Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Nov. 6.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

I. CALL TO ORDER

At 7:30 PM Chair Hecht called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Glazer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Leaf, Reinstein

Members Absent: Pearlstein, Waxman

Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Cross, Fontane, Jackson

Student Rep.: Cortes

Council Liaison: Passman, Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 16, 2018

Chair Hecht entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 16, 2018

meeting. Commissioner Leaf so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Chair Hecht voted present.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

A. Design Review

Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including aerial view, photos of fountain in courtyard, issues with the fountain, proposed improvements, rendering of new design and recommendation.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if Sasaki originally designed the fountain Planner Cross stated they did and it was part of the Sasaki plan.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the fountain structure itself was reflective of a Sasaki design in the early 1980s.

Planner Cross stated yes and Highland Park just did a new streetscape design to replace that. It had a dated appearance and a new streetscape design was adopted.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the new design was consistent with the design from the 1980s.

Planner Cross stated he would refer this to the design team. It would be important to see if some of the Sasaki design elements are being carried through here.

Mr. Rick Strusiner, 1424 Waverly Rd., Highland Park, IL, Applicant, relayed some history about Port Clinton, noting 17 developers submitted plans and they were the only one who submitted a total retail and public plaza, plaza belongs to the people of Highland Park, he was the architect for Port Clinton, worked directly with Sasaki in integrated the building with the landscape, created plaza, seating area under trees and fountain. Construction of fountain was not adequate, has been turned off for 25 years, retail has changed, criticisms are that fountain has become tremendous barrier to visibility, removing fountain and trying to keep some of the pieces, getting rid of barrier, will help in opening up using of the plaza, fountain has been a nuisance, they plant every year, rededication of plaza, proposed stairs and urn plan, freshening up of plaza, next look for project, in favor of cascading stairs, which he apologized for presenting at the meeting, noting City Staff had not seen the revised plans before this meeting.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked if there were any alternate plans.

Mr. Strusiner stated they are just lowering and getting rid of the wall and cascading the stairs down. He stated he would like to do the cascading stairs even though this was not submitted.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they had been taken into account the streetscape plan this abuts. He mentioned carrying of the detail of the curb around the trees and is this in the streetscape plan.

Planner Cross stated the newly adopted streetscape plan does not contemplate the Port Clinton courtyard.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated this a detail throughout the downtown and if they remove it will look out of place. He asked if all the tree rings were on Port Clinton property.

Mr. Strusiner stated they are on City property.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he was uncomfortable losing the urns and the curly elements which look very nice. He was trying to understand the value of having the fountain in the first place to help separate the plaza from the street.

Mr. Strusiner stated it has become a visual and personal barrier.

Commissioner Glazer asked if consideration was given to modernizing the fountain going back to the original design with 21st century technology.

Mr. Strusiner stated there was no consideration given and there was no budget. He thought the fountain was a barrier. Above the parking lot he would like water spraying out of the ground and kids can run through it. There is a 250 car garage below that was leaking from the fountain.

Chair Hecht stated the City owns this and asked who was the applicant.

Planner Cross stated the applicant is Port Clinton with the support of the property owners.

Chair Hecht stated it sounds like the preferred plan is not what was submitted. He did not think they could vote on that and did not want to waste time on an approval the property owner does not want.

Planner Cross stated this could be continued to a future meeting. The revised plans can be sent around for reviews. Public Works comments were related to the leakage and drainage. This is a significant departure from the proposed plans.

Mr. Strusiner stated he had no problem with another meeting and in the interim they can resubmit the drawings showing the cascading stair without the urns and contact the planners regarding the streetscape. They want to take time to do it right.

Director Fontane stated they agree with this approach.

Mr. Strusiner stated they would like to do it in the spring maybe for the 150th anniversary.

Planner Cross stated the next meeting would be December 4, 2018. Mr. Strusiner stated this was acceptable.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated in the packet there were photos of the existing conditions and wanted to see both sides of the existing conditions.

Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue to the December 4, 2018 meeting. Commissioner Reinstein so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Glazer. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

2. 1700 Green Bay Rd. - Razny Jewelers Sign Package Amendment

Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including subject property and application, project summary and background, proposed signs, NE entrance, north entrance, existing and proposed size, SE elevation, west elevation, additional wall sign requests and sign package standards.

Commissioner Glazer mentioned the two examples with signage above the window and if this would be a first for Highland Park.

Planner Jackson stated the Shops of Elm Place have the logo above the arched window and below they have several tenant signs.

Commissioner Glazer asked about the planning rationale for the language in the code that regulates signage to below the window.

Planner Jackson stated she did not know.

Planner Cross stated up until 2002 there was no sign code and every sign went to the DRC. There was a decision to adopt a sign code that would establish a bare minimum set of sign standards. If any business or property owner wanted to seek relief from that they could go to the DRC. The standards in the code are restrictive and among them are the limit signs to that height to the bottom of second story window. The intent of the regulation was avoid visual clutter above the sight line.

Director Fontane stated it was to avoid a billboard effect.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked if the size of the letters was up for consideration.

Planner Jackson stated because it was an additional sign they regulate a single sign and have a maximum sign area for a single sign. It is up to the Commission if they want to grant the additional sign and determine the size.

Commissioner Leaf stated he objected to the north sign and it was going to be a permanently lit retail brand advertisement. He did not know if this has occurred in Highland Park. Rolex is a retail brand and it would be permanently mounted on the building.

Planner Jackson stated she did not think they could regulate the regulate the content of the sign.

Mr. Passman stated they have the relief requested and the City does prohibit off premises advertising signs.

Commissioner Leaf asked if there was any brand advertising in the City. Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned Studio 41.

Planner Cross stated it is rare and the sign code has allowed business identification signs limited to the name of the business. When there are signs panels that can be switched out it can be part of the sign package. Razny has had a sign package since its inception as well as Studio 41. There is not a lot of precedent and the code is written in such a way that is it difficult, but as long as it is allowed under other regulations in the sign they would not say they could not have it.

Mr. Rob Whitehead, Olympic Signs, 1130 N. Garfield, Lombard, IL, Sign Consultant, stated Razny had changed their logo and want to do something that is classy. They are reverse halo lit letters. The second floor signage is the logo on top and they have taken over more of the building and will have more square footage. They are a Rolex dealer and are a huge distributor.

Ms. Susan Vitkoba, Razny Jewelers, stated Rolex is their number one brand and they want to improve business. They did some research and no one knows they sell Rolex. They want to increase business and visibility.

Planner Cross stated the intent of the sign package is to identify location, area, materials and the aesthetic of the sign and not the content.

Commissioner Leaf stated he was confused by Corporation Counsel’s comments.

Mr. Passman stated he questioned if this would constitute an off-site advertising sign which the City’s ordinance does not permit. He was not sure it is an off-site advertising sign because Rolex watches are sold on the property. They do have some signs where the brand of a business is identified as part of its signage. He thought they should look at the sign package standards. The applicant has asked for the Commission’s review and approval as a sign package. One of the standards states that the signage is unified and consistent throughout the property.

Director Fontane stated they can take it under advisement and consider if it is an off- premise sign. The standards for the design review are the standards for the design review. Whether this violates some part of the ordinance is a question for the department.

Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the southeast elevation and the logo at top does not fit in band.

Mr. Whitehead stated the picture is a little skewed and it will fit in the band.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the band is at 21”.

Mr. Whitehead stated they will double check it to see if they have to bring it down.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated it appears to be off on front a little. Mr. Whitehead stated they will make sure it fits.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated he thought the letters and logo were too big in places. He did not have an issue with going up to the second floor.

Mr. Whitehead stated they could bring the logo down. The words for the new sign are much less aggressive especially on the northeast elevation where the existing Razny letters are big and bold and they have gone to a finer stroke and more detailed.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the monument sign looked like it was right at the edge rather than a little of border.

Mr. Whitehead stated it can be made smaller.

Commissioner Glazer stated he was concerned about the double signage and it is not consistent with the ordinance and asked for rationale why they should vary from the ordinance. If they allow it here it is going to be very difficult for them to consider not varying it in the future for other applicants.

Mr. Whitehead stated when it was laid out and they met with Mr. Razny he wanted to display the logo which is part of their new brand. They have taken over the first floor.

Ms. Vitkoba stated they are taking over the first floor adding 4,500 s.f. The logo is a signature for Razny and they are looking to make a statement.

Chair Hecht stated there are ways to incorporate the logo without putting it on top. He thought it sets a precedent and it really does overload that part of the building. He thought they were going way too far not only expanding letter size, but putting it on top.

Chair Hecht asked if they wanted to continue.

Mr. Whitehead stated they can modify it and come back.

Planner Cross asked if they would prefer November 20th or December 4th. Mr. Whitehead stated December 4th.

Planner Cross recommended continuing to December 4th.

Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue to December 4, 2018. Vice Chair Reinstein so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

B. Public Hearing #18-08-PUD-007

Major Amendment to the Planned Development at 2789 Oak St. to Change Property Boundaries and Principal Land Use.

Vice Chair Reinstein recused himself from this item.

Chair Hecht asked if the applicant was comfortable proceeding with four members.

Planner Cross stated four does constitute a quorum and there are sufficient members to hold the meeting. He asked the applicant if he was comfortable with proceeding with four members.

Mr. Passman stated the Plan & Design Commission is a recommending body and it would three out of four for a recommendation to the City Council.

Planner Cross stated the applicant has indicated they are comfortable with three out of four.

Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including project location, property history, existing conditions, proposed redevelopment, previous consideration, resubdivision of the property, demolition plan, tree protection plan, site plan for redevelopment, new parking lot, traffic impacts and circulation, circulation for cars/vans, circulation recommendations, circulation-buses, circulation-fire/EMS, landscaping and screening plan, lighting, refuse screening, design review and master plan consistency, requested relief, conditions of approval and standards and recommendation.

Planner Jackson mentioned consideration of continuing the item to November 20th to allow the applicant to submit updated materials.

Commissioner Leaf asked if the school were to revert to residential use what is the underlying zoning.

Planner Jackson stated it is split zoned R4 and R5.

Commissioner Leaf asked if it is torn down how many lots could go into the parcel.

Director Fontane stated about four lots depending on how it is laid out. Any change would trigger another public hearing.

Planner Cross stated any change to the land use would require a major amendment to the PUD.

Mr. Ted Novak, DLA Piper, 444 W. Lake St., Chicago, IL, Attorney, introduced the development team.

Mr. Brian Arnt, ESA Design, 305 N. River, North Aurora, IL, Architect, stated they are take a large site and condensing it into what is needed for the school, returning to residential use, several large buildings are not being used, keep parking lot as tight as possible, addressing concerns of neighbors, properly screened properly, light cut off at property line, not requesting fence, providing adequate landscape screening.

Mr. Luay Aboona, KLOA, 9575 W. Higgins, Rosemont, IL, Traffic Consultant, made a presentation including site access, school has low impact on traffic, ample room on site to accommodate queuing of traffic, key change is elimination of curb cuts, consolidates into one lane, traffic will enter off Oak, circulation is efficient, concerns about circulation of buses and emergency vehicles, tight angles, bus turns off Oak, solution to make in only one way during drop-off and pick-up, outside hours revert back to two-way, buses close to sidewalk can be addressed, concerns about tightness of turns, will work with increasing radius, modification to plan, the impact is not significant.

Commissioner Glazer mentioned the two-way nature of the traffic and it was identified as being of insufficient depth especially if there is a tree there.

Mr. Aboona stated he understood the concern and they will make sure the encroachment is minimized and if there is any encroachment the trees would be planted toward eastern end of the island.

Chair Hecht asked how many buses would there be for drop-off and pick-up. Mr. Aboona stated two to three in the morning and four to five in the afternoon. Chair Hecht asked if these were regular school buses.

Mr. Aboona stated it was a combination of both.

Ms. Lacy Carlson, Teska Assoc., 627 Grove, Evanston, IL, Landscape Architect, made a presentation including additional screening along the hedge row, supplemental trees to compensate for any trees removed, new property line provided 10’ perimeter landscape to screen parking lot, increased buffer along Oak St. from 5’ to 10’, neighbors do not want to see headlights and this is a good solution to screen this, more efficient screen as well as hiding vehicles, interior parking, seeded lawn on the planting islands, landscaping on eastern edge of parking lot.

Ms. Matilda Mandfredini, 76 Walker, Highland Park, IL Mr. Meno Passini, 2740 Oak, Highland Park, IL

Mr. George Pieracci, 2745 Oak, Highland Park, IL

Ms. Nancy Goldberg, 2730 Oak, Highland Park, IL

Mr. Mark Lindsey, 377 Delta, Highland Park, IL

The above residents expressed their concerns regarding: traffic, tree removal, exit onto Walker Ave., circulation, a lot of traffic in the morning, issues with traffic at corner, landscaping, how many evergreens on south and west, deciduous trees, impact of headlights, fence would be best, need more evergreens on Oak, driveway should go farther back, turning range is tight, want to retain neighborhood representatives, trash pick-up, deliveries, want to keep neighborhood neat, snow removal issues, demolition of the structures, asbestos issues.

Director Fontane stated as part of the demolition permit there needs to be an asbestos assessment and it would need to be remediated before buildings are demolished.

Mr. Novak stated the development team has met and will continue to interact with the neighbors. They are sensitive to all their concerns. Regarding traffic issues, the consensus of the professionals is that traffic generated will be low even at peak periods. There will be little impact on roads and reduction of access drives will reduce turning movements. Regarding landscape, they going to continue to meet with City staff to address transportation and landscape issues. The buffer can be green, opaque or a fence and the sense was to be residential in character. The want to be responsive and believe that they have met the standards. They are here to follow up on the tweaking with staff and will have it available on November 20th.

Chair Hecht asked if they were ready to go to a vote tonight. Mr. Novak stated they were ready if the option is available.

Director Fontane stated this would be directing staff to draft findings of fact. There are some things that need to be addressed regarding the circulation and they could do that and come to the next meeting.

Planner Cross stated directing staff to draft findings would allow that option to move forward.

Commissioner Glazer stated they had heard the concern about placement of evergreens along the perimeter. He asked to hear more and how the placement would provide a sufficient buffer and why it would be preferable to fencing.

Ms. Carlson stated regarding evergreens they followed city code. They could possibly swap ornamental trees for more evergreens if that is preferable. Currently with the 24” mound with evergreen shrubs the only shrubs along Oak St. , 4’ height is a green wall instead of hard wall. Along the south border there is a 6’ high fence with no harsh lines.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated it would be nice to have a solid screen to 4’ between the parking lot and the road. It could be evergreen or fence or a combination. They need to have a solid screen so the head lights are not visible.

Mr. Scott Goodman, 180 Beech, Highland Park, IL, stated what they did with the berm was to try to do it in a way which is more aesthetically pleasing than a fence. They are the neighbors and they thought this was a good solution. They will have 2’ of berm and shrubbery and few cars go up that high. They can always put in a fence if this is objectionable. They are trying to solve the problem and this is a more expensive solution that the fence.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the berm wrapped the corner along the south side of the parking lot.

Mr. Goodman stated it tapers down to ground level. They own the land to the south.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he would like to see the solid screen of 4’ go back to the building setback line. The head lights go south which is part of the view as you drive by.

Mr. Goodman stated it is bermed on the south as well.

Commissioner Leaf asked if the sidewalk is proposed with all the curbs. Mr. Goodman stated it is existing.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated on Walker there is an ornamental tree on the corner that may impede sight lights to the crosswalk. He asked them take a look at this and that it not impede sightlines.

Mr. Novak stated the representatives from Arlen School have indicated staff is gone by 3:45 PM and head lights would not be an issue.

Chair Hecht asked how does traffic flow from when B’Nai Torah was operating.

Director Fontane stated it is a lot different. A synagogue use is a peak demand use. The school has peaks but they are shorter.

Chair Hecht asked if it was more or less impact. Director Fontane stated it is less impact.

Chair Hecht entertained a motion to draft findings of fact recommending approval and follow up to modify the plans pursuant to comments at this meeting. Commissioner Kutscheid so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Leaf.

Director Fontane stated they need to continue to public hearing to a date certain.

Planner Cross stated they needed a separate motion to continue.

Chair Glazer stated he did not understand the motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact consistent with the comments. The suggestion was made that the motion would be to present back to the Commission at the next meeting any adjustments or tweaks to the plan based on the comments and the presentation could change based on comments received from the neighbors.

Chair Hecht stated the proposed findings would reflect those.

Director Fontane stated if the Commission wanted to be sure that plans are revised in a particular manner to allow the Commission to direct staff to draft findings approving they should so state. If the Commission desires a fence on the west in addition to landscaping they should say so. The more specificity the better.

Commissioner Glazer asked how that would be reflected.

Chair Hecht stated the details of the motion were up to Commissioner Kutscheid

Commissioner Kutscheid stated if they were uncomfortable with going to findings then he did not have a problem seeing this again and then the directing findings. He withdrew his motion. He motioned to continue to November 20th, seconded by Commissioner Glazer. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

C. Public Hearing #18-09-PUD-010

Major Amendment to the Planned Development at 760-776 Central Ave and 1710-1724 McGovern St., the McGovern House Multi-Family Building, to Consider Zoning Relief Related to Off-Street Parking.

Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including McGovern House indoor mechanical lifts, approved parking garage plan, proposed parking garage plan, reduction of 18 lifts, applicant’s request for zoning relief, notes for consideration, six guest parking spaces, recommendation and conditions of approval.

Chair Hecht asked if the 36-month sunset was after 36 months the relief from the 18 lifts would expire.

Planner Cross stated at that point neither the City Manager or the tenants would be able to request lifts after 36 months.

Director Fontane stated it does not mean they could not be installed, they would not be required.

Commissioner Leaf stated they should be explicit that if a tenant has a lift they also have to lease the space below.

Planner Cross stated he would defer this question to the applicant.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated it was approved to have 117 spaces. He asked if it was considered it was going to be up to the tenants leasing space or was it the City’s understanding there were going to be 117 spaces. Before any leasing should there have been 117 spaces.

Director Fontane stated 117 spaces are required by the approval documents. There are the lifts as well as the on-ground spaces. It is the form in which parking would be provided not the number of spaces. In terms of the construction they did a partial occupancy model. As the building is occupied provided there is enough parking they can go ahead and occupy. As some point they were short parking and the options are to apply for relief or face citations. The applicant is attempting to remedy the compliance problem through this request.

Commissioner Leaf asked about the six guest spaces and their status.

Director Fontane stated six are required by code no relief was requested nor granted.

Mr. Greg Merdinger, Nexstep LLC, 1101 W. Monroe, Chicago, IL, Applicant, stated the lifts are mechanical devices to allow for an individual who has one car to have a second space, it provides flexibility for more spaces, anticipated user group, user group skewed older, nine lifts and four are in use, tenants did not want a lift nor park below one, building skews older and average is 65 or older, agreed to make modification for conditional occupancy, directed to see relief, they are service providers, tenants do not want a second space, there is only one user can who use the lift space and that is the user who has the space below, tenants do not want lifts, they would sit vacant, they want to live with agreement, right now there is a request from 17 residents seeking not to impose a lift, anytime they want a lift he will install it, the reason for 36 months is he does not know how long the lifts will be made, traffic count for parking has gone down, people use cars less, this building will have no parking in 25 years.

Commissioner Glazer stated he understood that travel may well change in the future and 36 months sounds optimistic.

Mr. Merdinger stated the original request was to go year to year.

Commissioner Glazer stated there is a concept of commercial impracticality which applies to requirements such as these. If there was not a 36-month sunset and the if manufacturer of the lifts ceased operations, that requirement would become obsolete. He would not be in favor of including a sunset provision. He asked why they needed 60 days.

Mr. Merdinger stated it is a long lead item and it is possible to install it in 15 days. The availability is not always guaranteed. His concern is the unknown aspect of this type of equipment as there is a rapid change in auto use and design. You design garages today with a ramp and 8’ ceiling. They are now being designed around residential or office configuration because it is identified that parking structures will go away.

Commissioner Glazer stated he said his building tenancy skews older and older people are less likely to perhaps change what they have known their whole lives such as autos. The older residents are leery of lifts. He thought perhaps there is not the high level of interest they anticipated but he did not know if it was handicap if he only had to provide these upon request.

Mr. Merdinger stated he was open minded to a longer sunset provision or no provision. When he eventually sells the building he assumes the number of cars will trend down. He did not know in 10 years whether these could be installed and he did not want unhappy residents.

Director Fontane stated that perhaps in the future these will not be needed. If it becomes practically impossible to provide these in the future there could be an amendment to the PUD to address just that.

Chair Hecht stated if they are not available it seems a straightforward amendment. He wondered if there was no demand why he would put himself in a position of being required to install something that may not be available.

Mr. Merdinger stated there are five available that are not being used. He sees a trend that autos are being used less and less. For some of this group this is a second home. They have only one car. The user group is 65 and older and have a sun belt house and want to stay close to their family. This fills a needed niche and the likelihood of people saying they now need a lift is remote. He is trying to accommodate his residents and they do not want the lifts overhead.

Commissioner Leaf stated the staff recommendations were thoughtful and he was in favor of granting the relief.

Mr. Merdinger stated if they added the lifts there would not be a car that is coming off the street into the space unless the individual below bought another car.

Ms. Cindy Wolfson, 471 Lakeside Place, Highland Park, IL Mr. Mark Lindsey, 377 Delta, Highland Park, IL

Ms. Nancy Shaevitz, 275 Ridge, Highland Park, IL

The above residents expressed their concerns: there is no adequate parking in neighborhood, lots are full in neighborhood, only public parking is west of Green Bay Rd. is Karger site, applicant does not address that residents need services who need spaces, they are not providing 117 spaces, there is need for parking in neighborhood, need to adhere to plan they agreed to, parking seems to be getting worse, have brought revenue to City, have increased time they can park on McGovern to four hours, thriving business district that will grow and so will parking, depend on in and out parking.

Chair Hecht asked about the parking requirement without relief.

Director Fontane stated it is 117.

Planner Cross stated that as approved, the development met the required parking.

Commissioner Glazer stated what they heard so far was that relief being sought arises because there is a lack of demand. It is not that there are cars who want to park in the building and they do not want to provide spaces. They are hearing that tenants do not need two spaces and they are not comfortable with the requirements previously set regarding the lifts. He asked how do you see denying the relief being requested being beneficial to the issues raised and how would granting the relief exacerbate the problem.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated the demand and tenant mix is not static.

Commissioner Leaf stated he was unclear on why tenants are hesitant to lease a space and are parking on McGovern.

Chair Hecht stated if they do not grant relief will that create a problem on McGovern.

Councilman Stolberg stated he did not approve the project initially. He did not see where demand is a requirement. The appropriate time to ask for relief was when it was built and what was approved at the time. They should be held to what he promised to build.

Mr. Merdinger stated if they had 17 individuals testify there would be two different decisions. One is to make these people live with something that is potentially dangerous to them and the other is to make a decision to enforce a requirement that has no benefit. He did not know if his residents are parking on McGovern. There is a four-hour requirement which the City agreed to. There is never a circumstance he is aware of where residents are parking full-time on the street. He did not want to impose this on his residents and the Commission should hear from them. If they want letters he will provide them or bring the tenants here. He asked not make a decision predicated on no benefit to anyone.

Chair Hecht stated the concern is adhering to agreements. He hoped the lifts are safe. He would have been reluctant to approve a plan that relied on lifts. The tenants do not want them now but might in the future. Everything changes and they are being asked to make a decision to change a requirement in the development agreement and sunset it three years later. The demand factor may change in the future and he did not know how to account for it.

Mr. Merdinger stated he has five available now. If he has to install 17 extra he will have to put them in. They should hear how the tenants respond before make this imposition. He will have letters sent. It is important that two facts are clear – there are no autos parking offsite that live in the building and the decision to do this does not provide more parking offsite. To do this sounds punitive. Once these are installed the people who live there have to live with them.

Director Fontane stated it is folly to engage in conversation about the dangers of the lifts. It was proposed by the applicant and accepted by the Commission. He was not aware of any dangers and it was proposed as a feasible alternate. Regarding the impact on the community the need to talk about the provision of guest parking and where it is and is it available for guests. That would take some load off McGovern but would not solve all parking problems in the area. It would do what the developer was obligated to do for guests. The applicant has indicated there is not a demand for lifts and that is a different concern. They recommended there be no sunset because tenants change. The question is are these being offered to tenants and what is the charge for the lifts.

Chair Hecht stated regarding the guest parking the applicant stated there is disagreement as to what the requirement is.

Director Fontane stated the guest parking was not before the Commission and they are not requesting relief.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated the applicant has stated he is ready to sue the City over the guest parking. He did not want to talk about guest parking and was ready to go.

Director Fontane stated the guest parking was required to be six and it is a separate matter.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated if they are removing 18 lifts the 18 spaces should go somewhere else.

Director Fontane stated they are not necessary and if they are needed then they will be provided.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated they are asking to change the requirement from 117 to 99. Commissioner Kutscheid stated there is a need for spaces outside.

Director Fontane stated there is a legitimate argument to say whether or not it is his tenants taking those spaces.

Mr. Merdinger stated the guest spaces are occupied by the retail across the corridor and he gets complaints from his residents that they are occupied and it is a continuous issue. The lifts can only be used and accessed by someone with an auto below. It is the desire of people with spaces not to have a lift over them.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated there is a need for parking spaces elsewhere. The building was not intended for seniors when the Commission first listened to the developer when the project was originally approved. Now the developer has changed the intended user.

Mr. Merdinger stated the market determines the user. It is not adding more spaces. If he adds the lift and no one wants to park under it, what is he doing to solve any parking issue.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked what he was doing to solve the parking problem.

Mr. Merdinger stated there is not a parking problem and everyone is happy with the space they have. The problem is the shortages on the street.

Councilman Stolberg stated no one is debating the 18 lifts will solve the problem on McGovern. It is a matter of compliance.

Chair Hecht stated it does not matter if the 17 spaces are on lifts or if the garage was expanded and surface spaces were added. This will not change the situation on McGovern.

Mr. Merdinger stated if the Commission recommends the lifts be installed the people involved should write letters and have a say.

Chair Hecht stated it sounds like they needed additional information and asked if the Commission wanted to vote on the application or vote to continue.

Planner Cross stated the motion would be to direct staff to draft findings of fact for approval, recommending denial or to continue.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated his motion would be for denial.

Chair Hecht asked for a second.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated his idea would be to ascertain the parking problem.

Chair Hecht stated there was a motion for denial and asked if there was a second. If there is no second the motion fails.

Commissioner Leaf moved to continue and obtain more written testimony.

Chair Hecht asked for a date.

Planner Cross stated the November 20th agenda was full and that December 4th was best.

Director Fontane asked if the Commission is interested in hearing from the tenants should they be formally notified.

Chair Hecht stated it is up to the applicant.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated what they need to know is the parking issue.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated the tenants are going to say they do not want a lift. The applicant is asking for relief.

Chair Hecht stated he did not know they wanted to limit it if the objectors want to bring additional witnesses.

Mr. Merdinger stated if there is concern if this would get done he could put the money for the lifts in escrow.

Chair Hecht stated the is a motion to continue to December 4th. Commissioner Kutscheid seconded.

Commissioner Glazer stated he was not in favor of continuing the matter. This is a limited application and not to solve Highland Park’s parking problem. It is not to solve greater issues than what we have in front of us. The proposal made tonight was not to withdraw parking and did not seek relief to say he was going to withdraw parking spaces. He said he will make them available upon demand. There are issues of compliance and they have heard to the extend compliance is an issue the monetary contribution into escrow would address the compliance issue. He thought the were talking about an offer to provide parking upon demand. He thought this sounded reasonable. If the tenants need two spaces they will be made available. Without the sunset provision these would be available indefinitely. To the extent there is any kind of parking problem created by the proposal it is fully addressed by the alternative. To the extent there is an issue with non-compliance from the previous request they are seeing is that there is a lack of demand for 117 spaces. He did not see the purpose of continuing or refusing what they are hearing tonight. There are spaces available as originally requested and agreed upon the first time. He was on the Commission when they first discussed the lifts and they viewed them as a novel approach and thought it could be something that could set an example for other parking situations. He was in favor of voting tonight. He did not know how continuing would help.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated he was assuming that if demand changes in tenant mix the applicant will be able to get the lifts. He was assuming he will not be able to.

Commissioner Glazer stated the original approval involved the lifts.

Mr. Merdinger stated the issue of serviceability if they reach their functional obsolescence is the same circumstance.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated if you do not need the whole parking lot you have to repave it so it can be used. The building is supposed to have 117 spaces.

Mr. Merdinger stated he could purchase half of them and warehouse them and put the rest of the money in escrow. He wanted to find common ground without inflicting damage on people who do not want them.

Chair Hecht stated there is a motion on the table and asked if there was more discussion. Director Fontane stated they should restate the motion.

Chair Hecht stated the motion was to continue.

Commissioner Leaf stated they have heard several alternate offers, one is an escrow account and another is to purchase the lifts and warehouse them He did not know if they needed to talk about this further as a commission. There are novel ideas that have not been fleshed out and he was reticent to vote.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated the proposal had been floated because of the conversations they are having tonight. They thought what was before them was whether the building is going to have 117 spaces. He did not understand why they could not deal with that tonight. He stated he would vote against a continuance.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated what he heard Commissioner Glazer say is there are effectively 117 spaces but not all have been built.

Chair Hecht stated he was concerned about what is being done to promote these to new tenants and are they ever going to see them built.

Director Fontane stated they could have conditions of approval.

Mr. Merdinger asked if it made sense to postpone the obligation for three years and they could enforce it then. It would be a very unhappy day when he had to install these. He will have to live with elderly people yelling at him in the corridor and he wanted to avoid that. They have the right to make him install them but it would be a bad idea.

Chair Hecht stated the motion on the table is to continue the application to December 4th and to solicit additional testimony. If the motion fails then they have to call for a new motion.

Director Fontane called the roll: Ayes: Leaf, Kutscheid

Nays: Glazer, Reinstein, Hecht Motion failed 2-3.

Vice Chair Reinstein motioned to have staff prepare findings to deny the consideration of parking relief at 1724 McGovern St.

Mr. Passman stated there are four options - one is to continue, one to deny, one to recommend approval, or close the public hearing and not direct findings at this time. Then there is a 45-day clock to do something. If they close the public hearing that will close all testimony on the matter. All they would be able to do is deliberation.

Commissioner Glazer motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact recommending approval of the application absent the sunset clause changing the requirement that lifts be installed not later than 60 days so that lifts would be installed as soon as practicable and not later than 60 days, and that all existing and new tenants be informed in writing prior to initial lease and each renewal that parking lifts are available at no extra cost, and that the City may inquire of residents if they have been informed of parking lifts, and prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy a revised interior and exterior parking plan be submitted to the Dept. of Community Development that clearly depicts the parking spaces that will accommodate lifts and identifies the unit number assigned to those spaces and depicts the required number of guest spaces (6) provided. Commissioner Kutscheid seconded.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked if they could amend that there be a date certain when 117 are provided.

Commissioner Glazer asked what if there is never a demand by the tenants for 117.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated he is looking at a building with a certain number of units that requires 117 spaces.

Commissioner Glazer stated if tenant requests a lift it is made available. He was not sure how this hurt anyone.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated if you are building a building in Highland Park and you come before the Plan Commission and say you are going to put in 117 spaces he wants them to do it. Today’s tenant mix does not matter. Their problem is whether there is 117 spaces.

Commissioner Glazer asked Vice Chair Reinstein if he wanted to take up the applicant’s offer to purchase the additional lifts and put them in storage until needed.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated yes.

Commissioner Leaf mentioned an escrow account.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated no because he did not know if he could get them. The tenants are not the Commission’s consideration, they are the applicant’s consideration.

Commissioner Glazer stated they are our consideration.

Commissioner Leaf stated he did not know if the applicant knows which units will be assigned to which lifts at this point or at any point.

Mr. Merdinger stated there is a plan where the lifts are going and he would obtain letters from the tenants. Each space is not assigned to a unit forever.

Commissioner Leaf stated there are five not being used now and he understands it should go to a certain unit number.

Mr. Merdinger stated the five not being used now are rented by a unit number. Chair Hecht stated there is a motion on the floor that has been seconded

Commissioner Glazer stated he would amend the motion to withdraw identification of the unit number portion of 3a.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he accepted the amendment.

Mr. Passman stated the motion would be to direct findings recommending approval subject to the conditions except 3a. and no sunset provision. The time to install them would be as soon as practicable but in no event later than 60 days after the request.

Director Fontane stated lifts would be available at no extra cost.

Mr. Merdinger stated to rent a space is $150 and to add a lift is $65 a month. It is not reasonable they insist he install a lift and not receive commensurate return.

Director Fontane stated he can set a price for a lift high enough that no one will ever want them. If it is an al a carte item it introduces a new element of why there may or may not be demand for lifts. It is up to the Commission whether or not to include that portion of that condition or not.

Mr. Merdinger asked if this a question of whether of he would modify pricing of something he would make money.

Councilman Stolberg stated they cannot put a stipulation on this and cannot tell him what to charge.

Commissioner Glazer proposed a further modification to the motion so that existing and new tenants be informed in writing prior to initial lease and each renewal that parking lifts are available.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he accepted this.

Vice Chair Reinstein wanted to understand that no one is buying lifts and storing them with this motion.

Commissioner Glazer confirmed this. Director Fontane called the roll: Ayes: Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer

Nays: Reinstein, Hecht

Motion carried 3-2.

Mr. Passman stated the next question was if they wanted to continue the hearing or close the hearing.

Planner Cross they could continue to a date certain.

Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue to November 20th to consider the findings of fact. Commissioner Kutscheid so motioned, seconded Commissioner Leaf. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

D. Public Hearing #18-08-PUD-005

Special Use in the Nature of a Planned Development Located at 1850 Green Bay Rd., the Karger Property.

Chair Hecht asked if there was a motion to proceed or postpone. Commissioner Leaf stated they should proceed.

Chair Hecht stated the meeting will not proceed past midnight.

Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including previous consideration, notable changes to proposal, property zoning, proposed site plan, building design, building setbacks - side yards, building setbacks - front yard, lighting, landscaping and open space, off-street parking requirements, off-street parking proposal, density and inclusionary housing, traffic impact study and review comments, departmental reviews, zoning relief, public benefit, Sunset Foods and access form Green Bay Rd., Lake County Health Center, Park District of Highland Park, standards for review, two-phase approval process and recommendation.

Mr. Passman stated this is a two-step process and the preliminary level is where the heavy lifting is done. If Council approves the preliminary planned development that is the City’s recognition that the planned development meets the standards in the code. If the final plan substantially confirms it would be awkward for the City to change its mind. His recommendation is to proceed as though this is the plan.

Commissioner Leaf asked if a car share parking reduction had ever be done in Highland Park.

Planner Cross stated not to his knowledge. Commissioner Leaf stated 10% seemed very generous. Chair Hecht asked what is car sharing.

Planner Cross stated it is for people who do not own cars. Director Fontane stated he could look it up.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood, Highland Park, IL, Attorney, made a presentation including contacting the contiguous neighbors, they are committed to working with the County, have had discussions with Sunset Foods and discussions with Sheahen Ct. neighbors.

Mr. Andrew Yule, 188 W. Randolph, Chicago, IL, Applicant, made a presentation including site plan, art and sculptures, enclosed loading dock, preservation of trees, Green Bay Rd. perspective, Sunset Woods perspective, north, east, west and south elevations, site section diagram, conceptual sections, landscape plan, community benefits and public safety.

Commissioner Leaf asked if they were encroaching on the water tower with the parking. He asked if they had worked it out with the site plan.

Mr. Yule stated it will be finalized when they come back.

Director Fontane stated staff would look at the most recent iteration.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the pedestrian path was circuitous and thought people would walk straight through. He mentioned 8’2” park relief from 30’.

Mr. Yule stated they are currently at 20’ and they are asking for relief.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated it is down to 22’ less than code.

Mr. Yule stated it is a swampish area right before where the fire house is located and not really utilized. They would be cleaning it up and bring up to grade.

Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the public benefit. He stated the north elevation looked utilitarian and he would like it to be more residential in look.

Mr. Yule stated they are using brick and windows and the idea was to tone it down. They can come back with other ideas.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he thought it looked institutional. He asked how the green wall will work.

Mr. Yule stated there had been a live installation and he can bring more details and specifications. They were trying to break up the mass.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he was not sold on the angled supports. He wanted to know how deliveries would be handled.

Mr. Yule stated the updated plan would help this. They have 200’ to work with and are talking about trash removal and everyday packages.

Commissioner Leaf asked about the garage entry.

Mr. Yule stated it would be moved to the north and would be a rolling garage and it will be large enough with 20’ for ingress and egress. The residents will receive stickers for their cars which will allow the door to open and close. The coiling doors are very good for sound quality.

Commissioner Glazer stated the east and west elevations are aided by the atrium. He mentioned the north and south elevations and thought there might room to try and make them look more exciting.

Mr. Yule stated you can see through the atrium to the park. The north elevation was to block it with greenery and trees to mask it from the neighbors.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked about the size of the trees on the north side. Mr. Yule stated between 30’ and 50’.

Mr. Ted Wolfe, 307 N. Michigan, Chicago, IL, Landscape Architect, stated the landscape plan includes 3” caliper shade trees and 8’ evergreen trees. The rendering shows several years of growth.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked how long it would take to reach that height.

Mr. Wolfe stated between five to ten years.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked about the new site plan and the parking count.

Mr. Yule stated there are 171 stalls below grade for 171 apartments. There are 50 on the surface.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked about the parking count outside of the garage. Mr. Yule stated it was 50.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked which ones are for the health center.

Mr. Yule stated they are continuing to work on that.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked how they would police the 50 spaces.

Mr. Yule stated they would have dedicated signage and they would have to work together.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked about relief and sometimes there is a setback on upper stories. He asked if relief is being asked for.

Mr. Bernstein stated in B4 and B5 the stepback has to be at the front elevation. This is setback 300’ from the street and they did not feel it necessary to step it back.

Planner Cross stated in the planned development code envisions buildings being built right up to the street front. The top floor setback requirement is to avoid a valley effect as you go down a street. This building is already set back 300’ and they are going to request relief from the stepback requirement.

Vice Chair Reinstein agreed with Commissioner Kutscheid regarding the path to the park along north property line.

Mr. Bernstein stated the neighbors do not want any public activity on the north property line.

Mr. Bernstein stated one of the benefits of the project is Sheahen Ct. will be a dead end.

Commissioner Leaf asked if a car will be able to go through the development and exit onto Central.

Mr. Yule stated they are working on that agreement and it something Sunset could speak to. The framework would be to have full access and they would grant an easement to Sunset for vehicular traffic.

Commissioner Leaf stated there could be an issue with cars trying to skirt the stop light. Mr. Yule stated they talked about this and they will look at measures to prevent this.

Mr. Bernstein stated Sunset has plans to modify their store and they will work with them to discourage this.

Chair Hecht asked about the next available meeting date.

Planner Cross recommended moving this to November 20th.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked if they would receive updated site plans.

Mr. Yule stated yes.

Mr. Bernstein stated they appreciated feedback from the Commission and Sunset.

Chair Hecht stated he had the ability to alter the order of the agenda.

Vice Chair Reinstein asked if they would hear from Lake County regarding the Health Center.

Planner Cross stated it is the intent to have them here. Chair Hecht stated there would be no other meeting notice.

Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue to November 20th. Commissioner Kutscheid so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Reinstein. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Administrative Design Review Approvals - Informational items only, no vote required.

B. Next Regular Meeting - November 20, 2018.

Vote on resolution for the 2019 meetings.

Public hearing for Lake Cook Courts.

Pre-application for assisted living on Greenberg Radiology property.

C. Case Briefing - None

VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC

None.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2109&Inline=True