City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met April 21.
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.: None
Council Liaison: Passman, Stolberg
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 3, 2020
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht. On a voice vote, the minutes were approved unanimously.
SCHEDULED BUSINESS
Design Review – 433 Vine – Highland Park High School Exterior Improvements Festival.
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, project location, existing and proposed elevations, student cafeteria renovation, cafeteria expansion, physical education office expansion rendering, landscaping, lighting, standards, variation standards and recommendation.
Mr. Michael Dolter, Perkins & Will, Architect, made a presentation including project objectives, common space for all, cafeteria renovation - existing floor plan, exterior current conditions, interior current conditions, cafeteria/PE office additions, PE office addition, cafeteria renovation - proposed floor plan, cafeteria renovation - proposed axonometric, interior renderings - proposed seating area, proposed servery and bistro and seating area.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the seating capacity in the old vs. the new. Mr. Dolter stated the total seating capacity is increased by 60 seats. Commissioner Lidawer asked if that was the cafeteria or cafeteria plus commons. Mr. Dolter stated the total seating would be 60 seats.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if it would be possible to close off different portions.
Mr. Dolter stated they studied different options and believe there is the ability to do it. The flexibility has not been provided here. From a security standpoint they want to open up the entirety of the hallway to the cafeteria. They are all low walls and anyone in the cafeteria would be able to see what is coming. Additional exits have been provided. For flexibility the addition of the meeting space is an assist to providing large group spaces. They are looking at several ways it can be segmented and there are several ways it can be done should the District decide to go in that direction. They are also discussing using some future library space for alternate large group gatherings.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the outside variance because they do not want plantings because there is no ground. If they are installing the bollards had they thought about putting in planters.
Mr. Dolter stated they had explored it as an alternate in lieu of bollards and doing large scale planters for security purposes. They are more expensive than the bollards and it was the decision of the District to go with the bollards.
Commissioner Lidawer asked what is the unique circumstance, other than money, that prevents bringing in some landscaping for that portion of the building.
Mr. Dolter stated they will have some slight overhang on the south side. Some of the challenges are dealing with the overhang at the PE offices on the south side as well as an overhang on the west side. There are challenges with light access and they have had issues with plantings in the past. This is an entryway to campus as well as a gathering space and the school will be using salt spray in this space which could become an issue for some of the plantings.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the exterior doors if it would be an exit since there is a drop off point.
Mr. Dolter stated there will be two doors and the District wants to limit the entry point to the new PE addition. This is still an exit and required by code. They do not want to take away a major exit at an assembly space.
Commissioner Hecht stated the one concern he had was whether the seating area can be divided. He asked what happened if there were two events on the same day.
Mr. Dolter stated this is a significant issue to discuss with the school. The intent is to live within the space for one cycle and see how it works and see if additional segmenting is necessary for the space.
Commissioner Hecht stated it is long overdue and asked about temporary moveable walls.
Mr. Dolter stated they had explored this and there were not any feasible options. They want to see how it works and determine the best way to move forward.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about the bronze mullions and what was used on the pool addition.
Mr. Dolter stated it was bronze.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if what they are putting in will match the façade.
Mr. Dolter stated yes.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the new doors are bronze anodized.
Mr. Dolter stated it is bronze and they prefer not to use anodized because the finish cannot be warrantied.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if any outdoor eating space was being considered on the west side.
Mr. Dolter stated the District wants to keep the students inside and the intent is that these are emergency egress positions only onto the circle drive.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the circle drive was there for drop off and they would go in the entrance they are now using. He mentioned the entrance that will be utilized and wondered if it could be cut back so it aligns with the south part of the north curb. There would be more room for landscaping and they would get rid of some paved surface. He thought they could take a look at it and it would make it flow better.
Mr. Dolter stated the biggest inhibitor from modifying the circle drive is the current configuration of the loading dock. The master plan calls for an addition to the south of the cafeteria. They can look at it then. They are forced to use it because of the vehicle clearances.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked how often the loading dock is used.
Mr. Dolter stated it is the main dock for school and any major delivery for both the kitchen as well as large paper deliveries or other large items go directly through the loading dock.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he had no problem with the landscaping waiver and it was not a public side of the building and it is a tight area. If it faced the street he would feel differently.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the reason for the foundation rule is to soften buildings in areas where there is a lot of hardscape and not a lot of things to soften the building. He was not buying the reason why it is too hard take care of. There are certain design decisions you can make in creating certain areas. He did not see the need to not do it. He asked about the loading dock waste cans.
Commissioner Moore stated considering this was a newer area for the school, she wanted make sure considerations were taken into account for security in terms of keeping the bollards up and what is being done for the glass.
Mr. Dolter stated one of the key members of the planning process was the security staff. One of the things they want to improve is visibility as well the ability for students to enter and exit into the space in multiple manners. The way the area is positioned there is the ability of this space to be segmented from the rest of campus by using security positions at three different locations. It allows for easy access to major exits. The fine line is maintaining the openness of the space and the security of the space. It is better than being walled off.
Commissioner Moore stated she was fine with the landscaping waiver because there is not much room left on the sidewalk if you put plantings in front of the walls. They need all the space they can get.
Chair Reinstein stated he would like to see landscaping wherever possible. He asked if students are dropped off and picked up at the circle drive.
Mr. Dolter stated it is a major loading and unloading place for teams both visiting and traveling.
Chair Reinstein stated if there enough room for teams to get on and off busses, then he would be in favor of some greenery. He was thinking of moving toward a vote.
Commissioner Glazer stated the reason for the lighting request was for consistency throughout the campus. He asked if there was a security element in seeking the greater lighting rather that doing it for consistency.
Mr. Dolter stated the color temperature is for consistency. The surrounding areas are 4000K and it would be inconsistent on campus in general. The lighting is improved in this area and they are going from old sodium vapor wall packs to high performance LED wall packs that provide more coverage. There is spill over from the lot that is at the same Kalvin level.
Commissioner Glazer asked if they could go to 3000K throughout the entire property and not need relief.
Mr. Dolter stated the new lighting in the lot was installed two to three years ago as well as the lighting on the PE additions. This would be replacing fixtures previously approved in last few years.
Planner Cross stated it is not actual zoning relief. The code allows 4000K and there has been a preference in Highland Park for warmer temperatures.
Director Fontane stated it was approved two to three years ago at the 4000K in the other areas of the lot. Since that time they have seen what the lights look like and 3000K is preferred to the 4000K. Both are compliant with the code.
Planner Cross asked if there was any public comment.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the garbage cans are there on a consistent basis and that area will be pavement and brick. It is a deep pavement there. Even though it does not face the public they spent a lot of time working on the parking lot and striping to make sure it was a welcoming type of area. Now they are looking at no landscaping. She felt strongly they should advise potted plants. She thought is was unappealing and did not see the undue hardship in not adding something like this other than cost. She thought they should soften it. She suggested additional landscaping as a friendly amendment to the current motion.
Chair Reinstein stated they had a motion and a second and the next move was for a vote. Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would not accept the friendly amendment.
Planner Cross asked if there is a vote on the amendment and if the movement has declined the friendly amendment.
Mr. Passman stated there was a motion and it was seconded. He did not hear a motion to amend that motion. The motion would have to be made, recognized and seconded.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she made a motion.
Chair Reinstein stated he was calling for a vote on motion at hand that has been presented and seconded.
Planner Cross stated they crafted the public notice early in the process and have changed things. It was the intent to read email input into the record. They are including emails as part of the packet and they did receive one.
Chair Reinstein stated after the email they would proceed.
Planner Jackson read an email from Mr. Jeffery Winton, Resident.
Commissioner Glazer stated they had just heard new evidence and asked if anyone from the District could speak to the citizen’s request.
Chair Reinstein stated the email was in the packet and did not have to be presented.
Commissioner Glazer stated it does not have to be, but it was.
Chair Reinstein asked if anyone remembered when the science wing was installed.
Commissioner Lidawer stated Mr. Winton submitted his letters during the recent renovation.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Winton, but the issue is not germane to the issue they are being asked to vote on. He thought the District could meet with Mr. Winton, but this was not part of the petition. He requested the motion be voted on.
Planner Cross stated the Applicant had a comment.
Mr. Brian Ahmer, District 113, stated they would be glad to follow up with Mr. Winton about the issue.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther
Nays: Lidawer, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein Motion failed 3-4.
Chair Reinstein stated he interpreted this that perhaps this could pass if it met the landscaping requirement or to represent with what landscaping can be accomplished in the area.
Commissioner Lidawer motioned to accept the proposal with the addition of some landscaping to be considered and determined. Commissioner Glazer seconded.
Commissioner Glazer stated they did not know what the landscaping plan would look like.
Planner Cross stated they could submit a landscaping plan that complies with code. This would allow staff to do a code review. If it did not meet code then they could come to the Commission to seek some measure of relief.
Chair Reinstein stated this sounded good.
Mr. Passman stated this application includes a variation from the landscaping requirements. The motion could be to approve the design review, but not the proposed landscaping variation. Therefore the condition would be that they must submit a landscape plan that is compliant with the City’s ordinance.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein
Nays: Hainsfurther
Motion carried 6-1
2. Design Review – 1221 County Line Rd. – Improvements to Site and Building
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including application summary, project location, building improvements east, west and south elevations, parking lot improvements, lighting 3000K, signage and recommendation.
Mr. Andy Tinucci, Woodhouse, Tinucci Architects, made a presentation for the above item including North Shore Special Recreation Association, interior renovation, lounge, multi-purpose space, classrooms, building improvements, replacement of exterior windows, elevations, new vestibule, signage and proposed parking lot improvements.
Commissioner Moore stated she had no questions.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated it was an exciting facility and was happy to see it coming.
Commissioner Glazer stated it was very well presented.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they were removing some of the existing paved surfaces to get from 140 spaces down to 98.
Mr. Tinucci stated it is the same amount of paved surface, they are just changing the way it is striped.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked why they are cutting the number of spaces and why they need 98 spaces when 49 are required and why can’t they reduce some of the paving.
Mr. Tinucci stated one reason is that the additional paving to the north is necessary for the vans and turnaround of the vans. To the south, some of programming that will take place at the facility are dances or gatherings and the 98 spaces would be advantageous.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked how often that would take place.
Mr. Craig Culp, Executive Director, NSSRA, stated larger gatherings would be occurring approximately once a month. Each NSSRA takes on special events where they invite other NSSRAs which also serve individuals with disabilities to hold dances or other gatherings where a group of the NSSRAs can come together. This would happen 12-15 time a year.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they were repaving the lot or just restriping. Mr. Tinucci stated they were just restriping.
Commissioner Hecht stated he had no questions.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the pictures of various sides of the building and windows in the packet and the print was small. She wanted make sure the printing had to do with the windows.
Mr. Tinucci stated they were existing and new elevations and they identify the replacement of the windows.
Planner Cross stated there was no public comment.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the application. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
3. Reconsideration of the Minor Preliminary and Final Plat of Reisman Resubdivision at 2320 Shady Lane and 2285 Highmoor Road with a Variation.
Director Fontane stated this went to City Council and they raised an issue regarding the advertisement and notice. That caused City Council to say they wanted it remanded back to the Commission and they directed that notice be provided in accordance with the subdivision regulations. They wanted the Commission to consider this again and the recommendation go back to City Council who will have a fully noticed meeting as well. This has been before the Commission and was not properly noticed and was remanded back for further consideration and will be considered again by City Council.
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including application summary, previous Commission consideration on 2-4-20, public notification requirements, existing plat of survey, proposed plat of subdivision, proposed subdivision, subdivision and zoning review, variation review, current context aerial with addressing, City Dept. comments and recommendation.
Mr. Dan Fajerstein, Attorney, stated this is a small increase and less than 1% increase, the objector represented he lived directly cross the street but this is not the case, the second house to the south is his which is not cross the street, he also argued that new construction will diminish the value of his property, the possibility of a new home on the subdivided lot will help Mr. Itsgow, the neighborhood was platted 100 years ago and this property is bigger than the neighboring property and anything allowing this property to become two properties would bring it into compliance. This lot is 3.5 acres.
Chair Reinstein asked for public comment.
Mr. Robert Itsgow, Resident, stated his major objection is the regulations require and the zoning ordinance requires certain things. Subdivision regulations on minimum design standards states each lot shall have frontage on a public street, and through lots are prohibited. Expedited procedures are available for one-lot subdivisions and two-lot subdivisions require no bonded improvements require no variations from the subdivision or zoning regulations. In this case the subdivision requires a variation making it ineligible for the expedited procedure, he spoke with Planner Kosmatka and there was some previous confusion about the section of the law. Standard rules are that we must not construe and ordinance so that verbiage is mere surplus. He referred to the general purposes of the zoning ordinance, when there is confusion they must go with the regulations. One cannot use expedited procedure because they do not have all the requirements. There are standards for variations, one must present evidence that property cannot yield reasonable return. His objection is they must follow regulation.
Chair Reinstein stated he wanted to hear from Planner Cross or Mr. Passman as to whether they were following regulations.
Planner Cross stated there are no bonded improvements.
Mr. Passman stated the subdivision ordinance has disparate definitions of minor subdivision. There is the provision where the concept appears that is a random sentence. The actual definition of minor subdivision distinguishes between minor and major only on the issue of bonded improvements. His understanding is that the City has consistently looked at definitions and not at the random expedited procedure to determine whether this is processed as a minor or major subdivision. Because this proposed subdivision does not include bonded improvements, it has been processed as we have seen it. Several of the other provisions cited from City code by Mr. Itsgow are from zoning code and the variation before the Commission is not a zoning variation, but a subdivision variation. The only relief being requested from the general provisions is the issue of through lots and that is a subdivision requirement.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the procedure they are going through is an expedited procedure.
Mr. Passman stated the expedited procedure is when it does not come to the Commission. The Chair approves or recommends approval to City Council. This is where the City’s long standing practice guides us on how to process this. The major subdivision has a two- step process, a preliminary and a final plat something we are familiar seeing only with planned developments. It is not that simple and also not major because there are no bonded improvements. The plat comes to the Commission for a one-time review and the City does have the ability to determine whether the subdivision should be approved.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked to see where Mr. Itsgow’s house is located.
Planner Kosmatka stated it is 2255 across and over south one lot.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it looks like it is not the same depth as this property.
Mr. Itsgow stated his objection was to the procedure and this is a long standing disagreement about this section and City Council has not taken action to correct it. He must assume they do not want to correct and the language about using the expedited procedure is what they want.
Planner Cross asked if there was additional public comment.
Mr. Reisman stated they had plenty of time to consider this and they are going from 3.3 acre house to 2.3 acre house to a 1-acre lot which is consistent with the community. There are various half-acre lots scattered around. He appreciated their consideration.
Chair Reinstein asked for additional public comment.
Mr. Fajerstein stated directly across the street is 2301 Shady Ln. and the home kitty- korner is 2269 Shady Ln. and the next is 2255 Shady Ln. They have turned this into a regular proceeding and the variation standards are subdivision variation standards not zoning standards. Does this negatively impact the character of the community. If anything this subdivision makes this property more in conformance with the immediate neighborhood not less.
Councilman Stolberg stated he appreciated Mr. Itsgow taking the time to speak. He said City Council has chosen not to address this. City Council tries hard to hard to make sure when a resident brings up a point like this they want to make certain what they are doing is correct. He wanted to make it clear that if there is something they should be addressing, it has not been brought to City Council mostly because they were under impression they were acting within the code and addressing things properly.
Mr. Passman stated he believed proceeding in this fashion is consistent and lawful. There are some discrepancies in the subdivision ordinance that are long standing. He thought the proceeding is correct and they are operating under Code that has been interpreted and applied historically.
Chair Reinstein asked if they had heard from everyone from the public. Planner Cross stated there no further comments.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if this was passed unanimously by the Commission previously.
Planner Kosmatka stated it was on 2-4-2020.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if City Council requested additional notification be given to the neighbors.
Planner Kosmatka stated this was correct. The code does not require public notification for a Plan and Design Commission meeting. When the issue was remanded back to the Commission a letter was sent to all homes within a 400’ radius and when the meeting was cancelled for April 6th, an additional letter was sent out.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she wanted to commend staff for going above and beyond during these times for notifying people twice. She thanked Mr. Passman for the explanation and while she thought it is open for interpretation, with his guidance, this is how they have been interpreting it and the way it has been interpreted is the way he had explained it.
Commissioner Hecht stated this was sent back for notice purposes and was not sure why it has taken as long as it has. He was ready to vote now.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he agreed.
Planner Kosmatka stated staff recommends the applicant give testimony and the Commission can request a motion to again approve the findings. One the last page of the packet is a copy of what was previously approved and signed. It can be approved as was done previously or modified. The previous approval incorporated the two conditions as seen in the presentation.
Commissioner Glazer stated he was paying attention to Mr. Itsgow’s objection and if they were not doing something properly. He was happy to hear Corporate Counsel’s explanation and this does not appear to be an expedited procedure. He was ready to move forward.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he had no comment.
Commissioner Moore stated she drove by the property and there was a fence around the entire lot and they have stated the man made items must be removed from Lot 1. She asked if this included the fence.
Planner Kosmatka asked which front she was referring to.
Commissioner Moore stated the fence goes all the way down to the south side of Lot 38.
Chair Reinstein stated if both lots are owned by same person wouldn’t they be allowed to have a fence.
Commissioner Moore stated when you subdivide that lot away from Lot 39 does the fence need to go away.
Planner Cross stated this could be included as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Moore stated if the shed and driveway have to be moved why not the fence.
Mr. Reisman stated the fence goes around the perimeter of the entire property. If this was subdivided the fence would go around their property. There is no interior fence separating the two interior subdivided properties.
Commissioner Moore stated in order to create the subdivision they need to remove the shed and driveway.
Mr. Reisman stated it is not the full driveway, but more like 1’ of driveway.
Planner Cross stated the accessory structure has to be removed because you cannot have an accessory structure on a property without a principal structure. The driveway has to go because there will be an additional driveway for the new driveway. The fence is not an no obstructive structure.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated someone could come along and put a fence between the two properties.
Commissioner Moore stated looking at it logically she did not see an alternate. The piece of property is already larger than rest of them, so by taking Lot 38 and creating a smaller subdivision that makes about the same size as the rest of the properties.
Planner Cross stated the Commission had approved this once.
Planner Cross stated there is no further public testimony.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve as approved before.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they are recommending drafting findings of fact or just recommending approval to City Council with the findings of fact approved previously.
Planner Kosmatka stated they would redraft with the same language with a new date of recommendation.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther recommended they approve the findings of fact as previously approved on pages 100-101 of the packet with the corrected date. Commissioner Lidawer seconded.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion carried 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
2. Next Regular Meeting - May 5, 2020
Planner Cross stated the Albion project, the former Saks, is the only item on the agenda and it will be a formal public hearing and has been noticed.
3. Case Briefing - None
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
Councilman Stolberg stated he appreciated the public participating tonight and thanked Planner Cross, Director Fontane and the entire staff for making the meeting seamless.
Director Fontane stated he appreciated everyone’s cooperation.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer. 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=2342&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up