Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses petitioner on timeline for Amant Gardens open-air patio; holds first reading
Summary
Trustees questioned a petition to convert an approved enclosed glass patio at Amant Gardens into a temporary open-air patio, pressing the petitioner for a firm completion date and raising safety and construction concerns; item was taken as a first reading and trustees asked for clearer timelines.
The Village Board took up an ordinance on first reading to amend an approved planned-unit development at Amant Gardens so a proposed enclosed glass patio could, temporarily, be constructed as an open-air patio instead.
Staff said the original PUD approval included an 1,880-square-foot enclosed glass patio on the east side of the property. Petitioner Blake Caldwell said engineering delays have slowed fabrication of the glass enclosure and that the company plans to finish design work and move into construction in roughly a year: "I would anticipate maybe maybe a year to have everything completed and to get into construction," he told the board.
Trustees pressed the petitioner on multiple points: whether the masonry wall being proposed would later be partially demolished to accept the glass, whether the foundation had been poured with the enclosure in mind, and whether the open-air patio would be used for smoking or private pictures during events. Several trustees said they were not comfortable approving the open-air change without a firm end date for when the patio would be fully enclosed and warned that approving an open-air space that could later be argued as permanent was not the board's intent.
One trustee expressed suspicion that the change might be driven by a desire to eliminate the glass element for cost reasons; the petitioner denied that assertion. Trustees also raised concerns about the patio's proximity to Fireman's Park and said they wanted to avoid creating a space where people could be drinking or smoking immediately adjacent to park users and children.
Because staff presented the ordinance as a first reading and because trustees repeatedly requested a firm timeline and additional details about construction and how any future enclosure would be fastened to the foundations/piers, the board did not adopt the ordinance at final reading and directed the petitioner to work with staff and return with clarifications.
The board did not record a final vote on the ordinance at this meeting; trustees indicated they would prefer limits on temporary use if the petitioner returns with a shorter timeline.
