Lake County Gazette

Village of Lake Bluff Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals met October 18.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

1. Call to Order & Roll Call

Chair Kraus called to order the regular meeting of the Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals (PCZBA) of the Village of Lake Bluff on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Hall Board Room (40 E. Center Avenue).

The following members were present:

Members: Leslie Bishop

David Burns

Mary Collins

Elliot Miller

Gary Peters

Steven Kraus, Chair

Absent: Sam Badger

Also Present: Ben Schuster, Village Attorney

Glen Cole, Assistant to the Village Administrator (AVA)

John Scopelliti, Administrative Intern

2. Non-Agenda Items and Visitors (Public Comment Time)

Chair Kraus stated the PCZBA allocates 15 minutes during this item for those individuals who would like the opportunity to address the PCZBA on any matter not listed on the agenda. Each person addressing the PCZBA is asked to limit their comments to a maximum of three minutes.

Mr. George Russell (resident) said he was present tonight to respond to a letter sent by Member Collins which was received by the Residential Building Ad Hoc Committee on September 26th. Mr. Russell said he and his wife has been concerned about the two labeled “high priority” issues identified by the PCZBA, including (i) a proposal to include certain attic floor space in the floor area calculations and (ii) a proposal to exclude all ravine area from lot sizes when determining permitted floor area for all properties which include ravine. He stated the ravine area proposal has not been properly studied and noted the proposed changes would reduce the total permitted livable square footage on their property to less than 1,000 square feet. This action maybe legal for the PCZBA to do, but it would not be neighborly. Mr. Russell said it is important to understand the mathematics associated with changes to the zoning code as well as how the changes will affect people’s homes, as this is not flowery comprehensive plan language but rather the rule of law.

Mr. Russell read his letter dated October 17th and provided a copy for the records.

Mr. Russell said that no zoning code is perfect and changes to the attic rule may be completely appropriate, but to do so before you do the calculations is poor practice. He is concerned that what happened with the attic rule changes may also be done with the ravine rule changes. He hopes that the PCZBA will take the time to seek and review all the necessary data before proceeding with either of the proposed changes.

Member Collins said she went through an attic review with Staff for her home and attic space was counted for her. She said if Staff is willing to conduct an analysis and provide feedback, more information is great. Member Collins provided the history of the attic proposed ordinance (which was not adopted). Mr. Russell said he used the specific language that was in the last public ordinance presented. A discussion followed, including in reference to other community zoning codes.

3. Approval of the September 20, 2017 PCZBA Regular Meeting Minutes

Member Collins moved to approve the August 16, 2017 PCZBA Regular Meeting Minutes as amended. Member Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote.

Chair Kraus stated at the request of the petitioner the continued public hearing for 718 Sheridan Road (Agenda Item #6), will be deferred to the November 15th PCZBA meeting

4. Chair Kraus Administered the Oath to Those Participating in the Public Hearings.

Chair Kraus administered the oath to those individuals present to testify.

5. Continued Public Hearing for 1 Sherwood Terrace and 915 Sherwood Drive

Chair Kraus introduced the item and requested an updated from Staff.

AVA Cole stated that, during the initial public hearing in September, the PCZBA expressed concern with the applicant’s proposal, including an excessive number of display pads; inadequate screening; and continued illegal parking. The original plan was for eight display pads on Route 41, four pads on Sherwood Drive, and to add the property on 915 Sherwood Drive to the dealership with an interconnecting driveway.

Since that time, a few procedural items occurred. A second legal notice was published specifying that variation relief would be provided; that the relief would be in the form of an amendment to the Special Use Permit (SUP) held by Semersky Enterprises; and it would list them as an applicant.

The applicant revised their plans in response to the PCZBA’s concerns and now proposes seven display pads on Route 41 and none on Sherwood Drive. The applicant provided renderings showing the display pads. AVA Cole reviewed the actions the PCZBA could take. AVA Cole stated that Staff recommends that the PCZBA consider requiring that the site be operated as a single dealership as a condition of relief.

Mr. Alan Garfield an attorney with Garfield & Merel, Ltd. in Chicago, IL, said he needs to know what the PCZBA’s real issues are regarding the request. The plans were revised to change the 915 Sherwood Terrace taking the display pads off and leaving the tree near Sherwood. He thought it would be helpful to show an overhead image and said he wants to illustrate how the parking was when they were parking in the grass. Mr. Garfield said that the dealership did not expect to receive so many vehicles at once but the dealership was still wrong for parking the vehicles on the grass. The parking issue has since been corrected and there will never again be vehicles parked on the grass. Should the relief be approved they have no problem with this being a condition. He used a aerial image to illustrate the existing parking configuration as well as the proposed location for the display pads. There would be one car per pad in between the trees.

Mr. Garfield said once the inventory problem became apparent the dealership realized something had to be done. They have since rented space at 5 North Skokie Blvd and also have 8 acres of vacant space at 0 Skokie Highway in Lake Bluff. It is their intention to come before the PCZBA in the spring with a request to use that area for additional storage space. The dealership has increased sales by 430% without increasing sales area or adding additional space. The building at 915 Sherwood Drive will be used for personal automobile storage; there will be no sales, office work, or traffic generated from the site. The parking lot will be used exclusively to serve Chevrolet Exchange and to facilitate some delivery to the storage area. He believe the revision addresses the questions raised at the last public hearing and he discussed the release agreement with the neighbor to the north. He stated Semersky Enterprises also owns the Porsche and Audi Exchanges and are not used to a volume dealership like the Chevrolet Exchange. The dealership would like to remain in the Village, and he believes this expansion is good for Lake Bluff’s economy as well as the dealership’s operations. The plan is to maintain sales from the Chevrolet Exchange without enlarging the facility.

Chair Kraus opened the floor to questions.

Member Bishop said when she toured the dealership she noticed that at 915 Sherwood Drive, where there is a long driveway, there are cars and trucks parked on the grass. The area is still being used as a grassy parking lot although the vehicles could be put on the tarmac. She said when she drove by on Route 41, what used to look like the customer parking lot in front of the sales building is now completely filled with trucks. She asked if it is their plan to get rid of the trucks. Mr. Garfield said that the dealership wants to make sure it has as much customer parking as possible and they are still looking at their options to do so.

Member Bishop said it does not seem like a good idea to have the trucks backup and then put five display pads with cars on each one in that space. She would feel better if the plan is to revert the area back into a customer parking lot. Mr. Garfield said the display pads with cars will hide the trucks in question. He said it is important for Chevrolet Exchange to have as many cars onsite as possible and have adequate customer parking. It is their belief that the more trucks being seen will generate more business but he cannot say for sure if the trucks will be relocated.

Member Bishop asked where do the customers park. Mr. Robert Guarnaccio of Scout Development, a representative of Semersky Enterprises, said the customer parking is available in the front and along the side. He said mainly based on the overload of surplus cars and trucks the area is tight but he is unsure if they will be able to open up the space. The issue must be discussed with the General Manager.

Mr. Garfield said some of this is dependent upon incoming inventory. He noted there will be more storage onsite once the 8 acres are developed and approved for parking and this will address some of the parking problems. He said the point is well taken because no one wants vehicles parked so tightly you cannot open the vehicle door to show potential customers. Mr. Garfield responded to the comment regarding parking the vehicles on the grass and noted this was not supposed to happen because there is a company directive that no cars are supposed to be parked on the grass. A discussion followed.

Member Burns asked if there was anything in particular in the SUP that specifics how many customer parking spaces should be available. He asked if the SUP allocates a specific number of customer parking spaces. AVA Cole said he has to review the code but as he can recall the ratio is based around square footage per parking space, it does not specify categories of customer, employees or storage parking spaces that must be provided.

Member Burns asked if there were any screening requirements for this particular zone.

Member Collins said there is quite bit of information missing from the revised renderings. The revised plans remove one of the display pads but do not show cars in the lot behind them. The display pads will look like additional parking that extends outward from the parking lot. She said only the far two northern display pads show a retention wall and the five to the south are level to the ground. These are not raised display pads with landscaping like the ones at the Knauz Automobile site.

Mr. Garfield said Knauz has much more space and are able to have spaced out raised display pads. The Chevrolet Exchange does not have that luxury and their goal is to place the display pads next to the trees so they are visible from Route 41.

Member Collins said more pads would not have the impact that fewer more separated display pads could have. If the idea is to create some kind of image along Route 41 it would be better to have fewer display pads. Member Collins stated as indicated in Staff’s memorandum “It is not within the jurisdiction of the PCZBA to adjudicate neighbor dispute or potential violations of the Village Code” but that the PCZBA must apply the zoning standards when granting variations. She expressed her opinion the applicant removed the hardship used to grant the prior variations by taking away the existing screening and created a lot of visibility and asked if there was a date for new screening materials that might restore that hardship.

Mr. Garfield said those were not trees but buckthorn bushes located on the property line. They were only screening one parking lot from the other. The adjacent parking is a multi-use building and the buckthorn bushes were not screening any properties.

Member Collins inquired of the pine trees north of the property that were trimmed for more visibility. Mr. Garfield said there were mistakes made and they paid a substantial amount to the adjacent owner to rescreen the area along his property. The adjacent neighbor gave them a full release of any and all claims of any nature and Mr. Garfield believes his actions could be seen as a breach of the contract.

Member Collins reiterated that given that these display pads are adjacent to a parking lot she thinks there should be fewer pads and raised to reflect a display pad and not paving. Mr. Garfield said there is not much room to put in vegetation because we want to keep the existing trees. The displays pad will not be lighted but set further back to use the lighting in the parking area.

In response to a question from Member Miller regarding the 8 acre parcel proposed for additional parking, Village Attorney Schuster said if the property is outside of the Village boundaries the zoning code does not apply, but if it is within, and in the same zoning district as the dealership it is not a permitted or special use and can only be used as a parking lot. If the property is located within the L-1 District it would require a text amendment to permit it to be used as a parking lot. A discussion followed.

Member Miller expressed his understanding that excessive cars will be moved to the proposed 8 acre storage area and the building located at 915 Sherwood Drive will be for partial use but not storage in the building. Mr. Garfield said there will be personal automobile storage but nothing relating to the dealership.

Member Miller expressed his agreement with Member Collins regarding the raised platforms to distinguish them from the grass and also maybe the parking lot in front of the dealership. He thinks height is an issue but he does not have a problem with putting in some low intensity LED lighting there should they want to enhance the image at night. Member Miller expressed his concern with drainage because that area has a tendency to flood onto IL 176 and asked how the proposed modifications would impact impervious surface and drainage.

AVA Cole said from a zoning perspective there are no impervious surface standards for the L-1 District. During the building permit process, they would be required to show either they were exempt from the Village’s watershed management ordinance or if not exempt, that there would be no net increase in stormwater shed from the site as a result of the modifications.

Member Miller said he does not have a big problem with this because it is off the highway and will not affect anyone but the dealership.

Member Peters said when he looks at the standards for a special use permit, he is concerned about the applicant’s satisfaction of subparagraph 10-4-2 B (No interference with surrounding development) and asked how they would meet that standard. Mr. Garfield said they will not be affecting any surrounding development in any shape or form and in his opinion they will be improving the area. The 915 Sherwood Drive building could serve other purposes but their proposed use will not generate any traffic, the parking lot will used and they will make sure the drainage goes underneath the small asphalt area to prevent any blockage. Their position is that they will be causing less impact on the area than it would if the 915 building was fully leased. He said there will be no impact on the building located north of the property.

AVA Cole responded to Member Burns question stating the code does not have specific requirements for visitor or executive parking but it does allows under certain circumstances for those spaces to be identified and approved by the Architectural Board of Review (ABR). In regards to the screening, the regulations state that all side yard area parking shall be screened from the street and addition sufficient screening shall be provided along the access lanes. The front yard executive parking shall be screened in a park like atmosphere when located on state highways. The code states that the ABR is empowered to review parking situations – essentially the number of parking spaces, illumination, substitution and screening. However, the ABR cannot reduce the number of onsite parking spaces or waive certain of the listed requirements. AVA Cole said that before the Village Board considers the matter, the applicant must go through the ABR process with their adjusted plans.

Chair Kraus expressed his understanding there will be no lighting, one vehicle per display pad and no concerns with the requirement that the two properties be consider one dealership no plans to split the property in the future. Given this is the second time that the PCZBA has observed parking on the grass, he would it like the SUP conditioned that no parking is allowed on the grass because he thinks this is for the integrity of the Industrial Park. There was no concern expressed regarding the connection between the two properties which is consistent with the previous discussions.

Chair Kraus said he does not a problem with the number of proposed display pads and the reason why, because if this is accurate and there are four trees on the lot, to preserve the existing trees a display pad could be placed in between the existing trees. He said he would like to see the five proposed display pad located in front of the property raised. Mr. Guarnaccio stated the elevation of the current parking lot and display pads were roughly flat on their initial plan. The 18” inches which he is referring to is the 18” about the existing asphalt and some of the rendering show an elevation drop so it may appear to be larger on one side. The elevation from the existing parking lot, it will be approximately 2” inches high.

Chair Kraus said the display pads will be consistently 18” inches higher than the parking surface. Mr. Guarnaccio said at the elevation and if you look at the display pads to the north their extremely close to the property line so they maybe a little higher at that particular elevation because of the drains. But as far as the elevation from the existing asphalt it will be approximately 18” inches. A discussion followed.

Chair Kraus opened the floor for public comments.

Mr. Tim Wagener provided the PCZBA with a handout and said that his property is a multi-tenant building with 24 units located directly north of the Chevrolet Exchange (37 Sherwood Terrace). He said he does not have a problem with the proposed seven display pads on Route 41. He advised that the neighbor dispute was resolved during the court proceedings so there is no dispute. The matter was bought to the PCZBA’s attention because he feels the Chevrolet Exchange is not following the spirit of the current SUP. The information he presented summarized his concerns with the setback requirements, parking violations, impervious surface, screening, undue traffic congestions and existing connecting driveway. He asked the PCZBA to require a comprehensive landscape plan that will address buffering the dealership from the surrounding properties, no loading/unloading on Sherwood Drive/Sherwood Terrace, no parking on the grass or blocking of public access roadways, no paving any more of the 915 Sherwood Drive property and in closing he believes the dealership should have to follow the same zoning standards that are imposed on other dealerships in Lake Bluff such as Knauz and Imperial Motors.

Member Collins said if 915 Sherwood Drive gets incorporated into the SUP there needs to be a final plan presented to the PCZBA. Chair Kraus said we are not combining the two parcels, there being considered separately. The PCZBA is proposing to incorporate in the SUP an acknowledgement that their being operated by the same entity and that they not operate as two separate dealerships. A discussion regarding the SUP restrictions for 915 Sherwood Drive followed. There were concerns expressed about variations granted for 1 Sherwood Terrace can’t be extended to 915 Sherwood Drive.

Member Miller asked if there was a limit on the amount of cars that can be parked in a certain area. Village Attorney Schuster said the fire regulations would prevent them from stacking cars because it requires a proper fire lane on the property.

Member Miller asked if we should put in that car carriers should not be unloading vehicles on a main public road and he thinks consideration should be given to screening between the two properties. Village Attorney Schuster said that is within the PCZBA purview; if it desires, there could be a condition regarding where the car carries can unload. Mr. Garfield said the car carriers are only on the public roads for a limited amount of time to unload vehicles, that this is not a high volume area, and that they are not obstructing traffic. He said they have no problem with a requirement to not parking on the grass or with adding the fire lane but they oppose any condition regarding screening. He stated if screening was important, the neighbor to the north received a substantial amount of funds that could be used to rescreen his property. He also said that they do not have room for screening on that small area of property which has a drainage easement with utilities underneath.

Chair Kraus said that, regarding unloading car carriers, he has seen them on Route 41 to the south in a variety of dealerships and he does not want to see that happen here. He asked if it would be acceptable to prohibit loading/unloading cars during morning and evening rush hour traffic. Mr. Garfield said the car carriers are independent truckers and the dealership has no control over their schedule.

Member Bishop said it seems that our goal as a Village is to protect the business and allow it to thrive. The biggest problems appears to be the number of vehicles on the property and he asked if they could find an adequate storage solution. Mr. Garfield said the vehicles are located in the designated areas and rotated in an orderly fashion for customer viewing and he cannot say that they can or will limit the amount of cars on the property.

Mr. Wagener stated car carriers are an eyesore and commented on how the Chevrolet Exchange could address the issue.

Member Peters said it seems we should be able to talk about prohibiting car carriers on Sherwood Terrace and then, if the ABR is going to review the matter, than they can review appropriate landscaping recommendations. He said the raised display pads should probably be buffered by some landscaping. If the ABR reviews the concept in comparison to the surrounding dealership than maybe the entire neighborhood could be upgraded.

Member Collins said a solution regarding the car carriers must be considered. She said it would be helpful to get the tree locations on the site plan and she thinks there are too many display pads.

As there was confusion regarding structure of the SUP, Chair Kraus recommended continuing the public hearing to the November 15th PCZBA Meeting. He also made suggestions as to additional items the applicant should bring or address by the next iteration of the hearing.

AVA Cole summarized the PCZBA’s desire for:

• Revised display pad plans that show the true height of the pads

• ABR review / recommendation regarding the display pads

• A landscape plan

• A parking plan that quantifies parking capacity and shows clearance for emergency access

• A verbal report on the Exchange’s plans for their outparcels

• A plan / solution / etc. for car deliveries and drop-offs

• Cleanup of the petitions and all the revised documents be provided the packet.

Member Bishop made a motion to continue the public hearing to the November 15th PCZBA meeting. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.

6. Continued Public Hearing for 718 Sheridan Road

At the request of the applicant, Member Bishop made a motion to continue the public hearing to the November 15th PCZBA Meeting. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.

7. 15 E. Washington/Multifamily Zoning Workshop with Brad Andersen and Edward Deegan

Chair Kraus introduced the agenda item noting this is a continued conceptual workshop discussion with the applicant.

Mr. Brad Andersen said the plan is to present an ideas for revision of the plan and the objective is to get a straw poll to get a sense of the PCZBA before proceeding with further investment in developing an application for the PCZBA. Mr. Andersen thanked the PCZBA for their time and previous comments regarding the conceptual plan. The feedback has helped them put together a new plan that they think meets all of the objectives expressed and something that will create a great product for the R-5 District.

Mr. Andersen said the revised plan addresses on-site parking, the intensity of the use, the turning radius for entrance into the garage stalls, guest parking, outdoor living areas and drainage concerns from the lot onto the street. The drainage on the lot is of particular concern because it has caused degradation of the existing lot. The previous conceptual plan included three dwelling units, the front and back unit both two stories and a center unit over the garage space. In addressing some of the concerns they decided to eliminate the center unit and turn it into a two unit building, this should eliminate some of the concerns about the intensity of use, requirements for onsite parking as they exist to date, The site plan was adjusted to move the building much closer to the east property line. It was originally designed to be consistent with the existing R-5 zoning setbacks requirements of 10 ft. but that would not allow for adequate ingress/egress out of the garage or a suitable turning radius. By moving the building to the east it would accomplish a couple of critical goals for the project. In addition to the turning radius it allowed green space on the west property line and within the green space to the west of the driveway they can create a swale that will drain the lot. He noticed that the building and elevation on the property to the west is much higher than the existing structure. Mr. Andersen said that they learned at a meeting with Staff prior to returning because the drainage on the lot was a particular concern to Staff and they recommended that we create a swale to address the drainage issue.

Mr. Andersen said the proposed two units will allow them to park one car for each unit inside the structure and covered garage space, there is also parking at the south end of the driveway for an additional car if needed. The back and front unit cars could be parked within the 20 ft. setback within the property and not on the public right of way. The plan allows for screening that will block most of the visual impact of the guest parking space if required in the front. They think that the onsite guest parking space is most preferable than on street parking. As you recall from the previous meeting that with the use of intensity from the adjacent units and parking for those units, all of those cars were currently parking in the public right of way not on private parking.

Mr. Andersen said they have addressed most if not all the concerns and have created a plan that meet the objectives expressed at the meeting and long term Village Strategic Plan objectives for an alternative type of housing that is currently not available in the community.

Chair Kraus said he is intrigued with their plan to shift the entire structure to the east. He commented on a photo of the structure looking from the north to the south along the west property line and asked how far the west end of the existing structure is from the property line. Mr. Andersen said he believes it is approximately 12 ft.

Mr. Edward Deegan explained the revisions to the conceptual plan, noting the biggest change is they downsized the structure. They removed the third unit that was over the three car garage and scaled the roof structure in the center section to decrease the mass along the west-to-east line. He showed a street view from Washington noting the major changes is the driveway along the west side, two mirrored open porches for each unit, and upfront onsite parking. He showed a picture looking from the street along the east side and noting the bump area is for the garage which will create a lower roof structure for the two units and minimize the mass of the overall structure. He showed a picture on the property looking north noting the entrance to the rear unit. Mr. Deegan reviewed the conceptual site plan noting the setback lines.

Member Collins inquired of the depth of the garage. Mr. Deegan said the depth is approximately 21 ft.

Member Collins said the depth of the garage is what is creating the 2.5 ft. setback from the site property line. Mr. Deegan explained the causes driving the shallow setback behind the garage.

Member Burns said the 2.5 ft. setback is hard to stomach but he knows that not too many people use their garage. The occupants of the two bedroom units are likely to have at least one vehicle parked in the stall and will use the remainder of the garage for storage. He would be interested to know if they are flexible in moving the garage back.

Member Collins said the building code requirements states that the garage must be fire resistant construction because it is less than 5 ft. from the property line. Mr. Deegan said there are ways to achieve that without using concrete construction materials. A discussion ensued.

Chair Kraus said this is what we need in the Village. This kind of non-single family housing that attracts different people to the Village. From a conceptual perspective he thinks it is what is needed and could be used as a model for developing multi-family housing in the R-5 district. He thinks reducing the number of units from three to two is a wise idea due to the parking concerns. He also has concern regarding the 2.5 ft. separation from the adjacent lot but it sounds like the plans can be adjusted in a different way. Chair Kraus said in general he likes the concept and would like to see more of this happening in the Village.

In response to a comment from Member Collins, Chair Kraus said he is not thrilled about the front parking space but the adjacent parking is in the front and not screened. He also assumed it would be a pervious surface and not just a concrete pad. He is not crazy about it, but in terms of the kind of house being developed, he would not say no for that reason. The alternative would be not to have the front parking space and have the guest park at the train station lot or on the street.

Mr. Andersen said the front parking space is much more preferable then parking at the train station.

Member Bishop said she was disappointed to see that the master bedrooms were on the second floor, because new Lake Bluff housing should have a master bedroom on the main floor. Mr. Deegan said on this particular size lot with the limitations that are here that would be very challenging.

Member Collins expressed her concern it is a long, narrow and very deep structure and she was hoping that they might come back with maybe a ground floor unit, a second floor unit, maybe an elevator to the second floor and closer to the street. The structures that have good massing in the R-5 District tend to have parking at the back and a smaller footprint. Mr. Andersen said if there was a single-family home developed here it would like have a detached garage approximately 5 ft. from the rear property line and the proposed concept has the rear of the structure 18 ft. distant from the lot line.

Member Collins said she really does not like the front parking because it is unsightly and this is not the direction we want to go in this area.

Member Bishop said she previously expressed her preference for flats for this community. Mr. Andersen said that type of housing will not work for this lot and his goal is to sale a two-unit building or allow the property to be sold as is for redevelopment.

Member Peters said he was pleased that the team reduced the bulk with the reduction on the second floor and he is not troubled by the 2.5 ft. proposed setback. The fact that there will be screening around the front alleviates some of his displeasure with the parking. Conceptually, he is pleased with the proposal, and he noted the impervious surface area is almost within code which is significant from the neighbors’ perspective.

Member Burns said he is okay with the conceptual plan except for the 2.5 ft. proposed setback and he would prefer it be 5 ft.

Chair Kraus said we need housing stock with the master bedroom on the first floor but he does not have a problem with the master bedroom on the second floor. In terms of front parking, he is not thrilled about it, but he does not know where else to put the parking. Mr. Andersen said he understands the parking concern but he believes any single-family house on the east side of Lake Bluff has a driveway as well as parking in front of the home.

Member Miller said should the project move forward what part would require a variance. AVA Cole explained how the development could be built using a Planned Residential Development, variances such as a side yard, a text amendment to the Planned Mixed-Use Development plan tool and grant deviations, or change the R-5 Zoning Regulations and as-of-right development potential.

Member Miller asked if the PCZBA feels that something that bulky for this lot would be a problem.

Member Burns said he is okay with it but what he has a problem with is the committee is currently in the middle of reviewing the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and if we approve something that theoretically cascades to other properties there could be a conflict. We are getting ahead of ourselves on deciding how we want to use the R-5 District which is pertinent to the discussions. If this is allowed with a variance he is not sure if it would be appropriate to the standards, and if done by other means he is afraid it will be a snowball. Member Burns said he likes the idea but wants to make such it is executed in the right manner.

Member Peters said the presence of the apartment building to the west sways him to favor this proposal because you have a transition from a rather large structure to a smaller structure yet larger than a single family home.

Member Collins said she is not bothered by increasing the bulk as long as it is done in the manner of a residential home’s architectural language. She expressed her understanding there was a single family home to the south of the property and she is concerned about the depth. She believes the bulk should be further north, the 5 ft. setback honored, and no parking provided in the front.

In response to a comment from Mr. Andersen regarding parking, Member Collins said a parking lot in the rear is not her first choice but she thinks it would be better for the neighboring properties for bulk.

Mr. Deegan said the conceptual plan does conform to the single family residential rear yard setback.

Member Bishop said she does not have a problem with the 2.5 ft. setback or the bulk, and she thinks the way it is design it looks like a single family home. She would like the front parking space changed and she has a problem with no master bedroom on the first floor of the home.

Member Miller said this conceptual plan is better than the previous one. He would like to see pervious surface for the outside, not impervious, because that would be beneficial for the drainage. He is okay with the revised plan.

Chair Kraus said the commission does not appear to be concerned with the massing of the structure, the rear setback, or by providing a two unit structure. The commission expressed concern regarding the 2.5 ft setback, front parking space and no first floor master bedroom.

Chair Kraus reiterated the methods by which the structure could be built and asked if we could consider using the Block Three-style mechanism for this lot only, until we have determined how to facilitate this type of housing moving forward. A discussion followed.

Mr. Andersen said he appreciate the comments and just so he understands that, because of the degree of the variance required, the PCZBA will only be making recommendation and the Village Board will have final authority.

Mr. Mark Stolzenburg (resident) said he lives adjacent to the south of the property. He said this is an improvement compared to what is currently on Washington and to channel the design for single family homes is a good direction to go. He thanked them for keeping the structure away from his property line and that the concerns about the drainage were taken into account. He expressed his preference not to have front parking. Currently North Avenue has a lot of single family homes with multi-unit buildings on the north. On the south side of Woodland Avenue you have mostly single family homes with a few multi-unit buildings. He hope they do not take a one size fits all approach to examining each potential future development instead of looking at them on a case by case basis. He said he is not as concerned because the structure will be behind his home, but he would be concerned if it was next to him. He said this is a good exercise when looking at the R-5 District and asked that they be cognizant as we move forward regarding the unique mix of houses in the area. Mr. Stolzenburg said the proposed design aesthetics are a good direction to go in and is an improvement for the current area.

Village Attorney Schuster said there are two ways to extend the planned mixed use development tool. One is amending the planned mixed use development chapter to provide a mechanism that will fit this type of project, or the PCZBA could recommend a similar/identical chapter that would a planned multi-family development that would be procedural similar but recognizing the standards may be slightly different for a multi residential building.

Member Miller said it would make sense to have a separate category to simplify the process moving forward.

Mr. Stolzenburg given what we know about developments coming online in adjacent communities, he asked if it would be advisable to do this on a one-time basis to see how the market checks out before potentially flooding the market with new development. He understands there may be some perceived need for higher density developments in Lake Bluff but there are a lot of neighboring communities with that type of product being built. He asked if we are putting the cart before the horse by opening the flood gates right now to a significant amount of development before we see how market conditions check out and potentially have adverse effects on the housing market in Lake Bluff.

Chair Kraus said that is an interesting consideration and could be a sixth potential approach, to apply a higher level planning concept only to this particular structure to see how it works before we unleash it.

Member Collins said we must be cognizant that this represents significant up-zoning. This is a 50% increase in FAR, so it is a much more valuable structure than a single family home. She expressed her concern for how this would impact the existing homes and asked if a broad brush should be used or if the PCZBA should try to be more specific about where it would or would not apply. She does not want it to have a negative impact on the existing single family homes.

Chair Kraus said that creating a tool and determining how to apply it lot by lot might in the short term may be a way to facilitate activity in the marketplace but to also control for unintended consequences. Currently, R-5 Zoning contains quite a mix of existing housing stock and we do not want a nice single family home that happens to be in R-5 District to turn into something that we did not anticipate because we used a particular tool for this purpose.

Mr. Andersen said it would be a great idea to do a one-off approach before the R-5 District objectives are formalized for this particular lot. He said moving forward for development in the future there needs to be a clear path and clarity in the development process.

8. Concept RIO (Institutional) Zoning Workshop with Ron Salski, Lake Bluff Park District

Chair Kraus introduced the agenda item and requested an update from Staff.

AVA Cole said RIO Institutional zoning was discussed in August and there were a few things hashed out regarding how the district should work. The PCZBA wanted to sit down with some of the community partners that would be subject to the RIO zoning district. After consultation with Lake Bluff Park District Executive Director Ron Salski he requested to appear before the PCZBA and discuss the interactions among the Park District’s internal planning processes and those contemplated by the new RIO district.

Chair Kraus said that the PCZBA understands that when our institutional partners make plans, those plans go through an intensive planning process. Because the underlying zoning is residential, and all changes to use and structure on a particular piece of property need variances. This adds unnecessary complexity to the project. One of the reasons why we are talking about the RIO concept is to make the rather routine changes in use and structure easier for our institutional partners and not require their appearance before the PCZBA. If RIO zoning is put into the place there would be no changes to existing use and the only that would trigger a development site plan review is due to one of the quantifiable proposed criteria. The idea here is that minor changes would be fine, but major changes in use or the major reconfiguration of the structure would go through a second set of eyes.

Mr. Salski thanked the PCZBA and Village Staff for considering the RIO zoning classification and presenting it to the other agencies. The Park District have considered the RIO concept for a while and created a Property and Public Land Use Community Advisory Committee consisting of the Village, School District #65, Lake Bluff Open Lands Association and residents and they highly recommended going to this format. He is not looking to completely avoid this process because most of his colleagues go through a similar process. He thinks this would add a lot of flexibility if done thoughtfully.

Mr. Salski said what is unique in Lake Bluff compared to his peer agencies is that the Park District goes through a lengthy community process for significant community improvements to key parks and facilities, playground, pool, golf, paddle and recreation center. The extensive process involved resident planning, Park District Board approval, Village Staff and Village advisory boards; unfortunately, the process delays projects by four to six months. He said they are trying to figure out how there could be a more collaborative process.

Mr. Salski said that the Park District is supportive of the RIO classification and is seeking guidance on how to be inclusive in their process, although he still has some concerns regarding variations. There is an opportunity to discuss a few examples where the Park District has finalized and/or will be finalizing its future Master Plans for specific site improvements. For example, the Beach Master Plan which the Park District Board approved in 2014; however, the Park District has not received formal approval for these plans from the various Village advisory boards.

Chair Kraus said his vision of how this would work if there is an agreed upon plan that has a playground of certain square footage and for soil and/or access purposes you do not change the site but move it someplace else you should not have to come to the PCZBA. He said what we are more concerned about it’s the same use and same size. Using the beach concept as an example, he said it would be nice to be able to have a formal master plan. This would become the plan and in the context of this plan, the owner of the property could do what wish as long it is within the spirit of the master plan. A discussion followed.

In response to a comment from Mr. Salski, Chair Kraus asked if we can design RIO to allow them to make some changes without having to come back to the PCZBA.

Member Burns asked if the changes the Park District makes tend to be unique or the same type of reoccurring changes. He said it would be helpful to him if the Park District provided a list of the common types of changes because he does not know enough about the changes to know if this would be beneficial. Mr. Salski said there are some one-offs and some reoccurring changes and it will take some time to review this matter.

Member Miller asked if it would be wise when there is a master plan, before you go ahead and approve it, can it come before the committee as a whole.

Chair Kraus said he thinks it is a great idea and it could be done prior to the formal adoption by the Park District Board but during the planning process of the institution so we could have input. That would produce the master plan from which any variance change the ordinance would apply.

Mr. Salski said that is a good collaborative approach which they used previously during the Artesian Park improvements.

Chair Kraus said right now, as proposed, there would be specific parts of the Village designated as Institutional Zoning. Should there be a change in use would it trigger a development site plan review; and if it does not, it would not have to come before the PCZBA. He gave some examples of the type of projects that the PCZBA would like to review.

Mr. Salski responded to a comment from Member Burns and used Artesian Park lighting as an example. He said he is a believer in master planning a site so that the community understands it and feel they are a part of the project. He does not anticipate any major projects in the future but he would like to start bringing some master plans forward so we can get them approved together.

Chair Kraus said, should this happen, the analysis would be easier because we would not be comparing the change to an artificially created property.

Member Peters said he does not want to do anything that inadvertently undermines or impact the residential community in close proximity of the park facilities. A discussion followed.

Member Collins said she would like for the trigger to initially be very sensitive and she feel like anything consequential needs to come to the PCZBA.

Village Attorney Schuster said that, as the PCZBA is thinking about the site/master plan review, a question initially would be how much detail you want in the review. Part of this process would be recognizing there might be changes as a development is completed. When they do come before you with the master plan? You may not want a conceptual plan, but you may want to make sure the plan is detailed enough so you would have something to measure against. Also, the PCZBA would be able to review a master plan and make site appropriate guidelines to trigger a review. A discussion followed.

AVA Cole provided various examples that the PCZBA may or may not want to trigger a review process.

Member Collins said she thinks it is not so much a change to the master plan that needs to come before the PCZBA as it is the refinement of the actual idea. She said when a master plan is approved you may want to think about what elements of the plan should come before the PCZBA. Mr. Salski said that would be similar to the same process which is being done to date and he expressed his understanding that the intent was to establish a higher level classification so that projects that conform do not have to come to the PCZBA.

Member Collins said she thought we were solving the problem that you would not come to us for a special use, but that the development of the master plan is the focus of the review. A discussion followed on the type of changes that would require a review, using the Sunrise Park and Beach Waterfront concept plan as an example.

Mr. Salski recommended that the Artesian Park concept plan be used to establish what may trigger a review.

Chair Kraus said the RIO would not be official until discussions have been made with the other institutions and a recommendation submitted to the Village Board.

Following its discussion it was the consensus of the PCZBA to have a draft ordinance submitted for review and have Staff to engage with the other entities about the concept for RIO Zoning.

9. Staff Report

AVA Cole had no report.

10. Commissioner’s Report

Chair Kraus reported on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Workshop meeting and asked Staff to provide information on the housing, transportation and annexation segments for discussion.

11. Adjournment

As there was no further business to come before the PCZBA, Member Burns moved to adjourn the meeting. Member Bishop seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:31 p.m.

https://www.lakebluff.org/government/agendas-and-minutes?format=raw&task=download&fid=1585