City of Highland Plan and Design Commission met Feb. 18.
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 Director Fontane 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, Fontane, Jackson, Kosmatka
Student Rep.: Galven
Council Liaison: Stolberg
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 4, 2020
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
1. Design Review - 600 Central Ave. - Façade Improvements in Port Clinton.
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, proposed plan, elevations, façade renderings, standards and recommendation.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the renderings were helpful and asked about the setback.
She asked about the distance from bench to wall.
Mr. Rick Strusiner, Applicant, stated the setback is 4’. He stated there is 12’ behind the bench until the glass.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she wanted to make sure it was deep enough for people from the pole itself to the entranceway of the buildout and asked about the depth of the sidewalk.
Mr. Strusiner stated if it is only on City property then it is 12’. If half of it is underneath then it would be 9’.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about Bar Method.
Mr. Strusiner stated it is a 4’ offset. He stated the total from the front of the columns to the existing storefront is 16’ and the glass comes out 4’.
Chair Reinstein asked if he was proposing the horizontal.
Mr. Strusiner stated yes.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about the blue material and the translucent and if it was film or glass.
Mr. Strusiner stated it is film.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there was another layer where the offices are located and it look higher. He asked if it would be transparent above that.
Mr. Strusiner stated yes.
Commissioner Moore discussed windows on the second floor and with the blue stripe it reinforces the horizontalness of the windows. She did not notice a big difference between the vertical and horizontal mullions. She thought the horizontal was more pleasing and fit in very well with Port Clinton.
Commissioner Glazer stated he liked it and would have been happy if it were vertical also and could support it.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to accept the changes as proposed for horizontalness. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the changes to Suite 123 in Port Clinton as demonstrated in the exhibits, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
2. Design Review at the Marriott Courtyard Hotel Located at 1505 Lake Cook Rd.
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including application summary, existing conditions, previous consideration - proposed elevations, main entry, proposed elements, proposed elements, key comments, new renderings, porte cochere, lighting plan, site improvements for accessibility, design review standards and recommendation.
Mr. Robert Powell, CR Architecture, made a presentation including main entry renovation, existing conditions, replacing the porte cochere, façade bay windows, new storefront windows, proposed main entry façade, front elevation, south and west elevations and entry lighting rendering.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the stone surrounds and the planter wall and what they were made of.
Mr. Powell stated they are selected from a local resource. It will be a buff color and a rubble stone pattern.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the planter cap.
Mr. Powell stated it is a planter between the two columns.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked how wide it would be.
Mr. Powell stated 2’.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it would be irrigated.
Mr. Powell stated landscaping development is not part of their package and they are not aware they have selected a landscape contractor.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they would be coming back with the landscape.
Mr. Powell stated landscape and signage contractors will bring their own presentations.
Planner Cross stated signs and landscape are excluded from tonight’s approval.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the wall was behind the curb.
Mr. Powell stated it does not project into the driveway.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned at the southeast corner of the building there is a wooden enclosure that has an odd detail with the fence going up to a transformer. Then the fence continues on the other side of the transformer. It seems to be the only place there is a wooden enclosure on the property.
Mr. Powell stated he would bring it up to the general manager. Commissioner Kutscheid stated it needs to be changed.
Mr. Powell stated that it was a reasonable consideration since they are trying to make the property look newer and did not think there would be any resistance.
Commissioner Glazer asked about the project schedule.
Mr. Powell stated it had not been put to bid yet. He did not think they would mobilize on this until late summer. They do these projects in two phases and they have separate bidding processes. The interior is done in one phase and the exterior in another.
Commissioner Glazer asked if the purpose was so the property can remain in use.
Mr. Powell stated they bid them to specialty contractors. The people they use for the interiors they use consistently. They arrive at the site with 15-20 pods and have all the materials in hand so they can go continuously. They use a separate contractor for the exterior.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther wanted to clarify the sign on the building is not included in tonight’s request.
Mr. Powell confirmed this.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther mentioned the current parking lot lights and asked if they would be replaced.
Mr. Powell stated they were not in the scope of work.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated piecemealing this sort of approval is not ideal. It would be more beneficial to see the whole package rather than bits and pieces. He asked about the pitched roof on the stair tower and if they were taking it off.
Mr. Powell stated they would hide it behind the fascia.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about the gutter system.
Mr. Powell stated they are creating a box gutter.
Commissioner Hecht stated he was having a hard time understanding this. He mentioned the pieces not up for consideration and did not know how they can approve the design review application without knowing all the design elements.
Commissioner Lidawer mentioned the handicapped spaces and it said in the packet “striping may not actually occur.” She asked whether the striping would be done.
Mr. Powell stated the spaces are being adjusted and the two spaces being deleted are at an entry. They will bring this into total compliance.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not see the Fidelity rendering and the other three floors and asked if they were embedded in the in packet.
Planner Cross stated they were submitted as an exhibit tonight by the applicant and are part of the public record. They will be used by staff as part of the documentation for the certificate of approval.
Chair Reinstein asked about the color of the porte cochere.
Mr. Powell stated it is graphite.
Chair Reinstein asked if the signage and landscape packages were to come.
Planner Cross stated yes.
Chair Reinstein asked for a quick poll from the commissioners.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if they would hold up the applicant if they delayed approval.
Mr. Powell stated they have completed all documents and they are ready to be reviewed by the Bldg. Dept. There would be a significant delay to the owner because they are not going to bid it without a building permit.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she would rather see everything complete. Commissioner Hecht stated he would not support this until it is complete.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not like doing things in a piecemeal fashion, but was sympathetic to the owner’s situation. The Bldg. Dept. could review the plans and not issue the permit until the Commission settles on the final offer. That is a risk to the owner because there is no guarantee it would be approved. He would be willing to vote night, but would prefer to see the whole package.
Commissioner Glazer stated they may have preferences for seeing things done in a certain way, but the applicant has complied with the rules and are entitled to ask for the approval of a limited portion of this. He did not think it was fair to the applicant to say we have preferences. He would not hold up the applicant with the notion that his preference is to see the whole thing. It would stymie moving forward with this proposal when they have followed the proper procedures.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated there is an absence of information about the wall which is a major visual element to the aesthetic of the building and the landscaping. He could not approve something when he did not know what it is.
Planner Cross stated if the Commission so crafts the motion the wall and landscaping will not be constructed until it has appeared before the Commission and has been approved.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the surrounds on the columns of the porte cochere are integral to the overall design and to say it will come later changes how they look at this.
Mr. Powell stated he would be happy to research and try to find the basis of design for the stone. The work is not going to commence for a few months and they would offer that basis for design as a goal. They would not necessarily be able to assure that the product would be available at that time. They would be happy to establish a basis of design in material, color and texture. He could not guarantee when it came time to buy the stone it would be available.
Commissioner Moore stated she did not have a problem with approving in a piecemeal fashion.
Chair Reinstein stated he did not have a problem either.
Councilman Stolberg asked about the cladding of the planter box.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the surrounds are on the columns’ inside, as well.
Councilman Stolberg stated they will have to come with an appropriate sign package anyway.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve what has been presented with no signage or landscaping.
Commissioner Glazer asked about the slide with the staff recommendation.
Chair Reinstein stated Plan G100 needs to be revised and the wooden exposure around the transformer and they should present a change for that.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the request as submitted with the following conditions: excluding all signage both wall and monument, landscaping including the stone surrounds on the porte cochere columns, including the striping as designated on the revised site plan per exhibits presented this evening, colors as submitted by the applicant as well as material samples, excluding the repairing of the enclosure to the transformer.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if this is approved do they have to do any of the stone surrounds.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated technically yes. He asked if they wanted to make it that they have to do the stone surrounds with the landscape plan. He would be happy to accept that.
Commissioner Kutscheid seconded.
Ayes: Moore, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: Lidawer, Hecht
Motion carried 5-2.
3. Design Review - 418 Sheridan Rd., New Fence and Landscaping at Ravinia Festival.
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, project location, existing conditions, proposed fence, existing gates, proposed landscaping, 1994 landscape plan, standards and recommendation.
Chair Reinstein asked if they had a sample of the fence color.
Planner Jackson stated the specifications were included in the packet.
Planner Cross stated the fence already exists in several portions.
Commissioner Lidawer stated there are two different areas and they look like they are different colors. She wanted to make sure it was the darker green.
Planner Jackson stated the applicant could clarify this.
Chair Reinstein stated there was a recommendation that there be a comparison of the proposed landscaping with the 1994 plan and asked if staff made that comparison.
Planner Jackson stated this is not an apples to apples comparison and the best they can do is provide two plans. If they feel the proposed landscaping meets or exceeds what was approved in 1994 that is the metric they are following.
Chair Reinstein asked if this was in terms of quantity.
Planner Jackson stated it was the visual impact of the chosen species as well.
Commissioner Lidawer stated when Highland Park H.S. was before the Commission for the parking lot on Vine they turned lights on so they could see how high the bushes were going to have to be, how many and it was a standard for the neighbors because it was intrusive for them to not have that shading.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the Forester pointed out that concern and asked Commissioner Kutscheid about adequacy of the amount of trees. It looked like there was more vegetation in 1994.
Mr. Jim Schmitz, Ravinia Festival, stated the color of fence was the same and they were poor quality photos. Along the parking area there is an existing row of arbor vitae that has been there for a long time. They thought is was adequate but the Forester did not agree and they went back and added eight additional 8’ arbor vitae to plug the holes he pointed out. It is dense as it is and there are a few sections that need help. Regarding the density of the landscaping and whether it will be adequate, there is a rendering that is a more zoomed in view and it is the section they installed in 2017.
Chair Reinstein asked except for the parking area, if that is the general look.
Mr. Schmitz stated this is the general look for areas A and B. For area C it narrows down and there is not much depth. There is a solid row of arbor vitae. 8’ is the minimum height of anything they are planting and they range from 8’ to 10’ tall.
Chair Reinstein asked in 2017 was there an approval of landscaping for the experiential center and was there a variance.
Mr. Schmitz stated he did not believe there was. It was to screen any light coming off the new building.
Chair Reinstein asked if whatever they are going to do will be to that code. Mr. Schmitz stated yes.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the fence jogs around a tree and asked if it was worth jogging around.
Mr. Schmitz stated it is a 24” to 30” oak and is a heritage tree.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated there are spears on the fence top and it speaks to danger.
Mr. Schmitz stated they are spade shaped are not sharp or pointy. It has been used in other places in the park.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the idea is that people think they are pointy. It is a guardrail feel that it promotes.
Mr. Schmitz stated the detail and height are there to provide a discouragement to climb the fence.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the color of the fence and thought it highlighted it rather than sending the fence into the background. If it were black it would make it disappear. He thought the green stood out especially in the winter.
Mr. Schmitz stated the color has been established in several places and they are looking to tie it all together. It is a custom color from the factory. It is a financial and time burden and is impractical.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he thought the green color in the high use areas is appropriate because you want the fence to say something. In the areas that the fence is to be hidden they could make it hide the fence.
Mr. Schmitz stated they wanted people to know there is a fence there.
Commissioner Moore stated they are starting the project in the spring and it will not be completed until November. She asked how are they going to manage the parking lot screening.
Mr. Schmitz stated they left themselves that amount of time not knowing how long the process would take and if it goes quickly they can get the whole thing done in the spring. He hoped they could get it done before summer.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not think this was being considered since they will now have all the fencing uniform. She asked if the wood gate at Lambert Tree and Sheridan would remain.
Mr. Schmitz stated yes.
Ms. Hildy Carter, Resident, stated she was concerned about the color of the green and thought it was a little brighter than it could be. She would like to see the green match the color of the vegetation and would like it darker. She did not understand why the new building has lights on all night.
Chair Reinstein stated Ravinia had stated they want to stand by their color and unless the Commission wants to see it changed, they should move forward.
Chair Reinstein stated the public matters and the Commission has to vote aye or nay on what is in front of them.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated Commissioner Lidawer was more familiar with the color of the fence and how dark is it.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she thought it looked dark by the train. She thought the dark color was fine but when she saw the renderings she was nervous.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like to see a color sample.
Commissioner Lidawer stated it is an evergreen.
Vice Chair Hecht asked if the lower right hand corner was going to be the consistent color throughout.
Mr. Schmitz stated they were all the same color, just taken in different lighting conditions.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was not comfortable with that bright of a green. He would rather see black. He thought it would be better if they had a sample of the color.
Mr. Schmitz stated he could bring a sample.
Commissioner Hecht agreed.
Chair Reinstein stated they can continue to when they see a sample of the fence.
Planner Cross stated the next meeting is March 3, 2020.
Commissioner Lidawer motioned to continue to March 3, 2020, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther suggested Ravinia meet with Ms. Carter regarding the lights.
4. Subdivision Consideration with Relief Requested for the Reisman Subdivision at 2320 Sandy Ln.
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including recommendation provided, conditions, two-page document, Commission can approve or reject.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
5. Public Hearing #20-01-REZ-001 and Draft Findings of Fact for an 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 findings of fact recommending approval and motion to approve as recommendation to City Council.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the findings of fact, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
6. 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. Proposed changes will impact the B1, B1A, B3, B4, B4-4, B4-5, B4-6, B5, POSO, B2, B2-RW, I and B4-BG zoning districts.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including 9-24-19 PDC direction, staff follow-up, proposed new uses, modification of existing uses, restaurant changes, proposed addition to POSO language, changes to Articles 9 and 14 Use Standards and recommendation.
Chair Reinstein asked if there was a definition of a sports training school.
Planner Burhop stated there is in the zoning code.
Chair Reinstein asked about the size.
Planner Burhop stated no. He stated health club and health club minor are permitted in the POSO.
Chair Reinstein stated he has come across high schools that are sports training schools. Planner Burhop stated health clubs are a permitted use in the POSO.
Chair Reinstein stated a health club is not a sports training high school.
Planner Burhop stated a sport training center can encompass a variety of uses.
Councilman Stolberg stated there is a difference between ancillary additional uses and a primary use of the facility. He did not think a sports club in a high school would qualify as a sports club under the code. He thought for an auxiliary or supplemental use there was something in the code that states how much of a percentage for the primary use.
Chair Reinstein stated he was looking for clarity on the definition of sports training school.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there was a baseball training center in Briergate. He asked if they wanted that sort of operation in the POSO. He thought it would be a no. He would not want a use like that in the central business district.
Planner Burhop stated ultimately it is up to the PDC to make the recommendation. A rock climbing wall was mentioned by the BEDAG or the POA.
Chair Reinstein asked if the sports training school was something new that was added.
Planner Burhop stated is for greater flexibility for sports and training and health club type uses.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it would be like a karate room or dance studio. Planner Burhop stated yes.
Commissioner Lidawer mentioned the start time and thought in terms of small restaurants they could be a breakfast place where people could have coffee in the morning so a start time earlier than 10:00 AM permitting that type of usage might be advisable. She was thinking about 8:00 AM.
Director Fontane stated that could be for debate by the Commission. Staff had looked at the times the Commission thought an accessory outdoor dining should end.
Commissioner Lidawer stated other places are serving coffee and they could encourage runners not only on weekends, but during the week when they are going for coffee. She thought they should be consistent and thought they could start at 8:00 AM.
Commissioner Glazer asked about 8:00 AM on weekends and earlier during the week. Commissioner Lidawer mentioned 7:00 AM weekdays and 8:00 AM weekends.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if there was a difference between serving outside rather than taking your coffee and sitting outside.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they could leave that to the prospective businesses. If some one wanted to serve outside she would not want to prevent it.
Commissioner Moore stated they could ask for an SUP.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they should address it now.
Commissioner Hecht stated there is a cost involved in doing that.
Chair Reinstein asked what the proposed times were.
Commissioner Lidawer stated 7:00 AM during the week and 8:00 AM Saturday and Sunday.
Director Fontane stated there is outdoor dining in the ROW and outdoor seating on private property. This does not change anything having to do with tables and chairs on the sidewalk.
Commissioner Hecht stated restaurants open 6:00 AM and he was OK with that.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he agreed and the restaurants approved at the theater space and they have dining in the courtyard so why not 6:00 AM.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the weekends at 7:00 AM or earlier at 6:00 AM seven days a week.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the weekend evening was Friday and Saturday night or Saturday and Sunday night.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated people will stay out later on a Friday night than they are on a Sunday night.
Chair Reinstein asked if the code defined weekends.
Planner Burhop stated the text says the 11:00 PM goes until Friday and Saturday and the 10:00 PM goes every other day.
Commissioner Lidawer stated they are saying 6:00 AM seven days a week.
Planner Burhop stated if anyone wanted to go beyond those hours they would have to submit a special use permit.
Chair Reinstein asked besides the sports training school and the times for outdoor seating were there any other questions.
Commissioner Glazer stated on the issue of sports training he had no opposition to allowing a baseball school or other sports activity. It is difficult to find tenants and if there was a sports activity that had a retail operation and they had some availability to have a pitching lane or cage he did not think it was incompatible with uses today especially coming downtown and dropping off your kids. He had no problem with allowing sports training.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated one idea would be to say as long as it contains a retail component and the other might be to limit the size of it. Those might be two ways to look at it. He did not think they wanted something that fits in an industrial area.
Commissioner Moore asked about Bar Method.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it was a minor health club.
Commissioner Lidawer stated in Northbrook Court there are a lot of sports type facilities to draw people in. She did not know if they wanted to delimit anything because retail is in a bad place. She wanted to see anything that might be feasible.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated maybe they wanted it as a special use permit because then they would see every one that comes through.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not to want to make it make onerous. Commissioner Glazer stated they wanted to encourage retail.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated that was why he thought tying it to a retail component might work.
Commissioner Glazer stated they could let the market decide. He did not think they would turn down that opportunity and it makes sense to have retail.
Director Fontane stated they when they say it is a permitted use there is no option to turn it down. If there was a special use they could be more discerning. There is a health club minor and a health club and they are permitted uses for the B5. He asked if that was also true for the POSO.
Planner Burhop stated he would look it up.
Chair Reinstein stated his experience with sports training is that they seek a space that is lower in rent so they make more profit. He has seen them in business parks and industrial buildings with high vacancies. The odds of those uses paying the rents in the POSO and central business district are slim and none. He did not have a problem with it if they did want to locate there. He was trying to know a little more about the definition of what they were talking about for a sports training school.
Councilman Stolberg stated he thought it important to recognize as a council and through the business development community they are actively discussing options because he did not think it was a blip in retail and things have changed. They need to bring people in and these experiential uses and where they control it is through parking, traffic management, signage and window decorations, etc. Anyone who brings in an experiential use is going to have a retail component or a café. They do not want to say everything can come to downtown and they need to think what will get people into the storefronts and what will get them to walk to Ross’ across the street and buy a sweatshirt. If someone wanted to put batting cages in downtown they are going to need bigger spaces and can they afford the rent. The market may dictate that on its own.
Commissioner Hecht stated those buildings do not exist.
Chair Reinstein asked for further comments.
Commissioner Hecht stated retail is evolving and he wanted to avoid opening the retail district to anything that wants to come in. He thought that was a sign of decline and not the message they want to send that they will let anyone do whatever they want.
Commissioner Reinstein asked if he was opposed to the sports training school.
Commissioner Hecht stated no because he thought it can exist within the confines depending on how it is done.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the findings of fact.
Planner Cross stated it would be a motion to approve the findings of fact as submitted or with changes.
Commissioner Hecht motioned to approve the findings of fact subject to the change in the accessory outdoor seating with start times of 6:00 AM seven days a week and until 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 PM on Friday and Saturday nights. Commissioner Lidawer seconded.
Director Fontane stated they are withdrawing the recommendation with regard to Section 150.1404 – Additional Special Use Standard.
Chair Reinstein stated they are not voting on Section 150.1404.
Director Fontane stated they are withdrawing that amendment.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
7. Public Hearing #20-02-ZTA-001 for Zoning Text Amendments to Article 21 - Inclusionary Housing.
Director Fontane made a presentation for the above item including Council directed staff to make changes to the purpose statement, did not come before the Commission, Council thought it would be a good idea to trim the purpose statement down and tighten it up and make it more concise.
Director Fontane stated staff had drafted findings of fact for consideration tonight.
Chair Reinstein asked if everyone had read the changes. He entertained a motion to accept the findings of fact. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
2. Next Regular Meeting - March 3, 2020
3. Case Briefing - None
4. Planner Cross stated the new student rep was Marisa Galven. Elliot Rubin is still a
student rep and his terms lasts through June 2020.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer. 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=2330&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up