City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Aug. 4.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Planner Cross to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Glazer, Hainsfurther, Hecht, Kutscheid, Lidawer, Moore, Reinstein
Members Absent: None
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Cross, Fontane (7:40), Kosmatka
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: None
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 7, 2020 Regular Meeting
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7, 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. 1781 St. Johns Ave. - New Awning
Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including application summary, project location, existing conditions, proposed awning, proposed signage, standards and recommendation.
Mr. Cory Hock Sign Designer, stated the awning will be navy blue with white text and the teal accent is in the client’s logo. It will be mounted similar to Dr. Cohen’s down the street.
Ms. Kate Blankshain, Physical Therapist, stated they want more visibility and they plan on taking down the temporary sign on the window and replace it with the awning.
Commissioner Glazer stated he was glad they are taking down the temporary sign and he liked the awning.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it fits in nicely with the rest of the awnings.
Commissioner Hecht agreed with the rest of the Board.
Commissioner Lidawer stated it was an improvement and had no questions.
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve. Commissioner Lidawer motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Planner Cross called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
2. Design Review – 898 Deerfield Rd. – New Four-Unit Multi-Family Building – Continued from July 7, 2020
Planner Kosmatka made a presentation for the above item including application summary, previous consideration: key comments, revised application materials, site plans, renderings, elevations north, south, east and west, site analysis, landscaping, tree removal/Forestry Division review, screening, lighting, general design standards, district design review standards and recommendation.
Chair Reinstein asked if the applicant had submitted a photometric plan.
Planner Kosmatka stated they had not and it will be required as part of the permitting process. The photometric addresses things such as light spillage per foot candles and brightness limits.
Chair Reinstein asked if City staff was prepared to review for compliance when it is submitted.
Planner Kosmatka stated that is part of the permitting process.
Planner Cross stated photometric plans are effective for parking lot lights and large ground fixtures. When you are talking about wall packs, the light ends so far beyond where the property lines are. Staff will obtain photometric measurements for each of the light fixtures and they may show a 3’ light spread. If the building is 15’ from the property line they would not require a site side photometric plan. They will work with the applicants on the photometric spread.
Mr. Derick Goodman, Applicant, made a presentation including four-unit multi-family development, plan update (post packet), pipe bollard detail, fire protection, landscape plan – existing tree inventory, key modifications from July 7th PDC meeting.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she loved what was added and the applicant really listened to what they said. She thought the east side was much more interesting and liked the detail on the north and south sides. She asked about the lights and since it is such a large expanse on the back could there be more lighting. It is more interesting and she liked the fact that the fences seem to give it more privacy and the plantings looked lovely in terms of the types of things you want more private. She was concerned there was no lighting on the back of the building.
Mr. Goodman stated on the elevations each of the awnings has can lights so it lights up the back patio. They did not want to put anything above the fence line so as not to disrupt the driveway path beyond the fence or the apartment windows adjacent.
Commissioner Lidawer stated she appreciated the extra snow removal space and it seemed the only guest space would be the place where all the snow would be. She asked if he viewed it as adequate for visitors or residents if there is no where else to park.
Mr. Goodman stated based on the engineering feedback, about 500 s.f. was the requirement. They have placed a snow bank beyond the handicapped space at the south end as well as when you enter the drive at the north end. They have pulled back the retention bank behind the guest parking due to the bumper that was added.
Commissioner Hecht stated he liked the project before and liked what has been done. One of his concerns was the location of the handicapped spaces and he was glad they added one to the other side as well. He was glad to see the snow will not obstruct that.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it was a far improved project. He asked if there will be a ComEd transformer on the property or will it be on the utility pole.
Mr. Goodman stated they will have to confirm with the engineer, but he thought it would be on the utility pole.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated if it is not on the pole they will have to show it at the time of permitting. He thought it would have to be screened with landscaping. He would recommend putting it on the south side of the building so it is not in the front yard. It is a big green box that sits on a concrete pad and is not attractive to look at. He would be careful of two things regarding the snow storage area - by the handicapped space he was concerned about cars being able to back out and head north, and he was concerned about the one on the north and blocking the vision of cars coming out the drive. He thought the improvements were great and if they intend to come back with a mirror of this development in a year on the adjoining lot, he would be interested in seeing more articulation in the back elevation if it faced the street.
Commissioner Glazer stated they have strengthened the plan. He shared Commissioner Lidawer’s concern about the east elevation. He had heard what they said about the lighting and they do not want to have it above the fence line. He asked about path lights or lighting below the fence line for the benefit of the residents who can step out at night without concern even with lighting above the doors.
Mr. Goodman stated on the prior submission they had wall sconces adjacent to the rear doors. They are happy to add the sconces back and from a design perspective they preferred those initially. The can lights are effective at shielding light from the neighbors and can also light the patios below. They can add the sconces back in. They want to make sure it will not go beyond property line.
Commissioner Glazer stated he liked the sconces and thought they contributed to the design. He would welcome the sconces. He mentioned planting trees in the parkway in connection with the fee in lieu and asked how they felt about the City doing it.
Mr. Goodman stated they had a great relationship with the Forestry Dept. and have worked closely with Mr. Miller on four other projects. They have been successful in insuring their plantings are as productive as possible and they plant as much as possible. They received the feedback last week and plan to incorporate that into the revised landscape plan. They will plant two in the parkway.
Commissioner Glazer asked the Commissioners to consider sconces on the east side and thought there was a need for some light.
Commissioner Kutscheid thought the amount of light was appropriate and they did not need to add more light to the east side. He tended not to add more and more light to the environment. He asked if they were planning to add a down light on the west side main entry.
Mr. Goodman stated there are can lights in that entry. They have two sconces to the left and right of the sidewalk and the vestibule will be fully lit as it is a common area.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it is a piece of glass the light will come through and someone with a key can find the lock.
Mr. Goodman confirmed this.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the island on left side is turf but the south island had day lilies and the north island was turf. He wanted to see those reversed so the impact is better from street to have the flowering.
Mr. Goodman stated they did not have an issue with that and would be happy to make the change.
Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned where the two driveways come together at a point at the northwest corner of the site and asked if they could round it off.
Mr. Goodman stated they could do that.
Commissioner Moore stated the new plan is lovely and the improvements are great. She wanted to verify that now that they have moved the extra space to the north, is the landscape screening enough or does that need a fence also.
Planner Kosmatka stated in Article VIII under parking there is a provision that states guest parking may be located in the front yard but not less than 10’ from any lot line. If a dense landscape buffer of either all evergreen or a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs is installed such parking facility and lot align. There is a clustering of plantings.
Chair Reinstein stated he would prefer less light on the east side. He was in favor of the change to down lights. He thanked the applicant for taking good notes and listening to the comments the Commission made. He thought they had made some nice adjustments.
Chair Reinstein asked Commissioners Lidawer and Hecht and Vice Chair Hainsfurther if they had objections to the down light on east side over the sconce. There were no objections.
Chair Reinstein he thought the applicant had stipulated the missing items they still need to address. His stated preference was to move this along subject to the items being taken care of.
Planner Cross asked for items to add to the list.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated the plans should agree with each other and be consistent. The comments made on the items not addressed in the packet should be included in the final submission.
Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve with the conditions noted. Commissioner Lidawer seconded.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Goodman thanked the Commission for their time.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. FY 21 Budget Commission Work Plan
Planner Cross stated the work plan sets out the tasks and expenses for the Commission for the fiscal year. The tasks are pretty much the same and the expenses are consistent with last year.
Commissioner Lidawer stated it was comprehensive and on page 67 it should say “to cover the costs” so it flows.
Planner Cross asked for a motion to approve the Commission’s 2020-21 work plan. 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.
2. Administrative Design Review Approvals - None
3. Next Regular Meeting - August 18, 2020
4. Case Briefing
Director Fontane stated there are several legislative items in the works that will be coming to the Commission in the summer and fall:
The first is the downtown POSO area and they will be presenting to the Business Advisory Group on August 11th four changes to zoning in that area. On August 18th there will be informal discussion to understand what the Commission might recommend in terms of its thoughts and discussion of the matter. Depending how that goes there will be a public hearing or it will go back to Council depending on the consistency of the feedback.
They are also working on adult use of cannabis, a new use within the zoning code, and how to regulate it. They have been directed to go to public hearing. The recommendation from staff was to regulate similar to the way they do for medical. This is tentative for the first meeting in September for the public hearing.
Staff is working on short-term rentals. Council had directed staff develop an ordinance similar to Lake Bluff. They do not have a date, but are looking at September.
Staff is working on zone changes related to the realignment to the boundary with Highwood. They have been working with Highwood and there were some difficulties with its acceptance from the Recorder’s office. Once that is done there will be certain parcels relocated in their entirety in Highland Park and certain parcels located in Highwood. Many years ago parcels were split and these should be cleaned up. It affects land use because if you have parcels in two different jurisdictions you have land use controlled by two jurisdictions. Once the finalization of the boundary change occurs, by law, the zoning is the most restrictive R1 which is a default zoning. They are not looking to rezone R1, so they are following up with a zoning amendment to make them consistent with the rest of the parcel. These amendments will come through this fall.
They are working on other items including area plans for the Crossroads business corridor. They will be kicking off their outreach year in late summer or early fall. They will be doing an area plan in a way that they look at the corridor from a strategic point and its placement in the City and relative to other areas. There will be interactions with property owners and residents.
They are looking at the area plan for Laurel, McGovern and Hickory. The area has a number of parcels that are part of a PUD that are not fully built. It is one of the most desired areas in the City and they will take a close look at the area.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Kutscheid, Glazer, Hainsfurther, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:40 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2401&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up