City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Feb. 4.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Planner Cross to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Glazer, Hainsfurther, Hecht, Kutscheid, Lidawer, Moore, Reinstein
Members Absent: None
Planner Cross took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Cross, Jackson, Kosmatka
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Lemneman, Stolberg
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 7, 2020
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
1. Design Review - Façade Improvements in Port Clinton Square at 600 Central Ave., Suite 123.
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including project location, application summary, existing conditions, proposed plan (staff visualization), proposed elevations, standards and recommendation.
Chair Reinstein asked to see the slide showing existing and proposed conditions. Planner Jackson illustrated slides.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if it was unusual not to receive a rendering and she thought it was difficult to follow and visualize.
Planner Jackson stated it depends in the application and staff encourages visualizations to be provided by all applicants.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if the extension out will be flush with the next tier. She asked how the horizontal windows will look.
Planner Jackson stated the applicant could confirm these items. Commissioner Hecht stated he was trying to visualize this. Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he had no questions at this time.
Commissioner Glazer stated he was concerned they did not have a visualization and having one would have helped in considering this and they could ask the applicant questions.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the increase in s.f. changed anything related to zoning or use.
Planner Cross stated it does not.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if this was part of the POSO.
Planner Cross stated the tenant spaces where improvements are proposed were omitted from the POSO.
Commissioner Moore asked about the storefront plan in the lower left corner where the new corner comes out and it looks like it is very close to the overhang. She asked about the covered walkway and if that would be an issue. It did not look like there was a lot of room.
Planner Jackson stated the applicant could address this.
Mr. Rick Strusiner, Applicant, made a presentation including the retail center is over 46,000 s.f. and this represents 450 s.f., less, it is less than 1% change in size, not on City property, 35 years ago he thought having a 15’ overhang was a wonderful idea because people could walk under shelter, consistency of the storefront was also important, he has heard the 15’ is too deep, monotony of everything being the same, have secured tenant for space, use is not retail, it is a great opportunity to change the experience of Port Clinton by changing from vertical to a more contemporary horizontal look, mullions relate more to their interior plan regarding the reception area, when you are in the plaza it will stand out as something different, this is not the first time they have changed the shape of Port Clinton, they filled in one of the corners by the foot spa, material will stay the same - dark bronze aluminum, he made decision to go horizontal and change statement, it will look more like entrance to office area rather retail, creates variety, brings overhang to 12’, more visible and is exciting for Port Clinton.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if you could walk under cover in that corner. He was trying to understand how the horizontal fits with the vertical and how it meshes with the rest of the center. He agreed with updating it, but on the other hand it is kind of a classic 80’s style building.
Mr. Strusiner stated he thought it would be a strong help to the experience of Port Clinton instead of every store being the same as you go along. He saw it as a strong change.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the loss of cover and people walking along.
Mr. Strusiner stated they do not have that kind of traffic and they still have plenty of shelter.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if this change would be more of a permanent change from commercial to office.
Mr. Strusiner stated the lease is a 10-year lease and they are trying to freshen it up. Commissioner Kutscheid asked how it affected the other commercial that is behind it.
Mr. Strusiner stated there is a clothing store in front and to south is Bar Method. There is a slight change of 3’-4’ at that point. It is not putting someone behind and everyone is still lined up.
Commissioner Glazer asked about the vision for the next vacant storefront and if they would continue with the non-retail concept.
Mr. Strusiner stated the face of retail is changing drastically. They have over 200 tenants and he put together a chart of where retail is going and what his 200 tenants look like today. 25% of 200 tenants was food, second was beauty and the third was medical. It is a changing thing. The jeweler re-occupied with another jeweler. They are looking at another pizza place where Blaze was. There is not much vacancy at Port Clinton.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther agreed with the changing face of retail. He asked about the diversity to the look and feel of Port Clinton. He asked about the re-lease or re-purpose
of some of the spaces and doing the same treatment in other scattered locations within the complex or is this the only one.
Mr. Strusiner stated this is the only location now making that change. He thought it would be very interesting from the plaza. They could just go back to the verticals and nothing is contingent upon this happening and the property is evolving. He thought it would be a fresh change.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they would do this to the entrance of the office portion. Mr. Strusiner stated no, he did not see repeating this.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated that he was concerned the RUB storefront could change because they would want more privacy. He understood not having uniformity and thought there needs to be some logical pattern behind what the approach is. He did not want to see a series of “one-offs” and he was cautious about that.
Mr. Strusiner stated his cautiousness stopped when he had the thought of white mullions. He will stay with the same color glass and mullions.
Commissioner Hecht asked if there was thought of a redesign of the entire development.
Mr. Strusiner stated not at this time.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she would defer to upgrading and enhancing the property. She felt they had a responsibility and the visualization was important. When she looked at some of the photos of the bench she wanted to see visually how it will look and how the horizontal mullions will look next to the vertical ones. She did not feel she could vote at this time when she had not see the design. It was difficult to visualize and she wanted to see what it would look like before she voted.
Chair Reinstein asked who the tenant was and if their space requirements are driving the extra 450 s.f.
Mr. Strusiner stated the tenant is Pedia Trust, the parent group of 30 different pediatric practices in IL. The local practice is Pediatric Partners and they are in the hospital office building now. They are looking forward to being downtown vs. being on Park Avenue West. When they first negotiated they has a plan that fit into 123 as it exists. This evolved into the rectangle they have now. They are not extending onto the plaza. They have 45,000 s.f. of retail space at Port Clinton and this is only 4,000 s.f.
Chair Reinstein asked if they could provide a rendering with a side by side comparison of what they are proposing vs. what it looks like now.
Mr. Strusiner stated he thought there were two questions, one moving it out and the second is the change in design.
Chair Reinstein stated they just wanted to focus on the change in design. He thought it would be in the applicant’s interest to show the Commission what it will look like when the work is done.
Mr. Strusiner stated the request was not predicated on a lease requirement. It was purely his feelings to make this statement for Port Clinton. He thought maybe they could break this into two requests – one being the storefront being moved out and the second is changing the rhythm of the mullions. He thought they were two different questions.
Commissioner Lidawer agreed they were two different issues, however they are founded on the same principle in terms of a rendering so they can visualize it.
Chair Reinstein stated he wanted give feedback to the applicant.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they had the right to tell him he cannot bump this out.
Planner Cross stated the Commission has full review authority over design review items. This proposal includes an expansion and bump out. From the zoning perspective it does not trigger an amendment to the PUD. From a regulatory standpoint they can deny the certificate of approval for design review. There is an appeal procedure before the City Council.
Chair Reinstein stated he was able to provide feedback on the horizontal or vertical mullions. He thought they should do this tonight so that is settled. He was in favor of the existing vertical.
Mr. Strusiner stated they could go back to that if they felt strong about it. He felt strongly about the change. He could come back with a rendering that showed it.
Chair Reinstein asked if he wanted a vote tonight based on keeping the vertical mullions without a rendering.
Mr. Strusiner stated yes.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he still wanted to enlarge it. He asked how the tenant is going to lay out their space and what is going to be in the front end.
Mr. Strusiner stated it is reception and waiting and the exams rooms are along the solid walls.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there is not a lot of depth where there is not window along the north. Along the north side there is not a lot of blank wall. He thought it would be good to see how the space is laid out.
Mr. Strusiner disagreed and thought it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with the question.
Commissioner Lidawer entertained a motion.
Planner Cross stated the Commission has asked for additional information and it could be a motion to continue. He advised against any motion for a conditional approval.
Chair Reinstein stated he was giving the applicant the opportunity to force a vote tonight is that is what he wants. They were ready to move to another date when he could bring a pictorial of what he is proposing.
Mr. Strusiner stated he appreciated it and this type of business does not move slowly. He would rather withdraw the horizontal mullions if they do not feel comfortable with it. He came here because of the mullion design and was not sure he needed approval for the expansion on his own property under the overhang.
Commissioner Glazer stated they have not heard opposition to the expansion. The only request was they wanted to see what it would look like and perhaps they will like the vertical suggestion.
Commissioner Lidawer entertained a motion to continue to February 18, 2020. Commission Hecht so motioned. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Strusiner stated he would not be able to appear, but would send a representative and have the renderings prepared.
Planner Cross stated staff would make every effort to have the materials at the meeting. Chair Reinstein asked when staff needed them.
Planner Cross stated within a week. If February 18th does not work the applicant can request another date.
Mr. Strusiner stated he will find out when the renderer can produce the drawing.
2. Design Review - Sign Variation for Flow Plus Pilates at 2600 Waukegan Ave., Suite 100.
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including project location, photos, proposed awning signs, proposed sign variation, sign variation standards, general design standards and recommendation.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the rendering and if the two signs were both on Waukegan Rd.
Planner Kosmatka stated the frontage was on Waukegan Rd. and the two awning signs would be on Waukegan Rd.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she thought it would draw from the street and pedestrian traffic and made a lot of sense. She read about the hardship in the code and asked if they could grant it. She did not see a hardship or unique reason for granting this.
Planner Cross stated it was a standard for the Commission to discuss.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the variance is related to the logo for the second awning. They have type or logo on both. There was a similar request for the orthodontist at Laurel and St. Johns and this was granted. The issue is as you are coming south on Waukegan there is a stop sign but not for anyone going west. There is nothing to catch your attention. He was concerned about the proliferation of signs and if there was no window sign he might understand the purpose of the sign over the door. He asked about removing the address and if the Fire Dept. required an address on the building.
Planner Kosmatka stated the address was noted as 2580 and with this application it was discovered that is not the properties are actually oriented. 2580 is south of Bloom Street. The property owner has worked with the Building Div. to create a new address.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if there will be a new address put up, he was just unclear whether they were taking it off and if they were going to change it to what the City requires.
Planner Kosmatka confirmed this.
Commissioner Moore asked if the issue was with the awnings or signs and if you could have two awnings but only one with a sign.
Planner Cross stated that would be allowed by right. They are here to ask for the second sign.
Commissioner Glazer mentioned if they are in a position to do anything outside of the requirements in the zoning code. He thought this is an exceptional circumstance that warrants relief and it is the physical location of the property and the nature of the street without the ability to regulate traffic going south. It is not a location where the existing signage is adequate. It is a modest adjustment and was appropriate. The neighborhood compels something more than they have now and is the hardship they face at this location. He thought they were in a position to go forward.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the bright blue awning under the balcony. He stated it will always be in shadow and shade and it does not make sense to have the awning under the balcony. The window sign and the awning sign are overkill.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to grant the relief as requested conditioned on the inclusion of the exhibits as supporting documents. Commissioner Lidawer seconded. On a voice vote, the motion passed with one nay by Commissioner Kutscheid.
3. Subdivision Consideration with Relief Requested for the Reisman Subdivision at 2320 Shady Ln.
Planner Cross stated it is rare for subdivision considerations to come before the Commission. There is a unique element of relief necessary and they brought it before the Commission for consideration and recommendation to Council.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if this item had been before the Commission previously. Planner Kosmatka stated no.
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including application summary, existing plat of survey, proposed subdivision, subdivision and zoning review, variation review, City Dept. comments, Plan and Design Commission’s consideration and recommendation.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked the address of the subject property. Planner Kosmatka stated it was 2320 Shady Ln.
Planner Cross stated the existing property fronts to the east.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she was impressed with the fact that this subdivision has held up for 101 years and she was impressed they were here to become compliant. She would like language that it is subject to other agencies giving approval. She thought they should do their best to keep the two trees as well as removing the structures which are part of becoming compliant.
Ms. Lenneman stated she did not think the Forestry Dept. makes a recommendation. Chair Reinstein stated their involvement is if there is a permit to building something.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they have to comply with the regulations of the City and no matter what they are going to have to deal with Forestry.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the proposed Reisman Subdivision at 2320 Shady Ln. and 2285 Highmoor Ln. with the conditions that the applicant remove the driveway encroachment and shed accessory structure from Lot 38 and recommend approval of the variation for the requested through lot. Commissioner Hecht so motioned.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
4. Public Hearing #19-09-SUP-003 and Findings of Fact 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.
5. Public Hearing #19-09-SUP-004 and Findings of Fact for an Outdoor Restaurant, a Conditional Land Use in the B2-RW Zoning District, for Ravinia Brewing Located at 582 Roger Williams Ave.
Items 4 and 5 will be heard concurrently.
Commissioner Lidawer mentioned page 66, Par. 5 of the packet and stated she was not aware they could only have a band on Friday and Saturday. She thought if they checked the minutes they had said it was possible on Sunday afternoons.
Planner Cross stated staff had watched the meeting and took notes and they reflected the applicant’s suggestion to just have bans on Friday and Saturday only.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated there was one other item he recalled differently that there was a vote taken that was 1 for and 3 against and it did not receive a second. Commissioner Hecht seconded it and it was voted down 1-3.
Mr. Kris Walker, Applicant, stated their request is that they would limit the number of bands, but that Sunday would not necessarily be off limits within the hours stated. If the Commission feels strongly against it he did not know if they wanted to reopen the issue. As an example, on St. Pat’s day they had some kids doing Irish dancing on a Sunday afternoon. It would be ideal not to have the police called.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the petition did say Friday and Saturday.
Commissioner Glazer stated they were saying they would rather have the option of Sunday as long as they are not increasing the number of events why wouldn’t they keep Sunday as well.
Chair Reinstein asked if the Sunday would be if there is a Monday holiday.
Mr. Walker stated not necessarily but for some special events. On Sundays people like to go out with their families and it is a good time for different types of music than you might have on a Friday or Saturday.
Commissioner Glazer asked what happens if it rains Friday and Saturday would they reschedule to Sunday.
Mr. Walker stated they have to book these far in advance and was not sure how often they would be able to do that.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she thought because of the family question that was why they had included it in Sunday afternoon. She thought it would be 3 PM to 6PM.
Mr. Walker stated it would be earlier on Sunday.
Chair Reinstein asked if the verbiage on an occasional Sunday would work.
Ms. Lenneman stated she would not recommend that language as it would be difficult to enforce. Either allow it during the hours or set a specific time on Sunday they are allowed to take place.
Planner Cross stated it could be a specific number per month.
Commissioner Lidawer stated it says only one musical band per week so they could give up a Friday and Saturday and have it on a Sunday they already have the hours. If it is a family concert they might want to have that option.
Mr. Walker stated it would be special things like Cinco de Mayo or maybe a long weekend.
Commissioner Glazer asked if they made it Friday, Saturday or Sunday until 7:00 PM.
Mr. Walker stated that would be perfect for them.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he had no problem with them doing whatever they want inside their space, but had a problem with standard #3 which is the special use that will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. If he lived within 85’ of their patio he would have a problem enjoying his property and it could diminish his property value especially since he was there before them. He asked if they had considered hiring a professional acoustician to ameliorate the sound and if not why did they choose not to hire someone.
Mr. Walker stated they received advice from acoustic individuals and consulted with various firms. The proposal they brought forward is scientifically sound.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they may be the people selling the product they are buying. He had no expert opinion outside of their assertion that it was scientifically sound. The statement was made that they are going to put up residential type curtains on the outside. Soundproofing curtains are heavy duty, thick velvet velour curtains that absorb the sound. A residential curtain will not help the sound. He understood the neighbors’ concerns. He lives in north Highland Park and every Friday and Saturday he can clearly hear the music from Highwood. In this case there will be a band two to three nights a week. He will vote against SUP #004 for these reasons.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated their thinking was that the sound still has to follow the nuisance standard. If the adjacent property feels the sound is a nuisance they go through what they do now.
Commissioner Hecht asked how it worked with the City if the property owner claims it violates the nuisance standard. From his perspective that is giving someone the right to a lawsuit.
Councilman Stolberg stated he has sat on the Wolter’s Field Advisory Group for two years and this is a constant question. They have left it with the neighbors and they have to call the police and they have to make a determination. They determine if violation or a citation is to be issued or if it is a warning. The actual noise falls to enforcement through the police. The only difference is the field was there before the houses.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the Police Chief was at the December hearing and asked not to be put in a position that they had had to be the referee. They can do what they want inside the space. He thought there was a significant impact and he had no professional opinion that says the steps they are taking will ameliorate the problem.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she believed the petitioner had provided expert opinions when they made their presentation. She thought there was a great deal of noise cancellation. The police testified and asked not to put this in their hands. She asked not to use the decibel level and if they came out 20 minutes later and the level had dropped they would not be put in that position. There are three places and on page 60, Par. D it seem they were following the structure, on page 59 it appears it would be subject to the nuisance law, on page 60 it says if the brewery follows the structure then they will not be subjected to the nuisance law. She thought there was some confusion.
Chair Reinstein asked Planner Cross to clarify.
Planner Cross mentioned page 59 and it is a direct citation from the code and that is why it references an exemption. If music was identified in the special use ordinance it would be exempt. On page 64 it makes clear that music is not exempted in the special use ordinance. On page 60 it has nothing to do with the brewery.
Commissioner Hecht stated he was more concerned about common law nuisance and he did not think the code would take them out of that. He was uncomfortable relying on that law to be a standard to judge whether it is too loud or not. This is not the central business district, it is residential.
Chair Reinstein asked what he would propose instead.
Commissioner Hecht stated he would vote against this also and did not think it was appropriate in that spot. He did not think a nuisance standard was adequate.
Chair Reinstein stated the objective standard is sound in terms of decibels and it has been recommended to this body by City staff and the police that the Commission not use that objective standard. The only tools they have to check the sound is the nuisance ordinance. Commissioner Kutscheid made a point that if they were passing findings of fact to be drafted for these two conditions that the nuisance ordinance be applied. He entertained a motion to accept the findings of fact. He stated they would vote on #19-09-SUP-003 first. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid.
Planner Cross stated there was discussion about a condition allowing a band on Sunday until 7:00 PM.
Chair Reinstein stated the motion would have to include the conditions as laid out in the packet and the new one.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated it should include the minor changes discussed such as the vote that was misrepresented in the findings of fact.
Planner Cross stated there are two special use permits being considered – one is for outdoor dining and the use they are considering now is for dancing and entertainment. It has nothing to do with outdoors directly.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Lidawer, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein
Nays: Hecht, Hainsfurther
Abstain: Moore
Motion carried 4-2.
Chair Reinstein stated they would consider #19-09-SUP-004 for findings of fact as an outdoor restaurant for Ravinia Brewing.
Planner Cross illustrated the slide with the conditions relating to this item including outdoor seating.
Chair Reinstein asked if they will receive a new certificate of occupancy. Planner Cross stated it would be revised to recognize the special use permit.
Councilman Stolberg stated they received emails from residents and thought it was important the record reflects they were passed on to the Commission and they have read them and taken them into account as part of their vote.
Planner Cross stated staff received four emails from residents and these were transmitted to the Commission. This evening they received an additional email from a resident. These have been printed and provided to the Commission and will be provided to Council.
Chair Reinstein stated he had looked at all the emails prior to tonight’s meeting.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the information was helpful and she could distinguish it because it did not have the kind of constraints they have put on this applicant.
Commissioner Lidawer motioned to approve with conditions, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearing #20-01-REZ-001, Amendment to the Map Boundaries of the Pedestrian Oriented Shopping Overlay (POSO) District for the Property at 1811 St. Johns Ave.
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, project location, POSO district background, POSO applicability, proposed POSO boundaries, master plan alignment, Commission considerations, findings of fact and recommendation.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation for the above item including subject property, POSO district, property is nearly 100 years old, entry to space not conducive to retail, new tenant is medical services, property value is diminished, no direct access from street, if not removed from POSO it will not be leased, new tenant is medical, items to consider for findings, does not want empty storefronts, unlikely to be leased to retail, if not removed from POSO it will not be leased, do not want another empty storefront, gain to the public, suitability of property is not for retail, has been vacant for over a year, actively marketing property for 18 months, compatibility of existing zoning, only way property can be leased.
Mr. Al Klairmont, Applicant, stated the space has been vacant for one year and they have been marketing it aggressively, they have had one nibble which is a medical use, the reason it is in the POSO is an oversight, when boundaries of the POSO were reduced it was only to be on Second St. north of Central and the stores on Central and all the way east, somehow the stores on St. Johns were in the POSO, this building has no frontage with Central, it is a lovely building, does not want to change edifice or access, cannot cut in a door off the street, building is on a hill, has been a bank, savings & loan, print shop and record store, the space is 2168 s.f. which is large for retail, across is a parking garage, not desirable for retail, east of the tracks stores are closing, does not belong in POSO.
Commissioner Hecht asked what efforts have been taken to lease the space.
Mr. Klairmont stated he is the most active broker in downtown Highland Park and they get leads from all over. They have signage in the space and are on the web, they do broker email blasts and all they can to expose properties. St. Johns is difficult and retail is difficult. He has never seen it worse east of the tracks.
Commissioner Hecht asked if they have had retail users who have said they cannot go into that space because of the access. He asked if there was anybody in particular who said they wanted to be in Highland Park but they cannot go into that particular building.
Mr. Klairmont stated they have had many comments like that and any retailer would not consider three sets of doors to get inside. It is a tremendous disadvantage.
Commissioner Glazer stated the kind of retailer who would go into that space would be a record store or a book store but these do not exist anymore.
Commissioner Hecht mentioned Little Louie’s in Northbrook and the door goes into the hallway.
Mr. Bernstein stated Little Louie’s has been there for decades and they did not choose that site in this retail market. You walk in and it is on the left. There are not three sets of doors to walk through. And they have storefronts on both sides.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if Salon Lofts was a conforming use because it is not a retail business.
Planner Cross stated he had not seen their letter of intent. But there is no special use permit or special zoning approval associated with Salon Lofts.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the POSO was a reaction to banks and they were going in on every corner of town and driving the rents up. The Commission put in a set of restrictive standards and there were things carved out for small service businesses to go in. They now live in the world of on line shopping and as they look at these kinds of uses they may need to have a more substantial discussion about the POSO being still valid or are they looking for more different types of businesses to drive foot traffic downtown. The only kind of retail he could see going in would be a restaurant and that would be a herculean task. He thought this was on the edge of the POSO and he had no problem with the ask.
Mr. Bernstein stated in the last ten years there were two properties removed form the POSO because they were at the end of the POSO district. One is where Caldwell Banker is and the Optima building.
Commissioner Lidawer stated you cannot get in from the street and asked if the windows were the side of that space.
Mr. Bernstein stated yes and you have to go through three sets of doors to get to the space.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they have continued to chip away at the POSO. The master plan is 20 years old and the POSO while addressing a huge problem Highland Park used to have, the circumstances have changed and she thought is incumbent to either put together a new master plan or figure out a bigger structure because all they seem to do is chip away at what currently exists. She thought this should be reevaluated.
Chair Reinstein stated Council will hear the request and take it up with staff if desired.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to direct staff to draft findings of fact in favor of removing the property at 1811 St. Johns from the POSO, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
7. Public Hearing #18-10-ZTA-003 and Findings of Fact for Text Amendments to the Zoning Code for the Addition of New Land Uses and Modifications to Existing Land Uses (Section 150.490) with Related Off-Street Parking Requirements (Section 150.851) and Definitions (Section 150.202) Changes; Amendments to the POSO Establishment Language (Section 150.401 and 150.415); Addition of Standards for Section 150.1404(A) and Section 150.902(G) Regarding Special Uses and Changes to a Non-Conforming Use.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue this item to February 18, 2020. Commissioner Kutscheid so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Code of Conduct and Amendments to the City of Highland Park Ethics Guidelines.
Planner Cross stated this had been sent by the City Manager’s office and was sent to all boards, advisory groups and commissions. There are several pages of content and a summary. Planner Cross read the guidelines for the Code of Conduct. There are two changes to the ethics guidelines – the regulations for land use groups and was expanded to all commissions and advisory groups and a section was included for consequences that would include grounds for removal from the commission or advisory group.
Planner Cross stated at the last meeting they read two resolutions into the record commending Michael Leaf and Janet Pearlstein for their service. There were typos and these have been fixed and new resolutions are here for signature. These were approved at the last meeting.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
VII. STAFF REPORT
Planner Cross stated the Council meeting of February 10th has been cancelled and the only Council meeting in February is on the 24th. There is only one Council meeting in March.
There is a full agenda for the PDC February 18th meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 9:45 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2324&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up