City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met March 5
City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met March 5.
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
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Members Present: Hecht, Kutscheid, Leaf, Reinstein
Members Absent: Glazer, Lidawer, Pearlstein
Staff Present: Cross, Fontane, Jackson
Student Rep.: Cortes
Council Liaison: Blumberg (via phone), Schuster
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 5, 2019
These minutes will be considered at the March 19, 2019 meeting.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing #18-11-PUD-011 for a Special Use in the Nature of a Planned Development for a Senior Housing Facility Consisting of 87 Independent Living Units, 55 Assisted Living Units and 20 Memory Care Units at 1535-1549 Park Ave. West.
B. Public Hearing #18-12-REZ-002 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Zoning District from I - Industrial District, to RM1 - Medium to High Density Residential District, on the Property at 1535 Park Ave. West.
C. Public Hearing #18-12-SUP-004 for a Special Use Consideration to Allow a “Nursing Home Care Facility” as a Conditional Land Use in the RM1 Zoning District at 1535 Park Ave. West.
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, existing conditions and background, previous Commission consideration, zoning map amendment, Highland Park industrial zones, permitted uses in the I - Light Industrial District, industrial zoning vs. RM1 district, Highland Park master plan, PDC discussion February 5, 2019, conditional use, residential density, inclusionary housing, off-street parking requirements, traffic impacts, transit access, on-site vehicle circulation, pedestrian circulation and access, area and bulk: setbacks, area and bulk: height, shadow study, area and bulk: stepback, design review, landscaping, screening, lighting, sign, public benefit, summary of requested zoning relief, standards for review and recommendation.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked how the average grade is calculated.
Planner Cross stated the property is subject to setbacks and when the setbacks are calculated you get a building envelope or where the building can go. You take the elevations above grade at each of the four corners of the building area and average those to find the buildable area of the property. Building height is taken from that.
Mr. Grady Hamilton, 700 Commerce Dr., Oak Brook, IL, Trammel Crowe, made a presentation including Trammell Crow overview, ESG Architects, Allegro operating partner, two projects underway in Evanston and Glenview, recently completed projects, design review, pre-app hearing on November 20, 2018, neighborhood meeting on December 19, 2018, additional studies to address comments, and requesting PUD with zoning map amendment to RM1.
Mr. Lukas Van Sistine, ESG Architects, 500 W. Washington Ave., Minneapolis, MN, Architect, made a presentation including design updates, site plan, surrounding conditions, prototype building, setback to south, level two and three plans, reworked parking flow to accommodate larger setback, added berm, increased setback to the west, asking for variance for parking to east, aerial massing, trying to break up massing, height is lower than existing tree canopy, generous setback along Park Ave., pedestrian views, materials used, view from main drop-off, pedestrian views from southeast, east, pond, north and west, building locations requesting height relief, aesthetic design features and view from Grange Rd.
Mr. Hamilton mentioned review of feedback, streetscape and landscape enhancements on all sides of property, extending sidewalk to east, use has lower impact on traffic conditions, provided shading study and proposing to enhance stormwater management capabilities.
Ms. Rory Fancler, Kimley Horn, stated they did a traffic impact study, supplemental analysis comparing daily traffic projections for the proposed development and relative to other uses, expected to generate fewer daily trips, for proposed use traffic is distributed throughout the day and less impact, residents do not drive regularly, no more than 10 staff members arriving or departing during peak hours.
Mr. Hamilton mentioned the shading study for the morning, noon and evening for June 21st and March/September 21st and December 21st.
Mr. Jared Kenyon, Kimley Horn, stated they are proposing to collect all the stormwater collected on site through the sewer which will be designed for a 100-year storm event and routed to an underground vault. The pond will be natively planted and designed to try to reduce the volume generated by the imperviousness of the site.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if water that falls on the parking lot in front flows to the ditch on the west side and then up and around.
Mr. Jared Kenyon stated the water will be collected through on-site storm sewer and routed to the basins.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if the drainage on the site is going east at the north end. Mr. Jared Kenyon stated currently it is pervious grass area.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if it crossed the rail.
Mr. Jared Kenyon stated there is a culvert under the railroad property.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked who took care of the culvert.
Mr. Jared Kenyon stated it is the railroad’s property.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated if it runs into problems they would have a problem.
Mr. Hamilton stated the public benefit has been characterized as the sidewalk on the north and he thought there were other elements worth noting. This will be the first full continuum product that exists in Highland Park which would embody independent living units, assisted living units and memory care units. They feel this is important because an occupant may have a spouse who is not in need of assisted living and this allows them to cohabitate in the same facility. This product does not exist in Highland Park and based on the market study there is an under supply which is expected to grow as population increases. The property is not producing a tax revenue to the City and their project will generate over $800,000 per year. They are proposing to pay $2,125,000 to the affordable fund.
Councilman Blumberg stated the public benefit and what they are talking about in terms of the product they are intending to place as the site, the contribution to senior living supply the economics they are proposing the site will bring and the inclusionary zoning are not considered public benefits. The benefit itself will be a benefit to Highland Park. For purposes of satisfying the public benefit requirement of the PUD those do not count. Regarding the inclusionary zoning fee in lieu payments are discouraged. They will have a steep slope in front of the Housing Commission and later Council, to be permitted to pay a fee in lieu instead of building on-site units at all. He could not recall a developer who has proposed a PUD to pay for all the units the developer is required to supply. None of that counts as a public benefit.
Mr. Hamilton stated he agreed and it was not his intent to identify those as public benefits, but to point out that the public benefit they have described is the sidewalk. There are additional benefits they believe this project brings to the community and it addressed some of the market feedback. He appreciated his comments.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the grading plans and the actual rims are at 645 and the high water level of the basin is 646. He stated the water is going to back up.
Mr. Jared Kenyon stated the rims are lower than other parts of the sight but the level of the pond is 645 and the rims would be slightly above that.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the tanks below the lot and the high water is listed at 646.
Mr. Jared Kenyon stated it is 645. The water not intended to pond all the way up to the rim elevation. It will stay confined in the tank.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked in the RM1 district is there a building envelope or footprint coverage limit.
Planner Cross stated there might be a 33% lot coverage maximum.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated under RM1 there could be 111 units so there is a certain number of units in this building that are independent living and a certain number of other units that are assisted and memory care. The coverage is small and he asked if the units are small.
Mr. Hamilton stated the different types of units begin to compress.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked about the ceiling height for the independent units.
Mr. Hamilton stated it is 9’.
Commissioner Leaf asked about the parking calculations for a one bedroom and den and a two bedroom and how they were different as far as floor plan.
Mr. Hamilton stated in the layout of the one bedroom/den, the den can be utilized as a study or dining area. The two bedroom is actually two bedrooms with closets and an exterior window.
Commissioner Leaf stated a bed cannot be put legally into the den.
Mr. Hamilton stated yes and it is enforced.
Commissioner Leaf stated the traffic study mentioned dining room staff working between 3:30 and 8:00 PM and asked if they only served dinner.
Mr. Hamilton stated there will be 40-45 employees on site at any given time and only 10 will arrive or depart in the peak period. The shifts generally run 7:00 until 3:00 PM and 3:00 to 11:00 PM and 11:00 to 7:00AM. In those periods of time that is where the transition of the dining staff and hospitality staff will occur. Parking has been addressed to meet the cross over of shifts.
Commissioner Leaf asked about the calculations used for assessed value. Planner Cross stated they will see if they can answer it here.
Commissioner Leaf stated in the Feb. 5th presentation it mentioned developments in the $200,000 have an average tax value $10.89 per s.f. This development is using $35.58 per s.f. He was confused by the numbers.
Planner Cross stated for the numbers on Feb. 5th they were using a small sample size of projects in the downtown and an abbreviated methodology.
Commissioner Leaf stated he would like to see the City hire consultant to look at the calculations.
Director Fontane stated that would be at the will of the Commission.
Chair Hecht stated he looked at the proposed assessed value with a grain of salt because the developer wants to keep it as low as possible and the tax authorities will have the opposite approach.
Director Fontane stated it is a s.f. basis of assessed value. He would ask the total construction value of the project. The other thing to keep in mind it is not one of the standards of review. It does have implications for property taxes.
Chair Hecht asked if it was age restricted. People younger than the norm will need memory care services.
Mr. Hamilton stated it is both and 55 and older residents. They do have secondary occupants who can be within 10 years of age for the independent units only. It is age and use restricted and the property would not be suitable for someone under 55 who needed assisted living or memory care.
Commissioner Leaf mentioned the market studies and one was done by Teska and other by the applicant. They use different comps for each study. They vary all over the place as far as dollars per s.f. He would like the help of a third party consultant to go through this.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if there was another market study submitted today.
Mr. Hamilton stated it was another view from the perspective of supply, current demand and it is a more thorough analysis of the market place and projects and growth and demand for this type of product. It was sent to staff and just received recently and not part of the packet.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked who did the study.
Mr. Hamilton stated it was CBRE. He stated their report included a CBRE broad market and this report was more specific report outlining the performance of the market as well as in the context of the proposed project.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked what it concluded.
Mr. Hamilton stated it concluded the assisted living demand is unmet by supply and that there is a shortage of approximately 800 units of assisted living beds and just under 500 units of independent living.
Chair Hecht asked about the geographic area.
Mr. Hamilton stated it was a five-mile study.
Chair Hecht stated what was in here was very general and nationwide.
Mr. Hamilton stated the demand study in addition to the market overview was not general. The market report from CBRE was very specific.
Chair Hecht asked if it took into account the new developments.
Mr. Hamilton stated it does.
Chair Hecht stated comments from the public will be limited to three minutes. The following residents expressed their concerns:
Mr. Stephen A. Freidin, 1540 Park Ave. West, Highland Park, IL Ms. Adrienne Freidin, 1540 Park Ave. West, Highland Park, IL Mr. Jeff Sippil, 1947 McCaren, Highland Park, IL
Mr. Larry Metnick, 1827 McCaren, Highland Park, IL
Ms. Elissa Herman, 1595 Little John, Highland Park, IL Mr. Peter Herman, 1595 Little John, Highland Park, IL Mr. Gerald Brin, 1924 McCaren, Highland Park, IL
Mr. Pat Graff, 2139 Grange, Highland Park, IL
Mr. Matt Prazenka, 2216 Grange, Highland Park, IL
Ms. Deidra Gold, 1581 Park Ave. West, Highland Park, IL
Mr. George Cardenas, 1916 Park Ave. West, Highland Park, IL Ms. Eileen Ross, 1624 Park Ave. West, Highland Park, IL
Ms. Julie Smith, 1690 Park Ave. West, Highland Park, IL
Mr. Dan Emerick, 2101 Grange, Highland Park, IL
Mr. Marty Kinslow, 1970 McCaren, Highland Park, IL Mr. Michael Laxner, 1967 Cavell, Highland Park, IL
Zoning should be congruent with neighborhood, out of character with neighborhood, rezoning should fit character of neighborhood, traffic generated, single family neighborhood, will bring traffic through side streets, putting neighbors at risk, assisted living residents are high care, density, no neighborhood benefit, concerned about buses, off-site parking for events, property value impact study, who will pay for upgrades to Park Ave., put access road on other side, consider underground parking, need accurate facts about traffic, wants City to stand up for neighborhood, need independent market study, independent study for emergency vehicles, traffic down McCaren and Cavell, density is unclear, flood plain, water does not drain now, building height, setbacks, no buffer, safety concerns with children playing, traffic study is understated, major reduction in property values, too many variances being asked, flooding issue, existing facilities are inadequate, adding impervious area, some of the property is above drainage, debate has been if it complies with technical requirements, preservation impact on community, process could use some improvements, development is too obvious, deliveries, number of emergency calls per month, will impact neighborhood, property values will decrease, needs buffering on west side of the property, lighting, parking on property, first offer to purchase - property has been tied up, needs less intensive use, not best use of property, two previous instances were denied in neighborhood, allowable use under RM1 zoning.
Chair Hecht stated the Commission has requested additional information from the applicant. They take very seriously any written submissions they receive. They do hear what everyone has said. He asked the applicant to address the concerns raised tonight and be prepared for the next meeting on April 2nd to make the best decision based on current laws.
Commissioner Leaf stated based on what Councilman Blumberg said the applicant should think seriously about inclusionary units, fee in lieu for the affordable units and consider that. He would like to see the applicant confirm the public benefit as far as the sidewalk extension and he thought the zoning code calculations for the non-kitchen dwelling units should be looked at.
Director Fontane asked if he meant more generally.
Commissioner Leaf stated more generally because this takes time.
Councilman Blumberg stated he thought he was directing this more towards Council and as a policy issue or whether they want PUDs to consider what was previously considered non-residential units. They would work with staff.
Director Fontane stated if the Commission wants to make that recommendation to Council that will be included.
Mr. Hamilton thanked the Commission and stated they had have heard the feedback and will be prepared for the next meeting.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he would like to understand the drainage better and is this something staff can provide.
Planner Cross stated the Engineering Division has reviewed these plans and they would be glad to work with them to provide a more detailed summary about their review and findings.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated on the west side of the property in the parking lot in some locations there is a 7’ retaining wall and how that visually impacts the neighbors to the west. He also asked about refuse and deliveries.
Planner Cross stated the next agenda is March 19, 2019 and it is full. Staff requests a continuance to April 2, 2019.
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue this item to April 2, 2019. Commissioner Kutscheid so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Leaf. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
Director Fontane stated no additional notice will be given.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Planner Cross mentioned the schedule was full for March 19th and they will be looking at a number of staff driven or City driven policy considerations. Several of them have to do with Article XXI inclusionary housing policy and also the subdivision setback considerations. Briergate will be rescheduled until later in April.
Commissioner Leaf asked if they would be discussing the other items on the agenda for Match 19th.
Planner Cross stated they would discuss everything except for Briergate.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked about the Acorn subdivision.
Planner Cross stated it is a subdivision of property.
Commissioner Leaf asked if they would be doing inclusionary housing.
Director Fontane stated that was the plan and they were working with Counsel to get the code ready for review.
Mr. Schuster stated he hoped the Commission had received the save the date invitation from his firm for the biennial seminar on May 2nd at Ravinia and they looked forward to seeing them.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
VII. STAFF REPORT
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Reinstein so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 9:45 PM.