City of Highland Park met Tuesday, Dec. 3.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
I. Call to Order
At 7:30 p.m. Chair Hecht called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.
II. Roll Call
Members Present: Glazer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Leaf, Lidawer, Reinstein
Members Absent: Pearlstein
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Cross, Fontane, Kosmatka
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Bloomberg
III. Approval of Minutes
November 5, 2019
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2019 meeting with corrections. Vice Chair Reinstein so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously.
November 19, 2019
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2019 meeting with corrections. Vice Chair Reinstein so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer. Chair Hecht abstained. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously.
IV. Scheduled Business
1. Design Review for Site Plan and Landscape Changes at 2789 Oak St.
Vice Chair Reinstein recused himself from this item.
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including application summary, existing condition, approved 2018 landscaping, proposed landscape plan, proposed parking lots, proposed landscaping, existing conditions, proposed screening - landscape, proposed refuse screening, design review standards Chapter 176, refuse container screening Section 150.2245 and recommendation.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if there was a setback requirement for landscape from the ROW line to the edge of the parking lot.
Director Fontane stated they can do landscaping within the first 5’ of the property. Setbacks are for buildings and structures not for landscaping.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they can take the parking lot right up to the ROW line.
Director Fontane asked if he meant a setback for a lot that includes landscaping.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated yes.
Planner Cross stated setbacks apply to structures and parking is allowed in the front yard. There is a required planting buffer.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated in the area where they removed the lot to install landscape directly opposite of that parking spot they did not remove and left that one close to the ROW line.
Director Fontane stated existing conditions are just that and those are grandfathered situations.
They are changing it in a conforming way and that is alright. They are not reconstructing the entire lot and are still zoning compliant.
Planner Cross stated if the landscape buffer is narrower than the 5’ required by code, it is possible that relief was granted in the 2007 PUD.
Director Fontane stated they are not making any changes in existing conditions.
Chair Hecht stated no relief is being sought.
Commissioner Glazer stated the staff report included conclusions that the standards were satisfied. He asked if this was included because it is here for design review.
Planner Kosmatka stated it applies to the design review items.
Commissioner Glazer stated ordinarily the satisfaction of the standards is for the Commission to determine.
Director Fontane stated staff thought the standards were met, but ultimately it is the Commission’s decision to make. Staff’s advisement is non-binding on the Commission.
Commissioner Glazer stated it almost sounds like a recommendation when the report comes to them that the standards that apply are satisfied it almost takes the decision making out of their hands which is not what he understood the Commission does. They receive information but they generally do not receive recommendations or findings about the standards unless it is on a basic level. Since it is only here for design review, it is more appropriate.
Mr. Nick Patera, Teska Associates, Landscape Architect, stated they have worked with staff to answer questions and met with neighbors. They have sent out an exchange as they proceed with the building demolition. There is exchange with neighbors to let them know about timing and when they are planning to proceed. They met Oct. 14 at the Police Dept. and made a presentation. This is not the first time this application has been before us and they had an idea of the intensity of the landscape was intended to be and they were able to use that experience they had from 2018 to and apply it to the present petition. They are confident it will be an attractive outcome.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the shrubs at the sidewalk and will they obstruct drivers’ sight while pulling in and out.
Mr. Patera stated it is lower at corners. They are below 32” and as they get away from corners they will be taller to obscure cars in the lot.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they will be maintained to the 32” height.
Mr. Patera stated yes.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the garbage enclosure and how people bring the garbage to it.
Mr. Patera stated there are sidewalks and it is only coming from Arlyn. They walk in through the main gates and close them. It is not a big commercial use and a single user. They want to keep it low key.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if you had to walk into the street and come down the drive rather than a small pedestrian path.
Mr. Patera stated people use the parking lot for access and it would be through that area rather than a dedicated sidewalk. The other sidewalks on the property are existing and are to remain.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the planting island and if it was all paved or do you end up with a 2’ wide gap.
Mr. Patera stated there is an overly wide parking space on the northwest of Arlyn. You would walk on the west side of Arlyn and go due north to the lot and then turn back to access the trash enclosure.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the person carrying the trash walks in the street and into the trash enclosure.
Mr. Patera stated it is a parking lot, not an active street.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it was a Walker Ave. ROW that has parking in it.
Mr. Patera stated it is still ROW and a shared area.
Director Fontane stated the trash enclosure is not located off the property.
Mr. Patera stated it is within their property.
Director Fontane stated it is under license agreement with Open Lands for use or parking. There are two fences and the first fence was built by the former synagogue and the parking after that is still City ROW. Then there is another fence that is owned by Highwood. It is under license agreement with Open Lands.
Chair Hecht asked if the spots are being used by the school.
Director Fontane stated the ones closest to the building.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about snow removal.
Director Fontane stated it is part of the license agreement as covered by Open Lands.
Commissioner Glazer asked if they were planning to remove trees.
Mr. Patera stated some trees are diseased along the back side of the synagogue and a couple of silver maples. The City Forester evaluated them and asked them to remove some of the diseased trees. They are trying to keep the number of trees around the administration building. Some of the lower vegetation will be removed and they are trying to keep some of the trees on the south side of the house and on the southwest corner of the synagogue. They are trying to keep what they can and some of the larger trees on the property are staying. The only big tree being removed is on the top of the bluff and the City Forester asked them to remove it because it is damaged and diseased.
Commissioner Glazer asked how many trees are coming down.
Mr. Patera stated around 10.
Commissioner Glazer stated the plan they have shows seven. He asked if he could identify them for the Commission.
Mr. Patera stated there are two silver maples at the top of the bluff and another. There are some spruce and buckthorns. They are not touching the parkway trees. The trees along the hedge row are staying. Seven are being removed.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the honey locust, #39, and stated it was 20” with a quality grading of 3.
Mr. Patera stated it is an average tree and they could look at it again and see if it could remain. Some of the demolition coordination is to try and make sure they have access. They will do their best to keep the trees, but they may be entangled with foundations since they were planted after the building was built.
Commissioner Glazer asked if he was aware of other trees that are not diseased that they are planning to take down.
Mr. Patera stated they were in agreement with the City Forester and have accepted his recommendations to take down two on the bluff.
Commissioner Glazer asked if they will make an effort to save the honey locust.
Mr. Patera stated if the City Forester agrees.
Planner Cross stated the tree removal plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester.
Mr. Meno Passini, Resident, stated this is a transition and they are not too worried. They want everything planted up and taken care of with no damage to the bluff. Their concern is that not that the parking lot is staying and it squelches the idea of when the single family homes are going to be built. It is zoned R4 and R5 and they would like to know when it is going back to single family homes. This has been going on for five years.
Chair Hecht entertained a motion. Commissioner Glazer motioned to approve with the condition that maximum efforts be expended to save the honey locust tree, #39 on the plans.
Commissioner Kutscheid added with the maintenance of the sight lines to the maximum height of 32”. Commissioner Lidawer seconded.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Lidawer, Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hecht
Nays: None
Motion passed 5-0.
2. Continuation of Public Hearing #19-09-SUP-003 for a Restaurant with Dancing and Entertainment, a Conditional Land Use in the B2-RW Zoning District, for Ravinia Brewing located at 582 Roger Williams Ave.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing #19-09-SUP-004 for an Outdoor Restaurant, a Conditional Land Use in the B2-RW Zoning District, for Ravinia Brewing located at 582 Roger Williams Ave.
Chair Hecht stated Items 2 and 3 will be continued to December 17, 2019.
4. Public Hearing #18-10-ZTA-003 for Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code for the Addition of New Experiential Land Uses and Modifications to Existing Land Uses, Including Changes to Land Use Tables, Definitions, and Parking Requirements; Amendments to the POSO and BR-2W Establishment and Purpose Language; Addition of Standards for Section 150.1404(A) and Section 150.902(G) Regarding Special Uses and Changes to a Non-Conforming Use. Chair Hecht entertained a motion to continue Item 4 to December 17, 2019. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, Vice Chair Reinstein seconded. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
5. Pre-Application Discussion for the Redevelopment of the Former Saks Fifth Avenue Building at 1849 Green Bay Rd.
Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including project summary and location, previous consideration, revised conceptual rendering, view from Second St., first floor plan, ground floor, off-street parking - Renaissance Place underground garage, unit mix, major amendment to Renaissance Place PUD and recommendation.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation including feedback, they do not anticipate seeking zoning relief, amendment to existing PUD, and design review situation.
Mr. Andrew Yule, Albion Jacobs, Applicant, stated they took the Commission’s comments seriously and want to capture everything before the public meeting.
Mr. Ray Hartshrone, Architect, stated it is a great residential site, vitality in the downtown, tackling mass of the building and breaking it down, creating vertical recess in façade, multiple facades, step down on Green Bay Rd. and Second St., four story to three, create pedestrian scale, face brick, glass, good panels, want to take commentary on design and window placement.
Mr. Yule stated there is work to do on the mechanicals, screening is needed, walkway on south border, here to hear comments, main artery to downtown district, bell or clock affixed to side of building, entry with canopy, movement to break up mass, balconies, drop off zone, loading dock and no tandem stalls.
Commissioner Lidawer mentioned the way they have broken it up and made it more user friendly, cutouts and drop downs, setback on top, does not seem as massive, parking and the poles, losing one space much less seven, for local business this is huge, poles are not very attractive, add as much green as possible along base, does not like sign, green is necessary.
Mr. Yule mentioned they are not disturbing landscaping plan or planting beds and could have vertical/horizontal heights.
Commissioner Lidawer mentioned the air rights and they had to come to the Commission for that. She asked if that was because of the parking area and the way the building is structured.
Mr. Bernstein stated it is a Council matter and not before the Commission. They are looking for the air rights to allow for more density. The code language regarding air rights is in the packet and they will address with the City.
Commissioner Glazer asked the status of the negotiations regarding the air rights.
Director Fontane stated it is preliminary.
Mr. Bernstein stated before they come back for the public hearing they will have it nailed down.
Director Fontane stated the idea is to look at what is proposed. The desire is to build out over the Second St. parking and this is part of the Renaissance Place PUD and it would need to be amended. Right now the PUD includes 30-33 housing units and is far less than the density allowed in the PUD. They are not getting additional density.
Vice Chair Reinstein commended them for a nice design job and thought it was going in the right direction. He mentioned the view of the cars and thought there may be other ways to do this including a trellis, ground level planter, a lot of glass, window covering rules, width of the pedestrian pathway and lighting.
Mr. Yule stated the path is 14’ at the narrowest point. It is similar to their project in Oak Park that connects Lake St. to a park. They strung lights across it with criss cross lines, public art, mosaic tiling, strung lights will try to energize walkway.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated if they kept with the trellises and the lower planter maybe they could have art work there to help block the parking.
Mr. Yule stated he looked at some of the different parking structures in town and wants to have light so the public feels safe and knows it is there. He did not want it to feel like a garage. Trellises and ivy are interesting for six months of the year and maybe there is something else they can do there to dress it up.
Vice Chair Reinstein mentioned the requirement of 165 spaces and the 158 given. He asked if they were going to look at the parking reduction.
Mr. Yule stated it shows the ground level retail at slightly over 10,000 s.f. and it needs to be at 7,500 s.f. to meet code. It is more TOD than most sites and there is a discount.
Planner Cross it is proximate to available transit.
Mr. Yule stated he wanted it to fit within 158 but still qualify for something that is above and beyond.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked how the affordable units will work.
Mr. Bernstein stated Council has revised and passed an amended ordinance basically codifying what they did at Karger. They intend to use the affordable plan used at Karger as a template. It would be a combination of units on site and fee in lieu for the balance.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if they had the numbers.
Planner Cross stated it was page 51of the packet.
Mr. Bernstein stated they have to provide 15.8 they are looking to provide 9 on site and do the fee in lieu for the remainder.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if it would be 9 of the 94.
Mr. Bernstein stated yes and they would pay the fee in lieu for the balance.
Councilman Blumberg stated they had not changed the percentages. When Mr. Bernstein alluded to changes that have been made, they have not. The changes made were ratified by the Commission but limited to that in the end. When they pay a fee in lieu they have to make a showing and that has not changed. He will be looking as to how they make that showing and they have to demonstrate the amount of money they pay for each unit they are not building provide an equal or greater opportunity for that unit offsite.
Mr. Bernstein stated they understand that. What previously was not available to them that they received relief from at Karger is that if they did not provide all the units on site then they were not entitled to receiving bonus units for the units they do have on site. Council revised the ordinance about a month ago which allows them to do as they did at Karger without relief. They have the ability to obtain the bonus units for the units on site, not for the units they pay the fee in lieu.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he liked the improvements and thought the Green Bay façade scale is correct for the rest of Green Bay. He stated the scale of Elm Pl. seems a little big compared to this, but there is nothing to compare it to. For Second St. if you look at each building leading to this one, it is quite a bit bigger and feels different in scale than the rest of Second St. He thought maybe they could take a photo of each façade of the buildings on Second St. and compare them to the design they have developed. He thought what Second St. feels like is one-story pedestrian oriented facades even though there are additional stories above.
Mr. Yule stated they are going to put together an elevation study of the whole block.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated most of the buildings are detailed on the first floor quite a bit different than they are detailed above the first floor. The street trees were planted in reference to the Saks architecture and they need to plant trees based on their architecture.
Mr. Yule stated he appreciated the Commission helping them with what they want it to look like.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the walkway is an opportunity. He mentioned the alley behind Field’s in Lake Forest is a very narrow walkway and there is a lot of activity for such a small walkway. You see the space with columns and it really does not do anything. He asked if they could park it and move it somewhere else maybe adjacent to the alley of the walkway to create a more active space. It may not work because of the ramp. He mentioned the roof line of the fifth floor and it becomes a very prominent thing you will be able to see from quite a distance. He mentioned breaking it up visually.
Mr. Yule stated they could play with the parapet and figure how to do it.
Director Fontane stated they do have an elevation of the abutting building on Second St. and the first floor of the building on Second St. is going to be the parking lot. In terms of how it related to the other buildings it is a surface parking lot now. As it stands there is a struggle with the number of spaces being maintained. To introduce store fronts along that way would take out a significant amount of parking on Second St.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he is not saying to change the physical design of the use of the building. He stated it feels to him like a three story building as you walk by rather than a one story. He would like the feeling of walking down Second St. to be the same for the whole length of Second St. rather than just changing the scale on Second St. with this façade as compared to the other facades on Second St. Maybe that could be accomplished with awnings or something else that brings the scale more toward the pedestrian level than it is currently.
Mr. Hartshorne stated he was looking at the Second St. facades and there is a hierarchy of windows. They can see the beginning of a hierarchy that can solve the issue. There are some punched openings which are smaller windows and there are spatial openings with more glass. If they play with that on Second St. they can create that continuity of context by making the upper floors a little different and playing up that friendly shop window effect on the first floor.
Commissioner Glazer stated they have seen some wonderful evolution on this property from where they started and their responsiveness had been noted. He agreed with Commissioner Lidawer about the plantings and it will soften it a great deal and will give it a better feel. He did not mind the sign and if they wanted to go with a clock or bell that is fine too. He mentioned breaking up the roof and asked what their plans were. It looks large enough that it could be of benefit in the summer for those who do not have balconies. Maybe they could have some greenery on the roof.
Mr. Yule stated the club room will be on Second St. and it has an outdoor wrap around terrace for the tenants. Their goals is to allow residents to go back and forth between projects. It has a more urban loft feel. They have to study the roof and there will be mechanicals up there and they will look at screening. There will be an air handing system on both sides and maybe some split systems. They will take a look at it and maybe have a sunning deck.
Commissioner Glazer stated he had heard they would like the residents to go back and forth. He asked what would draw Karger residents to this building.
Mr. Yule stated it is more of an urban living environment and they plan on having three bedroom units. The intent is it is probably more of an empty nester where Karger would have a mixture of different demographics. The lobby space is 5,600 s.f. and they want to activate that on the street level and they do not want it to be a lame looking lobby. They want it to be energized.
Commissioner Glazer asked if the first floor is all parking or if there will be retail space. He asked if there was room to add retail.
Mr. Yule stated they are showing it on Green Bay. There are restrictions on the site and the purchase contract is laden with restrictions on use to not compete.
Mr. Bernstein stated the reason they are calling it commercial space is because it is not in the POSO and they are not going to get people walking by for a spur of the moment retail experience. There will be a drive aisle to the south which is the entrance to the parking structure and is kind of like an island. They are not sure whether retail is the right fit for this location. That is for the marketplace to make that determination.
Chair Hecht asked what else would fit there.
Mr. Yule stated there are other uses. Everyone wants to be at this location. They have heard of performance theaters and smaller uses. Having vacant retail is not good and a bad sign for downtown. They have to come up with the right number they can lease immediately and have it work. He cannot scream for the highest rents.
Commissioner Glazer stated it was good to hear a landlord take that approach. They have concerns and as much as they appreciate other businesses, they are not anxious to see another nail salon.
Mr. Yule stated he had a feeling where the Commission wants this to go. He also hears fellow landlords saying it is a struggle. They will work their hardest to fill it the best they can.
Commissioner Glazer mentioned the minority housing issues and asked about the public benefit.
Mr. Bernstein stated public benefit is a derivative of relief requested and the amount of public benefit usually corresponds to what kind of relief the zoning code requires. They do not anticipate any relief being requested. The only issues will be the design review of the project. If that is the case, they are not required to provide it but they have a list of public benefits regarding the pathway, public art and things likely to help beautify this area and make the path work and create more connectivity between Sunset Park and the downtown. Although it is not required, they will be providing public benefit.
Commissioner Glazer stated with the Karger they were very sensitive to input from the neighbors. This is a very significant piece of Highland Park and he thought there would be a great deal of interest in this property. He asked if they intend to solicit public input.
Mr. Yule they will be notifying the neighbors. Most of the neighbors are commercial tenants. The biggest meeting is with the downtown business district and he wants to sit down with them and make sure they understand the project and he wants to understand their concerns. They will work through it and are interested in feedback and they want to be a part of the community. It is in a commercial zone and they will be having a public meeting in early January.
Commissioner Glazer stated he thought there would be a high interest throughout the community.
Mr. Yule stated he hoped so.
Commissioner Leaf stated he liked the design and they did well with the stepbacks and it helps improve the scale to the street. He asked if they could round off the southwest corner and make the walkway on a 45o angle that would increase the visibility if that could be the doorway into the commercial space. It would also help the connectivity to the crosswalk which is to the north.
Mr. Yule stated this was a good idea and would soften the retail entry point. The public entry into the garage will stay. That is the first means of access.
Councilman Blumberg mentioned the pathway and stated William H. White was an urban planner whose interest was public spaces. Some of the things he found important to successful public spaces were light, air, water and seating. People like to sit down in an inviting place and maybe have lunch and congregate there. Anything they can do to open it up and make it an inviting space would enhance access to the building.
Mr. Yule stated he thought these were great ideas.
Councilman Blumberg mentioned the affordable housing and was concerned when Mr. Bernstein stated they were going to use the same model for this that they used at Karger.
He was concerned because they are speaking of it as a precedent. Prior to Karger the total amount of relief sought by all developers was one unit. He would like them to consider eliminating or reducing the amount of fee in lieu and try to find ways to build more units on site.
Mr. Bernstein stated they are not asking for any relief from the affordable housing ordinance and they are not asking for a departure. Their intent is to be consistent with Karger which received a unanimous recommendation from the Housing Commission. They are not seeking departures from the code, but will be seeking to do the hybrid method they used before.
Councilman Blumberg stated what he was asking is for them to consider to try to build more units, preferably all the units on site. Having actual units built is always preferable to a payment in lieu. When they say it is not a departure or asking for relief, the ability to pay in lieu is not a by right issue unless they are talking about a single family development. They are asking for relief. When they say they are not seeking relief in terms of addressing public benefit when they ask to make a payment in lieu that is a type of relief.
Mr. Bernstein stated they can talk about this.
Chair Hecht asked about the ramp on Second St. and if it is staying.
Mr. Yule stated it would serve more as a private residence ramp. Their intent is not to reconfigure any of that. A solution might be to flip the ramp and they are going to study it. Chair Hecht stated his concern was the parking underneath where the ramp goes is public parking. He asked if it was to remain public parking.
Mr. Yule stated the way it is boxed today no one parks directly below. The whole block is below Saks and the ramp comes down and there is a segregation. There are 138 stalls within the block which is where they will look to utilize the stalls for the residents above.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated there is no entry but on the south for cars. If you cannot find a space you drive in that ramp and park.
Mr. Yule stated they have not worked out if they will have dedicated stalls for the residents.
Chair Hecht stated that was his concern because he has parked below because he can come right up and walk across the street to Michael’s. They are adding 94 units and they are losing seven spots on the surface. He thought this could cause a parking problem on Second St.
Mr. Bernstein stated they will have a traffic consultant take a look at that. When Saks was operating there these were spaces allocated to Saks.
Mr. Yule stated he thought it was a solution between staff and the City, Tobani and Albion.
Commissioner Leaf asked if guest parking will continue to be paid.
Director Fontane stated no one has proposed to change the operations of the garage.
Mr. Yule stated the code says they have to have 10 percent of public parking for guest parking.
He was open to a conversation about this.
Mr. Yule stated the comments heard today are solvable and the biggest one is figuring out the parking structure at grade. Their goal would be to go to the Housing Commission in February before coming back here. They would come back later in February for a formal public hearing.
V. Other Business
1. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
2. Next Regular Meeting - December 17, 2019
Planner Cross stated Ravinia Brewing, Solo Cup and the Experiential Uses will be on the agenda.
3. Case Briefing – None
VI. Business from the Public
None
VII. Adjournment
Chair Hecht entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Reinstein. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 9:20 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2302&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up