our perspective as a
regulatory agency, does that tenant have
agency?
>> Yeah, that I I was thinking the same
thing as we were talking about it with
this uh the um
you know, the idea behind the distance
requirement is that you don't want to
have unfair impacts and you were trying
to address that. Um, and so, uh, what I
would like to do, I was thinking about
how I write this up, to create a series
of objective standards in which that
could be waved. And this would be, uh, a
factor. I I would not want to seed
regulatory authority to any individual
to say up or down on on this. But the
impact on neighboring communities uh
neighboring properties rather as
evidenced by they can speak out about it
can be a factor that we consider but I
think would ultimately be up to the
village board to approve it not the
neighbor.
>> Yeah. I it concerns me that we insert
ourselves
into a private contract between a
property owner and a tenant.
>> Right. Yes.
>> None of our business. And to me legally
the the entity withstanding is the
property owner
>> right
>> ultimately. So if you could look more
sure and I can review it. I mean
ultimately what I sort of view this is
if you tell me what what your goals are
and I will provide you with options
about how to achieve those goals. They
may not perfectly align with that but
they can you know if if it's the
specific idea of waiver based on uh
permission is is an interesting idea.
But if the goal is if we could that we
want to establish that there isn't harm
and that this this distance requirement
can be modified in light of a
demonstration of a lack of harm, I think
that is rational. So I I'll come with
something that if once I have clear
direction, I can come with something for
you to consider.
>> Well, I guess in that case, I would
change my answer to no. I would not be
in favor of it and only because um the
person leased that space, the restaurant
owner leased the space
with the expectation of it being a
certain way. And you know, if it's if
there's only one restaurant space in the
plaza and they've leased it, then they
have an expectation that they're going
to be able to operate in a certain way
without
>> direct competition. I mean, I I like the
idea of them being able to be consulted
and us being able to, you know, weigh
that, I suppose. But, um, if it has to
be one way or the other, I would be a
no. I think that you're assuming though
that it would be competitive versus
mutually beneficial. For example, if you
put a dessert truck or a cupcake truck
there, that could potentially drive
business to the restaurant. If you did a
breakfast truck there, that wouldn't
take away from the current restaurant
that's there.
>> Takes away parking. I mean, putting a big truck of, you know, or
maybe even a small truck takes parking
spaces.
>> I just don't think we can assume that it
would be that having another food place
there. I mean, if you look at the models
that are around, I mean, usually you see
a Burger King and a Chick-fil-A and an
Arby's all right next door to each
other. And the reason why is because
when people go to place, people like to
go to one spot. So they actually all
draw each other together. Um I don't
think that having multiple food places
will take away from each other. I think
it'll be mutually beneficial. I don't
think we can assume that it would be bad
for business to have a food truck there.
>> I don't think that's a fair assumption.
You're you're looking at a very
discreet, finite parking lot. And you're
talking about taking up space within
that lot that is supposed to be able to
be used by all of the customers in the,
you know, all of the patrons for the
plaza
>> and taking taking that away and making
it more.
>> I I want to answer that question,
Aberdine, and ask uh planner siren.
Uh this is for licensed food trucks. So
someone
uh is operating a food truck, do they
not have to show that they still have
sufficient parking?
>> They need to demonstrate off they can't
occupy required parking spaces. They
have to be extra spaces.
>> There are no extra spaces in the lot
though.
>> But there are I think there probably
are.
>> I would have to count the spaces in
that.
>> We have to count. But if if that's the
case, if there are no extra spaces, then
they can't have a food truck. You mean
extra on top of what's required?
>> Right. Right.
>> I just seem to remember when that plaza
was developed, there were all kinds of
discussions about how difficult it was
to navigate the traffic.
>> That's a different question though. The
question is, okay,
>> do they as a practical matter, do they
have enough parking? I don't know. But
as a legal matter, uh, do they have
enough parking to meet our zoning
requirements? And if they don't have
enough parking to meet our zoning
requirements, they can't have a food
truck.
So from our perspective, the parking
will meet the zoning requirements
if they they put a food truck there.
They have to. So, the other thing I
would I was asked too, another way to
look at this is um
take the Shining uh Harlem and Long
Common Shopping Plaza. Uh what if
another brickandmortar restaurant wants
to go into that plaza? Are we going to
tell them they can't because there's
already a restaurant there? Is that our
business? You've kind of had that
discussion before as well when
>> is that up to us to say now some tenants
will have in their lease that you can't
have another restaurant and that's a
private agreement between the landlord
and the tenant and that's gets to my
point of
>> I'm hesitant to insert ourselves
into that contract between the property
owner and the tenant by giving the
tenant veto power
when maybe they don't have that because
it's not in their lease and there could
be another brick and mortar restaurant
right next door to them and they don't
have veto power over that, but they do
have veto power over the food truck.
>> So, that seems a little inconsistent to
me to do it that way. So,
>> um I think I'd like to ask attorney
pickrol to look into that.
>> Yeah.
>> And come back to us. Uh I like I said, I totally understand the sentiment of
trying to protect the existing brick and
mortar restaurants. It's a lot lot has a
lot to do with why we've discussed this
so much is we're trying to do that. But
um but I want to make sure we're on fat
sound legal ground.
>> Can I say one more thing though?
>> Yes, please.
>> Um we spent a lot of time a lot of time
talking about the guidelines um for the
space between restaurants and food
trucks and what we wanted and it was
based on what we heard from restaurants
and it's just based on fairness. So, I
don't know why. And I also think it
would be complicated to ask the
restaurant owner yes or no. Um, so I
just think we should stick with what
we've already decided instead of I don't
know why we're reopening this
discussion.
Well, what we've already decided is that
uh
the Shining Smiles
Shopping Center could not have a food
truck because it would be within the
separation requirement from an existing
restaurant,
>> right? Oh, did we?
>> But the question is, is that is is that
what we really want? And are you saying
it is what you want or not
>> or you're not sure yet?
>> It is what? Yeah,
>> but again, I go back to what you just
said. If Q nails, god forbid, ever
decided to leave that that shopping
center. Seriously, can't don't ever do
that.
>> Um, but if they ever decided to leave
and they decided to put I know they
can't do this, but like McDonald's in
there,
>> they could the owner of Shining Smiles
can put another restaurant right next
door
>> if it isn't if he's allowed. We don't
know.
>> Right. But I'm just saying. So, what is
the difference between that and a food
truck? A food truck is not a restaurant.
>> Again, I will I mean, I will continue to
defer, and I've said this before when we
were talking about food trucks, too. I
will continue to defer to the fact that
I think that our business owners and
property owners need to be able to do
things and be creative in order to make
their businesses and their properties
successful. And if this is something
that they wanted to do, I think they
should be able to do it.
» Same here. EDC has recommended as well
as the chamber. So I've heard from the
business community
» they recommended under 100 feet between
food.
>> They recommend having competition
because they're in the they're
>> talking about competition. We're talking
about space
>> which you don't want the competition
from one restaurant to another or what
from one food supplier to another.
>> It's not about competition at all.
>> How's it not?
>> Yeah. You just said that was your whole
argument. It's not fair to that existing
restaurant.
Well, we agreed that we want 100 feet of
space and now we're saying, well, we
might not if in this case or
>> well, we're on the same property. It's a
different matter altogether. I think the
point is so that it's more about the um
rewarding the investment in the
community, the long-term investment,
whether it be by purchasing space or
whether it be by, you know, leasing the
space, you know, long term and making
capital improvements to that real
estate, excuse me, to that real estate.
You don't get that with a food truck.
>> Yes. So I think we need to uh you know
good points on both sides all sides of
this issue but the bottom line is what
is the legal standing here and I would
suggest we kind of punt on this question
for now. Uh let the process go ahead
assuming we get through these other
items. Let the process move forward and
in the meantime attorney pickro can look
into that for us. Yeah. And just to
clarify, what you're looking for me to
look into is if we establish a
separation requirement, you look for the
process by which we can wave or amend
that separation requirement in
particular circumstances and the extent
to which we can consider uh the the the
other person who you're being separated
from, their opinion on the matter in
terms of that waiver. Is that correct?
>> I think so. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Does that work for everyone?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Next question.
Number three, should the code be amended
to specify that stationary bicycles or
similar conveyances can be allowed to
operate as a mobile food unit? And
again, this would be a stationary
in a spot unit.
>> To be clear, this isn't riding up and
down the street. It's
>> Yes,
>> they're station
without a motor.
>> Yes.
>> Is is staff able to do all of the
inspections for health and sanitary
stuff that
>> Yes.
>> Well, then I'm I'm fine. OP it too.
>> Everybody okay with that?
>> It's greener than a food truck.
>> Yeah.
>> And then the last question is should we
amend the code to allow the sale of ice
cream and other frozen desserts again
from a uh stationary mobile food unit?
So we wouldn't have a food truck in
town, but they would
>> be a licensed business. And so
>> how is I mean how is that different than
us not being able to say we can't
dictate what kind of food you bring in
on a food truck?
>> Right.
>> I don't think there is a difference.
that co-currently prohibits the sale of
frozen desserts from a mobile food unit.
>> Oh,
>> right. Oh, great. Okay. Now, I see. If
so, what we're trying to do is allow
folks to do that if they want if you if
you would like to need to amend the
code.
>> Yeah.
>> Which I remember was more of a safety
issue. They don't want kids running into
it. That doesn't exist with a stationary
truck. So, I'm okay with
>> Yeah.
>> clarifying that as well.
>> I think it probably goes back to the old
days of the Yeah.
>> roving ice cream vendor.
>> To be clear on that one, it could be a
pizza truck that also sells ice cream.
>> It could be a
>> stationary mobile food unit that only
sells frozen things. It's not placing
further limits. It's allowing sale
regardless of what else you're selling
>> of ice cream. Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you for your direction. Um if the
um if you would like us to move forward
with um the proposed amendments, we
would uh draft amendments to the zoning
code and then to the village code. Uh so
the zoning code, we would need to amend
the code to allow um mobile food units
in the B1 district as a permitted use
pending all of the the requirements and
then to allow them in the central
business district as a special use uh
with those requirements and then we
would amend the village code to include
all the other standards that we
discussed in the business license
section of the code. Great. That would
be the uh the next steps. But uh our
planning commission will have a public
hearing on the special use permitted use
ideas. They could come back and
recommend something different if they
wanted, but that's how we're proceeding
with legal notices and everything else.
>> Everybody on board with that?
>> Yes.
>> Excellent.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
That might have been our shortest food
track discussion,
>> but not our last.
>> We're getting there. We're definitely
getting there.
>> All right. Next, we have discussion
regarding standards for outdoor dining
areas. Director Siren.
>> Yes. When the board discussed this on
March 5th, the board expressed support
for most of the proposed standards, but
there were a few remaining items for
discussion. namely a height limit for
barriers, uh a transparency requirement
for barriers, and whether uh
non-conforming outdoor dining features
should be allowed to remain or whether
they should be brought into compliance
within a certain time period. The EDC
and planning and zoning commission
reviewed the proposed standards and
provided feedback, which was summarized
in the agenda history sheet. Staff
reached out to the Chamber of Commerce
to request feedback on the proposed
standards and to the owners of
restaurants that have outdoor dining
areas or that could have outdoor dining
areas for their feedback as well. We uh
one owner responded noting that the
standards are reasonable and that a
two-year compliance period uh for
barriers is sufficient. They also
suggested distinguishing standards uh
for patios and sidewalks. Uh sidewalk
dining areas must account pedestrian
traffic, vehic ve vehicle safety and
door egress and are typically temporary
in nature with limited number of tables
relative to the storefront whereas patio
dining areas are more permanent and
closed spaces with barriers,
electricity, music and decor.
So staff requests the direction on the
proposed standards which were organized
in the agenda history sheet based on the
board's uh level of support. So the
first set of proposed standards were
generally that ones that the board had
supported um during the last discussion
and then the second set of standards
were ones that received mixed feedback
and we need further direction on.
Do you mind going to the slide? Okay.
The first is a maximum height for
barriers. So the question is should
there be a maximum height requirement
and if so what might that be and when we
first brought this to you the uh range
recommended in other communities is 36
to 42 in and staff recommended a 42 inch
height as a starting point for
discussion and um we got some feedback
uh the PCC and EDC seemed content with
having a height requirement and the PCC
recommended that 42 or or 46 inch
barrier may be acceptable um since the
barrier will be transparent. So, since
the bear is transparent, you've already
got some visibility through it. So, the
height is not as important. Um, and just
as a reminder, um, the village attorney
recommended including a provision to
allow the board to approve barriers that
exceed the maximum height in locations
that may require additional privacy,
such as hight traffic areas or areas
adjacent to railroad tracks. Um, once we
had some feedback from the board, I also
went out and measured uh the barriers
that were available. Um, La Asansia's
barrier is 49 in tall. Breakfast hosiend
is 44 inches tall. Cubanito Express has
a uh a barrier that has 42 inch height
along the length of it, the majority.
And then on the ends, they've added some
um pieces of wood to provide I think a
visual barrier from Harlem and the and
the alley that are on either side that
uh increase that 42 inches to 58 in.
Uh so so those uh are considerations in
determining um the maximum barrier
height. Um also we asked about planters
used as barriers having a maximum height
but we might want to start with the the
barrier height.
>> Yeah
being over 42 46 that that makes a lot
of sense to me. I mean, I
>> Yeah, I like the um the provision to
allow the board to approve a taller
barrier when it's not adjacent to the
street or public street or whatever
because that could Yeah, I like that
too.
>> Um
the I I'll just, you know, comment or or
throw out some information. So
the reason that uh from urban design,
retail, uh downtown planning,
um the height limit is usually based on
you're sitting in a chair. You want that
you want to be able to see and not have
something blocking you at eye level. Um
42 48 inches would do that I think. Um
but and I don't know if 42 I I don't
have a tape measure but that that's kind
of where that the the basis of that of
those numbers. They're not just
arbitrary numbers. Uh they come from
much research and experience in downtown
uh retail planning, restaurant planning.
>> So 48's what you've seen then?
Well, the the the enclosure at Lost
Stansi is 49 in. So, even if it was an
inch shorter, even even if it were
transparent or or, you know, half 50%
whatever that number is, you could still
have,
you know, some blockage of sight lines
and visibility. And the whole idea is to
have open and you know barrier supposed
to be more like a railing not not a
screen.
Uh that's the philosophy behind it.
>> But would there be would So when we're
saying that you could
I'm sorry I forgot what the wording was
like but like basically you would get an
exemption if you had a specific
situation railroad track something like
that.
>> Yep. Um,
would you also be able to
like for example I'm thinking like
planters don't you can't see through a
planter, right? So depending on how tall
the planter is, you wouldn't have the
transparency,
>> right? So if there's a transparency
issue and people are using plant I don't
know
I think I've talked myself
>> is the concern that they people might
try to exceed the transparency and
height requirement by just making a wall
of planters
>> right like if you made
>> right we can
>> well so for example like let's say you
I've seen places downtown do this where
they do like a potted arborites
>> which end up being like five or five or
six feet tall. I'm throwing a number out
there. They're like five or six feet
tall.
That probably doesn't meet a
transparency requirement.
>> How's that how does that play into this,
I guess, is my question.
>> Yeah, I mean, and we can this would come
into the description of the of the wall
it of the of itself. I mean, and we can
I can make sure we got a definition
sections to say that it, you know, it
cannot be more than X percentage. let's
say 10%
uh planters or something like that
because some people I see they do put a
walls and they put a nice little planter
in there too and then they continue the
wall along and if
>> if you want it to be 100%
um wall we can do that. If you wanted to
allow uh planters to be interspersed
throughout we can we can create a
percentage.
>> Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out how
to not make it completely tedious where
we're, you know, trying to figure out a
transparency issue. And sorry, your
arborite is too lush this year. So
you're No, I mean, but seriously, like
I'm trying to make it so that it's not
you're not out there with like a light
meter and trying to figure out trans I
right like I don't want this to be just
a crazy ownorous situation to
>> what I've saw in other communities is
that they just have a a maximum barrier
for planters. They just say it's 24 in
and then they assume that within that
area, let's say their maximum barrier
height is 36 or 42 inches. They assume
that the plants they they put in there
are going to be within that limit.
>> Okay? So the plant is within that as
opposed to the plant turf.
>> They assume the planter they put a limit
on the planter. They do not put a limit
on plants or specify a transparency of
plants. They just say this is the height
of the planter and they accept that as a
>> that makes a lot more sense
>> as a reasonable
>> uh yeah reason.
>> Long and short plant doesn't count. I'm
sorry.
>> The plant doesn't count as part of the
>> I have not seen the plants regulated.
That would be
>> super fun for you.
>> You're really hoping we'll do that.
» Okay.
>> And the other So staff is suggesting
maximum height of 42 in. Um
>> I thought it was 48.
>> That was plan commission.
>> Oh, planning commission. I started with
a starting point of what other
communities suggested.
>> Um I think so we had just as a a range
other communities do 36 to 42 inches as
a thought. Um planning and zoning
commission and EDC said 42 to 46 in
should be sufficient given the
transparency. And just as a reminder if
we choose one of those some of our
existing barriers would be according to
not in accordance with that and may need
to come to you for an exception if you
would want to grant that exception.
Okay. I have a question. So, we're I
think focusing more on the maximum. Was
there a minimum? That
>> There was no minimum. The There's no
minimum, just a maximum.
>> Okay.
>> Would you recommend doing a maximum
height for barriers and a maximum height
for planters?
>> That's what I've seen in other
communities. It makes some sense. Um
because the assumption is if you have a
24-in planter that the plants within
that are going to be somewhat
transparent above that and achieve some
sort of visual transparency.
» So go ahead.
>> So we're talking about a maximum height
for basically fences
>> and then a different possibly if we
wanted to different maximum height for
planters.
>> That's what I'm asking is like to those
two.
>> Okay. So should we talk about
non-planters first?
just to keep it I'm sorry I'm get I'm
getting confused that's why I'm trying
to separate it out
>> so for for barriers we had a range
>> okay
>> other communities go from 3 ft to 42 in
>> okay
>> um some of our businesses currently
would exceed that if we selected that
the highest that we have is on the ends
of community express just on the ends
they go up to 58 in
>> okay
>> in the center it's 42 um and then we've
got two other barriers that I measured
breakfast is 44 in and last is 49 in.
>> Okay.
>> So, we always have the option of
selecting what the board thinks is a
reasonable barrier and allowing
restaurants to ask for an exemption
based on traffic visibility, things like
that.
>> I I mean just based on that, I would say
46 in was what the
>> um
>> PCC
>> Yeah. said 42 to 46. So, 46 being the
maximum sounds reasonable.
>> Okay. I think we need to go back to why
we're having these discussions. We
currently don't have outdoor dining
standards. We want to have some minimum
standards. As President Pollock
discussed, his life's profession.
There's a reason we have outdoor dining
and standards to go. We want to make it
inviting. We want people to go and say,
"Wow, that looks really great." with
their So I I I think this is we need to
think hard about this this not just go
with the maximum but what really is
shoulder level for somebody in most
seats sitting outdoors. I don't know
what that number is. I also did not
bring a tape measure but kind of wish I
had one right now.
>> How did you come up with the maximum
height of 42 in?
>> That that was surveyed from other
communities. The other communities range
from 36 to 42 inches is generally what
they felt was a a good range.
Then you said 48. So that's
>> I said 48's too way too tall.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said 48.
>> No, I think 48 would clearly block your
site. You know, would even though it's
maybe transparent, you can have cross
beams and stuff and um I personally
would keep it at 36 in.
>> What's the cubinos?
>> Kumudo is 42 in in the middle.
G 42 in is probably the right one. And
>> and I think there could be a carve out
though, not only for plants, but for
like corner pieces like you described
that they have
>> privacy
>> design elements or something. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So, as long as the m, you know, the vast
majority is at that 42 in, I think
>> 36 seems low to me.
>> It may be. Yeah. I I'm good with 42 if the board is um if and given that the
one is already at 42 and from limited
times I've seen that it seems to be a
>> well designed
>> I've said a community toast and I think
that 42 is
>> it's just felt right so I only have that
reference really
>> that then yeah that makes good good yeah
>> 42 yeah
>> 42 42
>> all right Okay.
And then for planters, if you'd like to
have a separate standard for planters,
again, what I've seen in most
communities is 2 feet. Um, and that
allows room for plants and the
assumptions there going to be some
visibility in the plants. And
>> how tall are the planters that are on
Harlem Avenue right now?
>> I don't know that I
>> And I I'm sorry. I don't know. I I order
them, but that was like 20 years ago.
>> What was the question?
>> So, it seems
>> how tall are the planters on Harlem?
Because those are those are huge
>> on Harlem.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Or like I'm thinking of the ones in
downtown, you know, in the central
business district.
I think those are closer to 3 feet. It
may be. I don't I don't know the answer
to that.
>> Probably 30 in.
I think the assumption other communities
used is if you had, let's say, their
barrier height was, you know, 36 or 42
inches, allowing a 36 inch planner, that
would presumably be solid was defeating
the purpose of having a visibility a
minimum transparency requirement. Okay?
So, the planner would be solid. So if
you assume that, you know, the this
amount isn't really of interest visually
to most folks anyway, you know, along
that area and then you have some plant
material with some space in between that would meet that transparency uh
goal.
>> So you said it was 24 or 36.
>> Most communities do 24 that I surveyed.
>> Okay.
>> And I like the idea of having a maximum
amount of wall structure that is devoted
to planters
that can't have a whole wall with
planters. I like that addition.
>> Really?
>> I don't think we want more green plants
and
>> Well, but it gets back to
>> transparent,
>> you know, you know, 10 24 in
pots with 5 foot tall arbor vidies in
it.
>> Well, no, I was just thinking
>> defeated the whole purpose of it.
>> I guess I was thinking about like fences
that have the that have like
window boxes. Is that what they're
called? You can plant on the top. Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Like if you had a whole row of those
that I don't know. All right.
>> I would think those are aesthetically
pleasing as well. I never thought about
that.
>> So, looks like staff suggested a maximum
height of 24 in
>> for planters. Yes.
>> Yeah, that works for me.
>> I'm fine with that, too, as long as
there's also some just like I we talked
about with the one outdoor seating area.
What? I forgot what which one was that?
They had the 42 in which restaurant
>> Express and the sides were taller.
>> Yeah. We need to just craft some
language that allows some exception to
that 42 inch rule, whether it's a
planter or whether it's a uh
>> 20
>> a corner pillar or monument of some
sort. Um, and I'd like to just see staff
and the planning commission figure that
out for us because I think the we all
agree that we we want it open for the
most part, but we also like the idea of
allowing some plants to to be there. And
I think that can be,
you know, I want to see the language and
I think we can then agree on something.
The planning and zoning commission were
in favor of allowing the village board
to wave the standards that they approve
in in certain situations. So hight
traffic areas, areas we need more
privacy,
>> they were in favor of a a general
statement for that.
>> That work
>> works for me. Yes.
>> Does pre-existing count as a reason
itself?
>> We'll get to that in a minute, right?
When talk about uh non-conforming.
>> Yes. Yes. So, um I think the Oh, yes.
Visual transparency. Thank you. So, the
board had discussed this before and
there wasn't a consensus on the board of
what the minimum transparency uh should
be. It ranges from different
communities. I gave you an example of a
70% which is a pretty open to 30% which
would would be the barrier at Labara is
about 30% transparent. So to give you an
idea of what that transparency
requirement would would look like
obviously Lost Stansia where and you
know the boards are right next to each
other would have no transparency. Um so
the question is uh should there be a
minimum transparency? Um the planning
and zoning commission and EDC agreed
that 30% would be an acceptable minimum
transparency level. Um and so and then
uh the other question is obviously um
should the board be able to wave that in certain cases if they want more
privacy.
>> I think we should have that say yes
>> I think 30
>> I think 30% is good.
>> Okay. So 30% and the board is able to
wave that requirement. Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Great.
in the language there is that also staff
can estimate what that transparency is
without spending hours and hours and
hours on it and I will work with Bob to
craft that language
substantially approximately will make
avid use of work
>> yeah this should not be a time consuming
thing
>> the the last item was non-conforming
outdoor dining features that are
existing so I think we I think generally
heard board support but I just want to
confirm that uh non-conforming features
that and there are a couple of uh
outdoor dining areas that have a couple
of non-conforming features that would be
less uh ownorous for the operator to
correct. So, we've got umbrellas,
lighting, decorations, and bus carts and
service equipment. Um, one of the
non-conforming features would be making
sure that all the lighting is on the
inside of the outdoor dining area. And
we've got an outdoor dining area with
some lights on the outside. So, that
would be just flipping the lights to the
inside. Okay.
>> Um, so I think I heard generally that
the board was in favor of that. Just
want to clarify that the board is in
favor of saying that there is um that
you would like those things to come into
compliance when the when the ordinance
passes without necessarily going through
a specific time period. But if you would
like a specific time period to come into
compliance, we can do that, too. So,
this would be specifically asking about
umbrellas, lighting, decorations, and
bus carts. If they're non-conforming
when to the current standards when we
pass that, do we want them to become
conforming or should there be a a time
period or should they just be allowed?
And again, if they wanted an exception,
could they come to the board with that?
>> If we write that, we can. Yes.
» I mean, I Yeah, I think if if they're
allowed to kind of petition and say
this, this is our reasoning for
being non-conforming
then. Yeah.
>> And typically there's we communities
will offer when somebody has something
that's existing and it's non-conforming,
they'll give a wind down. say you have,
you know, a season or however long you
want to do it and then after that you
can come back and petition.
>> Okay.
>> But you don't have to.
» I want to come back to the time period
after you address the barriers.
>> Sure.
>> Because I think
>> okay
>> similar considerations
>> and this is the same question. barriers
being I think the highest value thing
that f aside from the furniture that
folks invest in for these outdoor dining
areas if they are non-conforming to do
height or transparency. Uh would the
board like them to remain as they are
until they reach the end of their useful
life and are replaced? So basically the operator gets to decide when they're
going to uh change out the barrier or
remove it. Um or should they be required
to become compliant within a specific
time period, maybe petition the board to
allow them to remain if they're existing
and non-conforming? Um, so those are
some options for you.
>> We addressed that at the last meeting
and we did not have unanimous consensus,
but the majority of the board was at
that time was in favor of phasing it out
or having a a time period by which they
have to be brought into conformance. Um,
and the reason I wanted to take both
items together was I heard a suggestion
from a trustee this week that uh maybe
we uh budget for 2027
to reestablish our facade grant program
or downtown building grant program. Mhm.
>> And that we include uh uh grant
opportunities for people to bring these
things into compliance.
>> Uh we pay for a good chunk of it. Uh
either all of it or some of it. We can
that'll can be hashed out. But of course
we want to hear from economic
development commission on that.
>> And to me that informs what the time
period should be.
>> Exactly. If we're saying if we're gonna
have money in 2027 to budget for to to pay for
a good part of that cost, then I my
feeling is by the end of 2027, let's
bring this into conformance.
>> I think that sounds fair.
>> You know, we're paying for it.
>> Or, you know, it could be longer. I, you
know,
>> so they would have two seasons.
>> They rest this year and and all next
year. Yeah. And next year they could
apply for a grant from the village
>> or an exemption as well.
>> Or an exemption. Yeah. Or both.
>> After two seasons, I'd be fine with that
as well.
>> Does that
>> work? So we would uh that's direction
also to uh have the EDC start looking at
a downtown grant program for next year.
>> And can I ask another question? Um,
we're talking about the useful life of
barriers. I'm assuming there's going to
be something in this about
um
if something's, you know, like starts to
look bad, if it starts to all of that
good stuff where maintenance and if it's
not being properly maintained and things
like that. Okay, great.
>> Our code currently addresses that.
>> It does. We'll continue that in the
code. But um
>> our next steps for this would be we
would need to amend a section of the uh
the village code, not the zoning code be
section 7414. So we could draft an
ordinance uh with your direction and
return to you at a future meeting with
the the amendments to the municipal
code.
>> Great.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Great.
» Is that everything on that?
>> That is.
>> You're not done yet.
This is a planner siren evening.
So, next on the agenda is a discussion
regarding DAX relative to building
coverage.
Director Siren,
>> thank you. Genuinely excited to present
this to you. This
the planning and zoning commission
recommends amending the zoning code to
exclude decks and their associated
stairs from the calculation of building
coverage. The commission further
recommends amending the definition of
building coverage to specify that stairs
not associated with decks should be
included in building in building
coverage.
Okay, I've been wrapped up in this and
I'll repeat that again. Sole, I'm sorry.
This is um so decks currently are if
they're over 12 inches in height like
all other structures count towards
building coverage.
>> Okay,
>> if they're under 12 in they don't. Most
decks are over 12 inches. So most count
towards building coverage. The
definition of building coverage says
every structure that's over 12 inches in
height counts towards building coverage.
And it lists examples, but it does not
list stairs. So when the planning and
zoning commission discussed this, and
I'll go into why this is recommended,
they said, "We recommend that decks and
the associated stairs that serve decks
that go up to the deck should be
excluded from building coverage." That
would be a change to the code. We're not
going to count towards building coverage
anymore, regardless of the height of the
deck. But what we do want to do is keep
measuring the height of stoops and
stairs which are currently specified as
a type of building coverage. The
definition says building coverage
includes stoops. It doesn't say stairs.
So we're just clarifying. I said, "Do
you want it to say stairs?" Just to
clarify the code. They said yes. So if
you've got stoops and stairs that go up
to your house, that would be included in
building coverage. The deck on the back
of your house, they're recommending to
not include. And the reason for this,
and by the way, Preservation Commission
reviewed these amendments and have no
objections. Um, these amendments are
being proposed because in recent years,
two residents found that they could not
build a deck on their property per the
original plans they brought in because
the existing buildage coverage on the
property met or exceeded the maximum
coverage allowed. So, these specific
requests were smaller lots in the R1A
district, but several lots in the R2 and
R3 districts along Burlington and Quincy
uh already have the maximum allowed
building coverage between their house
and garage. So they just have a house
and garage and those are the only
structures on the property and they're
already at the maximum allowab building
coverage are above. So they came in to
get a building permit for a deck and I
said I'm so sorry we can't do that. In
one case they decided not to move
forward. In another case they lowered
the deck which because the deck would
have had been over 12 in to go out of
their house on a level. So they uh had
stairs going down to the deck and then a
deck at 11 inches tall. That was the
solution that they came up with. So
that's why we're recommending these text
amendments so that folks can have decks
without having to request a variation or
have a a short deck.
>> I have a question.
>> Yes.
>> Is there a max space for decks on a
property?
>> They did not recommend a maximum size
for decks.
>> So what's to prevent someone from having
the entire backyard as a deck?
>> They could cut if someone wanted to have
a large deck, they could have a large
deck. Um I did a survey of the deck
permits from 2024 to 2025 and the
average size deck was 15 feet by 16
feet. So that's what most people choose
to have in terms of a deck size. So we
discussed that at the planning and
zoning commission and they thought that
practically speaking most people
wouldn't want to have either due to
expense or the use of their yard a deck
that was in excessive size.
>> Yeah, most people but not everybody.
>> It's true.
>> Okay.
>> It would have a deck has to be setbacks
though. Correct.
>> They do have to meet setbacks. They
can't be in the streetard and they can't
be in the side setback. So they have to
be a specific distance from adjacent
property. Is there a rear yard setback
too?
>> There is. Yes.
>> Is that the building setback or is there
like a five foot or
>> I believe it's 5T.
>> Yeah. Okay. And
related question. Uh are decks
considered in the impervious surface
coverage calculation?
>> They are. They're definitely considered.
They have to meet four standards to be
considered pvious. One is you can't have
anything covering the deck. Some folks
have a permanent awning cover their
decks. So, if water can't get through,
then it's considered impervious. The
second is that the deck boards have to
have enough space between them to allow
the water to trickle through. Most decks
do. Uh, the third is that there can't be
a catchment system under the deck. Um,
again, to prevent the rain water from
going through. And the fourth is that
the ground underneath the deck needs to
be pvious, so usually dirt or gravel.
Almost everyone has that. A few folks
don't, but we check that when we do the
inspections during the building permit
finals and we note if they're impervious
and then we would add that to their
impervious surface coverage if they
don't meet one of those standards. But
otherwise, they are considered pvious.
>> Questions, comments? Uh, I'm okay with
what the plan commission planning and
zoning commission is recommending.
>> Absolutely. I would ask them to do a
little bit deeper dive into
this question of, you know, are we
really going to allow decks to cover
everything except for that five-foot
side and rear setback? Um,
I I understand that it's not likely that
someone would build a deck that big, but
on the other hand, why not at least have
a instead of a 5-ft rear yard set back,
have a 20 foot or have it meet the
building set back or something? I'm not
opining on that, but I just want to
would like if the board's in agreement,
I'd like planning and zoning to address
that a little bit further.
>> But I think that's fair. You're taking
away one constraint. the considering
potential other ones. I think that's
good discussion.
>> The next step for this, if you don't
object, would be to schedule a public
hearing on the amendments and we can
discuss that during the public hearing
and obviously bring forward their
recommendation to you for the the
organs.
>> Did that work for everyone?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Very good.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
Director Simon.
» I love how excited she gets about these
things. It's like contagious to be like,
"Woo, look what we're doing."
Welcome to the world of city planners.
So, okay, new business B, a resolution
of the village of Riverside in support
of affordable housing and municipal
housing authority. Uh, a little
background on that before I read the uh
>> resolution Um, so as I think most
everyone knows, the state of Illinois is
considering uh legislation
uh to promote affordable housing uh
throughout the state of Illinois.
They've recognized and and I think this
is is is absolutely true that there is
an affordable housing crisis or
situation in Illinois and throughout the
country. Um, but the legislation uh has
some good and a lot of bad in it as it's
currently written in in my opinion and
in the opinion of most municipal uh
leaders. Um, it has funding for
infrastructure to promote affordable
housing. That's a good part. The bad
part is it would dictate zoning to all
local municipalities,
including uh a requirement that uh
accessory dwelling units are permitted
in every single family residential
zoning district in the state. Uh and and
additionally it includes uh that any
residential property of 2500 square ft
is by right allowed to have four units
have zoning for four units. 5,000 square
feet they're allowed to have zoning for
six units and at 7500 square ft uh the zoning would uh mandate by the state
would be for eight units. Um that's
obviously of great concern to
municipalities throughout the state.
I've been in touch with a lot of other
uh uh village presidents, mayors,
managers, etc. Uh there's a lot of
movement uh on the with local municipal
regional municipal organizations to to
address this. Um my personal opinion is
that uh we as I said we do have an
affordable housing problem in the state.
It needs to be addressed. We all need to
accept some level of responsibility for
it. But the answer should be crafted at
the local level, not at the state level.
A one-sizefits-all
uh will have unintended consequences and
will
negate the benefits of the affordable
housing by threatening the quality of
our communities. So, that was kind of
the background of this resolution. Uh, I
will um I don't know. Do I Do you want
me to read it or I I guess I don't need
to read it. You've all got it in your
packet. It's been published in in uh in
our agenda packet. Uh so uh as for
comments, questions from trustees.
>> Trusty Evans.
>> Um I wonder if we should
edit the title a little bit. Um, so
there's some distinction there because
right now it reads as if we are in
support of the Build Act. It's sort of
subtle, but um I'm not sure that people
understand the what the content of the
resolution is, which is that we support
some parts of build but not um usurping
the authority of the village. So if we
can make a little bit more of a
distinction in the title so people don't
misunderstand
>> title, right? And and I I completely
agree. you brought this to my attention
before the the the board meeting and I
think that uh uh what I would like to to
do is to change the title just to delete
the words of affordable housing and or
affordable housing and in other words
the title would be a resolution of the
village of Riverside in support of
municipal land use authority. Yes,
>> because that is really the point of it
and and the title as written could be
misleading
>> to some people who would think that
means we support the legislation that's
pending and and I I
>> don't think we do.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Uh one point uh municipal land use
authority. It could be a misplaced
modifier.
>> Municipal land
being the subject, but it isn't the
subject. It's municipal authority.
That's the subject.
>> Municipal authority over land use or
zoning.
>> Oh, I see.
>> Something like that. I just I don't want
to put the emperor
anybody
>> municipal authority to regulate land
use.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Could you say that again? I couldn't
hear.
>> Okay. It would read Oh, got it. I just
forgot it. Okay. resolution of the
village of Riverside in support of
municipal authority to regulate land
use.
>> Yes.
>> Perfect.
>> Much better.
>> Thank you for calling the attention.
>> Any other questions, comments?
>> Someone wrote that down.
>> Uh if not, I would ask for a motion to
approve the resolution as amended with
uh as as read by the attorney.
>> So move second. Motion in a second. Uh,
any discussion on the motion? Clenzel.
» Sorry.
>> I'm sorry. Wait. We should have public
comment on this.
>> I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. Uh,
there's no one in the audience, but I
should call for it anyway.
>> Yes.
>> Other than our reporting.
>> I mean,
>> other than our landmark reporting,
>> it's the formality of it. I feel like I
should say okay
>> and our staff. But uh is there anyone in
the audience who would like to speak to
this topic?
>> Thank you. Clerk Stenzel, please call
the role.
>> Trusty Marsha.
>> Hi.
>> Trusty Gallagos.
>> Trusty Cos.
>> Hi.
>> Trusty Evans.
>> Just hi.
>> Sorry,
>> we may need to clarify. You said I
>> He said I and then I said I. Yes.
>> Trusty Evans.
>> Hi.
>> Trusty Mateo.
>> I.
>> Trusty Fitzgerald.
>> I.
>> Motion approves. Thank you. And I will
be uh sending out a signed executed copy
of this to uh Illinois Municipal League,
West Central Municipal Conference, and
our state representatives uh tomorrow.
And finally, a discussion of draft
ordinance for public safety facility
referendum. Manager Francis,
>> thank you. So, I provided a brief
summary and overview of how how we've
gotten to this point and when all of
these different pieces and the processes
started of evaluating the villages
facility because it was I thought it was
important to give an overview because
many of the board members though I know
Trusty Matteo is very familiar because
she was on planning and zoning
commission at at that point in time but
the only board member that has been here
from the start is actually President
Pollock of the process of facilities
evaluation up to this point in time
related to the public safety facility
referendum. And so, Attorney Pickel has
crafted a draft referendum question for
the board to discuss and review. Um, and
then additionally, as noted, we will
have the open house on May 19th. This
particular question would not go before
residents until um and I'm sorry I just
want to also make note that there was a
typo because we initially moving the
dates for the open house. So on the
agenda history sheet it does say May
20th but it is actually May 19th and it
is at station one. So just for the
general public's reference. Um this
would not go before the vote voters
until April of 2027. So, we do have time
and attorney Pekrol can kind of walk us
through the schedule and the timeline,
but also more importantly, I know the
board members had some general questions
about what you can and cannot do
relative to uh referendum. As I stated
previously, when we staff compiles
information, we can do public education
and engagement. We cannot ad we cannot
advocate we can only educate and that is
our sole role and purpose. And so with
the public engagement we are educating
we are letting residents know kind of
where the project has um progressed over
time why the facilities are needed so on
and so forth. And so our engagement
cycle will be from now until April of
next year. So it will go for a year-long
duration. Um, we will be creating a
landing page with all the information
that we've previously provided to the
community, but it'll be a set landing
page. We will be creating FAQs. The
first step is really to get a handle on
is this what what the board wants to see
as the referendum question and then we
would build out the FAQs on that basis.
But we need a more of a starting point
um so that we know what residents are
going what is going to be asked of them
next year. You will not need to vote on
this this evening. You will not need to
vote on it next month. We have time. Um
but I think it is important to make sure
we're laying this out and answering any
questions that the board members may
have. It is worded um in consultation
with attorney pick. It is worded um flex
in a very flexible manner. So then if
certain surpluses are derived or things
come in under budget, then we can
accomplish other things that were beyond
that 29.9 million proposal. So the river
path, if you recall, parts of it, you
know, the part that actually comes out
of the back of the building is included
in the scope, but the actual connecting
path from Swinging Bridge to Swamp Pond
is not. And that was estimated to be
around $3 million. So if staff, you
know, is able to secure grant funding
for pieces of it, things come in under
budget, all these different things at
play, we want to make sure that the
question is worded in a flexible manner
in which we can achieve the outcomes
that the community is looking for.
So I I'll turn it over to attorney pick
to kind of outline what you can and
cannot do and provide a quick overview
of the timeline.
>> Uh thank you. Uh, and I I'll start with
the timeline. That one's fairly uh
generous at this point. So, you the way
when you have a referendum that you want
to appear at a at an election, we're
targeting the April 6th, 2027 election,
you you start on that date, you work
backwards to establish all the
deadlines. Um, and the most important
deadline for the village board is
January 15, 2027. that by that date we
would have to pass this resolution uh
shortly or another version that the
board agrees to but that is that is 79
days before the election. It would have
to be passed by that date. So still
plenty of time to think about it but
that's that's the first deadline within
10 days after that we have to certify it
send it over to the county and there's a
series of deadlines that follow which
the county provides uh notice. We also
have to provide notice, post it on
village hall on the wall in village hall
and and and take a series of other
steps. Beach one is 10 to 20 days
following that original critical
adoption date. Um which again is not
until January of next year. Um, in terms
of what we can and cannot do as a
village in terms of advocating for this,
basically there's there's a um there's a
basic principle that government money
and government resources cannot be used
to promote a yes or a no on a
referendum. We can promote we can offer
information, factual information, but we
cannot advocate. And what does that
mean? What are government resources?
Well, I mean for some of the easiest
ones we you know the village board
cannot advocate. Yes or no from the dis
here. Uh if you're basically if you are on duty you should remain
neutral about the resolution. Uh you
should not use village resources,
village computers, village email
accounts. Anything that the village
provides you should not be used to
advocate one way or the other. Uh what
we can do is offer factual information
as uh manager Francis pointed out. Uh
obviously
factual there that can get a little
murky sometimes. One is fat offering
facts um become advocacy and certainly
attorneys take full advantage often when
advocating in court for the very
purpose. Uh often there are there are
consultants who can assist with this and
we should just be very thoughtful and
judicious about the facts that we offer
to ensure that they're accurate and that
we are you know we could say it will
cost this much and it will you know uh
be offered to be used to build this
facility but we cannot characterize what
it does. You know it's going to be
really cheap and it will then you know
what a great facility. No, that that's
the distinction. Um but having said all
that u the fact that uh you are
legislators and members of trustees does
not mean that you have lost your first
amendment rights. Uh you as individuals
can advocate one way or the other. Uh
you just cannot do so on company time or
using company resources as it were. So
we would suggest that anybody if you
have personal feelings about the
referendum uh you advocate it using only
your uh personal uh devices only your
personal accounts and if you uh it is a
true fact that you are uh village
trustees uh but you know if that if that
topic were to ever come up I would
suggest clarifying that you are offering
this in your individual capacity not as
a trustee and and and always making that
crystal clear. One thing too keep in
mind um a lot of times uh discussions of
referendums will just sort of naturally
you'll be in a meeting at dinner party
or whatever you'll start talking about
it and if two other trustees walk in and
you're talking about it that implicates
the open meetings act. So discontinue
that conversation and um save it for
another time.
>> And I I uh there I would say those are
general principles. There are a million
little examples uh about can I do this,
can I do that? It's a little murky. If
you have any questions about anything,
shoot me an email, give me a call. I'm
happy to walk through it with you.
>> Uh, just a quick question. Organizations
that we might be a part of within the
village.
>> Mhm.
>> Would we be allowed to
>> speak at within those organizations as
again not as trustee, but as an
individual?
>> As an individual. Yes.
>> Okay.
Like for example, I was at the
Chamber of Commerce yesterday and I did
talk about this as a topic that the
village would be discussing. um you know
and how we need have a need for for a
new building and facilities and they
were very very receptive to it. So um
>> yes I said as long as you are clarifying
>> not on company time and as long as you
were clarifying that that is you are
acting as an individual then that's
fine. Good.
» Any questions, comments, discussion?
Very good. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, we do have
>> Yeah, I did want to check on um the
question the way it's written.
>> Yes.
>> I can't tell if it's legal ease or if
possibly it's a typo.
>> Okay. So, let me pull it up here.
>> Okay.
I got it. of shell bonds in the
amount of not to exceed is that
>> that's intentional. It's okay. It's
legal ease. What we want to say is we
want to offer the ability to issue a
lesser amount of bonds if that becomes
advantageous. We use the same language
with the um the interest rates. uh let's
see, you know, rate a rate not to
exceed. Uh it's I accept that it's a
fairly common phraseology in the legal
world, but for all normal people, it may
seem a little awkward. So, I can
certainly try to rephrase that in a way
that is a little more palatable.
>> A rate of not to exceed.
>> Yeah, just the word of.
>> Yes.
>> Right.
>> It says, yeah,
>> the rate that is make sure that's not in
the actual um that's what it says.
>> Rate not to exceed a rate of not to
exceed.
>> Oh, wait. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right.
That is a type. Oh my gosh. You Thank
you.
Okay. Bonds on the screen correct issue
bonds in in amount of not to exceed.
Well, because that's there's an
interaction here because there is a
statuto there's a statute that we have
to follow the exact language of one
moment please. Um and we have to follow
the format.
Just one moment.
I mean, I know I just
>> Well, we this isn't final, so no,
>> you can let us know.
>> It grammatically it
>> grammatically it seems like it should
read Shia Bonds in the amount not to
exceed 29 million.
>> Yeah. So, we we have
>> same in the last sentence too, but if
it's required legally, so be it. The
language that the words we have to
include in that sentence are shall bonds
in the amount of blank. So we want to
say that it's not going to exceed but
the word of has to be there.
>> So it could say shall bonds
>> in the amount of
>> shall bonds not to exceed the amount of
29 million.
>> We can't use that. So the first the
first five words have to be shall bonds
in the amount of
>> Well, it's better than the last one.
Couldn't get worse. Yeah, I know.
>> Much better.
>> Does therefore need to be misspelled as
well?
>> Yeah, it it probably doesn't need to be.
>> Where's therefore?
» Isn't it there, too?
>> I think that's illegal.
>> No, the lower.
>> Yeah, therefore
>> bottom bottom corner.
>> Bottom
>> furnaces there, too.
>> Thank you.
>> Gosh.
>> Welcome to
>> Yeah. So that uh therefore is not a
concluding therefore. It's more of a
therefore for that object or purpose. So
we're listing um the public safe
facility and all the various purposes
and so that that that therefore is is
correctly spelled.
>> Thanks.
» Any other questions, discussion? If not,
uh as I said, we do have a need for an
executive session tonight.
um to discuss probable imminent or
pending litigation. Uh the board will
not reconvene and no final action will
take place. I would ask for a motion and
second to adjourn to executive session.
>> Some move.
>> Second.
>> All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? None. We are adjourned.