City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met May 5.
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.: Galvan
Council Liaison: Passman, Stolberg
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 21, 2020
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
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. 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 Sak’s 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, B5 zoning district, conceptual rendering, view from Second St., previous consideration, site context, building footprint, site plan, building setbacks, building elevations, air rights for development, project density, inclusionary housing, off-street parking - Renaissance Place underground garage, reductions to parking requirement, traffic impact analysis, lighting plan, landscape plan, blade sign, zoning relief requested, public benefit, standards for review and recommendation.
Director Fontane stated the inclusionary housing is under the purview of the Housing Commission and will be considered at their May 6, 2020 meeting.
Chair Reinstein asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak.
Planner Cross stated there were members of the public present and they will know if they wish to speak when it is time for public comment.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation including it is a unique situation, appreciated the City’s and Planner Cross’ help in facilitating the meeting, team is similar for Phase I, project is long awaited, currently building has been a blight on downtown for past eight years, seeking to amend existing PUD for Renaissance, authorized to proceed based on memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the City, will be purchasing air rights, will proceed similar to Karger, will come back in the fall seeking final approval, project meets height and setback requirements except for Green Bay Rd., 63’ building, stepping back fourth and fifth floors, 158 parking spaces available, two pre-app meetings, commercial space is not retail and not in POSO, Commissioner Kutscheid was concerned about the scale on Second St., they have lowered to three-story and stepped back one floor lower, fits in on Second St. and also on Green Bay Rd., Plan Commission was looking for landscaping on upper floors and have added landscape elements along roof lines, heard 10,000 s.f. for commercial space was too big and have reduced to 7,700 s.f., build over existing lot and care was taken to limit loss of spaces, have enhanced pathway with more pedestrian and bike connectivity, blade sign and clock would be a landmark for Highland Park, the affordable plan proposed mirrors Karger and is important part of the application, no variances are being requested.
Mr. Andrew Yule, Albion Jacobs, Applicant, made a presentation including they are building across the street from Karger, are a co-development team, other Albion projects, Chicago based company, Jacobs Companies overview, Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture overview, aerial view, apartments near Metro stations are desirable, owner is knowledgeable of market, apartments would be beneficial to all, taxable income, 89 units, context plan, have had in person meetings with tenants of Renaissance Place, tenants have requested more natural lighting, greenery, screening, pedestrian pathway, 89 apartments with five stories, 158 parking stalls below grade, requesting relief for more public parking, two handicapped stalls, public walkway connecting Second St. to Green Bay Rd., pedestrian level, project facts, green building certification.
Mr. Paul Alessandro, Architect, made a presentation including site plan, they are respecting existing buildings, stepped back elevations, increased landscaping, additional trees, retaining surface parking, kept parking along Elm Pl. and Second St., continuation of pathway, landscaped courtyard at second floor, have respected surrounding buildings, sign is pierced metal, building consists of broken masonry elements to lessen the scale, north, south, east and west elevations, floor plans, one, two and three bedrooms units, no studios, landscape plan and streetscape inspirations.
Mr. Yule mentioned the public benefits and site initiatives including pedestrian pathway, public art, surface garage management and streetscape amenities.
Mr. Bernstein mentioned the public benefit, green building certification, replacing a blighted building, projected property tax revenue in excess of $500,000 per year, paying for air rights, will help rejuvenate downtown, fostering economic development in downtown, improve pedestrian and bicycle walkway, relief for foundation planting, install significant amount of planters and trees, Green Bay Rd. setback, would like to have neighborhood meeting to introduce project, put link to website which contains plans, 38 views since public notice was sent out, received two phone calls, heard from a resident on Sheehan Ct. who had no issues.
Commissioner Moore mentioned the interior loading dock entrance and it looked as if trucks will go over the pathway.
Planner Cross stated trucks entering Renaissance will cross over the pathway.
Commissioner Moore asked if there was a time limit as to when they can and cannot go through there.
Planner Cross stated it is not proposed at this point, but they can talk about it. Commissioner Moore stated she did not know if there is a time limit currently. Planner Cross stated he was not familiar with any provisions like that at Renaissance.
Commissioner Moore stated it seemed difficult if you have a pathway and people walking through and then a truck has to drive through. She asked if the building lobby was accessible to public and if that was a place where you could have a coffee shop.
Mr. Yule stated safety is their first concern in terms of truck traffic and pedestrians and they could have some improvements in that area. They would have a have flashing sign and a speed bump. He will take back the comment back to the traffic consultant. Two of their projects invite the public to the lobby. They both have flanking retail where the door of the retail open into the lobby. If the coffee shop was in the retail space there would be access for residents so they would not to have to leave the building and be able to enter the coffee shop from the lobby. The coffee purveyor does not have to have to be as large and can allow the lobby area to serve as their “dining room” to relax. They are open to the idea of an open atmosphere and would consider the right security.
Commissioner Lidawer asked about the rooftop materials and screening and what the materials were. She thought it looked large.
Mr. Alessandro stated they do not know how much equipment is up there. The screening shown is consistent with the wood look paneling at the base of the building and they will use the same material to cover the mechanical equipment. There will be a make-up air unit and some equipment for heating and cooling. They will keep all the equipment in the center of the building.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she was impressed with the website and the ability to take public comment. They are losing surface spaces and she asked if they will have adequate signage showing how to access the underground for parking. She asked how the numbers will gel with the number of tenants and will there be assigned spaces for tenants.
Mr. Yule stated they will provide signage to direct the general public to the ramp which will stay in place. There will be better signage from the exterior. The residential parking will be assigned and it will be easier for the public to understand what is and is not reserved.
Commissioner Lidawer stated some of the apartments had pink shading as compared to white. She asked if these were the inclusionary units and was this why they are marked in pink.
Mr. Yule stated it was an offset color to show the location of those units.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the application states there will be nine inclusionary units versus ten. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Bernstein stated as originally filed it was nine and they are trying to follow the same ratio and allocation as Karger. After discussion with staff it was decided to add one additional unit. It has been updated to ten units.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she likes the plantings in terms of the beds and this was the first time they had seen the rendering. She asked the distance from the building and how wide is the sidewalk on Green Bay Rd. where the landscaping is set up.
Mr. Alessandro stated on Green Bay Rd. there is the kiosk which takes you to the parking plus the planting areas. There is approximately 10’ between the building and the line of the planters.
Commissioner Lidawer stated the metal at the bottom of the sign is see through and not a full sign.
Mr. Alessandro stated is it a pierced metal with a floral and relief motif with a pattern. It is very open at base and gets denser as you go up. The same pattern is used as screening for parking areas.
Commissioner Lidawer asked if the base of sign comes out 2-3’.
Mr. Alessandro stated it is about 3’ and is on their property.
Commissioner Lidawer asked with the with planters, does that make the sidewalk 7’.
Mr. Alessandro stated it is still 10’ between the corner of the planter and the corner of the sign.
Commissioner Hecht thanked the applicant for their presentation. He thought the clock was a nice piece to the aesthetics. He mentioned the statement in Section 8 of the packet stating “the intent of project will not bring many school age children to the property, if any.” He asked why that was their target audience as opposed to families.
Mr. Yule stated what they are seeing in the marketplace is that the person who has school age children has the ability to purchase a home and have a backyard. They live a different lifestyle that what is seen in the rental force. They are seeing empty nesters who are downsizing and young professionals and early couples who are planning or having a child. By the time they are school aged they want more space. At Karger they are planning a children’s play room.
Commissioner Hecht stated it seems like a positive that they are not bringing any children and he was not sure he agreed. He was concerned about adding 89 units and presumably most of them will have cars that will take up space where no one is now. He has noticed that the parking situation in downtown Highland Park has improved with more vacancies. When Sak’s was open it was harder to park and they were never a strong store. He asked for comments on how that will work.
Mr. Bernstein asked if he was concerned about the 158 spaces allocated to Sak’s. That is not the total amount of spaces in the underground lot. When Renaissance was developed 158 spaces were allocated for Sak’s and they do not need to utilize all those spaces. There is plenty of capacity to handle this building and other commercial uses.
Mr. Yule stated they are seeing a lot of one-car families. Parking will change and generational shifts are happening. They are in conversations with parking groups in the Midwest who are slowly getting rid of their parking facilities. They have to plan a project for today’s use and be able to accommodate everyone who wants to park. People want to park in front of where they are going. They have seen trends that cars are slowly being removed from the road. They believe there will be approximately 100 cars at this development. He thought there were 490 stalls in the garage.
Director Fontane stated the surface lot off Second St. will be reduced in the number of spaces and those are public spaces and will not be dedicated to the development. The public garage has approximately 400 spaces. This is not the majority of parking allocated to the project.
Commissioner Hecht stated he was concerned adding a lot of cars with the hope that the additional residential will spur growth in the retail market. He wanted to know if this was adequately addressed. He thought this was part of the problem with Sak’s. He did not want to see this as an issue here. He stated in the traffic study for all the streets in the area the traffic data was from 2015. He asked if this was the most recent data available.
Mr. Yule stated he would double check this for the most accurate information. The traffic consultant will be present fort the next meeting.
Commissioner Hecht mentioned the traffic study and the level of service and capacity analysis on traffic. They are prepared to operate at D level or better. He thought D was pretty bad and asked how it was determined. They are adding a lot of people with the hope for growth in the neighboring properties. He asked about the methodology used and how the traffic will be impacted.
Mr. Yule stated the traffic consultant will be present at the next meeting.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the bike parking along Elm Pl. and if it made more sense to move it to the island in parking lot.
Mr. Yule stated this was a good comment and something they can correct.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated regarding the drop off, the interior drop off seems like you need to work through the radii on the curb and they could make it flow better. He asked how they were going to handle the waste from the building.
Mr. Yule stated it is illustrated on the diagram and there is a chute.
Chair Reinstein asked if it was inside the building.
Mr. Yule stated it was the trash is inside and the is dock outside.
Mr. Alessandro stated there will be a rolling door to provide access to the loading dock so it is enclosed. This is inside the building underneath the second floor and under cover.
Chair Reinstein asked if you were parked in space 20 or 21 and you looked at the loading dock area, what would you see.
Mr. Alessandro stated you would see a garage door.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked how UPS or other deliveries would be handled.
Mr. Yule stated that is why they created the curb cut to get it away from the residential entry. They will require all deliveries to come onto ramp and it is not a permanent spot.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the stairwell by the northeast corner has a door to the parking area. He asked if it made sense to have a door leading to the outside.
Mr. Yule stated this was related to Planner Cross’ comment about the white box located on the first floor. It shows the enclosure created for the stairwell. The stairs would stay in place that lead to the garage.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the pavement versus landscaping along Elm Pl. does not seem to need as much as paving. Maybe they do not need the 14’ width of pavement and maybe 8’ would be plenty.
Mr. Alessandro stated that was a valid comment and they can look at it.
Chair Reinstein asked if the building line goes to the property line on the north side.
Mr. Alessandro stated it does.
Chair Reinstein asked if the City sets the width of the sidewalk.
Planner Cross stated the width of the sidewalk was part of the overall block development in 1996-98 when Renaissance was developed.
Mr. Alessandro stated they have added the islands at the bump outs. They are also showing some planting areas adjacent to the building on that sidewalk. They are taking over part of the sidewalk with some planting and they can expand the planters along the sidewalk. One of the problems with expanding it in the area where there is parallel parking is you need to be able to get out of the cars. They would have to shorten it from the building side.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated his next comments were related to design review. The Second St. elevation is improved and the scale is appropriate to the rest of Second St. He thought they could look at the size of the clock and thought it might be too small to be seen. He asked if the light poles matched the others.
Mr. Alessandro stated they are not there yet and the renderer put in light poles.
Mr. Yule stated he assumed there was a City standard for a light pole and they would adhere to it.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated they did not seem to match.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the brick paving detail and was glad they were putting it back. It needs to match the detail and how they are installed for the rest of downtown.
Mr. Yule stated they will replace them with the exact same material and pattern.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if they were on concrete and then asphalt and then the pavers.
Mr. Yule stated he could get this from staff. Commissioner Kutscheid asked how dogs will be handled.
Mr. Yule stated there is a second floor terrace and they will designate a small area dog run area. Across the street at the Karger project there is a dog walk through the park. There is a sufficient outdoor space to carve out a small dog run for the building. They will provide doggie bags and a garbage can and have signage.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the greenway and thought it was on its way. He was excited to see next iteration.
Mr. Yule stated they were getting input from the neighbors.
Commissioner Glazer stated he knew the project well and appreciated the thorough presentations. They were participants in two pre-apps and they are familiar with the project. He liked that the comments about the stepbacks that had been implemented. He liked the blade sign and thought the clock may be undersized. He appreciated the efforts made on the website. He asked what is the target date for completion.
Mr. Yule stated if they can get a positive recommendation from the Commission and obtain approval from City Council they would be in the final approval process which takes several months. For a large scale project like this there is a lot of work in producing a set of drawings. They are looking at 2021 to begin construction.
Commissioner Glazer stated they would still be under the influence of the pandemic for some time. He asked if this was playing a role in the design for the common areas such as the lobby and elevators.
Mr. Yule stated he was speaking to Mr. Alessandro about this earlier in the week. His team is looking at amenity use. They are trying to follow from good example as to how protect each other and be safe.
Mr. Alessandro stated the design path has been to have these large communal spaces and big open areas. They are looking at virus resistant design. There is a two-fold way to sanitize these areas utilizing features they find in hospitals. They are talking about taking these large spaces and breaking them up into smaller spaces for gatherings so they are not dealing with large groups of people and providing expanding pathways into the spaces so people are not next to each other and bottle necking.
Commissioner Glazer stated this is not a current space that is being repurposed or remodeled. They are providing a new design and asked if they would see any kind of new wave of architectural planning in connection with the current distancing expectations. Is the plan to open the elevator doors and let as many people that can fit in get on. He asked is there new thinking on how this might work.
Mr. Alessandro stated there are destination demands in other elevators and the technology coming out now is you go to a kiosk and have a fob that tells the elevator what floor you are going to. The elevator opens for you and limits number of people in the cab. The design work is happening currently for new spaces and how they are laid out. They are looking at keeping distance, widening corridors and waiting areas by elevators and providing ways the cabs can be sanitized are under consideration
Commissioner Glazer stated they are not required to have retail tenants in the building. He asked if there was a sense of who the commercial tenants might be.
Mr. Yule stated they did not. It is a different world and ground level retail is inviting and energetic and helps set a scene. Retailers are going to readapt on how they deliver their products. A lot of the online business will take over and they will be left with what the restaurant and bar scenes will look like in the future. They have time to figure this out, but there were 39 vacant storefronts in Highland Park and what do they become now. There is some risk for the ground floor retail and they will do their best. Renaissance has non-compete list as part of the development. They are limited as to what it can become. Possibly and event space but for what type of event.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was not part of the Commission for the pre-apps and some of his comments/questions maybe redundant. He asked about the mix of units in the Renaissance apartments and the vacancy rate.
Planner Cross stated he would track this information down.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if there were any other blade signs in Highland Park.
Planner Cross stated there were lots and they are small pedestrian oriented and intended for single store fronts.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the Housing Commission sets the fee in lieu for affordable housing or is it City Council.
Director Fontane stated payment in lieu is set by City Council yearly at the budget hearing where a unified fee schedule is adopted. It dictates what the fee in lieu will be. The Housing Commission will review the application for an exception that allows for cash payments in lieu. It is a discretionary approval process by Council.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the value of every unit is about $300,000 and they are getting a fraction of that from the developer. If he were a developer and could walk away with $650,000 to the good he would do it every time. The purpose is to try to and get affordable units in the community and he had no problem with the variance. He would like to see them pay the market rate of what it cost to build their unit. He would appreciate their consideration of this.
Councilman Stolberg stated every year they talk about the fee in lieu and is it based on the true cost of replacing a unit or the opportunity to obtain a scattered site housing. The burden is placed on the developer to prove an alternate method is acceptable. Even if Council reconsidered it the fee in lieu, this developer would pay what was on the books at the time. The code is written that on site housing is the preferred method.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like access to samples, the building looks heavy in terms of color, Renaissance has more buff colored brick and stone, like them to take a look and see how it comports with the building it is attached to, would like to see what the metal lattice looks like, ability to have climbing plants for green to soften, concerned about the width of pedestrian walkway, will not receive sun, 14’ is narrow, look at existing walkway which is wider, not a lot of light, appreciate stalls but doubtful of value they will bring, will people rent them out and this needs more study, school age children put impact on tax payers, not target market, in Naperville there are a number of families having to move to small apartments and the parents sleep in the living room and the kids sleep in the bedroom, concerned about who will live there and the impact on the schools, would like to have market study including what size units are marketable, there are a lot of apartments coming into the stream, there is a huge development at Northbrook Court, and another at Deerbrook, and in Northbrook, people are losing jobs and are not going to be able to afford a house, people want to live in the city until children are school age, business of young people test driving apartments does not set right, he is not taking his house and going to an apartment, wants to see market study that says they are needed, does not want to see a residential version of Sak’s where apartments are empty, does not understand access to plaza from Renaissance shops and offices.
Mr. Alessandro stated he was not sure what is meant by access to the plaza and would take a look at it.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there are entry canopies on Green Bay Rd. and Elm Pl. and it looks like they hang over the sidewalk. He asked if this was an exception.
Planner Cross stated it is pretty common for storefront awnings to hang over the right-of- way and they will take a look at it.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about loading and delivery. The loading dock is access through the garage.
Mr. Alessandro stated the parking lot is covered.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it is open to the sky and a semi trailer is 13’6” high. He asked how they are going to manage that with a 14’ clearance.
Mr. Yule stated it fits and most loading docks are 14’ for semis and that is what Renaissance has today. They will look at it and make sure a truck does not get stuck.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like to limit the number of signs and do it in more creative ways. He mentioned small package deliveries and what happens when a package is delivered and picked up by a tenant. Will there be a concierge, where are the packages stored, and how will they get to the tenant. This needs to be addressed.
Mr. Yule stated they have package centers with an identifier and racks and refrigerators inside. They will have a similar element here.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked how they will police that the surface lot is not being used by tenants. In Highland Park people do not want to park downstairs in the garage.
Mr. Bernstein stated the City will police the lot and like any other public parking, there is a time constraint.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if it will be marked as two hours only.
Mr. Bernstein stated the City will operate the lot and they are just maintaining it.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if it made sense to have an enter only or exit only off each of the streets. He thought making a left out of either entrances would be difficult to accomplish. He wanted to see a sign package with directional signs and the number of signs. He was not a fan of blade signs and thought that the building is prominent enough and was not sure a sign is necessary. He was concerned what happens when they sell the building and there is a different name and how will it fit. He was not sure he liked it going all the way to the ground as opposed to bringing it in so people can walk under it.
Mr. Yule stated he appreciated the comments. Albion is a residential recognized group that invests in long term real estate. They do not sell their projects and their goal is to hold them long term. The are investing millions of dollars into their projects and they are confident there is a market place for them. They can do a market survey and from Evanston north is it 94% occupied and it continues to grow. It is up to them to determine the market rate.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was interested in seeing a 5-10 mile radius of Highland Park in terms of what is in place and what is scheduled to come into place. He looked at the rent structure and he is looking at rents that are comparable the City for what they are charging in class A buildings. It is their risk and as a Commissioner it is his job to make sure they get best project for Highland Park and that the project is successful.
Commissioner Glazer thought they were venturing far from their lane and they were here for limited relief.
Chair Reinstein stated Vice Chair Hainsfurther can ask for whatever he wants and it does not mean he is going to get it.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there are two elevators and asked if one is a freight elevator and what happens when some one is moving in or out. Is that elevator tied up for a prolonged period what is the impact on residents.
Mr. Yule stated the elevator move in/move out process is automated and they are only allowed to move three hours maximum. It is subject to “x” amount of time.
Chair Reinstein asked if there was any public comment.
Planner Cross stated he would open the floor to public comment and there was no one calling in.
Councilman Stolberg stated he respected everyone’s comments and the last thing they want is an empty building. He stated they have more then their share of vacancies in downtown Highland Park. They have to have guts to put in 8,000 sf. retail where it was bad before Covid19. He knew there was discussion about converting to townhomes on Elm Pl. or Green Bay Rd. instead of retail. It would be unique to Highland Park would not put the burden on them to rent commercial space. It would not tax the existing long term retail owners who are trying to get rent reductions and creative solutions for filling their vacant space that has been here for decades along Central. He asked if their plans are flexible enough that this is still an option. He asked if they had thought about it on any level and thought it would be a unique feature and take some risk off the table. It would take pressure off the existing merchants who are having a tough time leasing space.
Mr. Yule stated they have done this in other cities and in Minneapolis. They are not really townhomes but they feel like it and you walk up to it. They see it in other cities and it differentiates the building with that feel. They thought about it and it did not seem like the City would be open to it. He will go back to the team and try to map out what it townhome solution would look like. They would be able to accomplish a little more greenery because they would have setback stairs and plantings. They will evaluate it and bring it back next time.
Councilman Stolberg thought that if done right, it might be unique and attractive and not put a further burden on a vacant retailers.
Mr. Yule stated he was worried how they would rent 8,000 s.f. of retail. It would have to be broken into several storefronts and would look choppy. In the market place the retailers in downtown Highland Park are struggling and adding more square footage is not the right solution. They will investigate this with their team.
Councilman Stolberg stated it could add a richness to this piece of the project. If they have retail space he would like it occupied by the people who have been in the community for a long time. If there is a viable alternate he would like to see something unique. It would differentiate the building and could add some green space. It could be a win-win for everyone and they are not adding more retail space to the already struggling landlords and merchants in downtown.
Mr. Yule stated they would look into this option.
Planner Cross stated there were no comments from the public.
Mr. Passman asked if there were any comments submitted to staff prior to the meeting. Planner Cross stated there was no public input.
Chair Reinstein stated he would summarize some things the applicant needed to come back with and include his own comments. He stated they have to figure out how to sign off on the materials. They talked about two different types of masonry and when he looked at the renderings he was not sure where he was seeing it. He needed to know what it will look like when you are walking by the garage on Elm Pl. and Second St. They need to know what the lattice will look like. He mentioned the signage packages and what people will know about the surface lot once the project is built. They have to address there is public parking available. There are some traffic issues and concern about left hand turns. The City hired consultant who had some points and he did not hear they had addressed them and they should be addressed when the applicant returns. The window openings are sizeable and he wanted to know if there are window covering rules for the renters and what it will look like.
Mr. Yule stated they provide window shades of the same style and the residents are not allowed to put their own treatments up. They will all be uniform throughout the building.
Chair Reinstein asked about the colors and wanted to see them. He asked if the loading docks conflict and what happens if two trucks show up, one for their building and one for Renaissance.
Mr. Yule stated they will have the traffic consultant look at this.
Chair Reinstein stated in one of the lighting plans there are the numbers that show on the sidewalk specifically in the pedestrian walkway. The numbers are low in some parts of the walkway. He asked if it will be fairly dark in some parts of the walkway. He noted in the spot where it curves the numbers are low. When you are standing on Second St. and looking west on the walkway because you are trying to create some stalls, it looks like there are some precast panels separating the areas and they do not look good. Some residents may not feel safe because it looks like an area where someone could hide. He thought maybe if the panel was cut in half it could still serve the same purpose and would not jut out as far into the walkway. The number of parking required under the most stringent portions of the code is already less than number of spaces they have. He asked why they dedicated time to do a transportation and shared parking reduction.
Mr. Yule stated if they took those bonuses (unintelligible). If they are dedicated to the development it will have a sign that says this is a dedicated stall for a certain apartment.
Chair Reinstein asked if he was saying under the PUD they get 156 spaces and if Council approves the number they need at 110 the City gains 46 spaces.
Mr. Bernstein stated they will work with the City and come back with an answer.
Chair Reinstein asked about the lighting and if the bug rating has any issue. He mentioned the blade sign and his fear was kids will hit the sign. There is a lighting sconce about 8’ above and maybe that is where the sign should end. He stated the applicant will be coming back and was happy to make himself available if they wanted to talk about how they can figure out the design review. Short of bringing samples to City Hall, they are probably going have to do an elevation of areas and label each material.
Mr. Bernstein stated they will figure this out.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated somehow they need a physical sample. Mr. Yule stated they will figure out how to do this.
Chair Reinstein asked if the commissioners had any comments.
Commissioner Moore stated looking at the walkway, 14’ seems narrow in places and also the 90o turn would make her uneasy to walk through there. Her other concern was the wind and if it comes from the east it is not pleasant.
Mr. Yule stated they will take look at this.
Chair Reinstein stated they were going to continue to another date and asked when the applicant would be ready to come back.
Planner Cross stated the next meeting is May 19, 2020 and the following is June 2, 2020. Mr. Yule stated May 19th would work for them.
Commissioner Hecht stated the shelter at home order expires at the end of May and was there any sense as to what the City will do June 1st.
Councilman Stolberg stated the governor outlined five steps and he stated in no case will anything change before May 29th. To go the Phase III there will be requirements on testing and at that point public gatherings will be limited to no more than ten 10. For a dais of seven commissioners, three staff members, planners, applicants and attorneys there is not going to be a June meeting filled with people. He would not encourage it so soon.
Director Fontane stated they had a meeting with the City Manager and they are not anticipating any May or June in person meetings.
Commissioner Lidawer stated there was a lot of work done and they listened to the Commission. There are a lot of questions they need some resolution on and they have come a long way.
Mr. Yule appreciated their comments and it makes the project better.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue May 19, 2020. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein Nays: None
Motion carried 7-1.
Director Fontane stated there would be no additional notice provided by mail.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
Planner Cross stated the public hearing process has concluded for the refueling stations at the Public Works Facility and there are at findings of fact. They will determine if the findings will come back to the May 19th meeting.
2. Next Regular Meeting - May 19, 2020
3. Case Briefing - None
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hecht 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=2350&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up