[0:07] Good evening and uh like to call to
[0:09] order the village of Riverside Board of
[0:12] Trustees regular meeting of Thursday,
[0:15] April 16th, 2026.
[0:18] Uh please stand as you're able and join
[0:21] me in the pledge of allegiance.
[0:24] I aliance to the flag of the United
[0:28] States of America and to the republic
[0:31] for which it stands. One nation under
[0:34] God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:37] justice for all.
[0:43] » Clerk Stenzel, please call the role.
[0:44] >> Trusty Marsha here.
[0:46] >> Trusty Gallaga.
[0:47] >> Trusty CS
[0:48] >> here.
[0:48] >> Trusty Evans here.
[0:49] >> Trusty Matteo here.
[0:50] >> Trusty Fitzgerald
[0:51] >> here. President Pollock
[0:53] >> here,
[0:54] >> manager Francis here, attorney pickroll
[0:56] here.
[0:56] >> Also, President Clerk Stenzel.
[0:59] >> So, under president's report, we have uh
[1:01] three proclamations. I will start with
[1:03] the Arbor Day proclamation.
[1:07] Whereas in 1872, J. Sterling Morton
[1:11] proposed to the Nebraska Board of
[1:13] Agriculture that a special day be set
[1:15] aside for the planting of trees. And
[1:18] whereas the holiday called Arbor Day was
[1:21] first observed with the planting of more
[1:24] than a million trees in Nebraska.
[1:27] And whereas Arbor Day is now observed
[1:29] throughout the nation and the world. And
[1:32] whereas trees can reduce erosion of top
[1:35] soil by wind and water, purify the air
[1:38] and water by reducing pollution,
[1:41] and create plant and wildlife diversity.
[1:44] And whereas trees have been shown to
[1:46] reduce crime, increase property values,
[1:49] reduce heating and cooling cost, and
[1:51] conserve energy use. And whereas trees
[1:54] can beautify our parks and streets,
[1:56] improve the quality of our urban
[1:58] environment, and carry on the tradition
[2:01] planned by the inventive vision of
[2:03] Frederick Lawstead.
[2:05] And whereas trees wherever they are
[2:07] planted are a source of joy and
[2:09] spiritual renewal. Where and whereas the
[2:13] village of Riverside plans to plant a
[2:15] sweet birch and pecan tree at the Repton
[2:18] South Coat triangle to celebrate Arbor
[2:20] Day. Now therefore, be it resolved that
[2:23] I, Doug Py, village president, proclaim
[2:26] the day of April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day
[2:31] in the village of Riverside. And I urge
[2:33] all citizens to plant and care for trees
[2:36] to gladden the heart and promote the
[2:38] protection and care of trees within our
[2:41] community and woodlands. In witness
[2:44] hereof, I have set my hand and fix the
[2:46] seal of the village of Riverside the
[2:48] 16th day of April 2026.
[2:54] We also have uh two other proclamations
[2:57] which I would like to call on trustees
[2:59] to read. The first is uh world migratory
[3:03] bird day proclamation. Trusty Matteo.
[3:06] >> Thank you, President Polly. Whereas
[3:09] World Migratory Bird Day helps to focus
[3:11] public attention on the nearly 350
[3:13] species that travel between nesting
[3:15] habitats in our communities and
[3:17] throughout North America and their
[3:19] wintering grounds in South America,
[3:21] Central America, and Southern North
[3:23] America. And whereas the village of
[3:25] Riverside has celebrated migratory birds
[3:27] as part of Global Big Day events since
[3:30] 2024.
[3:32] Whereas Global Big Day is an annual
[3:33] event organized by the Cornell Lab of
[3:36] Ornithology in which bird watchers from
[3:38] around the world come together to
[3:40] document as many bird species as
[3:41] possible in a 24-hour period. And
[3:44] whereas World Migratory Bird Day and
[3:46] Global Big Day, both held annually on
[3:49] the second Saturday in May, provide a
[3:51] unique opportunity for people around the
[3:52] world to come together through the
[3:54] shared love of birds. And whereas
[3:56] migratory birds and their habitats are
[3:58] declining throughout the Americas and
[4:01] are facing a growing number of threats
[4:02] on their migration routes and in their
[4:04] summer and winter homes. And whereas
[4:06] citizen scientists and bird enthusiasts
[4:08] of all ages and abilities are encouraged
[4:11] to participate in Global Big Day by
[4:13] spending time observing and recording
[4:15] birds in their local communities. And
[4:17] whereas these collective observations
[4:19] contribute valuable data to scientific
[4:21] research, helping to monitor bird
[4:23] populations, track migration patterns,
[4:25] and identify conservation needs. And
[4:28] whereas by participating, we foster a
[4:30] deeper connection with nature and
[4:32] promote the importance of bird
[4:34] conservation. And whereas the
[4:36] Displayplains River Corridor in
[4:37] Riverside is designated by the National
[4:39] Ottabon Society as an important bird
[4:41] area offering food and shelter to
[4:43] migrating birds. Now therefore, be it
[4:46] resolved that we, the members of the
[4:47] village of Village Board of Trustees, do
[4:50] hereby proclaim May 9th, 2026 as World
[4:54] Migratory Bird Day in Riverside,
[4:56] Illinois.
[5:00] » Thank you. Uh and then we have a third
[5:04] proclamation uh international dark sky
[5:07] week proclamation and I would like to
[5:09] ask Trusty Evans to read that
[5:11] proclamation.
[5:13] >> Whereas the aesthetic beauty and wonder
[5:15] of a natural night sky is a shared
[5:17] heritage of all humankind and a
[5:19] foundational element of the village of
[5:21] Riverside's historic character. And
[5:24] whereas the experience of standing
[5:25] beneath a starry night sky inspires
[5:27] feelings of wonder and awe, encouraging
[5:30] interest in science and nature while
[5:32] fostering a deep connection to the
[5:34] natural world. Whereas light pollution,
[5:37] excessive artificial lighting at night
[5:39] that disrupts natural darkness has
[5:41] scientifically established consequences
[5:44] impacting human health, the environment,
[5:46] and the economy. And whereas Riverside
[5:49] is situated within the Mississippi
[5:50] flyway where hundreds of millions of
[5:53] birds navigate by stars during peak
[5:55] migration seasons and light pollution
[5:57] acts as a major disruptor to these
[5:59] species and other nocturnal wildlife and
[6:02] pollinators. And whereas the village of
[6:04] Riverside has demonstrated its
[6:06] commitment to sustainability through the
[6:08] road to 2050 climate action and
[6:10] resilience plan which prioritizes the
[6:13] reduction of energy waste and the
[6:15] protection of our local ecosystem.
[6:18] And whereas Riverside is actively pursuing designation as an
[6:22] international dark sky community joining
[6:25] the global movement to implement best
[6:27] practices and sustainable outdoor
[6:29] lighting. And whereas International Dark
[6:32] Sky Week is a global celebration
[6:33] intended to raise awareness of light
[6:35] pollution and provide education on
[6:37] responsible lighting solutions that
[6:39] protect the night sky while maintaining
[6:41] safety and security. Now therefore, be
[6:44] it resolved that we, the trustees of the
[6:48] village of Riverside Board, do hereby
[6:51] proclaim April 13 through April 20, 2026
[6:54] as International Dark Sky Week in the
[6:57] Village of Riverside and encourage all
[6:59] residents and businesses to join in this
[7:01] observation observance by assessing
[7:03] their outdoor lighting, using shielded
[7:06] and downward-facing fixtures, and
[7:08] turning off non-essential lights to help
[7:11] preserve the beauty of our night's guys
[7:13] for generations to come.
[7:16] >> Thank you, Trusty Evans. Um,
[7:21] one item uh before I get into upcoming
[7:23] meetings, one item that I did want to
[7:25] ask the uh trustees about uh it recently
[7:29] came to my attention uh that one of our
[7:33] restaurants in town, Choo Choo, was
[7:35] celebrating their 30th anniversary,
[7:37] right? Mhm.
[7:38] >> And uh I was asked, you know, should we
[7:41] recognize that or acknowledge that? And
[7:43] it got me to thinking about that in a
[7:46] broader sense. And I would like to ask
[7:48] the board if you're interested in
[7:50] directing our economic development
[7:52] commission to look into uh business
[7:55] anniversary recognition program.
[7:58] >> Yes, I would.
[8:00] So we will uh push that to the economic
[8:04] development commission and we look
[8:05] forward to
[8:06] >> longevity. Absolutely.
[8:07] >> Yeah. Yeah. They they can tell us you
[8:09] know 1 5 10 whatever.
[8:12] Leave leave the details up to that.
[8:15] >> Great.
[8:16] >> And let's not forget the milestone about
[8:17] legalizing alcohol sales in restaurants
[8:20] too. happens.
[8:24] » Upcoming meetings include
[8:26] >> I have a quick trustee report just um
[8:29] sort of dovetailing on the um
[8:31] >> Sure. Go ahead.
[8:32] >> migratory birds and the dark skies.
[8:34] Wednesday of next week is Earth Day
[8:37] >> and the uh Riverside Community Garden is
[8:40] having a Earth Day celebration,
[8:42] familyfriendly. all kinds of
[8:44] organizations from throughout the
[8:45] village will be there with um activities
[8:48] that are, you know, geared towards being
[8:50] friendly to the planet. So that's at 3
[8:52] PM at the Ascension Lutheran Church at
[8:54] 400 Nuttal Kitty Corner from Ames. So
[8:57] hope to see you all there.
[8:58] >> Great. Thank you.
[9:00] >> Okay. So also the Knights of Columbus
[9:02] will have their annual pasta night on
[9:05] the 25th of April. That'll be at St.
[9:07] Mary's from 4:30 to 8. And then uh Lions
[9:11] will have the annual chicken dinner on
[9:13] May 3rd, which is a Sunday here at
[9:15] Township Hall. And that'll be from 12:00
[9:17] to 5:00. So when it comes to food, I I
[9:19] hope people pay attention because I sure
[9:21] do.
[9:21] >> Great.
[9:23] I I did want to announce upcoming
[9:26] meetings. Uh that includes April 22nd,
[9:29] Planning and Zoning Commission regular
[9:31] meeting, uh Village Hall, 6:30 p.m. Uh
[9:35] April 23rd, Police Pension Board regular
[9:38] meeting, Riverside Village Hall, room
[9:40] 22.
[9:43] It does 6:30 p.m.
[9:45] >> for police pension. That's at 1:00.
[9:47] >> 1:00 1 p.m. at Village Hall. Uh, April
[9:52] 27th, parks parks and recreation board
[9:54] regular meeting at the Riverside Public
[9:57] Library, 6:30 p.m. And uh, our next
[10:01] meeting of the village board is two
[10:02] weeks from tonight or three weeks from
[10:04] tonight actually. Right. Anyway, it's
[10:07] May 7th. Um, is our next re regular
[10:11] meeting 6:30 p.m. here at the village
[10:13] hall as as usual. Uh, are there any
[10:16] additional trustee reports?
[10:19] >> Yes. So, we've talked about World
[10:21] Migratory Bird Day and Global Big Day
[10:23] that are both happening on May 9th. That
[10:25] may sound like a kind of odd thing for
[10:27] the village to wrap its arms around, but
[10:29] over the past 50 years, North America
[10:32] has lost three billion breeding birds.
[10:34] And that's because of loss of habitat
[10:37] where they spend their winters, where
[10:39] they spend their summers on their treks
[10:41] north. Some some birds travel 12,000
[10:44] miles one way to get to the breeding
[10:45] grounds. So, they're they're very
[10:47] threatened. And so that's why we want to
[10:50] document and conserve and celebrate the
[10:52] birds that come through here and some of
[10:54] them find Riverside their home for the
[10:57] summer. Um there are a lot of activities
[10:59] that are being planned for the 9th. I'd
[11:01] like people to put it on their schedule
[11:02] just carve out a little bit of time that
[11:04] morning. I know it's a really busy
[11:06] weekend. Parks and Recreation will be
[11:08] the host at the Scout Cabin. We'll get
[11:11] more details about what's happening, but
[11:12] we'll have a bird walk starting at 9:00.
[11:15] Wings and Talons will be bringing birds
[11:17] of prey for people to look at and learn
[11:19] from. Brookfield Zoo and landscape um
[11:22] advisory commission will be there with
[11:24] materials. Um we'll have a raffle giving
[11:27] away bird feeders donated by Wild Birds
[11:30] Unlimited. Um thank you to Laura and Mel
[11:32] Tracy who live in Brookfield, but also
[11:35] appreciate Riverid's birds. Um there's
[11:38] going to be a bug eating challenge and I
[11:40] hope all of my fellow trustees will be
[11:42] there to take on that challenge.
[11:44] protein. It's good for the environment.
[11:46] Uh there's going to be scavenger hunt,
[11:48] arts and craft for kids, and a photo
[11:50] opportunity. I understand a very large
[11:52] nest with eggs that kids can sit in and
[11:55] get their pictures taken. So again, May
[11:57] 9th in the morning at Scout Cabin. Hope
[11:59] you can make it. If you can't make it
[12:00] that day, and I'll be very brief here in
[12:02] the future, there are other things you
[12:04] can do to protect birds. You can turn
[12:05] off your lights during migration, both
[12:07] spring and fall. You can plant native
[12:09] plants and so that the birds will have
[12:11] food for themselves and for their kids
[12:13] if they're breeding here. And finally,
[12:16] touchy subject I know, but maybe next
[12:18] year think about delaying your yard
[12:20] cleanup by a few weeks. Allow some
[12:22] insects to come out of the ground, come
[12:24] out of the leaf litter again for those
[12:26] birds. Just some ideas to put out there.
[12:27] Hope to see a bunch of folks on May 9th.
[12:29] Thank you.
[12:30] >> Great. Thank you.
[12:31] >> What time was May 9th?
[12:33] >> The birdwalk is 9 to 11. Thank you for
[12:35] asking. The other activities start are
[12:37] from 10:30 to 12 again at the scout
[12:39] cabin. So if you can come for 5 minutes
[12:42] or come for 3 hours, you're welcome.
[12:46] >> The other trustee reports
[12:49] are good. Uh manager report, manager
[12:51] Francis.
[12:52] >> Thank you. I have a couple of um things
[12:55] that I wanted to recognize. Uh this is
[12:58] telecommun telecommunicator week. Um, so
[13:01] I wanted to recognize our dispatchers
[13:04] from West Central Consolidated
[13:06] Communications Center and also our
[13:08] executive director. So I'm actually
[13:09] going to go really quick through their
[13:11] names because I think it's important to
[13:12] recognize them individually. So Tom
[13:14] Perfect, our executive director, Greg
[13:16] Ryel, our communication operations
[13:18] analyst, and here are full-time
[13:20] employees. Gina Place Placia, Dena
[13:24] Wetszler, Kizzy Smith, Kristen
[13:26] Roasovich, Jacqueline James, Nelly
[13:29] Santana, Steve Espinosa, Amanda
[13:32] Phillips, Irene Luki, Michael Quan,
[13:35] Nikki Mal Malusio, Christina Chavez,
[13:38] Cheryl Renie, Lara, Selena Villa,
[13:41] Jennerquila, Christine
[13:44] Eujenowski, sorry if I pronounced it
[13:47] incorrectly, John Fernowski, and Neri
[13:51] para Francco. So, thank you to all of
[13:54] their work. They are a huge lifeline to
[13:56] our public safety personnel and um
[13:59] because typically you never see them um
[14:02] you know sometimes we want to make sure
[14:03] that they are recognized even more
[14:05] importantly so for all their important
[14:07] work that they do because they are the
[14:09] ones that you talk to when you call 911
[14:11] or are non-emergency.
[14:14] Additionally, I wanted to recognize
[14:16] Riverside staff members um that are
[14:19] having some milestones in the month of
[14:21] April and they include Janette Owano who
[14:25] is our aerobics instructor and has been
[14:27] for 24 years. Frank Koopa Krupa, our
[14:30] code enforcement inspector, has been
[14:32] with the village for four years. Um Mike
[14:35] Panic, who is a police sergeant, has
[14:37] been with the village for 15 years.
[14:39] Hunter Duzek, who has been with both
[14:42] Riverside TV and as a full-time employee
[14:44] in total for five years. Laura Burstein,
[14:48] who's an admin assistant in the police
[14:50] department, has been with the village
[14:51] for two years. Michael Jeruski, uh,
[14:55] public works maintenance operator, 13
[14:57] years. Kevin Delgado, patrol officer,
[15:00] three years. Joseph Vargas, police
[15:02] officer, one year. and Ron Melchiode,
[15:07] director of parks and recreation, 23
[15:09] years.
[15:13] » Thank you to all those employees.
[15:15] >> And I have one final announcement um
[15:18] with more information to come, but it's
[15:20] important and I would equally like
[15:23] residents to mark their calendars. We
[15:25] will be doing an open house relative to
[15:27] our public safety facility with Williams
[15:30] on May 19th from 5 to 7:00 p.m. It will
[15:34] be at station 2. And why is it at at
[15:37] station two, you may ask? Because all
[15:39] the other areas within
[15:43] um the town hall are unavailable. And so
[15:46] I think it is appropriately suited that
[15:49] it would be in station I'm sorry, I
[15:51] think I said station two. Station one.
[15:53] Um and so everything will be set up in
[15:56] station one. They will initially do
[15:58] anformational program um explaining the
[16:01] facility and other pieces and then they
[16:03] will do different exercises and have
[16:06] different groups um for gathering
[16:10] community feedback on the facility which
[16:13] will also include not just different
[16:15] materials and finishes but also will
[16:17] touch upon um different sustainability
[16:20] items. So, we'll be beginning that
[16:22] discussion. Ultimately, all of that
[16:24] feedback will then be brought back to
[16:26] the village board at a later date, but
[16:29] May 19th
[16:31] >> and station one being the fire station
[16:34] adjacent to the village hall and police
[16:37] offices.
[16:38] >> Correct. Thank you.
[16:41] >> Uh public comments, non-aggenda items.
[16:43] Is uh this is the opportunity for anyone
[16:45] in the public to address the board on a
[16:48] non-aggenda item?
[16:50] I see no one here to address the board
[16:53] on the non-aggenda items. So, I will
[16:55] move on. Uh, clerk Stenzel, please call
[16:58] or please read the consent agenda.
[17:01] >> Ratify voucher list of bills, April 2nd,
[17:03] 2026. Approve voucher list of bills,
[17:06] April 16th, 2026. Approve village board
[17:09] of trustees regular meeting minutes,
[17:11] March 19th, 2026. Review and file board
[17:14] and commission minutes. Planning and
[17:16] Zoning Commission, regular meeting
[17:17] minutes, January 28th, 2026. Riverside
[17:20] TV Commission, regular meeting minutes,
[17:22] February 2nd, 2026. Preservation
[17:25] Commission, regular meeting minutes,
[17:26] February 12th, 2026. Parks and
[17:29] Recreation Board, regular meeting
[17:30] minutes, February 23rd, 2026.
[17:33] Review and file department reports.
[17:35] Community development January 2026.
[17:38] Community development February 2026. Uh,
[17:41] community development March 2026.
[17:46] Sorry. Uh, public works March 2026,
[17:49] finance department, March 2026.
[17:53] A resolution of the village of
[17:54] Riverside, Illinois, waving competitive
[17:56] bidding and authorizing the village
[17:58] manager to execute an agreement with US
[18:01] tennis court construction for a total
[18:03] amount not to exceed $53,000 for the BLE
[18:07] multi-use court project.
[18:09] A resolution of the village of
[18:10] Riverside, Illinois, waving competitive
[18:12] bidding
[18:14] and authorizing the village manager to
[18:16] enter into various purchase orders. Oh,
[18:19] pardon. I skipped through two of them.
[18:21] Motion to approve a resolution waving
[18:23] competitive bidding and authorizing the
[18:24] village manager to enter into various
[18:26] purchase orders. a resolution
[18:28] authorizing a $360,000
[18:31] interfund transfer from the general fund
[18:33] and a $72,517
[18:36] interfund transfer from the parks and
[18:38] recreation fund to the capital projects
[18:40] fund to fund capital expenditures. A
[18:43] resolution authorizing a $250
[18:47] uh,000 interfund transfer from the
[18:49] general fund to the street improvement
[18:50] fund for reimbursement of maintenance
[18:52] expenses and an ordinance amending the
[18:55] village code relative to crossing by
[18:57] vehicles and amending a fee schedule.
[19:02] » Do any of these items need to be
[19:04] removed?
[19:05] >> None. Um, could I have a motion and a
[19:08] second to approve the consent agenda?
[19:10] >> Second.
[19:11] >> Motion and second. Um, clerk stenzel.
[19:14] >> Trusty Marshauska. Hi,
[19:15] >> Trusty Gallagh. Hi,
[19:17] >> Trusty Evans. Hi,
[19:18] >> Trusty Mattail. Hi,
[19:19] >> Trusty Fitzgerald.
[19:20] >> Hi.
[19:22] >> Uh, motion carries. Consent agenda is
[19:24] approved. Uh, we go on to department,
[19:26] board, and commission reports. We have a
[19:29] preservation commission report tonight
[19:31] from Director Siren.
[19:32] >> Thank you very much. I have two brief
[19:34] updates uh for you from the preservation
[19:36] commission. The commission recommends
[19:38] that the village landmark the stone
[19:40] gutter in Harrington Park. This is the
[19:42] last remaining example of the
[19:43] construction of the Riverside roadway
[19:45] system designed by Mstead and Box and it
[19:47] exemplifies a design detail and
[19:48] construction method conceived to achieve
[19:50] a specific aesthetic intent while
[19:52] preserving the structural and
[19:54] operational integrity of the roadway
[19:56] system. Unless the board objects, the
[19:58] application will proceed to the
[19:59] preservation commission for a public
[20:00] hearing on June 1st and an ordinance to
[20:03] designate the stone curb as a landmark
[20:04] structure would be presented to the
[20:06] board at a meeting this summer.
[20:09] >> Should we take that one first? Any
[20:11] objection on it? No. Pardon?
[20:13] >> We're not voting on it.
[20:14] >> No, just direction to proceed.
[20:16] >> Just direction as to proceed.
[20:18] >> Yeah, I'm in favor of it. In
[20:21] >> Okay, thank you.
[20:23] >> I just was wondering how are we going to
[20:25] preserve this from further erosion?
[20:29] Is anybody ever anybody thinking about
[20:31] that? It's going to erode. It's so It
[20:34] looks very fragile. And
[20:37] >> what are we going to do about that? I
[20:38] don't think it's going to be around
[20:39] forever.
[20:40] >> It's a question that that needs to be
[20:42] addressed, but it's been there for a
[20:44] long long time.
[20:46] Um, but
[20:49] take that under advisement.
[20:52] >> I'll uh ask for research from the state
[20:54] historic preservation office and see if
[20:55] they have any guidance they can provide
[20:57] to us and I'll report back to the board.
[20:59] >> Thanks.
[20:59] >> Of course.
[21:02] >> Then you had another one.
[21:04] >> I do. I I had an update on the public
[21:07] safety facility. Williams architects
[21:09] presented the designs to the
[21:10] preservation commission and asked for
[21:11] feedback on schemes one and two. Um they
[21:13] also had schemes three and four
[21:14] available to them and they reviewed
[21:16] those as well. Uh generally the
[21:18] commissioners felt that all felt that
[21:20] seeing the proposed materials and colors
[21:22] would really be helpful. They felt that
[21:24] you know the buildings were a little
[21:24] heavy without those. Um they all agreed
[21:27] on that. Regarding scheme two, uh the
[21:30] commission did not express a clear
[21:32] consensus in favor of scheme one or
[21:33] scheme two. Uh they did note that scheme
[21:35] two is more successful in connecting the
[21:37] street to the river and that the area
[21:39] near the river uh appears to be more
[21:41] developed um and has potential as a
[21:43] public amenity. Um they thought the
[21:45] horizontal datams were more evident in
[21:47] scheme 2 and that breaking up uh the
[21:48] long horizontal surfaces they saw as an
[21:50] improvement um as the uninterrupted
[21:53] horizontal planes can feel overpowering.
[21:56] Three commissioners expressed support
[21:58] for scheme three, noting it was the most
[21:59] contemporary of the designs which they
[22:01] supported. It was described as similar
[22:03] to scheme one but more successfully
[22:04] engaging the river.
[22:07] Regarding the river elevation and
[22:09] pedestrian experience, the commissioners
[22:11] noted that many people will walk past
[22:12] this building daily. Uh making the
[22:14] relationship between the building's form
[22:16] and the river one of the most important
[22:17] design considerations for the building
[22:19] and the site.
[22:22] The river-facing facade, particularly on
[22:24] the eastern portion of the building near
[22:26] the swing bridge, was described as stark
[22:28] and uninviting. Uh the sheer wall with
[22:31] slit windows at the top were described
[22:32] as unwelcoming for pedestrians. So the
[22:35] commission uh suggested ways to uh
[22:37] soften the appearance of the building.
[22:39] Um I think in using different materials
[22:41] um and textures, understanding that they
[22:43] can't have windows in that portion of
[22:44] the building due to the operation of it.
[22:46] Um, the commission also uh suggested
[22:48] ways uh to soften the river uh using
[22:51] plant materials or limestone
[22:53] outcroppings that step down toward the
[22:54] river and recommending researching
[22:56] examples of pathways that actually
[22:58] extend out over the water as an option.
[23:00] Um they also suggested considering if
[23:02] possible a way to improve the connection
[23:05] between the pathway and the swing
[23:06] bridge. They thought that was a little
[23:07] awkward. When you exit the pathway you'd
[23:09] have to go double back to get on the
[23:10] swing bridge, though we're not sure if
[23:11] there's a solution to that. And that was
[23:13] the feedback from the commission. Thank
[23:15] you. Any questions or comments from the
[23:18] board?
[23:20] Um so that information uh our architects
[23:23] will take that under advisement
[23:25] uh and after the open house uh they will
[23:29] begin working on updates, revisions and
[23:34] bring something back to us at that time.
[23:36] Correct.
[23:38] >> Thank you.
[23:42] Next on the agenda under pending
[23:45] business is discussion regarding
[23:47] annually licensed food trucks. Director
[23:49] Siren.
[23:50] >> Thank you. The board has discussed this
[23:52] several times and uh most recently on
[23:54] February 19th, the board generally
[23:55] agreed on a set of standards for food
[23:57] trucks. Those are summarized uh starting
[23:59] on page six of the agenda history sheet.
[24:01] The board requested the planning and
[24:03] zoning commission's input on these
[24:04] standards, one of which is to require a
[24:06] special use, which is a type of zoning
[24:08] review, to allow food trucks to operate
[24:10] as a licensed business in the central
[24:11] business district. Uh the majority of
[24:14] the commission, four out of the six
[24:15] commissioners did not support allowing
[24:16] food trucks in the central business
[24:18] district even with a special use. Uh
[24:20] they listed a few reasons for that. Uh
[24:23] the community is trying to have more
[24:24] transit oriented development which
[24:25] includes more housing in the central
[24:27] business district and it may not be
[24:28] desirable for folks living uh in that
[24:30] area to have a food truck and a parking
[24:32] lot nearby. They felt that food trucks
[24:34] would be inconsistent with the character
[24:36] of the CBD particularly where a parking
[24:37] lot is next to a residence which is uh
[24:40] tied to the first point that the the
[24:42] community is trying to promote brick and
[24:43] mortar uh businesses which food trucks
[24:46] would not be. Uh there aren't any
[24:48] pending requests for food trucks
[24:49] currently. Um the village can reconsider
[24:51] the issue if it receives many requests
[24:53] for permits in the central business
[24:54] district and a um a property owner could
[24:58] have a special event with a food truck
[24:59] without a special use permit. Um they
[25:02] just couldn't operate every day of the
[25:03] week. So they think there's an
[25:04] alternative option to getting a special
[25:06] use permit. Uh the remainder of the
[25:09] commission's feedback is included in the
[25:10] agenda history sheet and I can review
[25:12] those comments at your request. Um I
[25:14] would like to note a few things. Um
[25:16] there was an issue that was previously
[25:17] mentioned by staff but not discussed by
[25:19] the board. Um the issue was whether the
[25:22] owner of a multi-unit commercial
[25:24] shopping center should be able to wave
[25:26] the 100 foot separation requirement
[25:28] between a food truck on their property
[25:30] and a brickandmortar restaurant on the
[25:32] same property. So the one example of
[25:34] this would be the Shining Smiles
[25:35] shopping center. There's a location uh
[25:38] on the property that would meet the
[25:40] residential separation requirement. if
[25:42] the property owner wanted to allow a
[25:43] food truck. However, he would be unable
[25:46] to because of the 100 foot food
[25:48] separation of uh between the food truck
[25:50] and the existing restaurant on site. So,
[25:52] staff had mentioned this previously, but
[25:54] it wasn't brought before the board for
[25:55] specific direction. Um, if the board
[25:57] would like, we can uh have you wave that
[25:59] requirement at the property owner's
[26:01] discretion. So, they could wave their
[26:02] own separation requirement. And again,
[26:04] it would only apply to the Shining Smile
[26:06] Shopping Center. Um, so that's I
[26:08] included that as at the list that I'll
[26:10] show you of uh your request for your
[26:12] feedback. Um,
[26:15] also following the board's discussion on
[26:16] February 19th, two additional amendments
[26:18] were identified for the board's
[26:19] consideration and those were listed in
[26:22] the agenda history sheet. Very simply,
[26:24] the first is the definition of f of
[26:27] mobile food unit will need to be amended
[26:29] if the board wants to allow stationary
[26:32] licensed food trucks to be able to sell
[26:34] ice cream and other frozen desserts. uh
[26:36] because you cannot currently sell ice
[26:38] cream and other frozen desserts from a
[26:40] mobile food unit in the village and
[26:42] that's a long-standing issue in the
[26:44] code. So if the mobile food unit is
[26:46] stationary and licensed and would like
[26:48] to sell ice cream, we would just need to
[26:49] amend the code to be able to do that.
[26:54] » I'm sorry.
[26:58] » I don't don't remember but I don't
[26:59] remember the language being uh ice cream
[27:03] truck.
[27:04] Oh. Um I think the the definition is
[27:06] mobile food unit.
[27:07] >> Yes.
[27:08] Yes, that's correct. Um I'm sorry
[27:11] if I misspoke. Um second, um if if the
[27:13] board supports allowing uh bicycles or
[27:15] other non-motorized food units to
[27:18] operize to operate as licensed uh excuse
[27:21] me, as mobile food units, uh staff
[27:23] recommends uh recommends amending the
[27:25] code to specify that. Uh currently the
[27:27] definition of mobile food unit says a a
[27:30] vehicle or other cart can be used and
[27:33] it's not quite clear if you have a
[27:34] bicycle with uh storage and you wanted
[27:37] to use that as a as a uh mobile food
[27:40] unit that you'd be able to do that. So
[27:41] we could clarify that by just amending
[27:43] the definition of mobile food unit in
[27:44] the code to specify that you could use a
[27:46] bicycle with storage.
[27:49] Um, so staff is requesting that the
[27:51] board provide feedback and direction to
[27:52] the staff on the remaining items that uh
[27:56] were remaining from the board's
[27:57] discussion and the the items that I
[27:58] mentioned tonight and any other feedback
[28:00] that you might have. Um, one of the
[28:03] remaining items that the board discussed
[28:04] but didn't settle on were the operating
[28:06] hours. Um, staff initially suggested 7
[28:10] a.m. to 9:00 p.m. to roughly align with
[28:12] the hours when construction is allowed.
[28:14] Um, but there wasn't consensus on that point. Um,
[28:21] » should we take this one at a time or we
[28:23] talk about
[28:24] >> We could take them one at a time. So,
[28:26] the first question is, uh, should the
[28:29] operating hours be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
[28:31] p.m.
[28:32] >> And this is for is this both for special
[28:35] event food trucks or just for
[28:38] >> this business license?
[28:39] >> This is just for licensed food trucks.
[28:41] >> Licensed food trucks.
[28:43] >> Is it possible for them to Could you get
[28:46] in? could you apply for? Is there a
[28:48] process for getting an exemption? Again,
[28:49] I use my exemption, my example of a
[28:52] coffee truck, like a coffee breakfast
[28:54] thing might want to start earlier than 7
[28:56] a.m.
[28:57] >> Um,
[28:58] >> is there a process for saying, can we
[29:00] open at five?
[29:04] » Okay.
[29:05] I was just want I mean there's no
[29:08] reason to legislate for something that
[29:09] doesn't exist yet but if somebody wanted
[29:12] to say open at five
[29:15] >> could it maybe be an appeal process
[29:17] where there it would come before the
[29:19] board
[29:21] special they could unless you know we
[29:23] could have a standard with I mean the concern here with with time is is
[29:28] >> traffic and other we could say it's like
[29:30] well this is something our our business
[29:32] model it's we're going to be located
[29:33] here and we're serving this type of
[29:35] product which will not obstruct and they
[29:37] can establish that our our overall goals
[29:38] are being achieved so we can we can wave
[29:42] that requirement upon a certain showing.
[29:43] I'll come up with the right words for it
[29:45] but we'd have to change the process.
[29:46] >> Perfect. Then then I would be okay with
[29:48] the 7 to9.
[29:50] >> Any other comments on the hours? If not
[29:54] they take that as consensus based on the
[29:58] amendments uh suggested by trustee
[30:00] costs. So number two,
[30:02] >> number two is should the owner of a
[30:04] multi-unit commercial shopping center be
[30:05] able to wave the 100 foot separation
[30:06] requirement from a brick and mortar
[30:09] restaurant on the same property in our
[30:10] example of Shining Smiles?
[30:12] >> I think yes.
[30:13] >> Also yes.
[30:14] >> So does that take the the power away
[30:18] from the restaurant?
[30:19] >> Yeah.
[30:20] >> If the owner if the owner of the
[30:21] property allowed it, then the restaurant
[30:23] wouldn't be able to object. That's
[30:24] correct.
[30:26] >> I say no.
[30:30] I would say yes if the brickandmortar
[30:33] restaurant agrees for each case.
[30:37] >> I'd piggy back off that and say there
[30:38] should be an appeal for the restaurant
[30:41] as well.
[30:43] >> I I agree with Trusty Mateo in that if
[30:46] they obtain the consent of the business
[30:50] owner then they should be allowed to
[30:52] receive.
[30:54] >> I I have a question for attorney
[30:56] pickroll.
[30:59] I I I don't disagree with the sentiment
[31:02] of asking the the tenant, but on the
[31:05] other hand, from our perspective as a
[31:08] regulatory agency, does that tenant have
[31:10] agency?
[31:13] >> Yeah, that I I was thinking the same
[31:15] thing as we were talking about it with
[31:16] this uh the um
[31:20] you know, the idea behind the distance
[31:22] requirement is that you don't want to
[31:24] have unfair impacts and you were trying
[31:25] to address that. Um, and so, uh, what I
[31:29] would like to do, I was thinking about
[31:31] how I write this up, to create a series
[31:33] of objective standards in which that
[31:35] could be waved. And this would be, uh, a
[31:38] factor. I I would not want to seed
[31:40] regulatory authority to any individual
[31:42] to say up or down on on this. But the
[31:45] impact on neighboring communities uh
[31:47] neighboring properties rather as
[31:49] evidenced by they can speak out about it
[31:52] can be a factor that we consider but I
[31:54] think would ultimately be up to the
[31:55] village board to approve it not the
[31:58] neighbor.
[31:59] >> Yeah. I it concerns me that we insert
[32:02] ourselves
[32:04] into a private contract between a
[32:06] property owner and a tenant.
[32:08] >> Right. Yes.
[32:10] >> None of our business. And to me legally
[32:13] the the entity withstanding is the
[32:16] property owner
[32:17] >> right
[32:18] >> ultimately. So if you could look more
[32:21] sure and I can review it. I mean
[32:22] ultimately what I sort of view this is
[32:24] if you tell me what what your goals are
[32:27] and I will provide you with options
[32:29] about how to achieve those goals. They
[32:30] may not perfectly align with that but
[32:32] they can you know if if it's the
[32:34] specific idea of waiver based on uh
[32:37] permission is is an interesting idea.
[32:39] But if the goal is if we could that we
[32:41] want to establish that there isn't harm
[32:43] and that this this distance requirement
[32:45] can be modified in light of a
[32:47] demonstration of a lack of harm, I think
[32:49] that is rational. So I I'll come with
[32:51] something that if once I have clear
[32:53] direction, I can come with something for
[32:54] you to consider.
[32:56] >> Well, I guess in that case, I would
[32:57] change my answer to no. I would not be
[33:00] in favor of it and only because um the
[33:04] person leased that space, the restaurant
[33:07] owner leased the space
[33:10] with the expectation of it being a
[33:12] certain way. And you know, if it's if
[33:16] there's only one restaurant space in the
[33:19] plaza and they've leased it, then they
[33:21] have an expectation that they're going
[33:23] to be able to operate in a certain way
[33:25] without
[33:26] >> direct competition. I mean, I I like the
[33:29] idea of them being able to be consulted
[33:33] and us being able to, you know, weigh
[33:36] that, I suppose. But, um, if it has to
[33:39] be one way or the other, I would be a
[33:41] no. I think that you're assuming though
[33:43] that it would be competitive versus
[33:46] mutually beneficial. For example, if you
[33:48] put a dessert truck or a cupcake truck
[33:51] there, that could potentially drive
[33:52] business to the restaurant. If you did a
[33:56] breakfast truck there, that wouldn't
[33:58] take away from the current restaurant
[33:59] that's there.
[34:00] >> Takes away parking. I mean, putting a big truck of, you know, or
[34:06] maybe even a small truck takes parking
[34:08] spaces.
[34:08] >> I just don't think we can assume that it
[34:10] would be that having another food place
[34:13] there. I mean, if you look at the models
[34:15] that are around, I mean, usually you see
[34:17] a Burger King and a Chick-fil-A and an
[34:19] Arby's all right next door to each
[34:21] other. And the reason why is because
[34:22] when people go to place, people like to
[34:24] go to one spot. So they actually all
[34:27] draw each other together. Um I don't
[34:30] think that having multiple food places
[34:33] will take away from each other. I think
[34:35] it'll be mutually beneficial. I don't
[34:37] think we can assume that it would be bad
[34:40] for business to have a food truck there.
[34:42] >> I don't think that's a fair assumption.
[34:44] You're you're looking at a very
[34:45] discreet, finite parking lot. And you're
[34:48] talking about taking up space within
[34:50] that lot that is supposed to be able to
[34:53] be used by all of the customers in the,
[34:55] you know, all of the patrons for the
[34:58] plaza
[34:59] >> and taking taking that away and making
[35:01] it more.
[35:02] >> I I want to answer that question,
[35:04] Aberdine, and ask uh planner siren.
[35:09] Uh this is for licensed food trucks. So
[35:12] someone
[35:13] uh is operating a food truck, do they
[35:16] not have to show that they still have
[35:19] sufficient parking?
[35:21] >> They need to demonstrate off they can't
[35:23] occupy required parking spaces. They
[35:27] have to be extra spaces.
[35:29] >> There are no extra spaces in the lot
[35:31] though.
[35:32] >> But there are I think there probably
[35:34] are.
[35:35] >> I would have to count the spaces in
[35:36] that.
[35:37] >> We have to count. But if if that's the
[35:39] case, if there are no extra spaces, then
[35:41] they can't have a food truck. You mean
[35:42] extra on top of what's required?
[35:45] >> Right. Right.
[35:47] >> I just seem to remember when that plaza
[35:49] was developed, there were all kinds of
[35:51] discussions about how difficult it was
[35:53] to navigate the traffic.
[35:54] >> That's a different question though. The
[35:56] question is, okay,
[35:57] >> do they as a practical matter, do they
[35:59] have enough parking? I don't know. But
[36:01] as a legal matter, uh, do they have
[36:04] enough parking to meet our zoning
[36:05] requirements? And if they don't have
[36:08] enough parking to meet our zoning
[36:10] requirements, they can't have a food
[36:11] truck.
[36:14] So from our perspective, the parking
[36:17] will meet the zoning requirements
[36:21] if they they put a food truck there.
[36:22] They have to. So, the other thing I
[36:25] would I was asked too, another way to
[36:27] look at this is um
[36:31] take the Shining uh Harlem and Long
[36:34] Common Shopping Plaza. Uh what if
[36:37] another brickandmortar restaurant wants
[36:39] to go into that plaza? Are we going to
[36:41] tell them they can't because there's
[36:42] already a restaurant there? Is that our
[36:44] business? You've kind of had that
[36:46] discussion before as well when
[36:48] >> is that up to us to say now some tenants
[36:51] will have in their lease that you can't
[36:54] have another restaurant and that's a
[36:55] private agreement between the landlord
[36:57] and the tenant and that's gets to my
[36:59] point of
[37:00] >> I'm hesitant to insert ourselves
[37:03] into that contract between the property
[37:06] owner and the tenant by giving the
[37:08] tenant veto power
[37:11] when maybe they don't have that because
[37:13] it's not in their lease and there could
[37:14] be another brick and mortar restaurant
[37:16] right next door to them and they don't
[37:18] have veto power over that, but they do
[37:20] have veto power over the food truck.
[37:23] >> So, that seems a little inconsistent to
[37:25] me to do it that way. So,
[37:28] >> um I think I'd like to ask attorney
[37:31] pickrol to look into that.
[37:33] >> Yeah.
[37:34] >> And come back to us. Uh I like I said, I totally understand the sentiment of
[37:39] trying to protect the existing brick and
[37:42] mortar restaurants. It's a lot lot has a
[37:45] lot to do with why we've discussed this
[37:47] so much is we're trying to do that. But
[37:49] um but I want to make sure we're on fat
[37:53] sound legal ground.
[37:54] >> Can I say one more thing though?
[37:55] >> Yes, please.
[37:56] >> Um we spent a lot of time a lot of time
[38:00] talking about the guidelines um for the
[38:03] space between restaurants and food
[38:05] trucks and what we wanted and it was
[38:07] based on what we heard from restaurants
[38:10] and it's just based on fairness. So, I
[38:13] don't know why. And I also think it
[38:14] would be complicated to ask the
[38:16] restaurant owner yes or no. Um, so I
[38:19] just think we should stick with what
[38:21] we've already decided instead of I don't
[38:24] know why we're reopening this
[38:26] discussion.
[38:28] Well, what we've already decided is that
[38:30] uh
[38:32] the Shining Smiles
[38:35] Shopping Center could not have a food
[38:37] truck because it would be within the
[38:40] separation requirement from an existing
[38:42] restaurant,
[38:44] >> right? Oh, did we?
[38:45] >> But the question is, is that is is that
[38:48] what we really want? And are you saying
[38:51] it is what you want or not
[38:55] >> or you're not sure yet?
[38:56] >> It is what? Yeah,
[38:57] >> but again, I go back to what you just
[38:59] said. If Q nails, god forbid, ever
[39:02] decided to leave that that shopping
[39:04] center. Seriously, can't don't ever do
[39:07] that.
[39:07] >> Um, but if they ever decided to leave
[39:10] and they decided to put I know they
[39:12] can't do this, but like McDonald's in
[39:14] there,
[39:15] >> they could the owner of Shining Smiles
[39:17] can put another restaurant right next
[39:19] door
[39:19] >> if it isn't if he's allowed. We don't
[39:22] know.
[39:22] >> Right. But I'm just saying. So, what is
[39:23] the difference between that and a food
[39:25] truck? A food truck is not a restaurant.
[39:28] >> Again, I will I mean, I will continue to
[39:30] defer, and I've said this before when we
[39:33] were talking about food trucks, too. I
[39:34] will continue to defer to the fact that
[39:36] I think that our business owners and
[39:37] property owners need to be able to do
[39:40] things and be creative in order to make
[39:43] their businesses and their properties
[39:45] successful. And if this is something
[39:46] that they wanted to do, I think they
[39:48] should be able to do it.
[39:52] » Same here. EDC has recommended as well
[39:55] as the chamber. So I've heard from the
[39:57] business community
[40:00] » they recommended under 100 feet between
[40:02] food.
[40:03] >> They recommend having competition
[40:04] because they're in the they're
[40:07] >> talking about competition. We're talking
[40:08] about space
[40:09] >> which you don't want the competition
[40:11] from one restaurant to another or what
[40:13] from one food supplier to another.
[40:16] >> It's not about competition at all.
[40:18] >> How's it not?
[40:19] >> Yeah. You just said that was your whole
[40:20] argument. It's not fair to that existing
[40:22] restaurant.
[40:24] Well, we agreed that we want 100 feet of
[40:27] space and now we're saying, well, we
[40:29] might not if in this case or
[40:31] >> well, we're on the same property. It's a
[40:32] different matter altogether. I think the
[40:34] point is so that it's more about the um
[40:37] rewarding the investment in the
[40:39] community, the long-term investment,
[40:41] whether it be by purchasing space or
[40:43] whether it be by, you know, leasing the
[40:46] space, you know, long term and making
[40:48] capital improvements to that real
[40:51] estate, excuse me, to that real estate.
[40:54] You don't get that with a food truck.
[40:56] >> Yes. So I think we need to uh you know
[41:00] good points on both sides all sides of
[41:03] this issue but the bottom line is what
[41:06] is the legal standing here and I would
[41:10] suggest we kind of punt on this question
[41:12] for now. Uh let the process go ahead
[41:16] assuming we get through these other
[41:17] items. Let the process move forward and
[41:19] in the meantime attorney pickro can look
[41:22] into that for us. Yeah. And just to
[41:24] clarify, what you're looking for me to
[41:25] look into is if we establish a
[41:27] separation requirement, you look for the
[41:30] process by which we can wave or amend
[41:32] that separation requirement in
[41:33] particular circumstances and the extent
[41:35] to which we can consider uh the the the
[41:39] other person who you're being separated
[41:41] from, their opinion on the matter in
[41:43] terms of that waiver. Is that correct?
[41:45] >> I think so. Okay.
[41:46] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[41:48] >> Does that work for everyone?
[41:50] >> Yeah.
[41:50] >> Yes.
[41:51] >> Okay. Next question.
[41:53] Number three, should the code be amended
[41:55] to specify that stationary bicycles or
[41:56] similar conveyances can be allowed to
[41:58] operate as a mobile food unit? And
[42:00] again, this would be a stationary
[42:03] in a spot unit.
[42:05] >> To be clear, this isn't riding up and
[42:08] down the street. It's
[42:09] >> Yes,
[42:09] >> they're station
[42:11] without a motor.
[42:12] >> Yes.
[42:13] >> Is is staff able to do all of the
[42:14] inspections for health and sanitary
[42:16] stuff that
[42:17] >> Yes.
[42:19] >> Well, then I'm I'm fine. OP it too.
[42:23] >> Everybody okay with that?
[42:24] >> It's greener than a food truck.
[42:26] >> Yeah.
[42:27] >> And then the last question is should we
[42:29] amend the code to allow the sale of ice
[42:31] cream and other frozen desserts again
[42:32] from a uh stationary mobile food unit?
[42:35] So we wouldn't have a food truck in
[42:36] town, but they would
[42:38] >> be a licensed business. And so
[42:41] >> how is I mean how is that different than
[42:43] us not being able to say we can't
[42:45] dictate what kind of food you bring in
[42:46] on a food truck?
[42:47] >> Right.
[42:48] >> I don't think there is a difference.
[42:49] that co-currently prohibits the sale of
[42:51] frozen desserts from a mobile food unit.
[42:53] >> Oh,
[42:54] >> right. Oh, great. Okay. Now, I see. If
[42:57] so, what we're trying to do is allow
[42:58] folks to do that if they want if you if
[43:00] you would like to need to amend the
[43:02] code.
[43:02] >> Yeah.
[43:02] >> Which I remember was more of a safety
[43:04] issue. They don't want kids running into
[43:05] it. That doesn't exist with a stationary
[43:07] truck. So, I'm okay with
[43:09] >> Yeah.
[43:09] >> clarifying that as well.
[43:10] >> I think it probably goes back to the old
[43:12] days of the Yeah.
[43:14] >> roving ice cream vendor.
[43:16] >> To be clear on that one, it could be a
[43:19] pizza truck that also sells ice cream.
[43:22] >> It could be a
[43:25] >> stationary mobile food unit that only
[43:27] sells frozen things. It's not placing
[43:29] further limits. It's allowing sale
[43:31] regardless of what else you're selling
[43:33] >> of ice cream. Yes.
[43:35] >> Thank you.
[43:35] >> Yes.
[43:37] >> Thank you for your direction. Um if the
[43:39] um if you would like us to move forward
[43:40] with um the proposed amendments, we
[43:43] would uh draft amendments to the zoning
[43:44] code and then to the village code. Uh so
[43:46] the zoning code, we would need to amend
[43:48] the code to allow um mobile food units
[43:50] in the B1 district as a permitted use
[43:53] pending all of the the requirements and
[43:55] then to allow them in the central
[43:56] business district as a special use uh
[43:58] with those requirements and then we
[44:00] would amend the village code to include
[44:01] all the other standards that we
[44:02] discussed in the business license
[44:04] section of the code. Great. That would
[44:06] be the uh the next steps. But uh our
[44:11] planning commission will have a public
[44:13] hearing on the special use permitted use
[44:16] ideas. They could come back and
[44:18] recommend something different if they
[44:20] wanted, but that's how we're proceeding
[44:22] with legal notices and everything else.
[44:27] >> Everybody on board with that?
[44:29] >> Yes.
[44:30] >> Excellent.
[44:30] >> Okay.
[44:31] >> Thank you.
[44:34] That might have been our shortest food
[44:35] track discussion,
[44:38] >> but not our last.
[44:39] >> We're getting there. We're definitely
[44:41] getting there.
[44:43] >> All right. Next, we have discussion
[44:47] regarding standards for outdoor dining
[44:49] areas. Director Siren.
[44:51] >> Yes. When the board discussed this on
[44:52] March 5th, the board expressed support
[44:54] for most of the proposed standards, but
[44:55] there were a few remaining items for
[44:57] discussion. namely a height limit for
[44:59] barriers, uh a transparency requirement
[45:02] for barriers, and whether uh
[45:04] non-conforming outdoor dining features
[45:06] should be allowed to remain or whether
[45:08] they should be brought into compliance
[45:09] within a certain time period. The EDC
[45:12] and planning and zoning commission
[45:13] reviewed the proposed standards and
[45:15] provided feedback, which was summarized
[45:16] in the agenda history sheet. Staff
[45:18] reached out to the Chamber of Commerce
[45:19] to request feedback on the proposed
[45:21] standards and to the owners of
[45:22] restaurants that have outdoor dining
[45:24] areas or that could have outdoor dining
[45:26] areas for their feedback as well. We uh
[45:28] one owner responded noting that the
[45:29] standards are reasonable and that a
[45:30] two-year compliance period uh for
[45:32] barriers is sufficient. They also
[45:34] suggested distinguishing standards uh
[45:36] for patios and sidewalks. Uh sidewalk
[45:38] dining areas must account pedestrian
[45:40] traffic, vehic ve vehicle safety and
[45:42] door egress and are typically temporary
[45:44] in nature with limited number of tables
[45:46] relative to the storefront whereas patio
[45:48] dining areas are more permanent and
[45:50] closed spaces with barriers,
[45:51] electricity, music and decor.
[45:54] So staff requests the direction on the
[45:55] proposed standards which were organized
[45:57] in the agenda history sheet based on the
[45:59] board's uh level of support. So the
[46:01] first set of proposed standards were
[46:03] generally that ones that the board had
[46:04] supported um during the last discussion
[46:07] and then the second set of standards
[46:09] were ones that received mixed feedback
[46:10] and we need further direction on.
[46:13] Do you mind going to the slide? Okay.
[46:15] The first is a maximum height for
[46:17] barriers. So the question is should
[46:19] there be a maximum height requirement
[46:21] and if so what might that be and when we
[46:24] first brought this to you the uh range
[46:27] recommended in other communities is 36
[46:29] to 42 in and staff recommended a 42 inch
[46:32] height as a starting point for
[46:34] discussion and um we got some feedback
[46:37] uh the PCC and EDC seemed content with
[46:39] having a height requirement and the PCC
[46:42] recommended that 42 or or 46 inch
[46:44] barrier may be acceptable um since the
[46:47] barrier will be transparent. So, since
[46:49] the bear is transparent, you've already
[46:50] got some visibility through it. So, the
[46:52] height is not as important. Um, and just
[46:55] as a reminder, um, the village attorney
[46:57] recommended including a provision to
[46:58] allow the board to approve barriers that
[47:00] exceed the maximum height in locations
[47:02] that may require additional privacy,
[47:04] such as hight traffic areas or areas
[47:05] adjacent to railroad tracks. Um, once we
[47:08] had some feedback from the board, I also
[47:10] went out and measured uh the barriers
[47:11] that were available. Um, La Asansia's
[47:15] barrier is 49 in tall. Breakfast hosiend
[47:18] is 44 inches tall. Cubanito Express has
[47:21] a uh a barrier that has 42 inch height
[47:24] along the length of it, the majority.
[47:26] And then on the ends, they've added some
[47:28] um pieces of wood to provide I think a
[47:30] visual barrier from Harlem and the and
[47:32] the alley that are on either side that
[47:34] uh increase that 42 inches to 58 in.
[47:38] Uh so so those uh are considerations in
[47:40] determining um the maximum barrier
[47:42] height. Um also we asked about planters
[47:46] used as barriers having a maximum height
[47:48] but we might want to start with the the
[47:49] barrier height.
[47:51] >> Yeah
[47:55] being over 42 46 that that makes a lot
[47:58] of sense to me. I mean, I
[47:59] >> Yeah, I like the um the provision to
[48:03] allow the board to approve a taller
[48:04] barrier when it's not adjacent to the
[48:07] street or public street or whatever
[48:09] because that could Yeah, I like that
[48:11] too.
[48:12] >> Um
[48:15] the I I'll just, you know, comment or or
[48:18] throw out some information. So
[48:21] the reason that uh from urban design,
[48:24] retail, uh downtown planning,
[48:28] um the height limit is usually based on
[48:32] you're sitting in a chair. You want that
[48:35] you want to be able to see and not have
[48:39] something blocking you at eye level. Um
[48:44] 42 48 inches would do that I think. Um
[48:49] but and I don't know if 42 I I don't
[48:52] have a tape measure but that that's kind
[48:55] of where that the the basis of that of
[48:57] those numbers. They're not just
[48:58] arbitrary numbers. Uh they come from
[49:02] much research and experience in downtown
[49:06] uh retail planning, restaurant planning.
[49:11] >> So 48's what you've seen then?
[49:14] Well, the the the enclosure at Lost
[49:18] Stansi is 49 in. So, even if it was an
[49:21] inch shorter, even even if it were
[49:24] transparent or or, you know, half 50%
[49:28] whatever that number is, you could still
[49:30] have,
[49:32] you know, some blockage of sight lines
[49:35] and visibility. And the whole idea is to
[49:38] have open and you know barrier supposed
[49:41] to be more like a railing not not a
[49:44] screen.
[49:46] Uh that's the philosophy behind it.
[49:48] >> But would there be would So when we're
[49:50] saying that you could
[49:53] I'm sorry I forgot what the wording was
[49:55] like but like basically you would get an
[49:56] exemption if you had a specific
[49:58] situation railroad track something like
[50:00] that.
[50:00] >> Yep. Um,
[50:02] would you also be able to
[50:10] like for example I'm thinking like
[50:12] planters don't you can't see through a
[50:14] planter, right? So depending on how tall
[50:17] the planter is, you wouldn't have the
[50:20] transparency,
[50:23] >> right? So if there's a transparency
[50:25] issue and people are using plant I don't
[50:27] know
[50:29] I think I've talked myself
[50:31] >> is the concern that they people might
[50:32] try to exceed the transparency and
[50:34] height requirement by just making a wall
[50:36] of planters
[50:37] >> right like if you made
[50:38] >> right we can
[50:39] >> well so for example like let's say you
[50:41] I've seen places downtown do this where
[50:43] they do like a potted arborites
[50:47] >> which end up being like five or five or
[50:50] six feet tall. I'm throwing a number out
[50:51] there. They're like five or six feet
[50:52] tall.
[50:55] That probably doesn't meet a
[50:57] transparency requirement.
[51:01] >> How's that how does that play into this,
[51:03] I guess, is my question.
[51:04] >> Yeah, I mean, and we can this would come
[51:06] into the description of the of the wall
[51:09] it of the of itself. I mean, and we can
[51:11] I can make sure we got a definition
[51:13] sections to say that it, you know, it
[51:16] cannot be more than X percentage. let's
[51:18] say 10%
[51:20] uh planters or something like that
[51:21] because some people I see they do put a
[51:22] walls and they put a nice little planter
[51:24] in there too and then they continue the
[51:25] wall along and if
[51:26] >> if you want it to be 100%
[51:29] um wall we can do that. If you wanted to
[51:31] allow uh planters to be interspersed
[51:33] throughout we can we can create a
[51:35] percentage.
[51:36] >> Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out how
[51:37] to not make it completely tedious where
[51:39] we're, you know, trying to figure out a
[51:40] transparency issue. And sorry, your
[51:43] arborite is too lush this year. So
[51:45] you're No, I mean, but seriously, like
[51:47] I'm trying to make it so that it's not
[51:48] you're not out there with like a light
[51:50] meter and trying to figure out trans I
[51:53] right like I don't want this to be just
[51:55] a crazy ownorous situation to
[51:57] >> what I've saw in other communities is
[51:59] that they just have a a maximum barrier
[52:01] for planters. They just say it's 24 in
[52:03] and then they assume that within that
[52:05] area, let's say their maximum barrier
[52:07] height is 36 or 42 inches. They assume
[52:09] that the plants they they put in there
[52:11] are going to be within that limit.
[52:13] >> Okay? So the plant is within that as
[52:15] opposed to the plant turf.
[52:16] >> They assume the planter they put a limit
[52:18] on the planter. They do not put a limit
[52:19] on plants or specify a transparency of
[52:21] plants. They just say this is the height
[52:23] of the planter and they accept that as a
[52:25] >> that makes a lot more sense
[52:26] >> as a reasonable
[52:28] >> uh yeah reason.
[52:30] >> Long and short plant doesn't count. I'm
[52:32] sorry.
[52:32] >> The plant doesn't count as part of the
[52:34] >> I have not seen the plants regulated.
[52:35] That would be
[52:37] >> super fun for you.
[52:40] >> You're really hoping we'll do that.
[52:45] » Okay.
[52:47] >> And the other So staff is suggesting
[52:50] maximum height of 42 in. Um
[52:54] >> I thought it was 48.
[52:56] >> That was plan commission.
[52:58] >> Oh, planning commission. I started with
[53:00] a starting point of what other
[53:01] communities suggested.
[53:03] >> Um I think so we had just as a a range
[53:06] other communities do 36 to 42 inches as
[53:08] a thought. Um planning and zoning
[53:11] commission and EDC said 42 to 46 in
[53:13] should be sufficient given the
[53:14] transparency. And just as a reminder if
[53:17] we choose one of those some of our
[53:20] existing barriers would be according to
[53:23] not in accordance with that and may need
[53:25] to come to you for an exception if you
[53:27] would want to grant that exception.
[53:29] Okay. I have a question. So, we're I
[53:30] think focusing more on the maximum. Was
[53:33] there a minimum? That
[53:34] >> There was no minimum. The There's no
[53:36] minimum, just a maximum.
[53:38] >> Okay.
[53:40] >> Would you recommend doing a maximum
[53:42] height for barriers and a maximum height
[53:47] for planters?
[53:48] >> That's what I've seen in other
[53:49] communities. It makes some sense. Um
[53:51] because the assumption is if you have a
[53:52] 24-in planter that the plants within
[53:55] that are going to be somewhat
[53:56] transparent above that and achieve some
[53:58] sort of visual transparency.
[54:03] » So go ahead.
[54:04] >> So we're talking about a maximum height
[54:05] for basically fences
[54:08] >> and then a different possibly if we
[54:11] wanted to different maximum height for
[54:13] planters.
[54:15] >> That's what I'm asking is like to those
[54:16] two.
[54:17] >> Okay. So should we talk about
[54:18] non-planters first?
[54:21] just to keep it I'm sorry I'm get I'm
[54:24] getting confused that's why I'm trying
[54:25] to separate it out
[54:28] >> so for for barriers we had a range
[54:30] >> okay
[54:30] >> other communities go from 3 ft to 42 in
[54:34] >> okay
[54:34] >> um some of our businesses currently
[54:36] would exceed that if we selected that
[54:38] the highest that we have is on the ends
[54:40] of community express just on the ends
[54:42] they go up to 58 in
[54:44] >> okay
[54:44] >> in the center it's 42 um and then we've
[54:47] got two other barriers that I measured
[54:49] breakfast is 44 in and last is 49 in.
[54:53] >> Okay.
[54:54] >> So, we always have the option of
[54:55] selecting what the board thinks is a
[54:57] reasonable barrier and allowing
[54:58] restaurants to ask for an exemption
[55:00] based on traffic visibility, things like
[55:03] that.
[55:05] >> I I mean just based on that, I would say
[55:07] 46 in was what the
[55:09] >> um
[55:11] >> PCC
[55:12] >> Yeah. said 42 to 46. So, 46 being the
[55:15] maximum sounds reasonable.
[55:18] >> Okay. I think we need to go back to why
[55:21] we're having these discussions. We
[55:23] currently don't have outdoor dining
[55:25] standards. We want to have some minimum
[55:27] standards. As President Pollock
[55:30] discussed, his life's profession.
[55:32] There's a reason we have outdoor dining
[55:34] and standards to go. We want to make it
[55:36] inviting. We want people to go and say,
[55:37] "Wow, that looks really great." with
[55:39] their So I I I think this is we need to
[55:44] think hard about this this not just go
[55:46] with the maximum but what really is
[55:48] shoulder level for somebody in most
[55:50] seats sitting outdoors. I don't know
[55:52] what that number is. I also did not
[55:53] bring a tape measure but kind of wish I
[55:57] had one right now.
[55:58] >> How did you come up with the maximum
[55:59] height of 42 in?
[56:01] >> That that was surveyed from other
[56:03] communities. The other communities range
[56:04] from 36 to 42 inches is generally what
[56:06] they felt was a a good range.
[56:09] Then you said 48. So that's
[56:11] >> I said 48's too way too tall.
[56:13] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said 48.
[56:15] >> No, I think 48 would clearly block your
[56:19] site. You know, would even though it's
[56:22] maybe transparent, you can have cross
[56:24] beams and stuff and um I personally
[56:28] would keep it at 36 in.
[56:32] >> What's the cubinos?
[56:34] >> Kumudo is 42 in in the middle.
[56:38] G 42 in is probably the right one. And
[56:42] >> and I think there could be a carve out
[56:44] though, not only for plants, but for
[56:46] like corner pieces like you described
[56:48] that they have
[56:49] >> privacy
[56:50] >> design elements or something. Yeah.
[56:52] >> Yeah.
[56:53] >> So, as long as the m, you know, the vast
[56:56] majority is at that 42 in, I think
[57:00] >> 36 seems low to me.
[57:02] >> It may be. Yeah. I I'm good with 42 if the board is um if and given that the
[57:08] one is already at 42 and from limited
[57:12] times I've seen that it seems to be a
[57:15] >> well designed
[57:16] >> I've said a community toast and I think
[57:18] that 42 is
[57:19] >> it's just felt right so I only have that
[57:21] reference really
[57:22] >> that then yeah that makes good good yeah
[57:28] >> 42 yeah
[57:29] >> 42 42
[57:31] >> all right Okay.
[57:34] And then for planters, if you'd like to
[57:36] have a separate standard for planters,
[57:38] again, what I've seen in most
[57:40] communities is 2 feet. Um, and that
[57:42] allows room for plants and the
[57:43] assumptions there going to be some
[57:44] visibility in the plants. And
[57:46] >> how tall are the planters that are on
[57:47] Harlem Avenue right now?
[57:50] >> I don't know that I
[57:51] >> And I I'm sorry. I don't know. I I order
[57:53] them, but that was like 20 years ago.
[57:55] >> What was the question?
[57:56] >> So, it seems
[57:56] >> how tall are the planters on Harlem?
[57:58] Because those are those are huge
[57:59] >> on Harlem.
[58:00] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[58:01] >> Or like I'm thinking of the ones in
[58:03] downtown, you know, in the central
[58:05] business district.
[58:07] I think those are closer to 3 feet. It
[58:10] may be. I don't I don't know the answer
[58:12] to that.
[58:12] >> Probably 30 in.
[58:16] I think the assumption other communities
[58:17] used is if you had, let's say, their
[58:19] barrier height was, you know, 36 or 42
[58:22] inches, allowing a 36 inch planner, that
[58:25] would presumably be solid was defeating
[58:27] the purpose of having a visibility a
[58:29] minimum transparency requirement. Okay?
[58:31] So, the planner would be solid. So if
[58:33] you assume that, you know, the this
[58:34] amount isn't really of interest visually
[58:37] to most folks anyway, you know, along
[58:39] that area and then you have some plant
[58:40] material with some space in between that would meet that transparency uh
[58:45] goal.
[58:46] >> So you said it was 24 or 36.
[58:48] >> Most communities do 24 that I surveyed.
[58:50] >> Okay.
[58:52] >> And I like the idea of having a maximum
[58:54] amount of wall structure that is devoted
[58:58] to planters
[59:00] that can't have a whole wall with
[59:01] planters. I like that addition.
[59:03] >> Really?
[59:05] >> I don't think we want more green plants
[59:07] and
[59:08] >> Well, but it gets back to
[59:10] >> transparent,
[59:10] >> you know, you know, 10 24 in
[59:16] pots with 5 foot tall arbor vidies in
[59:19] it.
[59:20] >> Well, no, I was just thinking
[59:20] >> defeated the whole purpose of it.
[59:22] >> I guess I was thinking about like fences
[59:25] that have the that have like
[59:28] window boxes. Is that what they're
[59:30] called? You can plant on the top. Yes.
[59:32] >> Yeah.
[59:33] >> Like if you had a whole row of those
[59:34] that I don't know. All right.
[59:37] >> I would think those are aesthetically
[59:38] pleasing as well. I never thought about
[59:41] that.
[59:43] >> So, looks like staff suggested a maximum
[59:45] height of 24 in
[59:47] >> for planters. Yes.
[59:48] >> Yeah, that works for me.
[59:51] >> I'm fine with that, too, as long as
[59:52] there's also some just like I we talked
[59:57] about with the one outdoor seating area.
[59:59] What? I forgot what which one was that?
[1:00:01] They had the 42 in which restaurant
[1:00:04] >> Express and the sides were taller.
[1:00:06] >> Yeah. We need to just craft some
[1:00:09] language that allows some exception to
[1:00:11] that 42 inch rule, whether it's a
[1:00:14] planter or whether it's a uh
[1:00:17] >> 20
[1:00:18] >> a corner pillar or monument of some
[1:00:21] sort. Um, and I'd like to just see staff
[1:00:25] and the planning commission figure that
[1:00:27] out for us because I think the we all
[1:00:30] agree that we we want it open for the
[1:00:34] most part, but we also like the idea of
[1:00:37] allowing some plants to to be there. And
[1:00:40] I think that can be,
[1:00:43] you know, I want to see the language and
[1:00:44] I think we can then agree on something.
[1:00:47] The planning and zoning commission were
[1:00:48] in favor of allowing the village board
[1:00:51] to wave the standards that they approve
[1:00:53] in in certain situations. So hight
[1:00:54] traffic areas, areas we need more
[1:00:56] privacy,
[1:00:57] >> they were in favor of a a general
[1:01:00] statement for that.
[1:01:03] >> That work
[1:01:04] >> works for me. Yes.
[1:01:04] >> Does pre-existing count as a reason
[1:01:07] itself?
[1:01:09] >> We'll get to that in a minute, right?
[1:01:12] When talk about uh non-conforming.
[1:01:15] >> Yes. Yes. So, um I think the Oh, yes.
[1:01:18] Visual transparency. Thank you. So, the
[1:01:21] board had discussed this before and
[1:01:23] there wasn't a consensus on the board of
[1:01:25] what the minimum transparency uh should
[1:01:27] be. It ranges from different
[1:01:29] communities. I gave you an example of a
[1:01:31] 70% which is a pretty open to 30% which
[1:01:35] would would be the barrier at Labara is
[1:01:37] about 30% transparent. So to give you an
[1:01:40] idea of what that transparency
[1:01:41] requirement would would look like
[1:01:42] obviously Lost Stansia where and you
[1:01:45] know the boards are right next to each
[1:01:46] other would have no transparency. Um so
[1:01:49] the question is uh should there be a
[1:01:50] minimum transparency? Um the planning
[1:01:53] and zoning commission and EDC agreed
[1:01:55] that 30% would be an acceptable minimum
[1:01:57] transparency level. Um and so and then
[1:02:02] uh the other question is obviously um
[1:02:04] should the board be able to wave that in certain cases if they want more
[1:02:08] privacy.
[1:02:09] >> I think we should have that say yes
[1:02:13] >> I think 30
[1:02:14] >> I think 30% is good.
[1:02:16] >> Okay. So 30% and the board is able to
[1:02:18] wave that requirement. Okay.
[1:02:19] >> Yes.
[1:02:20] >> Great.
[1:02:23] in the language there is that also staff
[1:02:26] can estimate what that transparency is
[1:02:28] without spending hours and hours and
[1:02:30] hours on it and I will work with Bob to
[1:02:32] craft that language
[1:02:34] substantially approximately will make
[1:02:38] avid use of work
[1:02:39] >> yeah this should not be a time consuming
[1:02:41] thing
[1:02:43] >> the the last item was non-conforming
[1:02:45] outdoor dining features that are
[1:02:47] existing so I think we I think generally
[1:02:50] heard board support but I just want to
[1:02:52] confirm that uh non-conforming features
[1:02:55] that and there are a couple of uh
[1:02:57] outdoor dining areas that have a couple
[1:02:58] of non-conforming features that would be
[1:03:00] less uh ownorous for the operator to
[1:03:03] correct. So, we've got umbrellas,
[1:03:05] lighting, decorations, and bus carts and
[1:03:07] service equipment. Um, one of the
[1:03:09] non-conforming features would be making
[1:03:10] sure that all the lighting is on the
[1:03:11] inside of the outdoor dining area. And
[1:03:13] we've got an outdoor dining area with
[1:03:14] some lights on the outside. So, that
[1:03:15] would be just flipping the lights to the
[1:03:17] inside. Okay.
[1:03:18] >> Um, so I think I heard generally that
[1:03:20] the board was in favor of that. Just
[1:03:21] want to clarify that the board is in
[1:03:22] favor of saying that there is um that
[1:03:25] you would like those things to come into
[1:03:27] compliance when the when the ordinance
[1:03:28] passes without necessarily going through
[1:03:30] a specific time period. But if you would
[1:03:32] like a specific time period to come into
[1:03:33] compliance, we can do that, too. So,
[1:03:34] this would be specifically asking about
[1:03:36] umbrellas, lighting, decorations, and
[1:03:38] bus carts. If they're non-conforming
[1:03:40] when to the current standards when we
[1:03:42] pass that, do we want them to become
[1:03:43] conforming or should there be a a time
[1:03:46] period or should they just be allowed?
[1:03:47] And again, if they wanted an exception,
[1:03:49] could they come to the board with that?
[1:03:51] >> If we write that, we can. Yes.
[1:03:56] » I mean, I Yeah, I think if if they're
[1:03:59] allowed to kind of petition and say
[1:04:01] this, this is our reasoning for
[1:04:04] being non-conforming
[1:04:06] then. Yeah.
[1:04:07] >> And typically there's we communities
[1:04:09] will offer when somebody has something
[1:04:11] that's existing and it's non-conforming,
[1:04:13] they'll give a wind down. say you have,
[1:04:14] you know, a season or however long you
[1:04:16] want to do it and then after that you
[1:04:18] can come back and petition.
[1:04:20] >> Okay.
[1:04:20] >> But you don't have to.
[1:04:26] » I want to come back to the time period
[1:04:27] after you address the barriers.
[1:04:29] >> Sure.
[1:04:30] >> Because I think
[1:04:31] >> okay
[1:04:32] >> similar considerations
[1:04:34] >> and this is the same question. barriers
[1:04:36] being I think the highest value thing
[1:04:38] that f aside from the furniture that
[1:04:40] folks invest in for these outdoor dining
[1:04:41] areas if they are non-conforming to do
[1:04:43] height or transparency. Uh would the
[1:04:46] board like them to remain as they are
[1:04:48] until they reach the end of their useful
[1:04:49] life and are replaced? So basically the operator gets to decide when they're
[1:04:53] going to uh change out the barrier or
[1:04:56] remove it. Um or should they be required
[1:04:58] to become compliant within a specific
[1:04:59] time period, maybe petition the board to
[1:05:02] allow them to remain if they're existing
[1:05:04] and non-conforming? Um, so those are
[1:05:06] some options for you.
[1:05:08] >> We addressed that at the last meeting
[1:05:10] and we did not have unanimous consensus,
[1:05:12] but the majority of the board was at
[1:05:15] that time was in favor of phasing it out
[1:05:18] or having a a time period by which they
[1:05:21] have to be brought into conformance. Um,
[1:05:24] and the reason I wanted to take both
[1:05:27] items together was I heard a suggestion
[1:05:30] from a trustee this week that uh maybe
[1:05:34] we uh budget for 2027
[1:05:39] to reestablish our facade grant program
[1:05:42] or downtown building grant program. Mhm.
[1:05:46] >> And that we include uh uh grant
[1:05:49] opportunities for people to bring these
[1:05:52] things into compliance.
[1:05:54] >> Uh we pay for a good chunk of it. Uh
[1:05:58] either all of it or some of it. We can
[1:06:00] that'll can be hashed out. But of course
[1:06:02] we want to hear from economic
[1:06:03] development commission on that.
[1:06:06] >> And to me that informs what the time
[1:06:09] period should be.
[1:06:10] >> Exactly. If we're saying if we're gonna
[1:06:12] have money in 2027 to budget for to to pay for
[1:06:17] a good part of that cost, then I my
[1:06:21] feeling is by the end of 2027, let's
[1:06:23] bring this into conformance.
[1:06:25] >> I think that sounds fair.
[1:06:26] >> You know, we're paying for it.
[1:06:30] >> Or, you know, it could be longer. I, you
[1:06:32] know,
[1:06:33] >> so they would have two seasons.
[1:06:35] >> They rest this year and and all next
[1:06:38] year. Yeah. And next year they could
[1:06:40] apply for a grant from the village
[1:06:43] >> or an exemption as well.
[1:06:44] >> Or an exemption. Yeah. Or both.
[1:06:46] >> After two seasons, I'd be fine with that
[1:06:48] as well.
[1:06:51] >> Does that
[1:06:52] >> work? So we would uh that's direction
[1:06:54] also to uh have the EDC start looking at
[1:06:58] a downtown grant program for next year.
[1:07:04] >> And can I ask another question? Um,
[1:07:06] we're talking about the useful life of
[1:07:07] barriers. I'm assuming there's going to
[1:07:09] be something in this about
[1:07:12] um
[1:07:14] if something's, you know, like starts to
[1:07:16] look bad, if it starts to all of that
[1:07:19] good stuff where maintenance and if it's
[1:07:20] not being properly maintained and things
[1:07:22] like that. Okay, great.
[1:07:23] >> Our code currently addresses that.
[1:07:25] >> It does. We'll continue that in the
[1:07:27] code. But um
[1:07:28] >> our next steps for this would be we
[1:07:30] would need to amend a section of the uh
[1:07:33] the village code, not the zoning code be
[1:07:35] section 7414. So we could draft an
[1:07:38] ordinance uh with your direction and
[1:07:39] return to you at a future meeting with
[1:07:41] the the amendments to the municipal
[1:07:43] code.
[1:07:43] >> Great.
[1:07:44] >> Yes.
[1:07:45] >> Okay.
[1:07:46] >> Great.
[1:07:50] » Is that everything on that?
[1:07:51] >> That is.
[1:07:52] >> You're not done yet.
[1:07:54] This is a planner siren evening.
[1:07:59] So, next on the agenda is a discussion
[1:08:03] regarding DAX relative to building
[1:08:05] coverage.
[1:08:06] Director Siren,
[1:08:07] >> thank you. Genuinely excited to present
[1:08:09] this to you. This
[1:08:12] the planning and zoning commission
[1:08:14] recommends amending the zoning code to
[1:08:16] exclude decks and their associated
[1:08:17] stairs from the calculation of building
[1:08:19] coverage. The commission further
[1:08:20] recommends amending the definition of
[1:08:22] building coverage to specify that stairs
[1:08:24] not associated with decks should be
[1:08:26] included in building in building
[1:08:28] coverage.
[1:08:30] Okay, I've been wrapped up in this and
[1:08:32] I'll repeat that again. Sole, I'm sorry.
[1:08:33] This is um so decks currently are if
[1:08:36] they're over 12 inches in height like
[1:08:37] all other structures count towards
[1:08:39] building coverage.
[1:08:40] >> Okay,
[1:08:40] >> if they're under 12 in they don't. Most
[1:08:43] decks are over 12 inches. So most count
[1:08:45] towards building coverage. The
[1:08:47] definition of building coverage says
[1:08:48] every structure that's over 12 inches in
[1:08:50] height counts towards building coverage.
[1:08:51] And it lists examples, but it does not
[1:08:53] list stairs. So when the planning and
[1:08:55] zoning commission discussed this, and
[1:08:56] I'll go into why this is recommended,
[1:08:58] they said, "We recommend that decks and
[1:09:00] the associated stairs that serve decks
[1:09:02] that go up to the deck should be
[1:09:04] excluded from building coverage." That
[1:09:06] would be a change to the code. We're not
[1:09:07] going to count towards building coverage
[1:09:08] anymore, regardless of the height of the
[1:09:09] deck. But what we do want to do is keep
[1:09:12] measuring the height of stoops and
[1:09:13] stairs which are currently specified as
[1:09:15] a type of building coverage. The
[1:09:17] definition says building coverage
[1:09:18] includes stoops. It doesn't say stairs.
[1:09:20] So we're just clarifying. I said, "Do
[1:09:22] you want it to say stairs?" Just to
[1:09:24] clarify the code. They said yes. So if
[1:09:26] you've got stoops and stairs that go up
[1:09:27] to your house, that would be included in
[1:09:28] building coverage. The deck on the back
[1:09:30] of your house, they're recommending to
[1:09:32] not include. And the reason for this,
[1:09:34] and by the way, Preservation Commission
[1:09:35] reviewed these amendments and have no
[1:09:37] objections. Um, these amendments are
[1:09:39] being proposed because in recent years,
[1:09:41] two residents found that they could not
[1:09:42] build a deck on their property per the
[1:09:44] original plans they brought in because
[1:09:46] the existing buildage coverage on the
[1:09:48] property met or exceeded the maximum
[1:09:50] coverage allowed. So, these specific
[1:09:52] requests were smaller lots in the R1A
[1:09:54] district, but several lots in the R2 and
[1:09:56] R3 districts along Burlington and Quincy
[1:09:59] uh already have the maximum allowed
[1:10:00] building coverage between their house
[1:10:02] and garage. So they just have a house
[1:10:03] and garage and those are the only
[1:10:05] structures on the property and they're
[1:10:06] already at the maximum allowab building
[1:10:08] coverage are above. So they came in to
[1:10:10] get a building permit for a deck and I
[1:10:11] said I'm so sorry we can't do that. In
[1:10:13] one case they decided not to move
[1:10:15] forward. In another case they lowered
[1:10:17] the deck which because the deck would
[1:10:20] have had been over 12 in to go out of
[1:10:23] their house on a level. So they uh had
[1:10:25] stairs going down to the deck and then a
[1:10:26] deck at 11 inches tall. That was the
[1:10:28] solution that they came up with. So
[1:10:30] that's why we're recommending these text
[1:10:31] amendments so that folks can have decks
[1:10:33] without having to request a variation or
[1:10:35] have a a short deck.
[1:10:37] >> I have a question.
[1:10:37] >> Yes.
[1:10:38] >> Is there a max space for decks on a
[1:10:40] property?
[1:10:41] >> They did not recommend a maximum size
[1:10:42] for decks.
[1:10:43] >> So what's to prevent someone from having
[1:10:44] the entire backyard as a deck?
[1:10:46] >> They could cut if someone wanted to have
[1:10:47] a large deck, they could have a large
[1:10:49] deck. Um I did a survey of the deck
[1:10:51] permits from 2024 to 2025 and the
[1:10:54] average size deck was 15 feet by 16
[1:10:57] feet. So that's what most people choose
[1:10:58] to have in terms of a deck size. So we
[1:11:00] discussed that at the planning and
[1:11:01] zoning commission and they thought that
[1:11:03] practically speaking most people
[1:11:05] wouldn't want to have either due to
[1:11:06] expense or the use of their yard a deck
[1:11:08] that was in excessive size.
[1:11:11] >> Yeah, most people but not everybody.
[1:11:13] >> It's true.
[1:11:14] >> Okay.
[1:11:15] >> It would have a deck has to be setbacks
[1:11:17] though. Correct.
[1:11:18] >> They do have to meet setbacks. They
[1:11:19] can't be in the streetard and they can't
[1:11:21] be in the side setback. So they have to
[1:11:23] be a specific distance from adjacent
[1:11:25] property. Is there a rear yard setback
[1:11:27] too?
[1:11:27] >> There is. Yes.
[1:11:29] >> Is that the building setback or is there
[1:11:31] like a five foot or
[1:11:33] >> I believe it's 5T.
[1:11:34] >> Yeah. Okay. And
[1:11:37] related question. Uh are decks
[1:11:40] considered in the impervious surface
[1:11:43] coverage calculation?
[1:11:45] >> They are. They're definitely considered.
[1:11:47] They have to meet four standards to be
[1:11:48] considered pvious. One is you can't have
[1:11:50] anything covering the deck. Some folks
[1:11:52] have a permanent awning cover their
[1:11:53] decks. So, if water can't get through,
[1:11:55] then it's considered impervious. The
[1:11:57] second is that the deck boards have to
[1:11:59] have enough space between them to allow
[1:12:00] the water to trickle through. Most decks
[1:12:02] do. Uh, the third is that there can't be
[1:12:04] a catchment system under the deck. Um,
[1:12:06] again, to prevent the rain water from
[1:12:08] going through. And the fourth is that
[1:12:09] the ground underneath the deck needs to
[1:12:11] be pvious, so usually dirt or gravel.
[1:12:13] Almost everyone has that. A few folks
[1:12:15] don't, but we check that when we do the
[1:12:17] inspections during the building permit
[1:12:19] finals and we note if they're impervious
[1:12:21] and then we would add that to their
[1:12:22] impervious surface coverage if they
[1:12:24] don't meet one of those standards. But
[1:12:25] otherwise, they are considered pvious.
[1:12:29] >> Questions, comments? Uh, I'm okay with
[1:12:33] what the plan commission planning and
[1:12:35] zoning commission is recommending.
[1:12:37] >> Absolutely. I would ask them to do a
[1:12:39] little bit deeper dive into
[1:12:42] this question of, you know, are we
[1:12:44] really going to allow decks to cover
[1:12:47] everything except for that five-foot
[1:12:49] side and rear setback? Um,
[1:12:53] I I understand that it's not likely that
[1:12:56] someone would build a deck that big, but
[1:12:59] on the other hand, why not at least have
[1:13:02] a instead of a 5-ft rear yard set back,
[1:13:05] have a 20 foot or have it meet the
[1:13:07] building set back or something? I'm not
[1:13:10] opining on that, but I just want to
[1:13:12] would like if the board's in agreement,
[1:13:14] I'd like planning and zoning to address
[1:13:16] that a little bit further.
[1:13:18] >> But I think that's fair. You're taking
[1:13:20] away one constraint. the considering
[1:13:21] potential other ones. I think that's
[1:13:23] good discussion.
[1:13:24] >> The next step for this, if you don't
[1:13:26] object, would be to schedule a public
[1:13:27] hearing on the amendments and we can
[1:13:28] discuss that during the public hearing
[1:13:30] and obviously bring forward their
[1:13:31] recommendation to you for the the
[1:13:32] organs.
[1:13:35] >> Did that work for everyone?
[1:13:37] >> Yeah.
[1:13:37] >> Okay.
[1:13:38] >> Very good.
[1:13:38] >> Thank you very much.
[1:13:39] >> Thank you.
[1:13:40] Director Simon.
[1:13:44] » I love how excited she gets about these
[1:13:46] things. It's like contagious to be like,
[1:13:48] "Woo, look what we're doing."
[1:13:50] Welcome to the world of city planners.
[1:13:57] So, okay, new business B, a resolution
[1:13:59] of the village of Riverside in support
[1:14:02] of affordable housing and municipal
[1:14:04] housing authority. Uh, a little
[1:14:06] background on that before I read the uh
[1:14:12] >> resolution Um, so as I think most
[1:14:17] everyone knows, the state of Illinois is
[1:14:19] considering uh legislation
[1:14:23] uh to promote affordable housing uh
[1:14:25] throughout the state of Illinois.
[1:14:27] They've recognized and and I think this
[1:14:30] is is is absolutely true that there is
[1:14:33] an affordable housing crisis or
[1:14:36] situation in Illinois and throughout the
[1:14:38] country. Um, but the legislation uh has
[1:14:42] some good and a lot of bad in it as it's
[1:14:45] currently written in in my opinion and
[1:14:47] in the opinion of most municipal uh
[1:14:50] leaders. Um, it has funding for
[1:14:54] infrastructure to promote affordable
[1:14:55] housing. That's a good part. The bad
[1:14:58] part is it would dictate zoning to all
[1:15:01] local municipalities,
[1:15:03] including uh a requirement that uh
[1:15:07] accessory dwelling units are permitted
[1:15:10] in every single family residential
[1:15:12] zoning district in the state. Uh and and
[1:15:17] additionally it includes uh that any
[1:15:21] residential property of 2500 square ft
[1:15:25] is by right allowed to have four units
[1:15:27] have zoning for four units. 5,000 square
[1:15:30] feet they're allowed to have zoning for
[1:15:32] six units and at 7500 square ft uh the zoning would uh mandate by the state
[1:15:40] would be for eight units. Um that's
[1:15:43] obviously of great concern to
[1:15:44] municipalities throughout the state.
[1:15:47] I've been in touch with a lot of other
[1:15:49] uh uh village presidents, mayors,
[1:15:53] managers, etc. Uh there's a lot of
[1:15:55] movement uh on the with local municipal
[1:15:59] regional municipal organizations to to
[1:16:02] address this. Um my personal opinion is
[1:16:06] that uh we as I said we do have an
[1:16:09] affordable housing problem in the state.
[1:16:11] It needs to be addressed. We all need to
[1:16:13] accept some level of responsibility for
[1:16:15] it. But the answer should be crafted at
[1:16:20] the local level, not at the state level.
[1:16:22] A one-sizefits-all
[1:16:24] uh will have unintended consequences and
[1:16:29] will
[1:16:30] negate the benefits of the affordable
[1:16:32] housing by threatening the quality of
[1:16:35] our communities. So, that was kind of
[1:16:37] the background of this resolution. Uh, I
[1:16:41] will um I don't know. Do I Do you want
[1:16:44] me to read it or I I guess I don't need
[1:16:46] to read it. You've all got it in your
[1:16:47] packet. It's been published in in uh in
[1:16:51] our agenda packet. Uh so uh as for
[1:16:55] comments, questions from trustees.
[1:17:00] >> Trusty Evans.
[1:17:01] >> Um I wonder if we should
[1:17:06] edit the title a little bit. Um, so
[1:17:09] there's some distinction there because
[1:17:10] right now it reads as if we are in
[1:17:13] support of the Build Act. It's sort of
[1:17:16] subtle, but um I'm not sure that people
[1:17:19] understand the what the content of the
[1:17:23] resolution is, which is that we support
[1:17:27] some parts of build but not um usurping
[1:17:31] the authority of the village. So if we
[1:17:35] can make a little bit more of a
[1:17:36] distinction in the title so people don't
[1:17:39] misunderstand
[1:17:39] >> title, right? And and I I completely
[1:17:42] agree. you brought this to my attention
[1:17:44] before the the the board meeting and I
[1:17:47] think that uh uh what I would like to to
[1:17:52] do is to change the title just to delete
[1:17:55] the words of affordable housing and or
[1:17:58] affordable housing and in other words
[1:18:00] the title would be a resolution of the
[1:18:03] village of Riverside in support of
[1:18:05] municipal land use authority. Yes,
[1:18:08] >> because that is really the point of it
[1:18:10] and and the title as written could be
[1:18:13] misleading
[1:18:14] >> to some people who would think that
[1:18:16] means we support the legislation that's
[1:18:19] pending and and I I
[1:18:21] >> don't think we do.
[1:18:22] >> Yeah.
[1:18:23] >> Yes.
[1:18:24] >> Uh one point uh municipal land use
[1:18:27] authority. It could be a misplaced
[1:18:30] modifier.
[1:18:31] >> Municipal land
[1:18:34] being the subject, but it isn't the
[1:18:36] subject. It's municipal authority.
[1:18:38] That's the subject.
[1:18:40] >> Municipal authority over land use or
[1:18:43] zoning.
[1:18:44] >> Oh, I see.
[1:18:45] >> Something like that. I just I don't want
[1:18:48] to put the emperor
[1:18:50] anybody
[1:18:52] >> municipal authority to regulate land
[1:18:53] use.
[1:18:54] >> Yes.
[1:18:54] >> Yeah.
[1:18:56] >> Thank you.
[1:18:58] >> Could you say that again? I couldn't
[1:18:59] hear.
[1:18:59] >> Okay. It would read Oh, got it. I just
[1:19:01] forgot it. Okay. resolution of the
[1:19:03] village of Riverside in support of
[1:19:06] municipal authority to regulate land
[1:19:08] use.
[1:19:09] >> Yes.
[1:19:09] >> Perfect.
[1:19:10] >> Much better.
[1:19:11] >> Thank you for calling the attention.
[1:19:15] >> Any other questions, comments?
[1:19:16] >> Someone wrote that down.
[1:19:17] >> Uh if not, I would ask for a motion to
[1:19:21] approve the resolution as amended with
[1:19:25] uh as as read by the attorney.
[1:19:30] >> So move second. Motion in a second. Uh,
[1:19:34] any discussion on the motion? Clenzel.
[1:19:40] » Sorry.
[1:19:40] >> I'm sorry. Wait. We should have public
[1:19:43] comment on this.
[1:19:44] >> I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. Uh,
[1:19:46] there's no one in the audience, but I
[1:19:48] should call for it anyway.
[1:19:49] >> Yes.
[1:19:50] >> Other than our reporting.
[1:19:52] >> I mean,
[1:19:52] >> other than our landmark reporting,
[1:19:55] >> it's the formality of it. I feel like I
[1:19:56] should say okay
[1:19:58] >> and our staff. But uh is there anyone in
[1:20:00] the audience who would like to speak to
[1:20:02] this topic?
[1:20:04] >> Thank you. Clerk Stenzel, please call
[1:20:06] the role.
[1:20:06] >> Trusty Marsha.
[1:20:07] >> Hi.
[1:20:07] >> Trusty Gallagos.
[1:20:08] >> Trusty Cos.
[1:20:09] >> Hi.
[1:20:09] >> Trusty Evans.
[1:20:11] >> Just hi.
[1:20:12] >> Sorry,
[1:20:13] >> we may need to clarify. You said I
[1:20:17] >> He said I and then I said I. Yes.
[1:20:20] >> Trusty Evans.
[1:20:21] >> Hi.
[1:20:21] >> Trusty Mateo.
[1:20:22] >> I.
[1:20:22] >> Trusty Fitzgerald.
[1:20:23] >> I.
[1:20:24] >> Motion approves. Thank you. And I will
[1:20:26] be uh sending out a signed executed copy
[1:20:30] of this to uh Illinois Municipal League,
[1:20:32] West Central Municipal Conference, and
[1:20:34] our state representatives uh tomorrow.
[1:20:43] And finally, a discussion of draft
[1:20:45] ordinance for public safety facility
[1:20:47] referendum. Manager Francis,
[1:20:50] >> thank you. So, I provided a brief
[1:20:51] summary and overview of how how we've
[1:20:54] gotten to this point and when all of
[1:20:56] these different pieces and the processes
[1:20:58] started of evaluating the villages
[1:21:01] facility because it was I thought it was
[1:21:03] important to give an overview because
[1:21:05] many of the board members though I know
[1:21:08] Trusty Matteo is very familiar because
[1:21:10] she was on planning and zoning
[1:21:12] commission at at that point in time but
[1:21:14] the only board member that has been here
[1:21:16] from the start is actually President
[1:21:19] Pollock of the process of facilities
[1:21:22] evaluation up to this point in time
[1:21:24] related to the public safety facility
[1:21:26] referendum. And so, Attorney Pickel has
[1:21:31] crafted a draft referendum question for
[1:21:34] the board to discuss and review. Um, and
[1:21:39] then additionally, as noted, we will
[1:21:41] have the open house on May 19th. This
[1:21:44] particular question would not go before
[1:21:48] residents until um and I'm sorry I just
[1:21:51] want to also make note that there was a
[1:21:53] typo because we initially moving the
[1:21:55] dates for the open house. So on the
[1:21:56] agenda history sheet it does say May
[1:21:59] 20th but it is actually May 19th and it
[1:22:01] is at station one. So just for the
[1:22:03] general public's reference. Um this
[1:22:07] would not go before the vote voters
[1:22:09] until April of 2027. So, we do have time
[1:22:13] and attorney Pekrol can kind of walk us
[1:22:15] through the schedule and the timeline,
[1:22:17] but also more importantly, I know the
[1:22:19] board members had some general questions
[1:22:20] about what you can and cannot do
[1:22:23] relative to uh referendum. As I stated
[1:22:27] previously, when we staff compiles
[1:22:31] information, we can do public education
[1:22:33] and engagement. We cannot ad we cannot
[1:22:37] advocate we can only educate and that is
[1:22:40] our sole role and purpose. And so with
[1:22:42] the public engagement we are educating
[1:22:44] we are letting residents know kind of
[1:22:46] where the project has um progressed over
[1:22:49] time why the facilities are needed so on
[1:22:52] and so forth. And so our engagement
[1:22:55] cycle will be from now until April of
[1:22:59] next year. So it will go for a year-long
[1:23:02] duration. Um, we will be creating a
[1:23:05] landing page with all the information
[1:23:07] that we've previously provided to the
[1:23:09] community, but it'll be a set landing
[1:23:11] page. We will be creating FAQs. The
[1:23:13] first step is really to get a handle on
[1:23:15] is this what what the board wants to see
[1:23:19] as the referendum question and then we
[1:23:21] would build out the FAQs on that basis.
[1:23:25] But we need a more of a starting point
[1:23:27] um so that we know what residents are
[1:23:30] going what is going to be asked of them
[1:23:32] next year. You will not need to vote on
[1:23:34] this this evening. You will not need to
[1:23:36] vote on it next month. We have time. Um
[1:23:39] but I think it is important to make sure
[1:23:41] we're laying this out and answering any
[1:23:44] questions that the board members may
[1:23:45] have. It is worded um in consultation
[1:23:49] with attorney pick. It is worded um flex
[1:23:54] in a very flexible manner. So then if
[1:23:57] certain surpluses are derived or things
[1:23:59] come in under budget, then we can
[1:24:02] accomplish other things that were beyond
[1:24:04] that 29.9 million proposal. So the river
[1:24:08] path, if you recall, parts of it, you
[1:24:12] know, the part that actually comes out
[1:24:14] of the back of the building is included
[1:24:16] in the scope, but the actual connecting
[1:24:17] path from Swinging Bridge to Swamp Pond
[1:24:20] is not. And that was estimated to be
[1:24:24] around $3 million. So if staff, you
[1:24:27] know, is able to secure grant funding
[1:24:29] for pieces of it, things come in under
[1:24:31] budget, all these different things at
[1:24:33] play, we want to make sure that the
[1:24:35] question is worded in a flexible manner
[1:24:38] in which we can achieve the outcomes
[1:24:40] that the community is looking for.
[1:24:43] So I I'll turn it over to attorney pick
[1:24:46] to kind of outline what you can and
[1:24:48] cannot do and provide a quick overview
[1:24:51] of the timeline.
[1:24:53] >> Uh thank you. Uh, and I I'll start with
[1:24:56] the timeline. That one's fairly uh
[1:24:58] generous at this point. So, you the way
[1:25:00] when you have a referendum that you want
[1:25:02] to appear at a at an election, we're
[1:25:04] targeting the April 6th, 2027 election,
[1:25:07] you you start on that date, you work
[1:25:09] backwards to establish all the
[1:25:11] deadlines. Um, and the most important
[1:25:13] deadline for the village board is
[1:25:15] January 15, 2027. that by that date we
[1:25:18] would have to pass this resolution uh
[1:25:21] shortly or another version that the
[1:25:23] board agrees to but that is that is 79
[1:25:26] days before the election. It would have
[1:25:28] to be passed by that date. So still
[1:25:29] plenty of time to think about it but
[1:25:31] that's that's the first deadline within
[1:25:33] 10 days after that we have to certify it
[1:25:35] send it over to the county and there's a
[1:25:38] series of deadlines that follow which
[1:25:40] the county provides uh notice. We also
[1:25:42] have to provide notice, post it on
[1:25:44] village hall on the wall in village hall
[1:25:46] and and and take a series of other
[1:25:48] steps. Beach one is 10 to 20 days
[1:25:51] following that original critical
[1:25:53] adoption date. Um which again is not
[1:25:55] until January of next year. Um, in terms
[1:25:59] of what we can and cannot do as a
[1:26:01] village in terms of advocating for this,
[1:26:03] basically there's there's a um there's a
[1:26:06] basic principle that government money
[1:26:08] and government resources cannot be used
[1:26:11] to promote a yes or a no on a
[1:26:13] referendum. We can promote we can offer
[1:26:15] information, factual information, but we
[1:26:18] cannot advocate. And what does that
[1:26:20] mean? What are government resources?
[1:26:21] Well, I mean for some of the easiest
[1:26:23] ones we you know the village board
[1:26:25] cannot advocate. Yes or no from the dis
[1:26:29] here. Uh if you're basically if you are on duty you should remain
[1:26:33] neutral about the resolution. Uh you
[1:26:36] should not use village resources,
[1:26:37] village computers, village email
[1:26:39] accounts. Anything that the village
[1:26:40] provides you should not be used to
[1:26:42] advocate one way or the other. Uh what
[1:26:45] we can do is offer factual information
[1:26:48] as uh manager Francis pointed out. Uh
[1:26:51] obviously
[1:26:53] factual there that can get a little
[1:26:55] murky sometimes. One is fat offering
[1:26:58] facts um become advocacy and certainly
[1:27:01] attorneys take full advantage often when
[1:27:04] advocating in court for the very
[1:27:05] purpose. Uh often there are there are
[1:27:07] consultants who can assist with this and
[1:27:09] we should just be very thoughtful and
[1:27:11] judicious about the facts that we offer
[1:27:13] to ensure that they're accurate and that
[1:27:16] we are you know we could say it will
[1:27:18] cost this much and it will you know uh
[1:27:21] be offered to be used to build this
[1:27:23] facility but we cannot characterize what
[1:27:26] it does. You know it's going to be
[1:27:27] really cheap and it will then you know
[1:27:30] what a great facility. No, that that's
[1:27:32] the distinction. Um but having said all
[1:27:35] that u the fact that uh you are
[1:27:40] legislators and members of trustees does
[1:27:42] not mean that you have lost your first
[1:27:43] amendment rights. Uh you as individuals
[1:27:46] can advocate one way or the other. Uh
[1:27:48] you just cannot do so on company time or
[1:27:50] using company resources as it were. So
[1:27:52] we would suggest that anybody if you
[1:27:54] have personal feelings about the
[1:27:56] referendum uh you advocate it using only
[1:27:59] your uh personal uh devices only your
[1:28:02] personal accounts and if you uh it is a
[1:28:06] true fact that you are uh village
[1:28:08] trustees uh but you know if that if that
[1:28:11] topic were to ever come up I would
[1:28:13] suggest clarifying that you are offering
[1:28:15] this in your individual capacity not as
[1:28:17] a trustee and and and always making that
[1:28:20] crystal clear. One thing too keep in
[1:28:23] mind um a lot of times uh discussions of
[1:28:26] referendums will just sort of naturally
[1:28:29] you'll be in a meeting at dinner party
[1:28:30] or whatever you'll start talking about
[1:28:31] it and if two other trustees walk in and
[1:28:34] you're talking about it that implicates
[1:28:35] the open meetings act. So discontinue
[1:28:38] that conversation and um save it for
[1:28:41] another time.
[1:28:42] >> And I I uh there I would say those are
[1:28:46] general principles. There are a million
[1:28:48] little examples uh about can I do this,
[1:28:50] can I do that? It's a little murky. If
[1:28:52] you have any questions about anything,
[1:28:54] shoot me an email, give me a call. I'm
[1:28:55] happy to walk through it with you.
[1:28:58] >> Uh, just a quick question. Organizations
[1:28:59] that we might be a part of within the
[1:29:01] village.
[1:29:02] >> Mhm.
[1:29:04] >> Would we be allowed to
[1:29:06] >> speak at within those organizations as
[1:29:09] again not as trustee, but as an
[1:29:11] individual?
[1:29:12] >> As an individual. Yes.
[1:29:13] >> Okay.
[1:29:13] Like for example, I was at the
[1:29:15] Chamber of Commerce yesterday and I did
[1:29:16] talk about this as a topic that the
[1:29:18] village would be discussing. um you know
[1:29:20] and how we need have a need for for a
[1:29:22] new building and facilities and they
[1:29:23] were very very receptive to it. So um
[1:29:26] >> yes I said as long as you are clarifying
[1:29:28] >> not on company time and as long as you
[1:29:31] were clarifying that that is you are
[1:29:32] acting as an individual then that's
[1:29:33] fine. Good.
[1:29:37] » Any questions, comments, discussion?
[1:29:41] Very good. Thank you.
[1:29:43] >> Thank you.
[1:29:46] >> Um, we do have
[1:29:48] >> Yeah, I did want to check on um the
[1:29:51] question the way it's written.
[1:29:53] >> Yes.
[1:29:53] >> I can't tell if it's legal ease or if
[1:29:56] possibly it's a typo.
[1:29:58] >> Okay. So, let me pull it up here.
[1:30:00] >> Okay.
[1:30:00] I got it. of shell bonds in the
[1:30:03] amount of not to exceed is that
[1:30:06] >> that's intentional. It's okay. It's
[1:30:08] legal ease. What we want to say is we
[1:30:10] want to offer the ability to issue a
[1:30:13] lesser amount of bonds if that becomes
[1:30:15] advantageous. We use the same language
[1:30:17] with the um the interest rates. uh let's
[1:30:21] see, you know, rate a rate not to
[1:30:23] exceed. Uh it's I accept that it's a
[1:30:26] fairly common phraseology in the legal
[1:30:28] world, but for all normal people, it may
[1:30:31] seem a little awkward. So, I can
[1:30:32] certainly try to rephrase that in a way
[1:30:33] that is a little more palatable.
[1:30:35] >> A rate of not to exceed.
[1:30:37] >> Yeah, just the word of.
[1:30:39] >> Yes.
[1:30:39] >> Right.
[1:30:40] >> It says, yeah,
[1:30:41] >> the rate that is make sure that's not in
[1:30:44] the actual um that's what it says.
[1:30:46] >> Rate not to exceed a rate of not to
[1:30:48] exceed.
[1:30:48] >> Oh, wait. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right.
[1:30:49] That is a type. Oh my gosh. You Thank
[1:30:51] you.
[1:30:54] Okay. Bonds on the screen correct issue
[1:30:57] bonds in in amount of not to exceed.
[1:31:01] Well, because that's there's an
[1:31:02] interaction here because there is a
[1:31:04] statuto there's a statute that we have
[1:31:06] to follow the exact language of one
[1:31:08] moment please. Um and we have to follow
[1:31:11] the format.
[1:31:13] Just one moment.
[1:31:19] I mean, I know I just
[1:31:20] >> Well, we this isn't final, so no,
[1:31:25] >> you can let us know.
[1:31:26] >> It grammatically it
[1:31:29] >> grammatically it seems like it should
[1:31:30] read Shia Bonds in the amount not to
[1:31:32] exceed 29 million.
[1:31:34] >> Yeah. So, we we have
[1:31:36] >> same in the last sentence too, but if
[1:31:37] it's required legally, so be it. The
[1:31:40] language that the words we have to
[1:31:41] include in that sentence are shall bonds
[1:31:44] in the amount of blank. So we want to
[1:31:48] say that it's not going to exceed but
[1:31:49] the word of has to be there.
[1:31:52] >> So it could say shall bonds
[1:31:54] >> in the amount of
[1:31:57] >> shall bonds not to exceed the amount of
[1:31:59] 29 million.
[1:32:00] >> We can't use that. So the first the
[1:32:02] first five words have to be shall bonds
[1:32:05] in the amount of
[1:32:07] >> Well, it's better than the last one.
[1:32:10] Couldn't get worse. Yeah, I know.
[1:32:13] >> Much better.
[1:32:14] >> Does therefore need to be misspelled as
[1:32:16] well?
[1:32:17] >> Yeah, it it probably doesn't need to be.
[1:32:19] >> Where's therefore?
[1:32:24] » Isn't it there, too?
[1:32:25] >> I think that's illegal.
[1:32:26] >> No, the lower.
[1:32:26] >> Yeah, therefore
[1:32:27] >> bottom bottom corner.
[1:32:28] >> Bottom
[1:32:28] >> furnaces there, too.
[1:32:30] >> Thank you.
[1:32:30] >> Gosh.
[1:32:32] >> Welcome to
[1:32:35] >> Yeah. So that uh therefore is not a
[1:32:38] concluding therefore. It's more of a
[1:32:40] therefore for that object or purpose. So
[1:32:42] we're listing um the public safe
[1:32:46] facility and all the various purposes
[1:32:49] and so that that that therefore is is
[1:32:51] correctly spelled.
[1:32:53] >> Thanks.
[1:32:56] » Any other questions, discussion? If not,
[1:33:00] uh as I said, we do have a need for an
[1:33:02] executive session tonight.
[1:33:05] um to discuss probable imminent or
[1:33:07] pending litigation. Uh the board will
[1:33:10] not reconvene and no final action will
[1:33:12] take place. I would ask for a motion and
[1:33:14] second to adjourn to executive session.
[1:33:16] >> Some move.
[1:33:17] >> Second.
[1:33:18] >> All in favor say I.
[1:33:20] >> I.
[1:33:20] >> Any opposed? None. We are adjourned.