Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met May 19.

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

Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Cross, Fontane

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: Passman, Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

May 5, 2020

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2020 meeting with corrections. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner

Lidawer.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

1. Design Review - 1849 Green Bay Rd. - Exterior Design Features for the Albion at Renaissance Place Project Including Landscaping Variations.

2. Continuation of Public Hearing #19-08-PUD-007 to Amend Ordinance 64-98 Granting a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Planned Development for Renaissance Place at 1849 Green Bay Rd. for the Redevelopment of the Former Saks Fifth Avenue Building.

Items 1 and 2 will be considered concurrently.

Planner Cross made a presentation for the above items including project summary and location, conceptual rendering, view from Second St., previous consideration, revised materials, zoning relief requested, public benefit, standards for review and recommendation.

Chair Reinstein stated the public benefit talks about streetscape amenities and asked if there was a list of those amenities.

Planner Cross stated they are part of the project and the applicant can enumerate them in more detail. There are a number of landscape planters along the edge of the building and they will replace all the trees. They are also improving the underground beds the trees are planted in.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about the canopy projection at the residential entry and stated if it goes into the R.O.W. would they need relief for that.

Planner Cross stated no it is not an element of zoning relief. It will be part of the overall review by Public Works.

Director Fontane stated it would be incorporated into the final documents.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation including there have been several revisions to the plan and have additional information that was requested, want to move project forward and hopefully a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact, this is the fourth time they have been before the Plan Commission, this is the former Saks which has been closed for eight years, seeking to amend the existing PUD for Renaissance Place and to move forward with air rights above the surface lot to the east of the Saks building based on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) approved by City Council last month, they went back and made changes to the scale, bulk along Green Bay Rd. and Second St., reduced the size of the commercial space located along Green Bay Rd., eliminated the reduction of surface parking spaces and are losing seven spaces, have enhanced the pathway connecting Second St. with Green Bay Rd. and on to Sunset Park, have made design changes including submitting renderings of the blade sign and clock at the corner, went to Housing Commission in May 6th, going back the first week in June and had productive meeting, looking for preliminary plan approval at next meeting, updated site plan and pathway renderings, provided Plan Commission access to samples of building materials, provided lighting plan update, revised rendering of blade sign and clock, building satisfies parking requirement which is 144 spaces, 158 spaces are allocated to the Saks building, if there is surplus parking they will work with the City to release it back into the pool so the public can use it, looked at townhomes and there are some roadblocks and it requires more investigation, as the building evolves and develops they will do a thorough analysis to see if townhomes work there, if they decide townhomes work better than commercial they would reopen the public hearing to address whether they would add first floor residential, not ready to proceed with first floor residential but not saying no, did not have a neighborhood meeting, sent notices about website and they asked questions, since website went live they have had 47 hits and 21 downloads of packet, only comment was one call in support of the application.

Mr. Andrew Yule, Albion Jacobs, Applicant, made a presentation including they have incorporated comments, context plan, project facts, floor plans - ground floor, motorcycle spaces, cut corner of building, increased lighting in pedway area, added plantings, increased size of planter beds, loading is two deliveries a week, trash pickup is several times a week, added potted plants at front entry, landscaping as much as they can, 8.8’ pinch point from planter bed to wall, blade sign has been revised, pedway is 14’-10”, concrete columns hold up podium above, nook areas for marketplace, signage for walkway, full exterior signage plan will come back at final.

Mr. Paul Alessandro, Architect, made a presentation including north elevation, design materials, material board, will take down existing light posts, repair and reinstall.

Mr. Luay Aboona, Traffic Consultant, made a presentation including delivery and loading safety measures which addresses concerns, recommend adding bollards, audio warning for opening garage door, two signs facing walkway, alternate pavement type design, have updated traffic study, most of comments were housekeeping and did not change findings of study.

Mr. Alessandro stated they have lifted the blade sign and increased the size of the clock by 30% and it looks more proportional. There is pierced metal at the bottom.

Mr. Yule stated the rendering shows the trees and brick color in more depth. All the window coverings will match and will be roller shades.

Mr. Cal Bernstein mentioned the public benefit and the building will be sustainable and they are seeking green building certification, it will replace a blighted building, projected property taxes are $500,000 per year, significant payment to Highland Park for air rights, will help rejuvenate downtown marketplace, relief is minor, this fourth meeting with the Plan Commission and the plan is based on the input received.

Chair Reinstein stated he was surprised there were a lot of photos he saw tonight not in the package and he was more confused about the plan. There were aspects about design review that were not flushed out tonight and were not addressed in the presentation. He asked for questions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Moore stated she drove by the site and her questions were in regards to the pedestrian pathway. She asked if on the east side will the parking lot be smaller than it is now or is it taking up the same space. It looks like the pedway will have same footprint as the sidewalk already there. She asked if the shape of the parking lot is changing.

Mr. Alessandro stated the lot is the same size. What is different is because they are bringing up the columns from below the traffic circulation is different, hence the large area they are showing as the bike parking area. The row of parking against the existing furniture store is a little further north because of the columns and the way they have to work around them.

Commissioner Moore asked if that widened the sidewalk.

Mr. Yule conformed this. He stated the market stalls are on their part of property and it is a combination of taking some of the parking area to put the market in.

Commissioner Moore stated she did not see overlay of the existing versus the new. Mr. Yule stated she would gain a depth perspective much further than what it feels. Commissioner Moore asked if the rolling door is on the existing furniture store. Mr. Yule stated yes.

Planner Cross stated when you are in the pathway and look to the north by the

marketing stalls what is behind the stalls and what is separating the stalls from the garage.

Mr. Alessandro stated pierced metal is used on the signs, and on either side of the doors, and is also covering the parking. The pierced panel work is a consistent design element around the first floor and that is what is backing the market stalls.

Planner Cross asked if it was opaque.

Mr. Alessandro stated is it not opaque, but pierced metal work and is 65-70 % open.

Chair Reinstein asked where the pierced metal work will be on the building.

Mr. Yule illustrated where the pierced metal work will be.

Commissioner Moore asked what is delineating the ramp from Green Bay Rd. and the pedestrian connection.

Mr. Yule stated the buildings are joined with caulk seam. They are buffering it with some bushes and trees. He stated it is probably 25’ pulled off of what the building is today.

Mr. Alessandro it was about 25’.

Commissioner Moore stated she was worried about the width of the path on the east end because the building is there, the furniture store and the parking garage wall. She did not want it to be too narrow or dark.

Mr. Yule stated he agreed and it is part of why they set the area back.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is about 20’ back and they have created a plaza in front.

Commissioner Lidawer stated the traffic study was helpful. She asked about the curb and when you look at the at the front entry photo as compared to the other photos, there is no trim.

Mr. Alessandro stated it was done quickly to give sidewalk vignettes and they did not have time model the curb.

Mr. Yule stated it will have a standard curb finish.

Commissioner Lidawer asked about the car entries and are there two entries for cars, one from Elm Pl. and Second St. She asked if there was a car entry on Green Bay Rd.

Mr. Yule stated no only the ramp down to Renaissance Place. Commissioner Lidawer asked if there would be a traffic light. Mr. Yule stated that is part of the Karger project.

Commissioner Lidawer asked about the walker and biker totals done in January and they are very low. She wanted to make sure they were comfortable with those numbers. She thought they were low for the pedestrians and bikes and maybe that was because it was January. She asked if they were worried about that changing significantly.

Mr. Aboona stated they have a combination of counts for April 2019 and January 2020. It is a combination of the two and they factored these into the analysis.

Commissioner Lidawer asked about the minimal move-in and move-out compared to Renaissance and if numerically it is comparable.

Mr. Yule stated Renaissance has 32 apartments and with the market data they are around a 45-55% turnover ratio. To them that is not impactful and they will be able to schedule on a virtual calendar knowing their schedule.

Commissioner Lidawer asked about traffic imbalances between Elm Pl. and Green Bay Rd. and were they resolved. She could not tell if it was resolved by the April study as compared to January and how was that resolved.

Mr. Aboona stated it was a combination and whichever direction yielded the highest imbalance that was how they balanced it. They increased the numbers to balance and they were not significantly different. The updated study reflects all of these issues.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she thought the traffic information was helpful and was not sure if some of the questions from the previous meeting were answered.

Commissioner Hecht stated he was not a design person and his main focus was on traffic and parking and the impact of adding 89 residential units and no additional parking than what is there now. He realized there was underground parking which is underutilized. He asked how that would change the dynamics now or even the way it was when Saks was open.

Mr. Aboona stated he did not have data on the utilization.

Mr. Yule stated below them the only people who are parking are the office tenants from Renaissance. There is general public parking with cars who look like they are stored. When they did their count the majority of the garage was empty. When there are street fairs and Fourth of July they will be at maximum capacity. On a daily basis they can count on 89 stalls. For units with two residents they still call it 1.25 and most of the time they are sharing a car. They have the rights to 158 stalls and he did not think they will even use 144 stalls. After a year they could do a reevaluation. He did not see an issue with parking.

Mr. Bernstein stated when they thought about how they were going to do temporary parking at Karger they talked to the City about having overflow parking at the Renaissance garage. There was no discussion about capacity issues. The garage is underutilized and based on their discussions with the City, they do not think there will be as issue.

Mr. Yule stated they are building 47 surface stalls across the street that can be used on holidays and off hours from the health center. The seller did not hesitate regarding the parking.

Commissioner Hecht asked how they determined how you go in and out of the lot without a ticket.

Mr. Bernstein stated this is a transit oriented development and there will be some parking savings. They are not asking for relief and anticipate there will be a surplus that they will release back to the City. When the two buildings are acting simultaneously they will have a better idea in a couple of years how much parking they are using and how much they can release back to the City for public parking.

Mr. Yule stated they do this all the time and come back after the project is built to look at traffic patterns and make sure they still work. It will take them a year of lease out to make sure they get to their maximum capacity and evaluate what the retail center looks like. They will come back to reevaluate.

Commissioner Hecht asked what they will do if it is not working.

Director Fontane stated the parking lot is underutilized from the Saks allocation. The parking requirement for the building is less than the allocation for Saks. It should be fine in terms of serving the residential above. The lot will be fuller because of the tenants and as they come in and space fills up in the shopping area above it will be more crowded. He thought there was the capacity to handle the building’s full parking by zoning and that the applicant has indicated they are willing to go with as opposed to seeking a parking reduction. There are 158 spaces that are allocated for the former Saks and there are 147 required for the development. That would be the only delta he would look at in terms of whether it should be allocated to the residential building or maybe public parking.

Commissioner Hecht stated the hope is that all the residential and retail spaces are filled and this revitalizes the area. He wanted to make sure they are prepared for that. One of the comments was there would be no impact on schools because they are not anticipating any kids. They are building a lot of these developments geared toward empty nesters and young families. He thought Councilman Stolberg had asked if there was a demand study to see if there was enough capacity.

Councilman Stolberg stated there is a difference between traffic and parking and he understood the concerns about traffic and thought the questions warranted being addressed by the applicant. He wanted to remind the Commission what we are here for and what the applicant is seeking. The zoning code lists the parking requirements and the applicant is meeting or exceeding the requirements. The question before the Commission is not whether the parking is sufficient. The applicant has submitted an application and is not seeking relief. He did not think this was on the table tonight. Traffic is different and if they have questions about traffic, flow, patterns, distance between cars coming and going, signalization and impact on downtown that is all on the table and fine for discussion. He wanted to make sure they did not get lost about enough parking because that is not before the Commission tonight. The code defines it and the applicant has put forth an effort to meet the code, exceed the code or seek relief and explain why. If someone wants to open a restaurant you do not ask if there is a demand for ribs versus chicken versus fish. That is the risk if the applicant. If they want to put up a building they do not want to see it vacant. He expressed his preference for more residential than retail and they do not have the luxury of accepting or denying an application based on whether the demand is there or not. If the project flops it looks bad for the downtown but do they not require a demand study for anything that comes into the downtown. This is a big project for the community and could have a big impact if not done right. He wanted to make sure they stick to what their purview is.

Commissioner Hecht stated they are the Plan Commission and are making business decisions for the City.

Chair Reinstein stated they were finished with this topic. He stated if Commissioner Hecht had questions about something the Commission is supposed to rule on he had the floor. Otherwise they would move on. He did not want to debate whether he had the right to ask for a market study or to talk about how much parking there should be. This was not before the Commission and it is not what they do.

Commissioner Kutscheid wanted to separate design from the PUD zoning question. The design will come later and the PUD and zoning is something they are deciding more quickly. He asked about the drop-off for the delivery drivers and it seemed sharp and he wanted to make sure cars will pull in the drop-off and will pull out. He thought it appeared tight and asked if they had done an auto turn on the drop-off. He wanted to make sure cars go in easily.

Mr. Yule stated they had looked at it and it is fine for a standard vehicle and if it is larger they have access to the loading dock. They are not asking for a loading zone.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the lighter colored area was a raised curb. Mr. Yule stated it was.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the radii allowed for an easy in and easy out for the person dropping off.

Mr. Yule stated they will continue to by adjusted with the civil consultant as they come to a final grading plan.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about spaces 22-23 and will there be a problem with a car in the loading zone.

Mr. Yule stated they can rerun this.

Mr. Aboona stated they can look at this.

Chair Reinstein asked the width of the drive.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated 24’ is normal.

Planner Cross stated the code requires 25’.

Chair Reinstein asked what the width is.

Planner Cross stated the 25’ is where you have back to back stalls. They will look at the driveway.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the column in the middle and if they were less than 9’.

Mr. Yule state they were 9’ and are complaint. If they had to move 22 and 23 they have the room.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he wanted to make sure they have access to the bike parking and how bikes get up and down form the pavement.

Mr. Yule they want to make sure people know there is a striped area so they can get across and bring their bikes over properly.

Commissioner Kutscheid he was in favor of the colored pavement for the loading access and the audio signal. He thought the bollards will block maintenance especially snow removal. He asked if they were necessary.

Mr. Yule stated they will look at it.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about maintenance and who is maintaining what and if it was Albion.

Mr. Yule stated they will take over all the maintenance of the City owned lot. It was converted from a public benefit into the MOU.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated it is not the City.

Mr. Yule stated this was correct and the City will have no responsibility.

Director Fontane stated the purchase and sale agreement will address this.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if that included the parking below.

Director Fontane stated yes.

Mr. Yule stated they will maintain the surface.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the property line to curb.

Mr. Yule stated they are maintaining all the way to Green Bay Rd. and everything around their own property.

Chair Reinstein asked about the pedway. Mr. Yule stated this was included.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the public benefit and what the term public art meant.

Mr. Yule stated they were engaged with a local artist who does mosaic tiling and they might introduce that in the pedway. They will try to bring in some sculpture in the pedway. They will bring this to the Arts Commission.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if there was a way to define this rather than the words public art.

Mr. Yule he could define this at final. They will work with the artists and say this particular wall will have a mosaic and they can show a sculpture.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated public art is one thing, but how they are going about it could be the way of defining it.

Mr. Yule stated there will be sculpture and mosaic tiling and they will be doing some sort of historical element as well.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he looked at the panel and there are four different brick colors. He looked at the building and he was having trouble finding where the four colors were going and the feature brick and where everything was going.

Mr. Alessandro stated there are two brick colors and the three that are close in color and they are a blended brick in a range of colors. The water tower has a blended brick. It gives depth and texture to the wall. The three colors represent the range of color in a single brick. That will be the main body of the brick. The darker brick at the bottom has a slight color variation and that is the piece that frames around the openings.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it was also the base of the columns.

Mr. Alessandro stated yes.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the lighter color was a wood.

Mr. Alessandro stated the lighter color is a wood composite panel so it will not change color.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the wood composite panel was around the parking entrance as well.

Mr. Alessandro stated it shows up at the parking entrance and in areas within the body. They had a request to break up the long Elm Pl. elevation. The combination of the different proportions of the openings work to break up the mass.

Commissioner Kutscheid when looked at the wood he read it as a lighter color brick and maybe he could look at it differently.

Mr. Alessandro stated the same material weaves into the balconies so they have a warmer wood tone.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he liked the color combinations and the way it feels. He liked the panels. He asked about the way the planters are edged and how the detail works. He stated the building has plantings as well. He thought the pedway is getting there and it still feels like it could be dark. He asked if the awnings were metal. Maybe they could be translucent and maybe the walls instead of being solid, could be more open. Does the wall on east side need to be as thick and heavy? Is there a way to get more light and openness for the pedway.

Mr. Alessandro stated they could make the awnings translucent.

Mr. Yule stated his only concern is that they get dirty and they have to clean them. He liked the idea of natural light inside and they can look into it.

Chair Reinstein asked the height from the ground to the canopy on the pedway.

Mr. Yule stated it was about 14’.

Chair Reinstein asked about a trellis.

Mr. Yule stated he liked the idea because it was open. They need to do a better job in opening it up and making it feel lighter and brighter.

Chair Reinstein asked if they had to separate the walkway there is a portion that is open and not under the canopy. He asked what is the width of that area.

Mr. Yule stated when there is a stall it is 11’4”. If there is no table it would span 14’10”. If there is a column it is 11’4”.

Chair Reinstein stated it looked like the canopy comes out farther than the column. He asked if they will be in the sun.

Mr. Alessandro stated it will be in the sun all summer long and it is an east-west throughway.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the canopies as drawn are rigid and linear and there may be an opportunity to move visually with the canopies because they are doing it with the strung lights and there is a lot of movement with how you perceive the space. He asked if there was a way to create that movement with the canopies as well to make it feel more friendly and give more depth.

Mr. Alessandro stated there were all sorts of things they can do.

Mr. Yule stated it might feel more Parisian if it had a curve to it. There are a lot of hard corners on the building and not a lot of softness. This is an opportunity to add some curves and try to ease some of the straight lines.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the punched metal and if it was powder coated steel.

Mr. Alessandro stated it was powder coated aluminum.

Mr. Yule stated this is depicted in the general design. They have used this product before and it holds up very well and they can even clean up graffiti.

Commissioner Glazer stated what they have just experienced is not unusual. Commissioner Kutscheid has made every project a significant and better project. He appreciated his efforts. This is a highly significant project and probably the most significant they have see in a number of years. He appreciated their efforts in trying to make it better and the flexibility they show, the input they solicit, and the website during the pandemic. He thought it showed the mutual respect they have taken and in trying to make the entire city work better. He thanked them for the steps they have taken. They had heard there were questions posed at the last meeting that have not been answered, but he could not remember them. He asked about the inclusionary housing and they will have ten affordable units. They have assigned one spot for each unit.

Director Fontane stated for affordable units they are required to have one space dedicated to the affordable unit. It does not mean it only has to be one, but that is a Housing Commission matter and that was made clear in the Article 21 discussion and recent adoption.

Commissioner Glazer stated if there are surplus spaces Mr. Bernstein stated they may consider giving some back to the City. He asked if the applicant would consider more than one spot for the affordable units.

Mr. Yule stated they are still below the 158. He stated that is not a problem if they had that ability.

Commissioner Glazer mentioned the public benefit and the benefit of the art, the sustainability issue and the tax benefit from having the property returned to the tax rolls. In his view none of it constitutes a public benefit for purposes of the zoning code. He thought the zoning code required some sort of external benefit. He did not see it as an issue on this project because they have enough other areas appropriately providing public benefit compared to the limited relief requested. He was not sure all the asserted public benefit constitutes a public benefit for zoning purposes. He thought they met the standards based on some of the other steps they have taken. He understood the first floor usage was not in their purview.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther thanked the applicant for their work in a short period of time. He was not concerned about parking but was concerned about when restaurants are allowed to open if Council shuts down Second St. allowing them to have tables in the street. They meet the parking requirements and he appreciated Commissioner Glazer’s comments. He had asked for a market study and thought it was their right and appropriate to ask for a market study. They have to be concerned about having too much supply as opposed to demand. It is their risk, but they are here to make projects better. He did not think the bollards were well placed and they defeat the purpose of the pedway and there would be an obstruction in the walkway. He thought the audible alarm should be enough combined with the alternate paving type. He was concerned about the conflict between cars entering off Second St. and cars exiting the ramp and there was little reaction time for cars.

Mr. Yule stated the ramp is one-way down.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would rather see the cars for the apartments use the signalized intersection off Green Bay Rd. It seems tight and would like to see an auto turn simulation run for cars pulling in and being able to make the turn comfortably. He asked how do they know is it one-way and it there signage.

Mr. Bernstein stated it has always been one-way and you cannot exit going out of the garage.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about the control mechanism. Mr. Bernstein stated there is a gate at the bottom to the ramp.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he wished these were one way in and one way out. He asked Mr. Aboona to take a look into this.

Mr. Bernstein stated they heard this raised at the last meeting. This is the preliminary stage and probably too early to address it. As the project evolves and they come back for finals they will have that information.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there are a lot of hanging issues he keeps hearing that they will bring it back at the final. He would like to see some of these resolved before they send to Council because he wanted to see as complete a package as possible sent to Council.

Mr. Bernstein stated they ran into the same issue with Karger. These are some of the biggest buildings to be developed in Highland Park. They are complicated to develop with the engineering and architecture. At Karger a lot of things changed from preliminary to final. These buildings are going to evolve and they spend the money in the final engineering.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther thought there were a lot of base questions about traffic flow that should be studied now. Because it is a big development, they owe it to the community to make sure everyone understands what they are doing. He understood things change.

Vice Chair Reinstein stated he did not need to counter respond and he should just keep moving on.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther mentioned the pedway and good discussion was had. He did not think there would be a lot of sun and maybe they could have a solar study. He mentioned the sign and if they needed a sign to say here it is they had a problem. It should be obvious as you are walking that this is a pedestrian walkway. He would like to have the signs removed and more attention paid to how they can make it obvious it is a pedestrian walkway. He was concerned about booths and the more transparent the better. He was not convinced it was going to be a marketplace and did not see kiosks as being big draws. The brick color is taking cues from the water tower but it is across the street and behind Sunset Foods. The Renaissance is buff colored brick and what he saw was a lot of grey and not a lot of warmth. He thought it needed to be warmer colors and not grey. It has to comport with Renaissance and it is fairly light in color in the brick. He was looking for something in the buff range. He would like to see these issues resolved one more time in a complete package.

Chair Reinstein asked if there was a change in the size of the retail space.

Mr. Bernstein stated during the pre-app it was 10,000 s.f. and when they were here on May 5th it was 7,700 s.f. There is no change between May 5th and today.

Chair Reinstein asked if some of changes went back further.

Mr. Bernstein stated he tried to separate what they did from the response to the pre-app from what they did on May 5th.

Mr. Yule stated it is smaller because they cut the curb and it is 7,258 s.f. after the inset and cut curb.

Chair Reinstein stated it is helpful when they go through changes to tell exactly what was done. He asked if sustainability was on the City’s list.

Mr. Bernstein stated it did not make it into the narrative but it is listed as one of the things that are doing.

Director Fontane stated it is on the public benefit list.

Chair Reinstein mentioned the ground level loading dock and the flashing light signal in conjunction with the overhead door going up or down. He asked if between the pedestrian way and the parking area is there an overhead door.

Mr. Yule stated there are two doors and are both inset on their property line. They are inside their property line.

Chair Reinstein stated the truck is coming from a covered driveway and people are walking east or west. He asked if there was a door between the pedway and the public lot. He asked where the audio warning would go.

Mr. Aboona stated it could be on top of the door or on a bollard next to the door. The final design will determine that. There are several features depending if it is audio or visual. They will look into this further.

Chair Reinstein stated he was not a fan of bollards and asked if anyone had thoughts on an alternate pavement. The pedway is crossed by a drive and one of the suggestions is an alternate pavement type.

Mr. Yule stated it will be a different pattern and texture. They have to maintain truck access.

Chair Reinstein stated with the weight of a truck they would not want a paver.

Mr. Yule stated it would differ from this lot to a different material or color or texture different from the brick pavers.

Chair Reinstein stated the City is losing seven spaces. If the number of spaces they control is 158 and the development requires about 120, is there any reason they cannot dedicate the seven to the City.

Mr. Yule stated they will look at it.

Chair Reinstein asked if there will be a sign package that will include the pedway sign.

Mr. Bernstein stated they will hire a separate sign developer.

Chair Reinstein mentioned the brick type and where it is going. He asked if there were ten bricks how much of the darker brick would be used.

Mr. Alessandro stated probably one or two.

Chair Reinstein asked about the elevation near the pedway and if it was wood or brick. Mr. Alessandro stated it was light color brick.

Chair Reinstein asked if the darker brick was underneath.

Mr. Alessandro stated at the base it is darker brick and the frames around the openings. Chair Reinstein stated is comes across as a different color in the rendering.

Mr. Yule stated it will mirror the courses at the end of the brick.

Chair Reinstein mentioned the look of the rooftop screening materials. When you pull into the public parking you look to see if there is a space and if not, then you head down. He asked if people will be able to make that decision or will they be driving around the block.

Mr. Yule stated if you come in on Elm Place and drive around you would notice it is there. If you come in off Second St. there are only the small column obstructions and you could turn straight down. You might not see 22 and 23.

Chair Reinstein asked if the City’s traffic engineer had a chance to review this.

Planner Cross confirmed this.

Chair Reinstein asked if any of the changes impacted the zoning relief.

Planner Cross stated no. Some of the comments were technical in nature about the methodology and the KLOA study addressed this. Nothing impacts the zoning relief.

Chair Reinstein asked if the development team thought the punched aluminum could be shown better in future renderings.

Mr. Alessandro stated in the fully rendered elevation the image is close to what it will be. They will work with the fabricator to come up with an exact pattern. As they move forward they will supply a sample panel.

Chair Reinstein stated it starts to play like an ode to a metal stamping plant and they want to bring some of that history to the project. He was not sure how it will look. He was not sure he saw that the existing northeast corner stair was detailed out. He asked about looking at window coverings. He asked if the concrete barrier on the pedway defines the market stalls and east to west where will the column be.

Mr. Alessandro stated what is happening below is the garage column holding up the back is at the south end of the panel. The edge of the garage is at the north end.

Chair Reinstein asked if the column would be far south.

Mr. Alessandro stated the column is at the south end. The column holding up the deck is at the north end and is a transfer.

Chair Reinstein stated he would like to see continued study of those. He mentioned the ground floor plan next to the precast load transfer. There are eight of them and they look like a footing with a pier. He asked what they were.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is furniture and seating areas. The area is open between the pilasters.

Chair Reinstein asked if the market plaza area was part of the pedway. Mr. Alessandro stated it is part of the pedway.

Chair Reinstein stated the City has market days once a week and thought this would be a good location.

Mr. Alessandro stated this was the intent as a pop up and not the same person there every day.

Chair Reinstein asked what part of the sign code they need relief from.

Planner Cross stated the code handles projecting signs oddly and the way it is written now projecting signs are only allowed as part of a sign package. Projecting signs do not have prescribed sign areas. This does not need relief for size because there are no regulations for projecting sign size. They are intended to be part of a sign package and reviewed on a case by case basis only. They need relief from the provision of the sign code that only allows projecting signs as part of a sign package.

Chair Reinstein asked what portions of the sign are illuminated.

Mr. Alessandro stated the clock is lit, the Albion name and the pierced metal panel. Mr. Yule stated it is not overly lit.

Chair Reinstein asked if the lower part of the sign was internally lit.

Mr. Yule stated yes.

Mr. Allesandro stated it had some width and there will be an acrylic liner.

Planner Cross stated if the sign is illuminated it will require additional relief from the sign code because internally illuminated signs are not allowed downtown. They will look at it holistically when the plans are further along and perhaps a nighttime rendering would be helpful.

Chair Reinstein asked if they needed to take public comment.

Planner Cross stated the floor is open for comments. He stated there were no comments.

Chair Reinstein stated the zoning relief requested and design review even though they keep dealing with them together, they really are separate. The design review is going to continue to form and will continue to provide feedback but there will not be any preliminary signoff on it. The preliminary hearing in terms of zoning relief can be looked at as a separate issue. He asked for feedback from the commissioners about drafting findings of fact for the preliminary review of the project.

Commissioner Moore agreed with separating the two.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she was ready to ask for findings on both and thought it was fine to move forward on both because there would still be discussion on it. She was impressed with the amount of work done in a short period of time especially in the pandemic.

Commissioner Hecht stated there seemed to be a fair amount of open questions. He would leave it to applicant as to whether they want to submit additional materials.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the questions related to the PUD and zoning can be answered as they review the findings of fact and allow the design review to keep rolling.

Commissioner Glazer stated they could move forward with the findings.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he agreed with Commissioner Hecht and there were a lot of questions he would like to see answered in written form or drawings. He would prefer to continue the matter.

Chair Reinstein thought they could separate them and move to findings of fact on the zoning relief which includes the public benefit concept.

Director Fontane stated there are two separate items that need two separate votes. They should travel concurrently to Council. They will do their best to craft the findings in such a manner that the unresolved issues will not be recommended for approval, but will come at the final stage and those things that are resolved sufficiently can be approved.

Chair Reinstein asked if they had to list what they are approving on design review.

Mr. Passman stated they are two separate votes and thought Chair Reinstein’s approach was correct and consistent with the code. The provisions of the code that govern this preliminary stage of a planned development contemplate you will review the exterior design features as set forth in the development plan and transmit to Council your preliminary comments regarding the extent to which the design features satisfy the design review standards. They should make their preliminary comments but that does not constitute design review approval. As they make recommendations to Council on the planned development they can include whatever conditions or feedback that relate to all aspects of the planned development including the design review elements. Council will take those on and will go from there. This is a good place to remind the Commission that ultimately what Council approves at the preliminary stage forms the core of what the applicant can reasonably rely upon and move toward final. If the final development plan substantially conforms to the approved preliminary development plan, then the presumption is because the preliminary met the standards so too would the substantially conforming final. The applicant has indicated there are some elements they will bring forward at the final stage and that is a decision they have the right to make. It may be that what they bring forward may require a public hearing and that is their risk. Their task is when the plan meets the standards for preliminary approval all they can do is direct the draft of findings. The applicant will consider the comments made tonight and will consider supplying whatever information they are able to. Their only direction tonight is to draft findings. That is not the same as recommending preliminary approval. They have room and time to handle all these things and keeping this project on track.

Chair Reinstein opened the floor to a motion for approval of the preliminary plans as presented. They might want to make it subject to the City’s traffic engineer’s review of the plan submitted which they have not had a chance to do. He would look favorably upon such a motion.

Commissioner Lidawer motioned to ask for findings of fact.

Chair Reinstein asked if she would ask staff to draft findings of fact in approval of the preliminary plans as presented.

Commissioner Lidawer stated yes with no caveats. Commissioner Glazer seconded. Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Kutscheid, Glazer

Nays: Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Motion carried 4-3.

Director Fontane stated staff is directed to draft findings of fact recommending approval of the preliminary development.

Chair Reinstein stated regarding the design review, it sounded like the type of recommendation they should be making to Council is the overall impression of what the applicant has been able to submit so far and there are a number of open questions what will receive further exploration such as the pedestrian way, how the pierced aluminum will look, how the entryway to the garage will look in the northeast corner and the signage package. They could provide feedback to the applicant and Council so they know where the Commission is at. It is not necessarily a finding of fact motion and he thought Mr. Passman could provide guidance.

Mr. Passman stated the planned development ordinance contemplates design review as part of the process. For purposes of this discussion and to the extent that the Commission is able to provide its input, that should be sufficient for now. When they vote on the findings there may be conditions, restrictions, recommendations and suggestions that will be carried to Council that relate to design review.

Chair Reinstein stated when it comes to design standards they keep in mind that they can make findings of fact on whether or not what has been presented so far meets those standards.

Mr. Passman stated yes.

Chair Reinstein motioned to ask staff to draft findings of fact for the design review subject to additional items to come and whether they approve what they have seen so far.

Planner Cross stated staff would look through the minutes and recording to craft the findings of fact for design review to capture a lot of the comments. The Commission will have a chance to look them over and revise at the next meeting.

Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Glazer.

Director Fontane stated the motion is to direct staff to draft findings of fact related to the design review item on tonight’s agenda.

Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Glazer, Reinstein Nays: Hecht, Kutscheid, Hainsfurther Motion carried 4-3.

Councilman Stolberg wanted to thank the Commission. There were still questions remaining and he was not 100% certain what they are. He thought the applicant had the responsibility to address those questions and wanted to make sure some of the things not addressed are. He mentioned the demand usage study and the traffic engineer. Mr. Passman stated the final has to be significantly the same as the preliminary.

Chair Reinstein asked Planner Cross if from a design review standpoint, was he comfortable that he had a handful of items that have come out of the last meetings that have not necessarily been addressed.

Planner Cross stated yes he had enough to pull together a quality document for the Commission to review. He thought they should address to what extent did they want the applicant to revise material now to review again in two or four weeks. He asked about the level of revision he would be interested in seeing when looking at the findings.

Chair Reinstein stated he was comfortable looking at this as a process and he would like to ask that question to the applicant. He asked if they understood in full the type of things they want to address. Are they just going to come back one last time for final or as they come up with solutions will they get on the agenda and show them to the Commission.

Mr. Bernstein stated by voting for findings of fact tonight the plan is not written in stone. They have heard excellent comments and will work on them before they come back. They have heard loud and clear there are some loose ends and this project will evolve and this is not the final rendition. They need to keep it moving and they appreciate they voted to allow findings of fact. They will be working with staff over the next two weeks to try to address the concerns that were raised.

Director Fontane stated it is based on the purchase and sale MOU. It would be good if they understand what items they are looking for in terms of revisions so they can pick the appropriate date to come back. The could be ready with findings by June 2nd. It depends on what the applicant is being asked to revise.

Chair Reinstein stated there were questions on the pedway, the garage entryway and the stamped aluminum. He thought what the Commission did tonight showed they have faith in the developer who will address these items over time. When they get to final and find they did not address them, then they will not receive final approval. Planner Cross said he had a handle on the items and when they were first raised two weeks ago the petitioner said they will do it and be back in two weeks. What they accomplished in two weeks was the traffic and the sign and they made other changes to the plan. There is more to be done and they realize it and the Commission decided instead of making them come back another time whether in two or four weeks that they can continue on and refine the concept and address the outstanding issues.

Director Fontane stated there is a meeting on June 2nd and he would continue the public hearing to that date.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would urge the petitioner to make as many changes as possible then they can see the package that is going to Council. He asked if they will have the traffic engineer’s response to the traffic study by June 2nd.

Planner Cross stated they cannot count on that.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther suggested the meeting be June 16th. Planner Cross stated the agenda is open.

Mr. Bernstein stated there are some contractual issues with regard to their seller buying the property they have to address and they are earmarked to get on the agenda for June 22nd for Council. They want to make sure they can do that and are hoping to come back on June 2nd.

Mr. Yule stated they can do a lot between now and June 2nd and has faith in the traffic consultant that they have two weeks to look at comments and they will bring back as many changes as they can, if not all, for June 2nd.

Director Fontane stated he did not see the harm in continuing to June 2nd and would continue both items to that date.

Chair Reinstein asked if they would see draft findings of fact.

Director Fontane stated yes.

Planner Cross said they can be concurrent motions. Both items need to be formally continued on the record to the June 2nd regular meeting.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue the public hearing on the PUD as well as the design review to June 2nd. Commissioner Kutscheid seconded.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she wanted make sure Planner Cross is comfortable that the engineer will have a chance and various commissioners did have questions and she wanted to make sure they get the responses they want.

Chair Reinstein said there was a motion and he wanted a roll call vote.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she wanted an answer to her question or she could not vote.

Chair Reinstein stated she could vote no.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Moore, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: Lidawer

Motion carried 6-1.

Director Fontane stated the items have been continued to the June 2nd meeting. There will be no additional notice.

Planner Cross stated staff endeavors to capture the record as accurately as possible and he extended the offer to the commissioners to email him if they would like to verbalize their questions in their own words. Regarding the third party consultant, they have an understanding that ten working days is their turnaround. He was not in a position to speak about a third party consultant in Northbrook and he will work with them.

Chair Reinstein thanked Planner Cross.

Mr. Bernstein thanked the Commission and said they were trying to coordinate their answers. The appreciated their patience. They will work and try and address the questions. They look at this as a flagship location in Highland Park and are looking at it as being there for 100 years and want it to be done right. They will come back and address each and every issue.

Mr. Passman if there were any written comments received by staff. Planner Cross stated there were none.

OTHER BUSINESS

Administrative Design Review Approvals - None

Next Regular Meeting – June 2, 2020 Case Briefing – None

Director Fontane stated there was one other item for the June 2nd meeting regarding the refueling station which was taken up before the pandemic and delayed.

Chair Reinstein asked after a development receives preliminary approval is there a requirement to have a public meeting. Because of the pandemic this development never had a neighborhood meeting and he wondered if the State moved into a different phase where fifty people can go into the same room, if there will be an opportunity to have a neighborhood meeting.

Planner Cross stated the chance may be there, but the requirement is not set in any code and it has been a preference from Council that there be neighborhood outreach. The applicant has made a clear effort in that regard and it is hard to say if there will be interest by Council.

Director Fontane stated there will be a public meeting for the final review.

Chair Reinstein stated Director Fontane is referring to a public meeting with the Plan and Design Commission and not a neighborhood outreach.

Chair Reinstein asked if there was anything that would prevent the applicant from holding a public meeting for neighborhood input.

Planner Cross stated no.

VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC

None

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Hainsfurther so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 10:30 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2360&Inline=True