[4:05] I'd like to open this evening's a meeting of the Northbrook Plan Commission, Deputy Director Callsett, please call the roll. Commissioner Braiman. Here. Commissioner Halperin. Here. Commissioner Caravitas. Commissioner McKillip-Funfeld. Here. Commissioner Melnick. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. Commissioner Pepito. Here. Commissioner Walden. Here. Chairman Alisco. Here. So before we get started, I have to make a couple of comments.

[4:35] announcements here.

[4:37] I wanted to thank two commissioners who came off the commission on this past month.

[4:42] First, Jeff Sandler, who served for five years from 2006 through 2011, moved out of town.

[4:49] When you're out of town, you can't be a commissioner.

[4:51] And then moved back to the village in 2017 and then served another eight years and two months.

[4:58] And then found and then he was all

[5:00] Also, my chair pro tem from 2021 to the present day. Mark de Bartolo, who served the eight years, the past eight years, from 2017 through 2025. Both of these commissioners were very dedicated. They took notes, they attended most of every meeting. They always had interesting perspectives, and if you've compared the two, they were like opposite ends of what their positions would be, but they always brought something important to the presentations and to the petitions that we were

[5:29] analyzing, provided different perspectives, and that's actually what we enjoy here, having

[5:34] nine people that come from very backgrounds, different perspectives, but yet we all come

[5:39] together to vote on things for the betterment of Northbrook.

[5:43] So we thank both of these gentlemen for their years of service.

[5:47] And so now we have two new members, and I'm going to let them each speak on their own behalf

[5:51] first.

[5:51] To my left is Katie Van Goh.

[5:55] I'm Katie. I previously served on the Northbrook Economic Development Commission for two years

[6:02] and asked me to join this commission recently. So I'm excited to get started. I've

[6:08] lived in Northbrook since 2012. I guess I should say that too.

[6:12] And then to my right is Andrea Pepito.

[6:16] I so I'm new to the commissions in general. I've been in Northbrook since 2017-20.

[6:22] welcome

[6:30] both these new commissioners for each for each for your term. Moving on in our agenda we have a minutes of approval for the June 17th 2025 meeting do I have a motion to approve.

[6:45] I move to approve the minutes.

[6:47] Second.

[6:49] Okay, Deputy Director, close up, please call the roll.

[6:54] Commissioner Braiman.

[6:55] Yes.

[6:55] Commissioner Halperin.

[6:57] Yes.

[6:58] Commissioner Melnick.

[7:01] Commissioner Morgan.

[7:02] Yes.

[7:03] Commissioner Walden.

[7:05] I was not at the meeting, so I'll abstain.

[7:09] And Chairman, let's go.

[7:11] Yes.

[7:12] Okay.

[7:14] Moving on, we have the Community Planning Report.

[7:17] So,

[7:20] as Chairman Alisco mentioned, we have two new members, so welcome to the two new commissioners who are joining us this evening.

[7:27] I am going to start off with my fund reminder to everybody if you're going to speak at the microphones.

[7:35] We'll want to make sure they're on and that the lights are turned green.

[7:39] And to our commissioners please speak directly into the microphone as it is directional when you are speaking.

[7:45] And then the other thing I want to do is we have two new commissioners is introduce commissioners to staff.

[7:52] I'm Michaela Colstad, deputy director for development and planning services.

[7:56] We have Amy McEwen, our director.

[7:59] We have senior planner, Swadi Pandy.

[8:02] And then we also have Nayakart, planning and zoning technician.

[8:06] And not here today due to scheduling is Richard Peters, who is our zoning administrator code enforcement officer.

[8:14] And I just want to give a big thanks to that group, and all the work they've put into the zoning code rewrite that is going to be discussed this evening, as well as a big thank you to Jackie Berg, our consultant from How Seal the Bean, who will also present.

[8:29] And then in addition to the staff in the DPS department that have been working for the past year and a half, two years on this zoning code.

[8:38] other departments within the village have also participated in this.

[8:44] So thank you to all of the departments, police, fire, public works, the village engineer, the village manager's office.

[8:50] And then to Caitlin Calbertson, village attorney, and the staff at Elratt Friedman, who have also helped review this, has gone through many lenses and including Kate Carnier Sustainability Coordinator.

[9:03] That's an exciting position to have here at the village when we're working on code updates such as this.

[9:10] So that way our new commissioners are aware of the staff that's involved and the big thank you to everybody.

[9:19] Yeah,

[9:22] being on.

[9:25] Next segment in our agenda is the public comment time and this is an opportunity for

[9:32] somebody to come up to the podium and speak about an issue that's not on tonight's agenda.

[9:37] And part of that is, I'm obligated to read this lengthy statement, but it's also important not only for the people who might speak about a different topic, but it's also covers all the different aspects of what common time is during a public hearing. And we will have a public hearing that we will be entering into, so all those same items pertain to that public hearing is.

[10:00] As if it was happening right now during this portion for somebody to speak about a different topic. This agenda item is reserved for members of the public who desire to address the plan commission on a topic that is within the purview and jurisdiction of the plan commission, but is not on another location on the agenda. If you would like to speak about a matter that is listed on the agenda, we ask that you wait until that agenda item is called, and we will give you the opportunity to speak then.

[10:28] Anyone desiring to speak should fill out a written speaker form which are located on the back table and hand it over to deputy director on coal stat.

[10:37] Public comment time is not a form for open dialogue or engagement with the members of the plan commission.

[10:45] Rather, it is intended as an opportunity for you to make comments to the plan commission.

[10:49] While the plan commission will not immediately respond to public comments at this meeting or

[10:54] in a back and forth discussion during the meeting,

[10:57] please be assured that the plan commission

[10:59] is actively listening to all comments, thoughts, and suggestions.

[11:03] All speakers will be limited to a total of three minutes.

[11:06] We request that everyone be respectful, civil, and non-repetitive.

[11:10] And we ask that members of the audience refrain

[11:12] from applauding or making other comments

[11:14] during or after any speaker.

[11:16] Thank you for your understanding

[11:18] and taking the time to contribute

[11:20] to the success of our community.

[11:22] I just want to also remind those who are here who want to speak on items that are on the agenda you do not need to fill out the comment card but after you speak you will need to sign in and we will remind you at that time as well.

[11:40] So after some consultation we decided to combine both items to one public hearing that are that's on our agenda the first one is the actual new zoning code and the second one is

[11:51] is the rezoning from the O5 to the O2, I will read each one of these consecutively which

[12:00] formally introduces and opens up the public hearing.

[12:04] The first one is docket number PCD25-09, new zoning code public hearing.

[12:11] An application by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook to consider

[12:15] a comprehensive amendment to the current zoning code of the Village of Northbrook by repealing

[12:20] in replacing the existing zoning code in its entirety and

[12:24] adopting a new zoning code with the following components.

[12:28] Article one, general provisions, Article two, ordinance,

[12:32] administration and enforcement, Article three, single family residential district standards,

[12:38] Article four, multi-family residential and mixed-use standards,

[12:43] Article five, office district standards, Article six, commercial district standards,

[12:48] Article 7, Industrial District Standards, Article 8, Institutional Open Space District Standards, Article 9, Overlay District Standards, Article 10, General Development Standards, Article 11, Sign Standards, Article 12, Non-conformities, Article 13, Inclusionary Housing and New Development, and Article 14 definitions.

[13:10] Second public hearing will be docket PDC 25-10, 2890 through 2990, Dundee Road, rezoning

[13:21] request.

[13:22] It's a public hearing and application by the President and Board of Trustees of the

[13:26] Village of Northbrook to eliminate the O5 restricted office district as a zoning district classification

[13:32] within the village and to rezone the properties located at 2890 and 2990, Dundee Road from

[13:39] O5 restricted office district to the O2 limited office districts.

[13:49] The other unusual thing is, we don't have an outside petitioner, this is actually the village of Northbrook's initiated public hearing.

[13:57] So I will have to swear in the staff as well as our consultant.

[14:01] So if anyone on our staff who plans on speaking or answering questions this evening would please hand.

[14:08] Is your right hand, do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give regarding these

[14:13] two petitions will be complete and truthful?

[14:17] Okay, very good.

[14:28] Okay, so I see these screens.

[14:39] Thank you, Nicholas.

[14:41] Okay, so as I mentioned, this has been a very long time coming.

[14:47] The last zoning code was adopted in 1988.

[14:50] The world has changed a lot since then.

[14:52] and it's going to continue changing.

[14:54] So the past couple of years has been spent with various,

[15:00] Staff Committee's reviewing documents, the consultant doing research and review of existing conditions in the community. We've had numerous open houses. We've had roundtable discussions. We've had numerous joint meetings of the Board of Trustees and the Plan Commission. That gets us to the public hearing today. Similar to how those other past events were noticed. The public hearing today was noticed not only published in the newspaper, but it was posted on the villages.

[15:29] web page on the project web page, social media postings, announcements, signs

[15:37] hanging up in the village hall. I'm print newsletter that gets mailed out to

[15:41] all the properties e-newsletter. It goes out every week and if you're not

[15:45] signed up, I highly recommend signing up for the Northbrook e-newsletter. You can

[15:49] do that on the village website. And then for the rezoning component of the

[15:55] the public hearing, the code compliant surrounding property owner, mailed notice was also conducted

[16:01] and a certified return receipt, mailed notice was sent to the property owners within 250 feet

[16:08] excluding the right of way around 2890 and 2990, Dundee Road.

[16:14] So that has all been completed.

[16:18] And that gets us to this point this evening where I'm going to introduce Jackie Berg of House

[16:22] Sila Bean who's going to come up and give a presentation and we're kind of both going

[16:26] to be presenting on and off, but Jack is going to kick us off here back

[16:33] in front of you.

[16:35] So today we're going to go over a brief project overview, so some of the goal work and timeline,

[16:41] and then a brief overview of community engagement.

[16:44] I'm Akhilin at a great job kind of talking about all the locations and meetings that we've

[16:48] held throughout, but I also want to give a little recap of that.

[16:51] that we held to present the new zoning code to the public.

[16:55] And we'll go through some of the major missions

[16:58] that we're proposing to the new code.

[17:02] So we have had three project goals.

[17:07] We have had three project goals that have really guided this process

[17:13] throughout, preserve community identity, prioritize the user experience,

[17:19] and promote sustainability initiatives.

[17:20] So these have been our kind of lenses by which we've looked at all of the various zoning

[17:27] code updates that you all will be.

[17:31] Our scope of work has included seven steps.

[17:33] We are in the final step, the draft and final zoning code.

[17:38] Michaela had mentioned about a two-year process, which is very typical for a project of this

[17:43] breadth and scope.

[17:46] Very diligent about iteratively bringing you all in the village board, draft chapters, draft

[17:51] articles for your consideration.

[17:55] We're fine. Those articles with your feedback and so that the

[17:58] full drafts that you have in front of you was really of the goals and the vision that you

[18:03] all have for the community.

[18:07] In terms of our timeline, we just kicked off in the spring of 2023.

[18:12] For community engagement, we had a kickoff open house and an online questionnaire.

[18:17] Then we got into the preliminary recommendations in the fall and we had online review and a workshop

[18:24] with you all. We had then we moved into the... Sorry, so Jackie we're going to ask you if you can hold a microphone while you're talking. Thank you.

[18:35] Too tall for the microphones. So then we moved in the spring of 2024 to actually drafting the various zoning code articles and the new map.

[18:44] So we had three workshops with you all where the public was invited to come and listen in and of course provide their feedback online.

[18:53] Then in the spring of 2025, we had the final zoning code all pulled together and an additional

[19:01] workshop with you all.

[19:02] And then in the summer of this year, we had two pre-adoption open houses where the public

[19:08] was invited to come and write their feedback on the full draft code.

[19:13] Our first open house was on June 10th.

[19:15] It was held at the Village Hall lobby and was attended by 16 people.

[19:19] The second open house was on June 11th and it was in the public library lobby and it was

[19:24] attended by about three.

[19:27] We received quite a bit of feedback. This is just a selection

[19:30] of some of the comments that were received. All of the comments are included in the packet

[19:35] that you all have for this meeting. But of course, we heard some support and some concerns

[19:41] over increased housing options. So a lot of kind of feedback on both sides of the coin

[19:47] for that one. So some people who were interested and excited about the possibility of higher

[19:54] density housing being introduced in the village and others who were concerned that it

[19:58] did not quite fit the care.

[20:00] Director of the community might overwhelm density traffic.

[20:08] We also heard feedback on a lot of other topics as well. So parking spaces, bicycle infrastructure, form-based standards, work for the new form-based standards in the downtown, updated signing regulations. So, work for that change. And then support also for streamlining of the permitting process that we are introducing.

[20:35] Questions on how we got here?

[20:36] here today before we get in.

[20:42] So we have 14 articles in the new zoning code.

[20:46] There are four that I wanted to go over.

[20:50] Are with you all today.

[20:51] So some of these are changes that we've presented to you

[20:54] previously, but I'm had received feedback

[20:56] from the public open houses are from public comment

[20:59] that we wanted to back up and then others are changes

[21:02] that were proposed between the last workshop

[21:05] that we held with you all and today's meeting.

[21:07] So we want to do it.

[21:12] Starting off with ordinance administration and enforcement, so we have our general procedures overview,

[21:20] summarize our procedures. I, who is responsible for recommending a decision whether or not there's a couple of hearing that's required.

[21:31] Also, help to specify the whether residents should expect to receive, whether they should look for a sign on the property will be published.

[21:42] and we have

[21:48] eliminated the distinction between permitted and major variation, a common update

[21:54] that we have been making throughout the Illinois and Chicago land area.

[22:00] Now, variances can be sought for any standard, except for uses, temporary measures, and

[22:06] any standards of the flood hazard overlaid.

[22:10] We're planning unit developments. We have a new one-step process for

[22:15] We're developments over 200,000 square feet.

[22:19] Right hand side of the screen with that process looks like

[22:22] we also have included flow charts like this.

[22:24] All of the procedures are article

[22:27] so that it's really clear and friendly

[22:30] for folks who come next and what to expect.

[22:38] Administrative modifications, these are a new procedure

[22:42] that's being put to provide relief for residents

[22:47] and property owners when they're seeking minor deviations from the code, so rather than having

[22:52] to go in for a variance that requires a longer meeting, a public hearing, now it's just these

[22:59] minor changes can be reviewed by the law. They're very specific and kind of like these modifications

[23:07] can be all spelled out in the code. There are very clear and objective review criteria so that

[23:14] that any staff member of any development planning services staff would make the same decisions

[23:25] come to the same conclusion in terms of whether the administrative modification can be approved

[23:30] or not.

[23:34] Next we'll get into the single family residential district standards.

[23:38] So on the screen here, we have our current dimensional standards and we are proposing a minor

[23:44] change to the R4 and the R5 districts, and you can see that those standards that we're

[23:49] proposing to change are highlighted there by that red outline.

[23:53] The new standards that are proposed are here on the screen, so we had done an analysis

[23:59] of existing lot sizes and found that these that are proposed here for the two districts

[24:06] really match up with the development and the lots that you all have on the ground today.

[24:10] So we wanted to bring as many of those parcels into conformity as possible, and that is the driving factor behind these changes.

[24:17] Another change that we are proposing for all districts is to eliminate FAR or floor area ratio standards.

[24:25] This is a tricky calculation that residents or builders would need to make.

[24:31] It really kind of complicate the administration of the code and doesn't achieve all of the goals that it's set out to do.

[24:38] It also could, in the past, had caused some issues specifically with, you know, the area

[24:44] of hurt or garage, not being able to be finished.

[24:49] And then people later, without getting permits, finishing that space, so we really wanted

[24:54] to make sure that everyone was able to kind of legally use all of this space in their home.

[25:00] And then, of course, get all the permits to make sure everything was compliant with all of the building codes, etc. And rather than FAR,

[25:08] now the kind of bulk and massing of a building is still regulated, of course, through our building setbacks and our building standards,

[25:15] including height, maximums, lot coverage, and building coverage.

[25:23] We are also proposing duplexes, those would be buildings with two single-family dwellings.

[25:29] They're proposed to be by right in the R5 district.

[25:32] So they would have the same lot area and with minimum that would be required for a single

[25:37] family detached home.

[25:39] So they would really fit into the kind of character and development pattern of the R5 areas.

[25:46] And there was a request at our last workshop for some research to be done about the impacts

[25:51] of introducing duplexes into single family neighborhoods.

[25:54] and according to the APA, when Minneapolis introduced duplexes and other mid-density housing types,

[26:01] property values increased by a modest 3% to 5%, so certainly didn't trigger gentrification

[26:07] like some of the commissioners were concerned about.

[26:11] Now I'm going to turn it over to Makila who wants to go into a bit more detail about duplexes

[26:15] in single-family districts and kind of this trend in the region over time.

[26:19] I'm

[26:25] really afraid to talk with all these microphones that I have no idea the reaction that is going to happen.

[26:34] So today we received additional inquiries and questions about duplexes and what those look like.

[26:42] So quickly before this meeting staff just wanted to put together an inventory of images with additional information about duplexes in single family zoning.

[26:52] So this afternoon, Saudi and Naya helped put together some quick research and found several

[26:59] surrounding communities where duplexes are allowed in the most and single family residential

[27:04] district.

[27:05] Some of those communities include Libertyville, Highland Park, Wilmet, Morton Grove, Deerfield,

[27:14] yep.

[27:15] And Glendu wasn't on the list, but they are going to appear in my slideshow because there

[27:19] There are duplexes surrounded by single family in the village of Glenview, in the Glen,

[27:25] which I believe was a planned development, so perhaps it's not a specific single family

[27:29] zoning district, but I wanted to include some images because of the design that helps

[27:34] give perspective on what a duplex could look like in a single family community.

[27:39] So the first slide here, this is a duplex located on a corner lot.

[27:45] So, you see a front door on one side of the street and one on the other street.

[27:51] Similar scenario here, actually, no, this is not, this is a duplex with both units facing

[27:59] the street.

[28:01] Somehow we skipped a bunch of slides, sorry, so let me back up.

[28:06] So, the first one here is the corner lot where you're seeing a front door for each unit

[28:11] on each street side.

[28:15] This is another corner lot. It was hard because of the trees to get a picture of the second door on the other side.

[28:23] But it's the same as that first slide. This is a different town. All of these are within those towns we've just named.

[28:30] Third one, this was the one I started out with. This is also a corner lot, a door on each side.

[28:36] Then we get into the design of a side-by-side, so that's what we're seeing here, a side-by-side

[28:41] with single-family residential around it.

[28:45] Another side-by-side proposed here, we'll not propose this as all constructed.

[28:51] This is also another form of a side-by-side duplex construction.

[28:57] This is, I'm not sure the correct term.

[29:01] I think of it as stacked lengthwise, so it's a front back scenario, so there's a unit in front and there's another unit with a front door as you continue down the driveway.

[29:14] This is an instance of a hard to tell again because of the design of it being in a single family neighborhood, but what we are seeing here and you guys cannot see my cursor.

[29:28] But there is a duplex behind the tree that has two front doors on the front facade.

[29:38] And then this is another instance of a corner duplex that I was mentioning in the glen.

[29:45] And then lastly, this is a stacked scenario.

[29:48] This is a duplex unit with first floor, second floor, as separate residential units also surrounded

[29:56] by single family residential.

[29:59] So...

[30:00] So these are just some images that we put together just to help give another understanding of what duplexes in single-family zoning can look like, and that this is something that is already taking place in other surrounding communities in the area. So it's not something new necessarily, but it is new to us here in Northbrook.

[30:28] So in addition to duplexes, we are also proposing to allow cottage courts in the R5 district. So these would involve multiple smaller single-family drawings.

[30:38] on one lot. They are proposed to be allowed on a lot with a minimum of 20,000 square feet,

[30:44] and 110 feet of width. So we wanted to show you all how these could contextually fit within

[30:51] the R5 district. So found this block here. It's on Walters and Briarwood Lane, and then to get the

[31:02] dimensions that would be required for a cottage home court. Four of these lots would need to be

[31:08] acquired and consolidated. That would get you about 30,000 square feet in area and 115 feet

[31:16] in width. And then we did some rough calculations. So with 800 square foot cottage court dwelling,

[31:21] which is a pretty average size dwelling for this type of housing, there's a requirement for

[31:28] a common court space and that we have here at 2500 square feet. There's also an allowance for

[31:35] a community building, so because the homes are so small, some of the kind of more gathering

[31:41] type spaces would be in a community building that's shown there in blue. And then of course

[31:47] the parking for all of the dwellings would be required. So you can see how that's laid out on

[31:53] this 30,000 square foot lot. And then here you can see how that may overlay within the district.

[31:59] So we have maintained the setbacks on the front of both center avenue and Walters Avenue and then the side setbacks that exist along Briarwood Lane and then to the interior loss there to the right.

[32:19] Next we'll get into the commercial district standards.

[32:22] So in the last version of the code that we presented to you all, the C1 specialty commercial

[32:29] district was proposed to be eliminated.

[32:33] Those parcels were then proposed to be rezoned to the C2 district, but because of feedback

[32:37] that we got from property owners, we were proposing to reintroduce this district as a legacy

[32:42] district.

[32:44] So it being a legacy district means that all of the existing standards and use allowances

[32:48] will remain as is, but the district designation cannot be applied to any other properties within

[32:55] the village. So, someone couldn't request to be re-zoned into the C1 district, but the

[33:01] existing uses and allowances for development in the district will remain as is, nothing would

[33:06] become non-conforming.

[33:11] For the commercial districts and all of the districts, we have proposed

[33:16] a modernized use table, so your current table is based on the SIC, our standard industrial

[33:22] classifications manual, and it has very, very minor distinctions between uses, and we'll

[33:30] show some examples here, but has really made it difficult to propose new uses, modern

[33:36] uses here in the village, because it requires a zoning text amendment every time.

[33:40] So, we're proposing in our modernized table to streamline these uses, help to future-proof

[33:47] the table. There are many, many uses that in 1988, they did not anticipate that we

[33:54] are including in this new code. And likewise, in five, ten years, maybe even the day after

[34:00] it's adopted, there may be a brand new use that the village has never considered that you

[34:05] all would like to allow here in the village that the new code would better and more easily

[34:09] of Humidate. Some of those new uses are co-working spaces, micro breweries, wineries and distilleries,

[34:17] artisan manufacturing, commercial kitchens, all these sort of new types of uses that have

[34:22] really come up as part of the gig economy or post-COVID types of employment uses.

[34:31] We also have new categories, so if a general retail, general office, personal service,

[34:39] These are uses that would be defined to include a lot of similar uses that have comparable impacts while still having uses that the village wants to regulate differently or have separate standards for not included in that definition so that we're kind of very clear as to what is considered general retail and what is not.

[35:01] So, just an example, this is a snapshot of your very, very long current use feeble. So, all of these uses retail binoculars, artificial flower retailers, autographed and philitalist supply stores. So, all of these hyper-specific uses that I'm not even sure what some of them mean, would all now be considered general retail, because the impacts of these uses would all be very

[35:31] very similar to each other.

[35:38] So you can see here in the code the General Retail category that would be allowed as a

[35:43] P, as a permitted use in all of the commercial districts, but going back here you can see

[35:49] tobacco stores and stands is called out as a specific use that we wanted to have some additional

[35:56] standards for, so we have tobacco retail sale drawn out separately from the General Retail

[36:02] category and it would now require a special use permit rather than being permitted by

[36:08] right.

[36:12] So you can see here the current use table is what nine pages long, it's very lengthy.

[36:18] We're proposing to replace it with one that's just three and a half pages long, so not

[36:23] only is it making your code a little bit shorter but it also is more user friendly and again

[36:28] will help you all administer the code in new uses as time progresses.

[36:33] Next,

[36:36] we want to go over some changes to the overlay district standards.

[36:40] So we have new standards that are proposed for the village green overlay.

[36:44] The purpose of these standards is to provide more certainty for development and redevelopment in the downtown

[36:50] and encourage appropriate growth while protecting the areas character.

[36:54] So currently, the designer view requirements, they lack the clarity needed to really ensure that new development

[37:02] would be in keeping with the area's character.

[37:06] It's difficult for residents, developers,

[37:10] officials to predict approvals to know,

[37:13] to have that fair certainty as to what can or cannot happen in that area.

[37:19] So hopefully these new standards will provide that objectivity that's needed

[37:24] to make sure that everyone has a clear picture of what can and can happen.

[37:29] So some of those new standards include building design standards.

[37:32] So a new requirement for building height, so because this is the kind of downtown area in Northbrook we are proposing to require a two-story minimum for new buildings.

[37:44] Since there is that mixed use development character where you have retail uses on the ground floor and maybe office uses residential uses or just extended retail uses on upper floors.

[37:57] So, the code isn't saying what you have to do on those two floors, on those two stories,

[38:03] but it is saying the built form of the building to maintain that development pattern that

[38:08] we see in the billage green overlay today, a two-story building at minimum would be required.

[38:15] We're also proposing a building height step back and you can see that in the photo or in the diagram

[38:22] on the upper right of the screen. So, this is to help preserve the sidewalk feel,

[38:26] avoid that canyon effect where you feel kind of closed in by really tall buildings,

[38:31] then to maintain visual connection to the surroundings and that visual consistency of development.

[38:37] We're also proposing new facade articulation standards.

[38:41] They are menu of options that the developer would need to choose at least four of.

[38:48] We have two of those options that are shown here in these bottom.

[38:53] diagrams on the right side of the screen. The reason for the menu approaches to avoid cookie

[38:59] cutter designs to avoid all of the new development in the village screen looking exactly the same.

[39:05] So we want to provide that those options to the developer while still ensuring that that

[39:10] minimum standard is met.

[39:15] We are also proposing standards for exterior

[39:17] cladding materials. So there's a minimum requirement for a tier one material on new buildings that

[39:24] that would include brick and stone.

[39:27] And then it also limits the use of what we're calling tier two

[39:29] and tier three materials, like citing

[39:32] and metal panels to be more of those accent materials,

[39:35] as that we have a strong base of high quality,

[39:38] durable, long lasting materials,

[39:40] and then the more limited use of those other materials.

[39:47] We're also proposing new standards for glazing,

[39:50] we're more colloquially known as windows.

[39:52] so this would be windows in doors and just in the storefront facade so we have...

[40:00] So, requirements for large transparent storefront windows to really ensure that vibrant street

[40:06] frontage in the downtown area and really promote that downtown experience.

[40:15] Based off of feedback

[40:16] from you all and the village board during various workshops, we are proposing an allowed

[40:22] adjustment to vehicle parking standards in the village screen. So up to 50% of required parking

[40:28] spaces can be reduced or waived, but for residential uses, no less than one parking space

[40:36] could be a minimum of one parking space would be required per unit.

[40:42] So you couldn't get it waived lower than that, so there's still that minimum requirement

[40:47] for residential.

[40:49] Then for the development approval process, we're proposing that small scale developments be reviewed

[40:55] and decided upon by the Architectural Control Commission.

[40:58] And then larger projects would be continued to be reviewed

[41:01] and decided upon by the Village Board.

[41:03] Currently, all development goes through

[41:05] a Architectural Control Commission

[41:07] then to Village Board process.

[41:09] So we're proposing for those smaller scale projects

[41:11] to have a more streamlined process.

[41:16] Any questions on any of these proposed changes?

[41:19] I

[41:24] missed it in all the reading,

[41:25] but is there a high restriction on the duplex?

[41:28] It would be the same high restriction

[41:30] as a single-family home, which I believe is 35 feet.

[41:35] One parking per residence in the, you were just speaking about.

[41:40] They have to in addition to on-street parking, that's a lot.

[41:42] Exactly, yes.

[41:47] I have questions regarding the duplexes and the college court.

[41:51] Has there been a demand for that in the village, or is it something that you're just anticipating moving forward?

[41:58] So we haven't had inquiries for duplexes.

[42:02] We had one application several years ago for a cottage court proposed in the format of which we are

[42:11] Modifying the zoning code before you this evening to show that one did not proceed forward

[42:17] Whether it was the impetus of our current zoning code we're operating under or some other

[42:23] Reason why did not proceed forward, but it is something that is becoming more common in the area as people are looking

[42:30] for smaller homes, but not wanting a multi-family structure,

[42:35] wanting a still a free-standing structure, but with less maintenance responsibilities.

[42:40] So Cottage Court does provide that HOA aspect.

[42:43] Yeah, Cottage Courts have become an increasingly popular option for seniors who don't want to maintain their own lawns and all of that common space.

[42:53] But don't want to leave that single family home environment.

[42:56] And the opportunity for community building is also very popular for more senior oriented housing.

[43:02] So if you don't have the kind of secluded lifestyle that some seniors find themselves in if they are in their single family homes.

[43:09] Thank you.

[43:13] Hi, can you explain for the C1 district why that's being grandfathered in, why is it like a change from what was initially proposed?

[43:27] Yeah, certainly. So there are very few properties that are in the district currently, and when

[43:34] we had sent out the letters, letting them know that the rezoning was being pursued by

[43:40] the village, they reached out with concerns about that. They liked the kind of mix of uses,

[43:46] whether it's residential or commercial, that they were allowed to do under the C1 district

[43:50] today. So based off of that feedback, really, that was the reason we were listening to the

[43:56] property owners and wanted to accommodate kind of what their vision was for their

[44:01] parcels, maintain the flexibility that the C1 district currently allows, so I reintroducing

[44:06] it as a legacy district, they maintain all of their current development rights, what

[44:12] they can do with the property today, but it wouldn't allow for that C1 district to spread

[44:18] further within the village, so that kind of the new districts with the updated standards

[44:23] would be kind of the governing districts for the village moving forward.

[44:28] And in the future, and this was, again, I spoke with the property owners.

[44:32] In the future, when one of those properties is going to be redeveloped or

[44:37] new use is introduced, it's at that time it would need to go into an adequate zoning district.

[44:44] It would, it's legacy in that it will sunset eventually.

[44:47] I don't know when, and that's based on the feedback from the property owners who are using

[44:52] or intend to use their current structures as they are today with the flexibility of commercial and retail.

[45:00] Knowing the commercial limitations are very limited. So basically they're grandfathered in and then if it gets sold, does the grandfather? Does that file the new owner? Not necessarily because yes, yeah, if the new owner buys the building the lot and they continue to, you know, do whatever is happening there and they don't want to make any changes. Okay, but if they buy the lot and they want to do a building addition or they want to propose a new year.

[45:30] use or some sort of a change then we would work with them to map it into the appropriate

[45:35] district. And then regarding duplexes. And I don't want to get into the weeds here.

[45:45] But with all the duplexes have to be associations with like outside and the common insurance because

[45:53] because like what you see with a lot of duplexes,

[45:56] like if you go to like displayings

[45:58] or a Morton Grover Niles,

[46:00] like if you look at North Lutheran General,

[46:02] there's a lot of townhouses with outside,

[46:05] where there's no association,

[46:06] they're responsible for their insurance.

[46:08] So you'll see like a two unit side by side,

[46:10] and one house has a brand new roof,

[46:12] and one house has like a 30-year-old roof.

[46:15] So like is there anything in the code to address

[46:18] like how, and if it's gonna be common insurance

[46:22] an association, or is that just up to, and again, I don't mean to get in the weeds and

[46:28] I don't know if I'm taking this too far, but I'm just wondering if this has been discussed

[46:34] or thought of.

[46:35] Yeah.

[46:35] So as the quotas are currently the two duplex units would be on one lot, which would typically

[46:40] be, in order to maintain the lot and the building as a whole be required to have more of that

[46:48] common insurance come like a home owners association or condo association because you wouldn't have

[46:54] kind of single owners for one side of the duplex versus the other. Oh, they would. Okay, so they'd

[47:01] have, okay. So I think that addresses your concern about kind of disparate maintenance between the

[47:07] two sides because one property owner wouldn't be, you know, updating or maintaining the exterior of one

[47:13] inside of the duplex and not out there because that happens when each unit owner is responsible

[47:18] for their exterior of their house. So they're saying that it would have to be like, even

[47:24] like a two-unit condo association. Yes.

[47:29] But if I can follow up, but the ordinance doesn't

[47:31] provide for the necessity. It doesn't require that, but because the duplex allowances for one

[47:38] lot and that's splitting that lot down the middle the more kind of typical

[47:44] approach would be to have that kind of condo association to manage that.

[47:50] Okay question

[47:53] on the cottage court. You don't see this as replacing a single

[47:58] family residence because you need a lot more space. So this would be more of an

[48:01] infill situation where you have several vacant lots together and then you're

[48:05] influenced so that because I know a lot of people will worry about them being

[48:08] inserted into the community and changing the character of the street line

[48:12] but based on how we've got a plan that couldn't have.

[48:15] Exactly, yes.

[48:16] So because of the dimensional standards

[48:18] for a cottage court being so much larger

[48:21] than what you have in the archive district

[48:23] for single family homes and duplexes proposed,

[48:27] you would need to acquire multiple parcels

[48:31] and consolidate those in order to make that feasible

[48:34] so that really does limit where and how many

[48:37] of these cottage courts might pop up

[48:38] in the village over time.

[48:45] You mentioned the minimum height for the virtual district of two feet or two stories with the maximum.

[48:54] Do you have that?

[49:08] So in the C2 district we have 35 feet as the maximum and in the C3 also 35 feet but they do have the ability to increase in the VGO

[49:23] to increase those heights. I believe two, three, and four stories. Let me double critical.

[49:33] So

[49:57] C3 based district.

[50:00] Maximum permitted building height would be 45 feet or three stories and then up to 55 feet or four stories with a special permit. That's in the C3 base district in the downtown, in the C2 base district. The maximum permitted height by right would be 55 feet or four stories with a special permit to go up to 65 feet and five stories. And that's only in the C2 and C3 properties in the

[50:30] the village green overlay and this is not village wide.

[50:43] Thanks for the presentation today and the presentations over the last two years.

[50:48] I want to make a note so on the table that identifies the different R1 single family residential districts,

[50:57] R5 currently uses the term detached residential development.

[51:02] So it seems like if duplexes are approved for R5, that terminology would need to change.

[51:17] I see that in table 3-102.

[51:23] And another question is there's another agenda item B. We can have a separate presentation on that as well.

[51:30] Okay. Good. All right. And then, I think that may be it for, oh, with respect to Commissioner Morgan's comment about, I mean,

[51:44] I wonder if anyone's considered like, if a duplex is proposed of a certain size,

[51:50] maybe more than two or more than four that there ought to be an association because I get the problem that Mr. that Commissioner Morgan's identified.

[51:58] So you're mentioning a duplex that's more than two units?

[52:02] No, where there's a series of duplexes, two to two, something like that.

[52:07] Like next to one another on adjacent lots?

[52:09] Yeah.

[52:11] On the other

[52:17] commission or questions?

[52:21] Okay, thank you all so much.

[52:23] All right into the next public area.

[52:39] Okay, so the other part of the draft new zoning code that is being presented

[52:46] the public hearing this evening and has been discussed at the other workshops and joint meetings was that the O5 District, which is the restricted office district is being proposed as being eliminated.

[53:01] There are two properties within the O5 zoning district, 2890 and 2990 Dundee Road.

[53:08] So if the draft zoning code is approved as presented with the elimination of the O5 district,

[53:16] there has to be a rezoning for those two properties.

[53:20] They need to be zoned into some other district.

[53:23] So that was noticed for a public hearing as well.

[53:27] So we are at the public hearing process.

[53:29] And those two lots shown here, 2890 and 2990 Dundee, are the only two lots in North

[53:38] Brook that are Zoned 05 Restricted Office.

[53:41] That Zoning District was created in 1992 in a response to property owners of single

[53:48] family residences along Dundee Road, no longer being interested in having single family residences

[53:55] located on community arterial streets.

[53:59] So, public hearing was conducted in 1992 to come up with some sort of a solution.

[54:05] Different options were considered.

[54:08] They had considered rezoning those two lots from single family to O2, limited office,

[54:15] which is what we're proposing this evening, and I'll get further into that.

[54:19] Another idea was to rezone to the C1 specialty district, but

[54:23] then make the C1 district have additional allowed uses that would accommodate office uses

[54:29] located on a community arterial street different than how it was currently being implemented

[54:35] in its location in the downtown.

[54:39] And then another idea, which is the idea that the village went with was the creation of

[54:43] a new zoning district, the O5 restricted office district.

[54:46] district. When that district was created to consider the allowance of those properties

[54:52] along Dundee to be rezoned to 05, that district included a series of specific standards.

[55:00] In addition to the bulk regulation, so in addition to a maximum height and the step backs that were required for that office district, things that also needed to be maintained was a specific appearance, an exterior lighting assessment, their science had their own specific requirements, there were specific screening and buffering requirements. There were limited hours of operation for businesses in the district, driveway located

[55:29] limitation, limitation on uses, outdoor display, and off street loading.

[55:37] So, in addition to the bulk standards, like I said, there were all these other

[55:41] standards that had to be met if you were going to develop a property in the O5 district.

[55:47] In addition to the bulk standards and the development standards, there were also specific

[55:53] uses that were called out, and there weren't that many of them to be appropriate in the

[55:58] O5 district, and all of them require a special permit except vacant land, detached single

[56:05] family, home occupation, and agricultural purposes.

[56:10] So really just based on the use table and all those restrictions makes it really hard

[56:17] to develop something in the O5 district.

[56:20] Since 1992, the village has only seen two properties, request and be rezoned into the

[56:27] the O5 district.

[56:29] The comprehensive plan designates only one part of the community as appropriate for

[56:36] neighborhood office.

[56:37] The neighborhood office designation, the intent and purpose of that is a classification

[56:44] designed to be used along major roads where single-family uses are no longer deemed appropriate.

[56:49] The appropriate zoning districts in the neighborhood office designation is O2 and O5.

[56:56] So, shown here, the properties that are located between Anthony Trail and Hazelwood and then the two properties to the East of Hazelwood Drive are the only properties designated as appropriate for Neighborhood Office.

[57:12] Of those two recently within the past year and a half or two years came before the Plan Commission for Public Hearing process, those two are the strived pieces shown here.

[57:21] They requested to amend the comprehensive plan designation from neighborhood office to residential specialty.

[57:29] And those properties also went forward with a rezoning, which I'll talk about in a minute.

[57:35] But there's no other place in the village of Northbrook where this neighborhood office designation has been mapped on the comprehensive plan map.

[57:47] So shown here is the current zoning as you see the two properties that are zoned O5.

[57:52] And then the striped property next to 2990 Dundee Road is

[57:57] zoned RS residential specialty, and that is where an assisted living memory care home is being built.

[58:05] It's an institutional facility that will house seniors with memory care impairment.

[58:12] And what that starts to show is the trend of development in the area up along Dundee Road,

[58:20] a way from detached single-family residential.

[58:24] This is a picture of 2,990 Dundee Road and this is 2,890 Dundee Road.

[58:31] Their small buildings, 2,890 Dundee Road is still occupied solely for an office.

[58:38] There's a business that runs its business office operations from the Chicago Land Area out of that

[58:43] property. 2,990 Dundee has been vacant for several years even following an extensive remodel

[58:50] of the building, it's continued to remain vacant, so we can't speculate what exactly is going on.

[59:00] We have had numerous office users interested in occupying this building,

[59:06] ranging from medical office to veterinary office.

[59:09] None of these uses are allowed by right, they would all have to go through a public hearing process.

[59:14] That's the process that's deterring people, I don't know.

[59:17] But we have taken some for special permit preliminary reviews in front of the board, and the board has supported the use of the space for these uses, why people aren't proceeding forward we don't know.

[59:34] So the proposal is to eliminate the O5 zoning district with the new zoning code, and then rezone the two parcels into the O2 district.

[59:44] O2 district being selected because the Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Office designation does say that O2 and O5 are appropriate in that designation.

[59:56] So it would be maintaining the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which is some-

[1:00:00] We prefer to do as planners. And then when you look at the bulk table standards shown here on the screen, the left hand O2 is the existing, the middle column is the proposed O2 zoning district standards. And then the right O5 are the current O5 district standards that are being applied to those properties. So a lot of the setbacks and height and everything are still two stories. There's, you know,

[1:00:29] 100-foot-lot width is being maintained, and

[1:00:37] then I guess one of the things that would be eliminated

[1:00:39] is the lot coverage requirement. But any new development on either of these sites would have

[1:00:45] to comply with the O2 standards. The only thing they'd have to comply with is the detention requirements.

[1:00:52] So, you know, if you want to cover more than 50% of your lot, you also are going to have to pay for

[1:00:56] a lot of detention to be put underground in your lot. So, there's a give and take in those scenarios.

[1:01:05] So, the relief being requested is the elimination of the O5 district with the new zoning code and the

[1:01:12] rezoning from the O5 into the O2 for the two lots discussed this evening.

[1:01:18] When the playing commission considers rezoning of a property, there's a set of standards

[1:01:26] that you assess the criteria of that rezoning request against.

[1:01:30] They're listed here, I'm not going to read through all of it, but they're looking at existing

[1:01:33] uses and zoning classifications, the trend of development in the area, the availability of adequate access to the site, availability of adequate utilities, length of time that properties been vacant, value of adjacent properties, future orderly development of the properties and how that may be affected.

[1:01:55] So, as I've mentioned during my presentation and it was noted in the staff report, the

[1:02:01] trend of the development in that area is going away from single-family residential and

[1:02:07] is being contemplated in a long Dundee road in other uses, whether that's the assisted

[1:02:15] living facility or other low-intense office uses, both sites are already developed.

[1:02:22] They both have utilities, they both have access on and off of thoroughfares.

[1:02:30] There's adequate access around in the area.

[1:02:33] And then the one 2990 Dundee Road has been vacant for some time.

[1:02:39] Staff has spoken with the property owners and they are on board with the village proposing to eliminate that zoning district.

[1:02:47] And requesting the rezoning to the O2 district knowing that it would allow for

[1:02:54] continued office uses, which is what is occurring at $2,890 Dundee.

[1:02:58] And what $2,990 Dundee is hoping to have a curve on their property.

[1:03:03] So, any questions about rezoning?

[1:03:08] I had questions on that one property, $2,991 that's vacant.

[1:03:13] That owner did come for a residential proposal, which was granted.

[1:03:17] But I guess they decided at some point to not proceed with it.

[1:03:21] And I was wondering if we knew why they could sell the idea and then decided to go for the remodel.

[1:03:27] This one that I'm showing here?

[1:03:29] Yes.

[1:03:29] I don't remember a residential proposal there at all.

[1:03:33] I've been here almost 19 years, I think.

[1:03:35] They did propose a multi-tenant single-story, low-intense office use where that

[1:03:46] proposal was assessed against the criteria for the O5 district and

[1:03:51] really worked to try and figure out how to try and fit something else there.

[1:03:57] Ultimately, they didn't proceed with that and instead chose to renovate the existing structure.

[1:04:08] Staff on this proposal.

[1:04:12] Can you remind us the limited office district, what types of businesses are allowed in the limited office district?

[1:04:21] Yes, I may need to go back over to my other spot in the room, but O2 District, things

[1:04:31] that are allowed, insurance brokers, realtors, security, commodity brokers, tax agents,

[1:04:42] and I'm looking at the old, I'm looking at our current zoning code, everybody.

[1:04:46] O2 authors, artists, lawyers are permitted by right yeah and then when you break that down

[1:05:00] On into the new zoning code, if you were to open the office article and look at the matter and proposed use table, that's really what we would be talking about because this rezoning would not go forward if the new zoning code didn't go forward.

[1:05:24] Okay.

[1:05:46] And these two petitions. So if you've sent something in, they've already become part of the formal record for the petitions. We will proceed now with those who would like to speak on this petition.

[1:06:01] what we would like to do is have everyone who is interested in stating something,

[1:06:06] stand up and I'll swear you all in at one time,

[1:06:13] even if you don't want to and you think you're

[1:06:14] going to, it's better to get you all sworn in at one time. Okay, if you could raise your right hands,

[1:06:20] please. Affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be complete and truthful.

[1:06:28] So we will start in the back at one row there. You would approach the mic and you start with

[1:06:34] your name and address, and then when you're complete with your testimony, you call over to your left to the podium and sign in to the register over there.

[1:06:45] I'm Karen Foley. I live at 557 Helen Drive. I've lived there since 1984. It is a lovely small community with very narrow streets.

[1:07:00] No sidewalks, no curbs.

[1:07:05] If a building is put into that location that has any bit of high traffic,

[1:07:16] I,

[1:07:19] the proclivity

[1:07:21] of people to take shortcuts through my neighborhood as they already do going into the industrial

[1:07:28] part sometimes you're causing a hazard. I am thoroughly agreed

[1:07:39] that that

[1:07:41] property needs to be reutilized but I also know that if I wanted to sell my

[1:07:49] house I'd have to go for market value. I don't know what the reason why that

[1:07:55] That piece of property isn't selling for whatever reason.

[1:08:01] But I do know that we have T-Ball in our neighborhood.

[1:08:08] And like I said, narrow streets, love the kids, dearly, it brings me joy to hear them yelling

[1:08:17] and screaming and having a good time, parents drive me crazy because they park on the wrong

[1:08:27] side of the street, we have one side street parking only, they will block the middle to let their kids in and out.

[1:08:36] So if you add any more traffic to that area, I'm really afraid, but thank you very much for listening.

[1:08:47] I will say we did not go over three minutes, I was using the timer on my phone because I thought we have the new fancy timer.

[1:08:54] I'm so sorry everybody. I'm used to this little old hack. So I will use the fancy time or now. Thank you

[1:09:01] No, you're you're all good

[1:09:06] Okay

[1:09:12] Right into the mic name and address and then sign in when you're completed

[1:09:15] My name is Christine Ackonberg. I live at 514 Helen Drive. I've been

[1:09:20] Resident and Northbrook in that particular home for 32 years

[1:09:25] You've received our letters. So if you have any questions feel free to ask us after the fact or whatnot

[1:09:32] But what we're asking today is that you please keep the zoning at 05 for

[1:09:37] those particular properties.

[1:09:40] As 02 opens up the door and we were not told this today for such uses as banks and restaurants.

[1:09:50] And those types of businesses would be bringing in more and more traffic into our neighborhood.

[1:09:55] and exactly what we fought against 18 years ago when...

[1:10:00] And a chase bank and a McDonald's wanted to go into that property. We would appreciate if you could keep the O5 zoning and maybe keep it as a legacy district, just like a C1 would be. We heard that today. We like that idea. And we appreciate your time and considering that. I know all the uses of the O5 would you like me to read them. We've been living this for years.

[1:10:29] Would you like us to, okay, you would, okay.

[1:10:33] So security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges and services, insurance carriers, insurance agents, broker services.

[1:10:40] Real estate establishments, real estate agents, managers holding, holding another investment offices,

[1:10:47] tracks tax preparation services, advertising agencies, appraisers, interior decorating consultants,

[1:10:53] inter-designing services, artists, legal services, engineering, accounting, management and related services.

[1:10:59] That's quite an array.

[1:11:01] We're willing to work with the owner of that property and we have in the past.

[1:11:05] And yes, they did come before the village board, with their proposal of a 7,000 square foot multi office building.

[1:11:14] We loved it, we worked with the gentleman, the village board asked him to shift the office building a little bit.

[1:11:22] and so that it would be coming, people would be coming in and out on to Anthony Cheryl.

[1:11:28] We worked with him on that.

[1:11:30] We were all for it and he decided not to go through with it for some personal reasons,

[1:11:35] not sure, not our issue.

[1:11:39] So it's vacant right now and we hope that if it is going to be sold at sold for Fairmark

[1:11:46] I know in the past that has been part of the, like I said, McDonald's and Bank proposal.

[1:11:56] So I think there's a little bit of a pie in the sky.

[1:11:59] That's my own personal opinion, pie in that sky market value on that particular property.

[1:12:05] So thank you so much for your time, I appreciate it.

[1:12:09] All right, could you please sign in still?

[1:12:12] Sorry.

[1:12:12] Carolyn

[1:12:31] Schultz, 2707 Canterbury Drive, Born in Northbrook, lived in Northbrook most of my life and I don't question at all but there's been a lot of work done in this plan so far and lots of pretty slides and lots of great marketing terms, but I'm imploring you to please keep in mind lipstick on a pig is still a pig and I'm not

[1:12:57] I'm not trashing this entire plan at all, but the potential impacts on Northbrook are so significant that I'm very concerned about what's missing in all of this study so far, and that I'm hoping and imploring you to be requiring and demanding.

[1:13:16] I see no projected population or density impact analysis of any kind.

[1:13:22] I see no traffic impact analysis, I see no crime impact analysis.

[1:13:28] I went to one of these open houses, I asked these questions and I was told there isn't any.

[1:13:34] And if there really can't be any, I was given very vague comparators to Minneapolis and

[1:13:40] Evanston, neither of which I think is an appropriate proxy for Northbrook, nor should it be an aspirational proxy.

[1:13:49] So, what I am asking all of you is, again, with this massive significant impact on North

[1:13:57] Brook from things such as cottage courts and duplexes, et cetera, please don't push

[1:14:04] this thing through.

[1:14:06] Don't turn us into Minneapolis and Evanston and Displains and Morton Grove and Niles because

[1:14:13] then the toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no going back, right?

[1:14:17] right? So I really beg of you, you deserve it. You know, we are expecting you to be making

[1:14:25] the best decisions for the residents, and I think you really need those analytics to

[1:14:30] be able to make those good decisions. And once you get them, they should really be clearly

[1:14:35] communicated to the residents. I think we deserve that. I think we deserve that level of transparency.

[1:14:43] And depending on how that comes out, you might even perhaps consider having residents

[1:14:49] bowed on it.

[1:14:51] That's further down the line.

[1:14:54] But again, those are my, those are my asks and I thank you for-

[1:15:00] After listening, I really do not want to see Northbrook change into something that is irrevocably negative.

[1:15:20] First, thank you for inviting public comment. My name is Bruce Bondy. I live at 1514 Chapel Court. And I'm a resident since 1999. I'm also chairman of the Arts Commission. I've worked since the 1980s as an architectural illustrator and design consultant. I've worked on projects throughout the

[1:15:40] The United States and abroad, I work with architects, urban planners, developers, and landscape architects helping illustrate potential designs.

[1:15:49] One of my first projects was the renderings for the North Brook Village Hall.

[1:15:54] Regarding the zoning code, proposed amendments for R5, I highly approve of this potential change.

[1:16:02] In the time that I've lived here and within blocks of my home, I've seen numerous smaller homes torn down and

[1:16:07] replaced with new, much larger, more expensive homes.

[1:16:11] There are two D words that come to mind in nearly every urban design project that I work on and are very relevant here.

[1:16:18] First is diversity.

[1:16:20] It is healthy for a growing community to have a variety of housing types and

[1:16:24] price points that allow for more citizens to either move to or remain in Northbrook.

[1:16:30] Examples being young families wishing to move here, seniors that would like a smaller home,

[1:16:36] divorced or single parents who wish to continue to raise their children in our great school system.

[1:16:41] Our current code and economics of building and development has eroded the supply of smaller and more affordable single family homes in Northbrook.

[1:16:50] For example, I know of a young family that moved to Northbrook into a home well over a million dollars that was only made possible because the parents could afford to purchase the home on their behalf.

[1:17:03] Not everyone has that kind of family wealth.

[1:17:07] We can be an affluent community without becoming elitist, catering only to the wealthy.

[1:17:13] A diverse population is good for Northbrook.

[1:17:16] To offer the opportunity for smaller, more affordable housing stock,

[1:17:20] in a small portion of our community helps to offset the erosion we've seen for

[1:17:25] years as smaller homes vanish from the marketplace.

[1:17:28] The second D word is density.

[1:17:31] density, particularly near our downtown is a very good thing.

[1:17:35] Look at how much multifamily housing is available in thriving downtown, such as Highland

[1:17:40] Park, or we'll met.

[1:17:41] Density helps to support and enable growth of local restaurants, shops, and businesses.

[1:17:47] I applaud our village management for supporting the townhouse development along Shermer and

[1:17:51] the coming development of the former Granger site, both will add density near our downtown

[1:17:56] helping it to thrive.

[1:17:57] I too would object if the whole of Northbrook were suddenly open to the changes proposed for the R5 through the entire community.

[1:18:06] Restricting to R5 is a thoughtful and reasoned approach to managing growth and offsetting the erosion of available smaller housing stock.

[1:18:15] I'm confident that our planning commission and the board has a vision to ensure the quality design standards for potential duplexes and cottage homes will be enforced.

[1:18:31] What I see time and again in my work when design professionals propose change is that some faction of the community will try and instill fear and misinformation and resistance.

[1:18:40] I'm proud to live in a village that supports all the citizens and has the vision encouraged to do what's necessary to stay ahead of problems.

[1:18:49] Thank you.

[1:18:53] Anyone else on this side?

[1:18:54] Okay, just handle it.

[1:18:55] Hi,

[1:19:01] my name is Herb Redder. I live at 1167 Adams Street in a duplex township development

[1:19:08] in Northbrook and the duplexes sell for between $800 and $950,000. I would ask what is wrong

[1:19:20] with Minneapolis and Addinson? I think they're two great cities. I like to think of Northbrook

[1:19:27] As an inclusive community, the village is one of the few suburbs with a fair housing ordinance.

[1:19:33] The school districts have implemented programs to support students with diverse backgrounds

[1:19:39] and needs, the library and park district regularly hold multicultural events, and the village

[1:19:47] issues proclamations recognizing cultural holidays and heritage months.

[1:19:53] Of course, this has not always been the case.

[1:19:55] Years ago, Northbrook as many other subters,

[1:20:00] Act is redlining, restrictive covenants and exclusionary zoning. If you were Jewish or black, it would

[1:20:09] have been difficult to live here at that time. Of these three practices that I mentioned,

[1:20:16] one still remains, and that is exclusionary zoning, which does not allow our workforce of police

[1:20:22] and firefighters, teachers, and other government employees to purchase a home, which I think we would all agree

[1:20:31] this is an incredible area with the best of the best schools as well as a great park district and library.

[1:20:41] Across the country, more and more communities have recognized that single family zoning is exclusionary.

[1:20:48] not only does it limit who can afford to live here but it constrains the housing

[1:20:54] supply at a time when there is a national housing shortage. I've already mentioned

[1:21:01] Minneapolis. Evanston is currently considering similar reforms to us and

[1:21:07] Cook County recently approved a residential open space overlay that encourages

[1:21:13] is clustered homes while preserving green space.

[1:21:17] Let's embrace this very modest housing solution,

[1:21:21] which will blend seamlessly with the neighborhood

[1:21:25] and offer more possibilities for workforce

[1:21:28] and multi-generational living,

[1:21:31] reflecting our reclusive values.

[1:21:33] Thank you.

[1:21:35] I'm pleased to go.

[1:21:38] I'm in to the left.

[1:21:47] Hi, my name is Brian Giles.

[1:21:49] I live at 12, 12-liter relaying and I am a multi-family developer and the reason I came

[1:21:56] then I was just to understand, I've never done anything in the village, Northbrook, you

[1:22:02] know, what was going to be presented for multi-family development specifically in the overly

[1:22:10] district. My only comment is, I think, that these prescriptive measures relative to materiality,

[1:22:22] articulation, glazing, I don't know how stringent it's going to be in the new zoning.

[1:22:30] My suggestion is that maybe they should be guidelines because being in the business it's very expensive

[1:22:40] to develop, and when a municipality imposes such measures, it makes it difficult to actually

[1:22:51] do a deal. So again, I don't know how this is going to play out in the final zoning,

[1:22:59] but my recommendation is that if not, set in stone in that whatever the committee would

[1:23:10] review the developer's design and consider it if it, I guess, varies from what's set forth in the code.

[1:23:23] So, it's like on it.

[1:23:25] Thank you.

[1:23:40] Good evening.

[1:23:41] Adele Sturgis, 1807, Maple Avenue.

[1:23:45] I've served this community in a variety of capacities over the past 35 years in stormwater

[1:23:51] management.

[1:23:52] I was part of the Task Central Business Area Task Force from 1990 to 2004 that instituted the Village Green Overlay District.

[1:24:04] I've served on the zoning board of appeals, the bicycle task force, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:24:11] I live in R5 housing, and I am wondering if someone could answer why a comparison seems

[1:24:25] to be made in apples and oranges comparison between Northbrook

[1:24:33] and Evanston.

[1:24:34] We're nothing like those communities, and with regard to the affordability of housing,

[1:24:42] I noticed in the consultants report that Minneapolis was the first in the nation to allow duplexes and triplexes in their community.

[1:24:57] But it went across all singing.

[1:25:00] I want to know why this community thinks it's okay to concentrate a cottage type housing development only in our five housing instead of allowing it in other places.

[1:25:23] Our five housing is mostly concentrated in District 28, and I assure you if you're talking about houses of 800 and 900 square feet, that's the kind of houses that were originally built in this community that are being torn down left and right.

[1:25:43] That's the kind I grew up in.

[1:25:45] And they're perfectly sustainable for a family if you're willing to live in that size.

[1:25:54] And many people are, and we're for affordability reasons.

[1:25:58] That's going to impact our district 28 schools, which are already according to them pretty

[1:26:07] darn crowded that we have to build all these new facilities.

[1:26:10] and I'm running out of time, there are a lot of concerns, I'll put them in an email to you in the board.

[1:26:21] The 50% reduction of a by-right in downtown commercial district parking reduction is kind of ridiculous.

[1:26:31] We, for seven years, all we heard was we need more parking, we need more parking, and all of a sudden the village is disappearing the parking.

[1:26:40] I don't know where people are going to go, and underground parking is very expensive, as is stormwater management.

[1:26:48] And I don't see those factors being considered anywhere in affordability or the ability of a commercial district of function.

[1:26:57] Thank you.

[1:26:59] Okay,

[1:27:02] anyone else by

[1:27:06] staff then and the consultant to address some of those questions we heard?

[1:27:17] Regarding to the duplexes and cottage courts being proposed in the R5 district.

[1:27:24] That was selected due to that is the most dense, detached single family residential district in the village.

[1:27:34] So it makes sense to map it within the denser single-family district.

[1:27:41] That's what other communities like Highland Park, Libertyville,

[1:27:47] Morton Grove, Deerfield, they also are mapping the duplexes in their most dense single-family residential district.

[1:27:55] The other reason being that district is mapped itself, the R5 in the downtown primarily because of the location for

[1:28:04] transit oriented development to have more people in the downtown to stimulate further growth

[1:28:09] of the business community in the downtown. There's also adequate access to public transportation,

[1:28:15] not just the train, but there's bus stop in the downtown. And there are other uses that people can

[1:28:20] walk to within that area.

[1:28:24] Why could like a cottage court be in an R4? I'm sorry, couldn't you?

[1:28:28] The cottage court be in an R4. The draft zoning code that's gone through the review process over the

[1:28:34] past year and a half to date has just shown it as appropriate in the R5. I want to just double

[1:28:44] check that though.

[1:28:50] Yeah, and then also in the R6 multi-family residential district, it was not

[1:28:56] discussed for in the R4. If that's something the commission is interested in, that's something that

[1:29:02] direction could be given as the public hearing is continued for staff to

[1:29:07] assess and then provide that revision to the draft document.

[1:29:14] What about the one resident who mentioned that we didn't have any traffic and

[1:29:19] safety and other types of studies when approaching this?

[1:29:24] Oh, so this is the writing of a new zoning code.

[1:29:28] And it's for the village as a whole in its entirety.

[1:29:32] It is not a site specific, so it isn't possible to do a traffic study because the future

[1:29:38] development is unknown.

[1:29:40] The village is maintaining majority of the districts that exist today with a lot of

[1:29:47] the same uses and implementation.

[1:29:50] The big changes are like process application process.

[1:29:52] us. As Jackie had mentioned in her presentation, there was slight modification to the R.

[1:30:00] Or in R5 district, minimum lot area and lot with reduction, but that was because of the amount of non-conformities that existed. So there isn't a one site traffic study that can be proposed. I mean, there are only two districts being proposed to be rezoned. So in essence, the zoning is staying the same. It's just a new zoning code. In terms of a density study, you can't predict how, you know,

[1:30:29] would 10 people want to build duplexes or 20 people and if they did so then those are 10 or 20 additional units, but there aren't any new lots and

[1:30:40] The structure can't be any bigger than the single-family home that could have been built by right on that lot

[1:30:47] I can't predict if a family of seven or eight is building a house for themselves or if

[1:30:53] Someone's building a duplex that has two people living in each unit that you can't predict

[1:30:59] a numeric human increase in that regard.

[1:31:05] One gentleman brought up about design standards.

[1:31:08] I thought we were going to, were we going to include it this year?

[1:31:10] Oh, the form based code is included.

[1:31:13] The gentleman had stated a concern from the development community about requiring a form

[1:31:20] based code.

[1:31:21] And as the commission has seen over the iteration of this process, that proposal of the

[1:31:26] form-based code, it does provide requirement of types of materials to be used, and when

[1:31:33] using those types of materials, there's different offsets based upon how much percentage

[1:31:41] of material A, B, or C you're using.

[1:31:44] There are categories and tables that break it down, so it isn't a standard that says all

[1:31:50] new development in the downtown must be brick and brick on all sides.

[1:31:54] It does provide for various types of materials and the percentage of those being used.

[1:32:02] But it is a requirement versus what was the public comment was maybe it's guidelines, yes, thank you.

[1:32:18] Anyone else have a question?

[1:32:19] Yeah, and as part of the process, I think you've vetted those changes likely with developers already.

[1:32:28] There's been notices put out to, I think the best way to get noticed out to some of the people that build in town is we put informational signs when they're coming in to pay for permits or apply for permits.

[1:32:40] We're trying to capture as many people as we could.

[1:32:43] Yeah,

[1:32:47] was there any we're talking about the R5 and a single single. It was there any consideration of making that as a special use rather than a permitted use so that we can look at the surrounding buildings and how it affect those buildings.

[1:33:04] That is something that, I mean, we proposed it as permitted, but again, that is a discussion

[1:33:11] point that if the commission wanted to have that discussion and move in a different direction

[1:33:16] that could be something that you would propose to be assessed and then brought back at the

[1:33:22] next meeting.

[1:33:24] I think there would be a good idea because then maybe you would avoid having two lots next

[1:33:29] to each other with duplex on it and even going forward from that and it would also take

[1:33:34] an effect to consideration at least the neighborhood and traffic and things like that.

[1:33:40] So I would suggest we ask them to look at that.

[1:33:46] Other questions before we close the public hearing.

[1:33:49] Okay.

[1:33:53] It sounds like Evan, Senator Minneapolis is

[1:33:58] about whether they are comparable, but in terms

[1:34:02] of like traffic, crime, density studies that have been done, I mean it sounds like these

[1:34:08] have been an existing outlook at the literature at least provides some indication.

[1:34:18] So I think there's a few things that are being combined perhaps is a way to say it.

[1:34:23] So one of the questions that was asked of us is can you assess whether studies have been

[1:34:28] done to determine whether surrounding property values will decline, if a multi-family

[1:34:34] or in this case duplexes are added to a single family district.

[1:34:37] So we know that single family districts include duplexes and deer field and

[1:34:42] highland park and martin grove and liberty bill and I forgot one but we don't

[1:34:46] have any specific studies to that but we all drive around and many of us have

[1:34:51] had the opportunity to drive around those communities or visit those

[1:34:54] communities and we don't see mass decline in those communities and or their

[1:34:58] single family districts.

[1:35:00] But there's no published report, right? So for published reports, we were able to find one in Minneapolis and one in Evanston. So the reference to those communities isn't that there's the only place it occurs. It's where we could find the report where they analyzed the property values over the period of those units being added or being permissible in that district. So I want to call it separate those two issues. One is they're allowed, but no study exists on property value. And the other is they're allowed.

[1:35:29] and we weren't able to find a study on property value.

[1:35:32] The other thing I'll caution you on is looking

[1:35:36] at the special permit and I'll say why?

[1:35:39] Why would we maybe not want to look at a special permit?

[1:35:42] And if you add two or three people to a neighborhood,

[1:35:46] it is really hard to tie that down to having an impact.

[1:35:50] But every community will have some community members

[1:35:53] that feel fear about that and I get it, it's change

[1:35:56] and change kind of bring about fear.

[1:35:58] But really, what our job is when it comes to the codes is to really apply the code and

[1:36:05] then really look at the true, I'll call it, definable, impact.

[1:36:09] So as it relates to the question on traffic studies, you can do a traffic study when you

[1:36:13] know someone's putting in a restaurant, it has this many tables, it has this many parking spaces,

[1:36:18] and you can calculate what the traffic impact is.

[1:36:21] You're not able to do that in the same way with the large zoning code that doesn't have specifics.

[1:36:27] ethics, but if you did it on, for example, a duplex, you wouldn't be able to produce

[1:36:31] a greater impact than you would a single family home, because you can have 14-age drivers

[1:36:36] that produces a lot more traffic than a single person who lives in a duplex and vice-versa.

[1:36:42] And so it's just, I caution you on thinking about that, what would you be able to tie that

[1:36:46] special permit to?

[1:36:48] Because otherwise you're having people come and imagine you can make a decision that you

[1:36:53] you might not be able to make, because you wouldn't be able to define an impact.

[1:36:57] Does that make sense?

[1:36:58] I think if we need to think about that as we're considering a use by right or

[1:37:03] use through a special permit, could you tie it to one of the impacts?

[1:37:07] We are able to use legally when determining to approve or not approve an application.

[1:37:14] And I think it's important to also keep in mind that the standards for

[1:37:17] like a special permit, they're remaining the same in the new zoning code.

[1:37:22] So, there's minor changes being made to standards in the draft zoning code.

[1:37:29] And so, trying to tie as director McEwan is stating something to those standards, those

[1:37:35] are the standards that are currently being used and are going to be used as we go forward.

[1:37:40] We're not getting rid of standards for special permits.

[1:37:43] Did I answer your question?

[1:37:46] I guess I was just thinking, if there's concern and fear, and we do have other areas

[1:37:52] as where these developments allowed them.

[1:37:56] The code has changed, you have them coming in.

[1:37:59] Then I suspect that someone has looked at things

[1:38:02] like just traffic, or whether it's pedestrian traffic,

[1:38:06] vehicle traffic, or they've looked at changing crime.

[1:38:09] And I'm not saying that there is any,

[1:38:11] but my guess is when you have these large communities

[1:38:14] that are changing their code to allow for that,

[1:38:16] then there is some kind of investigation,

[1:38:19] whether it's academic or city or, you know, like there's something.

[1:38:24] And so I guess if the comparison is that, and there are concerns that may be making a

[1:38:33] better understanding of it.

[1:38:35] We can certainly do some more digging and see if we can find some more localized examples.

[1:38:39] We haven't found them yet.

[1:38:41] But we can certainly do some additional searching to see if we can find if our local partners have done an analysis.

[1:38:51] Also, the bill is hired.

[1:38:53] Jackie, what's the name of your company?

[1:38:56] They've done zoning code rewrites for hundreds of municipalities across the United States.

[1:39:02] That's basically what you guys do.

[1:39:04] So the bill is reached out to them.

[1:39:06] They're the experts.

[1:39:07] So why we're focusing on two cities is not really realistic.

[1:39:14] We're not reinventing the wheel.

[1:39:16] It is what this company has advised hundreds of communities across the United States.

[1:39:21] We're relying on their expertise and the village's expertise, the village staff who is deeply knowledgeable for this new zoning code.

[1:39:31] And it's really to make life easier for the residents and the businesses, and that's the big picture of this.

[1:39:37] Because the zoning code is out of date, it's pre-internet, it's pre-cell phone, so

[1:39:44] Well, this is all really, it's supposed to be a positive for the community.

[1:39:48] So what I'd like to do with this is-

[1:39:50] Commissioner, let's go, just one more comment.

[1:39:53] In terms of the crime concern, Northburg already has quite a few really nice duplexed-

[1:40:20] So, I can't imagine that the addition of duplexes, nor if I have district is going to increase crime in any significant degree.

[1:40:29] What I'd like to do before we proceed first is follow up a couple of questions.

[1:40:37] Chair.

[1:40:38] Okay.

[1:40:39] Yeah.

[1:40:40] Chairman, let's go.

[1:40:41] Can I actually.

[1:40:41] Chairman, I'm sorry.

[1:40:43] Because the village is the applicant tonight which is not what our normal procedure is.

[1:40:47] If there are questions of the village staff members, it should be that they should be asked and answered during the public hearing because they are the applicant.

[1:40:58] Yes, so if there are, I just wanted to remind the commission because that's not our normal practice.

[1:41:05] I'm going to get into further discussion.

[1:41:06] Of course.

[1:41:07] If you have questions, please answer.

[1:41:10] You mentioned, somebody mentioned half a dozen communities that have similar things, okay?

[1:41:15] And Libriville, et cetera.

[1:41:17] You mentioned Wilmetton.

[1:41:18] Wilmet doesn't have this as a right single lot, but the others do, they have it on a single

[1:41:28] I think a lot of communities in our general vicinity are looking at this as trying to provide

[1:41:34] better housing alternatives or I like to determine housing for all.

[1:41:38] Everybody needs a different type of housing at a different time of their life.

[1:41:42] Type of house you want when you're young might be different than when you're older.

[1:41:46] It might be different if you're single or whether you're a family and so trying to find

[1:41:50] And more diversity or offer more opportunities for a diverse housing choice.

[1:41:54] And how people who live in the village of Northbrook be able to choose and

[1:41:58] select the type of housing they need at the time of their life that they need it.

[1:42:03] And I do want to correct, I misspoke when I said, well, that was included for single family.

[1:42:08] They have, in between law, that is, sorry, district that is not single family, but

[1:42:13] it is not multi-family.

[1:42:14] They have an R2 district that is for attached residents.

[1:42:19] I can determine that they don't have it now, but it's trending at moment, so we'll probably sing it.

[1:42:25] So I have a procedural question since the public hearing is going to be continued to August, I think 15th or mid-August, is now an appropriate time for commissioners to have a discussion or should we be holding off on that?

[1:42:38] What we want to do is give staff directions that you need.

[1:42:43] Technically, we could have.

[1:42:59] And the date is August 19th, I just want to clarify that.

[1:43:04] And you could also have discussion and direct staff to do more research and do a resolution.

[1:43:11] Like, there's many ways you can go about how you proceed.

[1:43:14] The commission would like to have a discussion deliberation.

[1:43:18] You can close the public hearing and have any discussion you'd like to do.

[1:43:20] providing direction to staff, and then you can reopen the public hearing and continue

[1:43:25] it to a date certain, which will be the August 19th date, and then at the August 19th

[1:43:32] have further discussion, and staff could bring back any additional research or a resolution

[1:43:38] of that direction is provided.

[1:43:46] I'll accept the motion to close the public hearing.

[1:43:49] I moved to close the public hearing.

[1:43:52] Second.

[1:43:52] fingers, Commissioner Malnick, Deputy Director Cullsett, please call the roll.

[1:44:01] Commissioner Bremen.

[1:44:02] Yes.

[1:44:02] Commissioner Halperin.

[1:44:03] Yes.

[1:44:03] Commissioner McChillan-Formfeld.

[1:44:06] Yes.

[1:44:06] Commissioner Malnick.

[1:44:07] Yes.

[1:44:08] Commissioner Morgan.

[1:44:09] Yes.

[1:44:09] Commissioner Papito.

[1:44:11] Commissioner Walden.

[1:44:12] Yes.

[1:44:13] Chairman Elisco.

[1:44:13] Yes.

[1:44:14] So for the audience what we did is we closed the public hearings so there can be no more input

[1:44:18] from staff, no more comments from the audience.

[1:44:24] And then sort of give direction to staff on how to proceed, and we'll start with my right with Commissioner Elnick.

[1:44:35] By the way, we are talking about both petitions.

[1:44:38] Right, so I mean, for the first one, as far as all the zoning changes, I agree

[1:44:49] with probably 95% of what's being proposed.

[1:44:53] I'll say a very unpopular comment, but what's my belief is that living in North

[1:44:58] Fantastic, so I moved here.

[1:45:00] 18 years ago.

[1:45:03] I have to do what's best for the community, and I get nervous when we talk about density. And adding more people, we're not having to stand, we're not urban. And he has a feel and a characteristic to it that's been around for a hundred years, and I'd like to keep it close. I'm not saying. But I get really nervous we start doing duplexes and just trying to add density, especially for the businesses in the downtown. There's reasons why the businesses are struggling and it's not because we don't have enough people living around it.

[1:45:33] So I just want to be cautious about that.

[1:45:36] So the duplexes and the cottage courts,

[1:45:40] as far as the project in Dundee, I would almost

[1:45:47] recommend going to the C1 and then once we get an actual somebody in there, then we can

[1:45:53] find

[1:45:56] them taken away the O5 and

[1:46:05] furthered in through the one that we can't change it to

[1:46:08] it then.

[1:46:08] Yeah,

[1:46:17] as Commissioner Melanick said, there's a lot to unpack.

[1:46:21] I happen to live in the residential district that would be allowed for the duplexes and all that.

[1:46:28] And I have a different point of view, which is I actually think density is good.

[1:46:33] I think it's, we don't want to be an exclusive community.

[1:46:36] I obviously, property values are very important to me.

[1:46:39] But I also, I appreciate all the hard work that's gone into it and the thoughtfulness that's gone behind it.

[1:46:44] And then I'm okay with it.

[1:46:48] I'm also okay with the changes to the Dundee properties.

[1:46:54] We got to do something with those, I mean, if we open it up to make it different more

[1:46:58] uses, perhaps they will be, that building won't be vacant.

[1:47:03] I don't think it's going to be a McDonald's or a chase bank that was proposed 18 years ago.

[1:47:09] So I'm actually okay with the changes that have been proposed.

[1:47:12] like

[1:47:20] others I agree with a lot of one

[1:47:26] thing around that I agree with the density

[1:47:29] and

[1:47:35] I also have concerns about reducing parking access but I also I am hearing

[1:47:43] in my maybe it's just me but

[1:47:47] Lexus and the cottage housing will bring housing to

[1:47:52] some of our seniors but then you know we know that these condos over here like

[1:47:59] on-chirmer are $800,000 and $1,000,000 and so if we're trying to make housing that's available

[1:48:05] how that actually meets the need,

[1:48:11] that is a little concerning to me,

[1:48:16] peak commercial versus the O2 versus 5 and so you know I don't like to, I think having something

[1:48:25] said vacant for a long time is problematic and if that's because of the code or the restrictions

[1:48:30] that we have on that, like I'm all for finding a better reason, but I wouldn't want to weigh in on that specifically, at Knowledge Race.

[1:48:43] First of all, I'm fine with going from 05 to 02, and I think we should vote on that tonight just to, because that's a simpler thing just to move it along.

[1:48:53] long.

[1:48:55] You know how long have I been on the board? There's a two-hug. No. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:49:02] But you know there's always talk about density and there's always talk about affordable dwelling.

[1:49:08] And these things are great. And I think we should leave it in there. But at the end of the day

[1:49:13] it's if a developer comes and wants to do this. And then all there's just never a lot of

[1:49:20] desire for it. So I think this, I don't want to minimize it, but all this gets overblown.

[1:49:29] So if we put this in the duplex, I'm fine with it because I just don't think it's going

[1:49:34] to make that much of a difference. I do want to say that I think you guys have done a phenomenal

[1:49:40] job overhauling the zoning code. It hasn't been easy. I appreciate all your work and I think all these

[1:49:50] changes are great.

[1:49:52] I mean, there's some things people aren't going to like.

[1:49:54] There's some things that people are going to love.

[1:49:57] And there's some things, and there's a vast majority

[1:49:58] of people are going to be in.

[1:50:13] I'm going to bring up the topic that we haven't discussed at all. This will come as no shock,

[1:50:22] but on the community residences issue. I brought this up at the last meeting and there were

[1:50:29] some additional issues in reviewing the materials for tonight.

[1:50:34] There are some requirements for community residences that I think might be problematic legally.

[1:50:39] I don't know for sure, but having to register the community residences,

[1:50:45] having extra compliance requirements, I think might be problematic legally.

[1:50:51] So I would just take a look at that and ask the staff and the village attorney to take on them.

[1:50:57] I just want to make sure we're not passing something that might be

[1:51:01] challengeable in terms of community residences, same with traditional

[1:51:05] facilities. On the issue of the duplexes and the cottage courts, I'd be

[1:51:13] favor of expanding the districts that would allow that per right. I think, you know,

[1:51:22] the materials were really illuminating. I heard all this many times, but you know, the

[1:51:26] The population is getting much older by 2030, at least one of the articles said one in five Americans will be over age 65.

[1:51:34] There's a single people living alone.

[1:51:36] They're going to need smaller homes and Northpeck is an expensive place.

[1:51:43] I've said this before, if someone's good enough to serve me dinner at a restaurant, I think they're good enough to live in my community and if there's an affordable housing option for them, I'm all for it.

[1:51:54] With respect to the O5, the agenda item B, O5, O2, I'm on the fence.

[1:52:03] It is kind of a unique community because you could go from one side of the neighborhood

[1:52:08] to the other by cutting through, I get that and if it's a restaurant, I see that that

[1:52:14] could become a problem.

[1:52:15] It's any of the other kind of professional businesses, I don't see the part that kind of

[1:52:19] Sneaking through that way is a problem, but for certain types of businesses, I could see maybe that's a problem

[1:52:25] So I'm kind of on the fence about that night. I'm just not ready to vote on that tonight

[1:52:30] Commissioner Breyman. Thank you. I agree with it. We could go from the old the commercial 05-0-2 easily

[1:52:36] I don't think that's a real real problematic. I am torn regarding the two plexes

[1:52:43] I'm not sure about that. I understand the need for it

[1:52:47] I understand the theme for smaller housing, more affordable housing, especially for seniors.

[1:52:52] That's one reason I moved here, other than the grandchildren.

[1:52:57] But I don't know if I like the idea of it having just plugged in in a single lot in the middle of a subdivision, so myself.

[1:53:05] But I'm torn on that, I'm not sure.

[1:53:07] I would like to see it as more of a special use, contrary to what you're suggesting.

[1:53:12] And if it is going to go forward, I think needs to have some kind of mechanism in the language

[1:53:17] to require the condominium or some covenants and conditions for use and maintenance of

[1:53:24] those.

[1:53:24] So people moving into it know what they're going to be getting into and how to protect themselves.

[1:53:29] I also would like to bring up something different that we haven't talked about at all.

[1:53:34] And that is the vote of the commission.

[1:53:36] Right now, if you recall, it has to be a majority of the entire nine members or sitting members.

[1:53:44] So if we have five members in the past number of months, we haven't had nine members often.

[1:53:50] So let's say we have five, which is a quorum, and the vote's four in favor and one against.

[1:53:55] It goes to the board as a negative referral.

[1:53:58] I don't think that's right.

[1:54:00] I think it's bad for developers.

[1:54:02] They have to go and tell the board that, you know, even though it was negative, we have to overcome that.

[1:54:07] I think the public doesn't understand that, and so when the board changes and goes against that negative referral,

[1:54:13] they look unfavorably on the village board. So I think it should be a majority of those sitting at the time of the meeting.

[1:54:20] That's my opinion. I know most villages have it that way. It's unusual to be a majority of the entire board.

[1:54:27] That on the bill's board, it has to be the majority of the entire board on certain circumstances

[1:54:35] but not all.

[1:54:36] I'd like to see it move to the majority of those voting at the time.

[1:54:40] Thank you.

[1:54:44] Commissioner.

[1:54:46] First off, I want to, I guess, copy some of you and say that it's a great work, it's a

[1:54:54] lot of work.

[1:54:55] And just coming in now, just seeing how much you have to overhaul.

[1:55:00] On this, on the zoning code is impressive. I will say I'm moving from the O5 to O2. I think I want to get a little bit more background on why it's even requested. I understand that it might be to simplify things, but I also feel I'm surprised that those properties are, like, are they requesting it, or is it the village saying that they think it's going to bring in business? And I just don't know, like, I feel like the code

[1:55:29] right now allows for some pretty interesting businesses to move in there so I just want

[1:55:35] more information in background and this is my first meeting so I'll dig into it some

[1:55:41] more with that and if anybody wants to pull me aside and tell me you could do that too.

[1:55:46] And as for the duplex and cottage courts, this I've been going back and forth on quite

[1:55:55] I will say when it comes to bringing in density and affordable housing, I see both sides.

[1:56:06] But what concerns me is that it won't end up being any more affordable.

[1:56:11] That it might turn into developers coming in and scooping up the ranch houses before anybody else gets the opportunity to.

[1:56:19] So that they could turn it around and turn it into this city high end duplex and sell it for double and so then we're thinking that we're helping, but then it could cause another problem down the road.

[1:56:31] So that's my thought on that so my turn.

[1:56:36] So just to begin with I just want to impress upon the residents how big of a deal we are that we're redoing the zoning code.

[1:56:44] As been stated, the previous code was 1988 with a gazillion amendments, some of them

[1:56:51] conflicting, and other things that no one even understands why they were there in

[1:56:54] the first place.

[1:56:56] And what's different about this code and that code is that code, everything was geared

[1:57:00] for telling you what you can't do, it was a very negative code.

[1:57:04] But that's how all codes were back then.

[1:57:06] This code is telling you what you can do, and it gives you all the different options.

[1:57:09] So it's much more positive in nature on how to develop property.

[1:57:14] And I think that the development community is going to understand that much better once they start reading through this.

[1:57:21] And it clarifies so many different things.

[1:57:23] I mean, when I first started on the plant mission in 2008, it was like every other thing needed a special permit.

[1:57:30] And to do a special permit cost a person coming for that, not everyone is a big company looking for change it.

[1:57:37] We get a lot of small businesses.

[1:57:38] And they have to pay a lot of money for a whole crew of consultants to come and prepare documents, go through the process, with the understanding they might not get passed.

[1:57:48] I mean, they have to make their judgment on their own, but they still, at some point in time they make that decision.

[1:57:52] And to get a special permit for something that now we feel is really not necessary, I think is one big positive for this.

[1:58:01] At some point, I'd like the, and something that tells how many special permits we ended up getting away with because it was really way too many.

[1:58:09] And there were all sorts of other requirements like this.

[1:58:12] Every time you needed a special permit for a sign over 20 feet, I mean, I've been on like 17 years, we've never had a problem with it.

[1:58:20] We've always said okay, it's fine.

[1:58:21] And I remember the first sign that came before us, I said, so we just had this petitioner go through a three month process.

[1:58:27] pay maybe 15 to $20,000 to come here and hear us tell them that the sign should go where it should have been in the first place.

[1:58:35] I mean, stuff and that's just one example.

[1:58:38] This code is so much better than what we've ever had in the past.

[1:58:41] And again, I give kudos to the consultant, the staff, the legal staff, because again this was been a two year process.

[1:58:49] So most of this stuff is vetted and I'm really fine proceeding with everything here, but I do have a couple of questions.

[1:58:55] So on the R5 zoning district with the ability for the cottage courts and the duplexes.

[1:59:04] I see why most of the homes around the downtown area are our zone, the R5.

[1:59:11] And we've had study after study from urban planners telling us you're not going to attract good business here,

[1:59:17] boutique businesses that want to thrive and everything unless you have the density for

[1:59:21] people to buy the products.

[1:59:23] And when we went through the downtown analysis in the early 2000s,

[1:59:27] we determined that until we do those two shopping centers with residential above retail on the first floor,

[1:59:35] a lot of people aren't going to be looking at us.

[1:59:37] And what that has, and unfortunately since we haven't proceeded with the plan,

[1:59:41] it has caused problems with other developments that are coming up faster than we can plan for,

[1:59:45] such as the gateway development.

[1:59:47] If that would have gone through with the downtown,

[1:59:49] Now that would have had retail on the first floor with residential above, but you don't pass away a good deal when you're trying to build density so we accepted the development with all residential and no retail.

[1:59:59] Because...

[2:00:00] So the few added residents would have offset the benefit because we still didn't have enough density. So I like the idea of adding the density to the downtown area, but there are five way outside the downtown area. And obviously we can't pick and say, okay, only our fives in a certain area are going to get this. And then I'm not sure that, you know, that we're stricken that only our five just as two of the other commissioners.

[2:00:27] This is necessary the way to go because if we're talking about especially the cottage courts, which I think serves a different need so to speak than either having cottage courts downtown or having them having the duplexes because if you have them in the our fours which is farther away from downtown, well we're talking that it's going to serve the community seniors who need a housing.

[2:00:52] Well, that seniors don't have to live downtown.

[2:00:55] Some of them need to have a financial need, but they could still drive.

[2:00:58] So if we had in the IR-4 cottage courts, I think it would have.

[2:01:07] Like to see what the cottage court would look like in an IR-4 situation, as well as just the IR-5s.

[2:01:15] And I think also, I don't think all of a sudden everyone's going to run out and tear down houses and start putting all of these duplexes up.

[2:01:24] I think it's going to be a slow thing.

[2:01:25] It'll happen where needed and where it's feasible over time.

[2:01:29] And a good example of that is we went over this ADU thing for

[2:01:34] until a nauseam for two years.

[2:01:37] And we came up with a compromise and

[2:01:39] we came up with different options to satisfy them.

[2:01:41] One is an attached ADU and I don't know if the date that anyone has

[2:01:44] even requested an attached ADU.

[2:01:47] And that is an affordable way of increasing the financial

[2:01:53] So we're with all the household as well as providing affordable housing, but no one's taking advantage of it yet.

[2:01:59] We also have the ability to rent home the rooms in your home to a certain degree.

[2:02:05] And we also have the ability to do a, what's the quality of a certain kind of suite where it's not an ADU, but it's a secondary suite, I think it's called.

[2:02:15] So yeah, I think we call it secondary suite.

[2:02:17] So those are options that are available to people who have financial,

[2:02:22] So, you know, don't have the financial wherewithal want to stay in the community.

[2:02:26] So, as I said, I'd like to see this expansion of the cash court into other districts.

[2:02:33] And I'm fine with it having it in the R5.

[2:02:36] And I'm fine with the change from the O5 to the O2 on the other petition.

[2:02:45] Anyone have some general discussion?

[2:02:47] And we just heard from all the, we

[2:02:51] have to get staff direction.

[2:02:53] Whether we want to just wait and get more information because we did add.

[2:02:59] Or does anyone feel that they have a list of subject to the.

[2:03:21] Yes.

[2:03:22] Why don't we take a straw poll vote, we'll just go right down the line in order here,

[2:03:36] okay?

[2:03:40] I'm okay with that.

[2:03:46] I'm just barely okay, yes.

[2:03:47] Yes, I'm okay, understanding that, that doesn't mean we're voting in favor of it, it's just it's going to be on the table.

[2:03:59] I hate to put the two new commissioners in the hotspot here, but maybe we should wait till they get more information then, because I think it's unfair to put them in the position to have to vote on something that they're not, they want more information about.

[2:04:13] Okay, so it looks like we need more information on both petitions.

[2:04:19] Do you need more, do you have a, do you have a, do you've been writing, do you need more explanation from us?

[2:04:24] Deputy director.

[2:04:27] Chairman, let's go, I'm just going to just to clarify just so all the new commissioners maybe are who aren't familiar with the process of what we were just talking about of just to provide direction of staff to prepare a resolution to bring back to the next meeting.

[2:04:43] and at which time you still could have further discussion, you could reopen the public hearing on it, but then we would have the resolution prepared, and you could of course provide additional conditions or amendments to the resolution.

[2:05:00] But if there's thought from a majority of the commissioners that at the next public hearing, we would be ready to proceed with a resolution, you could provide direction to have the resolution prepared, and then it would be at least could be voted on at the next meeting. But I just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear that there would still be time to have additional discussion. Just to clarify, please. We weren't be voting to any final recommendation action tonight either way.

[2:05:28] What we're doing is voting on a resolution to instruct staff to write the resolution.

[2:05:34] But can I make a suggestion?

[2:05:36] These are interrelated.

[2:05:37] Since we're not going to have staff prepare a resolution for the first one, the larger one,

[2:05:42] why would we need to do it for the-

[2:05:48] Right, that's why we can just do it at the same time the next time.

[2:05:50] And vote on it, whether or not to recommend it.

[2:05:53] Yeah, go ahead.

[2:06:20] All us paying in fruits of what we're going to be deciding.

[2:06:23] Let me just ask staff, do you have enough time to get the new commissioners more information

[2:06:28] that they request in time, whether you think so it's like two weeks from now, right?

[2:06:34] Oh wait, we're not doing the first, oh August, right, it's August 19th, so it's actually

[2:06:37] the second, so it's a month from now, all right, so we got plenty of time, I forgot it was

[2:06:42] a month, not two weeks.

[2:06:53] So let me just explain things because I'm sure you might be confused out in the audience

[2:06:58] there.

[2:06:59] So, in recent history, I would say the last few years, when we get a petition, we automatically get a resolution, in case we decide we like it and we want to vote on it.

[2:07:09] So, we've never had the tell staff to do the right one because they're already there.

[2:07:12] Sometimes we amend the one they give us, but it's already there in our hands.

[2:07:16] It was purposely designed that we are not going to do that for this, that we're going to postpone.

[2:07:21] We want to have a full discussion and we're going to postpone further discussion to another meeting.

[2:07:25] And at that time, we might be able to vote on it.

[2:07:27] So what we need to do in order to have something down the road to vote on,

[2:07:31] we have to instruct staff to write a resolution.

[2:07:34] So it's almost the same thing.

[2:07:35] We instructed the right, they write it.

[2:07:37] We have to still go through the roll call vote and everything.

[2:07:39] But it's not voting on anything that's in the resolution.

[2:07:42] It's just voting on what the resolution will look in writing so

[2:07:46] that we have a document in front of us that we can either say yay or nay to.

[2:07:50] So since the two new commissioners want more time,

[2:07:53] And since we have a month until the next meeting, if we do extend it to the August 19th, I think what we're looking for to do.

[2:08:05] After it, and then we could modify them or even postpone them further.

[2:08:18] But we would, since we need more information, we would not have any subject to this one.

[2:08:21] We'll just have a right of resolution, and then the next time we would amend the resolution.

[2:08:29] That way you would be in the position if you decided to, at August 19th, that you'd be able to take the final votes that night, and instead of having to continue it to a third meeting, if you didn't need it, of course you can continue it to a third meeting if necessary, but this would allow you to make take final action or the recommending final action at the next meeting.

[2:08:51] I guess the only motion we need now is just to continue the public hearing.

[2:08:54] So I would accept a motion to reopen the public hearing and continue it to August 19th.

[2:09:01] Are we reopening?

[2:09:03] We want to close the public hearing.

[2:09:05] Do we want to reopen it for August 19th?

[2:09:09] We need to reopen the public hearing in order to continue it to a date certain, so we don't have to.

[2:09:19] It also has to be reopened if we're bringing new revised documents back to the commission.

[2:09:26] For us to present that revised document, it has to be in a public hearing.

[2:09:32] Yes.

[2:09:33] Sorry.

[2:09:34] But that's only for the first resolution, correct?

[2:09:39] Any public hearing?

[2:09:40] It would be for both as there was requests for further continued discussion on bulls and to bring the documents back for both public hearings would recommend that there'd be a motion to reopen both public hearings and to continue them both to

[2:10:00] August 19th. Well, whoever's going to make the motion, let's just briefly go this. So basically, all you have to do, when you make the motion is to reopen both PCD 2509, PCD 510 to August 19th. It's pretty much how it is. So at this point, I would accept the motion to reopen and continue the public hearing.

[2:10:27] I'll move to reopen the public hearing to August 19th for PCD,

[2:10:34] Duckett number PCD, 2509, and Duckett number PCD, 2510.

[2:10:42] And Commissioner Raul, the green director, call the role.

[2:10:49] I don't have to call a role to open up public hearing.

[2:10:51] We don't have to call a role to,

[2:10:55] but it happens when you don't do something for two years.

[2:10:58] I do have a question about additional

[2:11:05] information

[2:11:19] about the 05 districts.

[2:11:26] We did provide in the staff report the background of the creation of the 05 got us to today.

[2:11:32] I'm just trying to figure out what additional information I'm bringing to the reopen public hearing for that one.

[2:11:38] But they ask the two new commissioners what they would, what other information they think they need.

[2:11:45] When, between the public comments and then the staff comments, I think that I had heard some conflicting information.

[2:11:52] What vote to versus what I have allowed for, and so I'm trying to understand where they're going to.

[2:11:59] And then I just wanted to help familiarize myself, but also I had heard from one of the commissioner's question about, you know, what is driving this shift, like is it, is it operating owners are coming to.

[2:12:18] This is, it's a village initiated application, this is the village as the applicant, the property owners did not come to us this was the impetus then that we have.

[2:12:27] There's two lots in a zoning district that is so restrictive.

[2:12:33] It has never been mapped anywhere else.

[2:12:35] And that one lot has remained undeveloped for numerous years within that district.

[2:12:43] And the district is incredibly restrictive for

[2:12:47] how it can be used when somebody does choose to do development there.

[2:12:51] So because there are only two lots that fall within it.

[2:12:55] and we did not anticipate anyone ever since in the past since 1992 so like 30 years no one has wanted to be

[2:13:02] zone that we don't see it ever being a district that will continue to be used in the future.

[2:13:07] I think then for me really it's just clarifying what is allowed with O2 and what is allowed.

[2:13:14] And then what is allowed so the original packet and you guys are new so this is totally I completely

[2:13:25] So I would not be bringing new information and that's what I wanted to clarify that I don't think I have new information to give.

[2:13:37] And so to Commissioner Morgan's point about opening a public hearing back up or not, and whether or not there's a draft resolution.

[2:13:45] I completely understand the depth of information that was provided to new commissioners who weren't

[2:13:52] possibly at some of the workshops or a joint meeting,

[2:13:56] having more time to review this completely makes sense.

[2:13:59] Again, I just don't know that I have new information to present in a continued public hearing on

[2:14:05] Docket PCD-2510.

[2:14:11] But they still need time to study it, which they do have, even if

[2:14:21] So I guess the next motion would be to have staff draw a resolution up for each of the two petitions individually, because we need two separate resolutions, correct?

[2:14:31] We don't, that could be one resolution.

[2:14:34] It must be two separate resolutions.

[2:14:37] So I will accept a one person can do it, why don't we want to do one at a time since we need to anyhow and then give you two.

[2:14:51] Why don't we have someone from this side make the first petition motion to have staff draw a paper?

[2:15:07] I move, excuse me, I move to have staff drop a resolution on docket number PCD 20, is it 2509? Oh, nine. Sorry, I have to find it now because I'm on 25 time.

[2:15:29] New zoning code. Yeah, docket number PCD 2509 asking staff to drop a resolution, approving the changes.

[2:15:40] and have it aired for the August 19th, 2025 meeting.

[2:15:49] Second.

[2:15:51] Raymond, deputy director of co-sets, please call the roll.

[2:15:56] Commissioner Bremen.

[2:15:58] Aye.

[2:15:58] Commissioner Halperin.

[2:15:59] Yes.

[2:16:00] Commissioner McKillipan-Felt.

[2:16:02] Yes.

[2:16:03] Elnick.

[2:16:04] Yes.

[2:16:05] Commissioner Morgan.

[2:16:06] Yes.

[2:16:07] Commissioner Papito.

[2:16:08] Commissioner Walden.

[2:16:09] Yes.

[2:16:10] Chairman Alisco.

[2:16:11] Yes.

[2:16:12] Yes. Okay, now let's have the motion from this side.

[2:16:21] I move, I was, I was direct staff to prepare resolution for

[2:16:28] PC doc doc a number PCD 25 dash 10 89 90 and 99 or 29 90 Dundee road rezoning request.

[2:16:39] We

[2:16:44] have a second.

[2:16:46] Second.

[2:16:49] Okay, deputy director, please call the roll.

[2:16:51] I'm sorry, I was at a second by Commissioner Halperin.

[2:16:54] Yes.

[2:16:54] Thank you.

[2:16:55] Commissioner Braiman.

[2:16:56] Yes.

[2:16:57] Commissioner Halperin.

[2:16:58] Yes.

[2:16:58] Commissioner McKillip von Feld.

[2:17:00] Yes.

[2:17:01] Commissioner Melnig.

[2:17:02] Yes.

[2:17:02] Commissioner Morgan.

[2:17:03] Yes.

[2:17:04] Commissioner Papito.

[2:17:05] Yes.

[2:17:05] Commissioner Walden.

[2:17:06] Yes.

[2:17:07] Chairman Alisco.

[2:17:08] Yes.

[2:17:08] Now why there's been so much confusion is because I've been giving these people cheat sheets ahead

[2:17:13] of time.

[2:17:13] I know the other resolution.

[2:17:14] Now they have to make them up themselves.

[2:17:16] So, bone up, kids.

[2:17:20] Okay.

[2:17:23] So at this point we're continuing in our agenda. We don't have any draft resolutions.

[2:17:30] Discussion topics. Does anyone have a discussion topic for this evening?

[2:17:34] Well, it should probably be mentioned. This is some meeting to be your first meeting as a new

[2:17:40] commissioner. Oh my goodness. The zoning code has been a massive project. So, you know,

[2:17:44] Commendations to you for jumping in.

[2:17:49] Any other discussion topics?

[2:17:51] Okay, then there's remarks for the good of the order.

[2:18:13] Anytime we get the emails,

[2:18:15] and if the person doesn't show up to talk,

[2:18:17] that document becomes part of the official record for the project

[2:18:22] and gets goes up to the board with everything else we do here.

[2:18:25] And also to remind everybody, regardless of what we say,

[2:18:28] we're a recommending body to the board.

[2:18:31] They decide whether they like something or not

[2:18:33] and say whether it should go to the planned commission, then it goes through a whole detailed process through the billage.

[2:18:38] Then it comes to us to hold the public hearings, they don't hold public hearings generally.

[2:18:43] They do allow the public to speak at their meetings, but the public hearings that become part of the official documentation for the project are done here.

[2:18:50] And then we do this resolution we've been talking about, and that resolution will be a recommendation, yes or no, or split depending on what the vote ends up being.

[2:18:59] And then the billage board makes the final decision.

[2:19:02] And just to mention, Chairman, let's go, if you do have more questions about the daylight

[2:19:06] plane or anything else, that can be brought up at the continued public hearing on August

[2:19:10] 19th.

[2:19:11] So there is definitely still time to ask additional questions that come up.

[2:19:14] And then I also said, since we continued the public hearing, it's like starting all over

[2:19:18] again.

[2:19:18] If you've got new information you'd like to bring up, that you've come across over the next

[2:19:23] month, you'll have another chance to talk at that meeting just like you did this evening.

[2:19:27] So, anything new that comes up, you know, that gets published, or you get deeper into the documentation.

[2:19:34] There is a lot of documentation to look at. You can then come before us and you'll have another three minutes.

[2:19:39] And again, that becomes part of the official record.

[2:19:42] Okay, last item on the agenda before we adjourn remarks for the good and order.

[2:19:46] Any happy news about the village that you would like to make a statement about anybody?

[2:19:50] anybody?

[2:19:57] I think that's good.

[2:20:00] I think that's a huge improvement, the downtown streetscape. I think everyone would read of that, definitely. Kudos for the board for really implementing that plan and getting it going.

[2:20:12] I would like to add a remarks for the good of the order to thank Jackie Berg for her work because she will not be joining us on August 19th, unfortunately. She has a prior engagement, so, but someone else from how still the being will be here to. Was this your last meeting?

[2:20:32] Oh, very nice. Well, thank you for all your service. It's been wonderful working with you throughout the entire process.

[2:20:37] You've been very flexible in addressing our needs and getting them taken care of in the documents.

[2:20:41] And I should say, okay, we're going to pass this document, but you know that within a day or two it's going to need to be revised.

[2:20:47] I mean, that's just the nature of this kind of a document. It's meant to be revised. It has to be because you can't set something in stone.

[2:20:55] And then say, that's it. We put enough effort into it and it's done. It's just not realistic.

[2:20:59] second. Well thank you again. Okay I will accept the motion to adjourn the meeting.

[2:21:04] I move to adjourn the meeting. Second. All in favor? Aye. Anyone against? Okay we're adjourned.

Plan Commission

Transcript