Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Nov. 17.

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: Fontane, Cross

Student Rep.: None

Corporation Counsel: Monteleone, Passman

Council Liaison: Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

November 3, 2020 Regular Meeting

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Kutscheid stated on page 6, line 9, it should be “a hole in the roof of the canopy.” Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kutscheid.

Director Fontane called the roll:

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

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

A. Design Review:

929 Edgewood Place – Edgewood Middle School Building Improvements with a Variation Request Related to Landscaping.

Planner Cross stated the material display board was set up at Edgewood on November 14th.

Ms. Leanne Meyer-Smith, Wight & Co., Architect, made a presentation including timeline, Wight overview, site plan, general design standards, landscape plan, concrete block retaining wall with handrail, south, west and north elevations and similar school projects.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she loved it and found it uplifting. She saw the colors and was glad to see the trends in other schools. Sometimes trends change and when the school was built it was a great school. She asked about maintenance and thought there would not be much. If they wanted to change this in 30 years how difficult and expensive would it be assuming structurally the school was in good shape, but people were tired of it. How difficult would it be to change the colors or to go an all white trim.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated it is very easy and the fiber cement board and the colored panels can be painted. The coating is a 15-20 year coating and usually lasts longer. They can have it repainted. The brick needs maintenance and tuckpointing is needed. You can change this and do maintenance as well. The 50’s look is comfortable and this look will be comfortable but will you want to change it 50 years from now. You can change the colors and repaint the material.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther thanked Ms. Meyer-Smith for having the materials on the site. He stated there were three different precast samples. He asked if they were looking for direction as to which one they prefer or are all three being used. They were all white but slightly different colored.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated they are very close and the precaster sent them because there are slight variations in the mix. They are going to pick one as the target mix and they wanted to show there could be a slight variation which would not be noticeable to the naked eye. They are very smooth.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not have a problem with the material or colors. He preferred the middle one between the two boards - #5. It is the more muted of the three and was a good contrast with the aggregate. When he was there and saw the context he was concerned about the east elevation that faces the neighbors. There were windows on the north side and was there a way to get some fenestration to break up the precast on the east side. The high school had an insulated translucent panel. He was concerned about the houses to east of the school. He would not make it a condition of approval, but asked if they could take a look at it. It would help break up the massing to the east.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated she understood what he was talking about.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it was almost a blank wall on the east wall.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated it is very thickly vegetated.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not want to make it a requirement, but asked if they could consider it.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated it is the storm shelter and every piece of glass would be ballistic rated.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there are windows on the north side. They are putting in ballistic material. The wall at the high school is ballistic rated and is also a shelter space.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated they will look into it.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they were asking for signage approval tonight. Ms. Meyer-Smith stated no.

Commissioner Moore stated she appreciated seeing the materials. The colors of the fiber board were much warmer than they appeared in the illustrations. She had a concern about the white cement blocks and she thought they should pick something that is on the warmest shade of colors.

Ms. Meyer-Smith stated that was what Vice Chair Hainsfurther picked.

Mr. Steve Gregory, Landscape Architect, stated they are installing additional landscaping along the façade on the east and there are additional trees that will soften the view into that area.

Chair Reinstein thanked the District and the design team for the speed of providing the information. He mentioned the landscaping along the property line at the north of the new drive and there is dying vegetation. He asked if there is a warranty and it will replaced.

Dr. Jean Sophie, Dist. 112, stated she did not know and will get back to Planner Cross.

Chair Reinstein stated it had nothing to do with tonight’s agenda and he was just curious. There was a lot of discussion about headlights and what people will be seeing and the District assured them they would install the kinds of plantings that kept their leaves. He thought the neighbors would want to know.

Mr. Monteleone stated there may still be a requirement that the applicant can get additional zoning relief. They recommend the approval be subject to compliance to other zoning requirements and specifically obtaining the necessary zoning relief required.

Chair Reinstein asked if that was a setback relief.

Mr. Monteleone stated it was an FAR.

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the plans as submitted with the notation that sample #5 be the precast panel and that this is subject to the petitioner being in conformance with all applicable zoning requirements and successfully obtain relief from those they are not. Commissioner Lidawer seconded.

Mr. Monteleone stated there is also the approval of the landscape foundation variation. Director Fontane called the roll:

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

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

B. Pre-Application Discussion for Map and Zoning Text Amendments to the B5 Zoning District.

Director Fontane made a presentation for the above item including background, request for feedback on uses and overlay and downtown residential overlay district concept.

Chair Reinstein stated they could bifurcate the discussion. He stated they were not hearing staff articulating what is the overall B5 district and why they zeroed in on the L shaped area.

Director Fontane stated there is concern about the vacancy downtown and the area of downtown being quite large and requiring that the first floor of buildings that are residential be commercial. They thought about how to shape the downtown zoning to recognize that perhaps over supply of commercial space while encouraging redevelopment that aligned with planning in the area would allow for entirely residential buildings to be constructed in this area that would be a permitted use. They looked at the delineation as follows: it is on the periphery and the L involves two parcels of land with considerable surface parking associated with banks, i.e., Chase and Bank of America. Both are seen as potential redevelopment sites. There is also the corner of Park and Sheridan. There have been a number of developers who have been interested in looking at that for an entirely residential building. They have been put off by the requirement of ground floor commercial. Tonight they have a final development plan for Albion II which is now calling for first floor residential as well as multi-family above. They have petitioned to change to B5 from B4-5 to allow that use to be considered. This proposal is an alternate to changing the zoning for downtown to B4-5 which has a collection of uses which might not be appropriate for downtown. They know what Albion II is going to be but if you rezone other parts of downtown to B4-5 you would introduce an additional set of uses that staff does not think appropriate for downtown. This provides an alternate way to approach allowing all residential buildings while still maintaining the first floor commercial requirement for the rest of downtown. It will not add a significant amount of additional commercial space to downtown given the market environment.

Chair Reinstein stated he took notes on his sheet and he thought that the south side of Elm from St. Johns to Sheridan is a good candidate for this. He liked the west side of Sheridan from Elm to Park and was less enthusiastic about the south side of Elm from Second to First. There are uses there with ground floor commercial serving a purpose. He asked if the area had to be contiguous.

Director Fontane stated part of the reason it is shown this way is to make a contiguous overlay area. You would generally prefer to have a contiguous zoning district.

Chair Reinstein mentioned the two bank parcels and the Chase building is not incorporated in this, but the parking lot and drive-thru are. He asked if there were a lot of different parcels there.

Director Fontane stated if it were all one parcel the building would have to manifest itself in such a way as to have commercial on the ground in the area outside of the zoning overlay and the other portion could employ a first floor residential.

Chair Reinstein stated there would have to be some sort of commercial front on Central and then turn the corner at St. Johns but it does not have to run all the way down.

Director Fontane stated this was correct and an entirely new building could be built as well depending on the parking arrangements.

Chair Reinstein stated there are three banks in a row, Wintrust, Bank of America and Chase.

Director Fontane stated there is a lot of surface parking. Chair Reinstein stated this was a worthwhile undertaking.

Commissioner Moore asked about the buildings at the southwest corner of Elm and Sheridan and if they were already totally residential buildings.

Director Fontane stated there have been developers looking at tearing these down.

Chair Reinstein asked if they were rental townhomes.

Director Fontane stated he did not know.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the zoning for the Community House.

Director Fontane stated the Community House is B4 and the Arts Center is PA.

Chair Reinstein stated they could look at Elm as well because there is surplus land.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if B4 can be residential.

Director Fontane stated yes.

Chair Reinstein asked if they would call this a B5 overlay district.

Director Fontane stated it would be a residential overlay district. They could use downtown residential overlay or whatever name they like.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he had no problem with the properties facing Elm. He thought it should end at Park or extend down Sheridan to the south line of that district. Instead of carving out that set of shops with office above he thought that if they are talking about edges that is more of an edge than St. Johns. He would prefer to stop the district at Park and leave the bank drive-thru for Chase. They are building more residential but there will be a driver for more retail or commercial on the east side of the tracks. If this property was redeveloped it is a natural extension from the existing Chase bank up Park to have some retail frontage. There is ample parking across the street in the city lot and also street parking as well. If they concentrate on the block north of Renaissance running down Elm to Sheridan then to Park and bring it back across to St. Johns that is a more logical place to break it. Or square it off and include the properties on the west side of Sheridan down to the extension of Chase. Either include that area or take out the area where the Chase drive-thru is. He preferred to see it stopped at the north side of Park.

Commissioner Lidawer agreed with Vice Chair Hainsfurther that it should end at Park so the north would be the end of it. The problem she had with the overlay in general is she felt they are picking and choosing. She would be more comfortable with looking at this as B4-B5 and taking out certain uses. If the Commission does not prefer this then they should keep it at Park so they have as much consistency as possible. If they considered this as B4-B5 and take out the uses they might consider that. She preferred the option of overall consistency.

Commissioner Hecht asked if there are developers that are driving this particular proposal.

Director Fontane stated no.

Commissioner Hecht stated it looks like they are trying for a more urban feel if they mix residential in a commercial district. He would like to see still having a restriction on residential on the first floor but eliminating the requirement the first floor has to be commercial. The first floor can be an entryway with mechanical, etc. but no actual units. He asked why they are not considering residential as a special use in the B5. They might have more flexibility and options to bring more people downtown.

Director Fontane stated he would advise against the question of why not just allow conditional use entirely residential throughout the downtown. The conditional uses are conditions allowed with conditions and not just a use that can be arbitrarily denied. If the City wants a downtown they need to maintain that restriction in some portion of downtown. Regarding the B5 zoning change, the reason why it was not proposed is that there is a collection of uses and they would not know what is going to happen throughout the area if it were changed to B4-5. The alternate would be to look at the uses of the B4-5 and change those. The B4-5 district extends outside of downtown and will involve properties that would be affected by changes in land use rights that would prohibit currently allowed uses. The proposal avoids that type of change to other property owners and looks at the issue in question for the downtown area.

Commissioner Lidawer stated did not understand the last part.

Director Fontane stated the B4-5 district exists outside of this area and if they change the uses permitted it would be essentially eliminating the uses in the other areas that are currently allowed.

Chair Reinstein stated if you do it with an overlay, then you avoid opening a can of worms.

Chair Reinstein asked about the south boundary of the proposed district as it runs from Green Bay to St. Johns and is there any explanation for the width.

Director Fontane stated the parcel with the small home is the parcel line they are following. They will be more exact for the public hearing.

Commissioner Glazer stated he did not like the idea of an overlay and the line is south of Elm. He asked if there had been discussion about applying this north of Elm.

Director Fontane stated is it already allowed. Entirely residential buildings are allowed outside of B-5 such as the Albion I and McGovern House.

Commissioner Glazer mentioned the various areas within the proposed overlay where there has been some interest in development. He asked if they anticipate the entire area would stir interest from developers in putting up residential buildings if lines like this were set.

Director Fontane stated he thought it would encourage residential interest in downtown. There has been consistent interest in these areas.

Commissioner Glazer stated if they drop the overlay district into this portion of downtown instead of calling it the downtown residential overlay they could call it the downtown residential overlay precinct to make it work.

Chair Reinstein stated this item will be coming back.

Director Fontane stated they met with the Business and Economic Development Advisory Group before the meeting and looked at this and thought the delineation made sense. There were comments about extending further across St. Johns to the public parking area and the majority thought it made sense as is. They will officially report in the next packet regarding the group recommendation. They would like to know about Park being the line or extending it to include the area bounded by Park and Sheridan. He asked for feedback on this matter.

Chair Reinstein stated he thought the way they have drawn it is fine. A number of developers can get their creative juices going and they will see what happens.

Director Fontane continued his presentation including request for feedback on uses and overlay and land uses in the B5 Central Business District.

Chair Reinstein stated the list is a thumbs up/down and asked if he wanted to spend the time doing that tonight or would he prefer the Commission send an email.

Director Fontane stated they can send an email to Planner Cross without copying the other commissioners. The advisory group did not look at this as a line by line consideration, but more of a fine tuning. He asked if there was anything concerning or maybe needed a conditional use permit as opposed to a permitted status.

Commissioner Lidawer stated BEDAG had mentioned office, laboratory and back rooms and deleting those. She thought laboratories and offices should be included as a B-5 use. This goes back to cutting back the POSO and she would not want those taken out of the B-5. If someone wanted to add back room operations in terms of a conditional use she did not have a problem with that. To take out laboratory or offices they are cutting off their noses s to spite their face. She asked if, when this comes back, isit possible to have a comparison of the B4-5, B-5 and the POSO and it would be easier to look at.

Director Fontane stated they could do this. Key difference between B4-5 and B5 are auto related uses.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they can allow some of these uses in B5 but restrict them off the ground floor. He mentioned a newspaper distribution office and if someone wanted it on a second floor he would not have a problem and asked for an opinion. There are a bunch of uses that seem similar. You can have a theater and you can have a restaurant, but you cannot have a dinner theater which makes no sense. Having worked with the zoning code, this table is cumbersome to work with and to understand these nuanced differences. They have the opportunity to make it user friendly. The only thing he would like to change from permitted to conditional would be elementary and high school, public, private and parochial including kindergartens. He did not know if a school by right should be in the central business district.

Chair Reinstein asked when staff would like the feedback to be sent.

Director Fontane stated he understood the use tables can be taxing and that level of change is beyond the scope of what the assignment is. That is a different type of project and involves multiple land use districts. When you change any one of these lines it affects the entire city. He stated they could put that on the list of zoning code improvement projects and it is a separate project.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated Councilman Stolberg could take it to Council and thought it was worth considering.

Director Fontane stated they tried to clean up those uses with the experiential uses. It is a taxing code.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it has not had a review since 1968.

Director Fontane stated they would appreciate feedback and if there are comments they can be emailed to Planner Cross and they will collect the feedback and prepare a staff report. He asked if they wanted attribution to the comments or just the comments.

Chair Reinstein stated he did not need attribution but he would like a sense of the timing.

Director Fontane stated it is scheduled for the next agenda.

Planner Cross stated they would like to receive comments by noon on November 23rd. Staff can then synthesize it and get it ready in a readable and helpful format in time for the packet posting on the 27th. They can bring comments to the meeting as well.

Director Fontane stated the public hearing is December 1, 2020.

Items C and D will be heard concurrently.

C. Public Hearing #20-11-REZ-005 Rezoning the Following Properties:

1. 1849 Green Bay Road

2. 1856 Green Bay Road

3. 1864 Green Bay Road

4. 1870 Green Bay Road

D. Public Hearing #19-08-PUD-007 and Findings of Fact for a Final Development Plan Incorporating a Change in Land Use for the Amendment of Ordinance 64-98 Granting a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Planned Development for Renaissance Place at 1849 Green Bay Road, Including Zoning Relief.

Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including project summary and location, final development plan, key changes in final development plan, exterior design changes, conditions of approval, zoning relief requested, public benefits proposed, inclusionary housing, sign package, findings of fact, rezoning request, Green Bay Rd. triangle properties, rezoning 1849 Green Bay Rd., standards and findings of fact and recommendation.

Director Fontane stated he conferred with corporate counsel and they need a subdivision to be part of the approval. They need to have that as part of the Commission’s consideration prior to going back to Council.

Mr. Passman stated this was correct.

Director Fontane stated the ground floor residential uses will be in the area of the former Saks which requires a B4-5. The building spans the former Saks area and also the air rights above the parking lot on Second. In terms of delineation of the B4-5 the entire development might be the desired delineation of that zoning change. It is cleaner to have the entire building that way.

Chair Reinstein stated he thought keeping it B5 and using the overlay would be the way to go.

Director Fontane stated the item is a zone change to B4-5 and it is not the overlay. They can vote in the affirmative as well as on the other idea.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was confused and it seemed that if they grant to change the zoning and send to Council and then a month later the recommendation for the overlay district may have already changed the zoning. He thought it would be cleaner to do one or the other.

Director Fontane stated what they could chose to do is modify it and not include these parcels. They know what is going to be built so there is not a concern about the collection of uses. They will have a planned development agreement and it will be contractually taken care of.

Mr. Passman stated there is no overlay district yet and they have not had the hearing for it. It may or may not be created. In contrast, the applicant does have a pending PUD application. It may be that the overlay district would have been something they would have liked to have had and they need to work within the existing zoning code.

Director Fontane stated they are trying to achieve the consideration of the entitlements for Albion II which is part of the purchase and sale agreement and there are timelines involved.

Commissioner Lidawer stated several months earlier Councilman Stolberg suggested three townhomes as compared to retail. She thought it was brilliant at the time and wanted to commend Albion for coming back with this correction. They should do everything to help this along. Looking at the picture with the additional parcel it did look consistent and contiguous to have those triangular parcels with the B4-5 and to have Albion with the B4-5. She did not mean all the downtown to be considered in the B4-5.

Director Fontane stated they will make sure to look into what Commissioner Lidawer stated and make sure they answer any questions.

Chair Reinstein asked if the applicant could highlight the changes or present the items that are the condition of approval.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation including the idea of providing first floor residential in the new building and made a business decision after reviewing to convert some of the commercial to first floor residential, when they made the decision they did not know when the overlay zone was going to occur, have time constraints, only way to implement first floor residential was to seek the B4-5 district, the property across the street was an oversight and they did not own it at that time and this occurred at the closing of the Karger center, they are seeking to clean this up, intent is to rezone the triangle piece to B4-5 and seek a rezoning of the entire new structure from Green Bay to Second, want to make sure both development are consistent with the B4-5, they do not know when overlay will happen and they need to push development forward, they have had success at Karger and want to move forward with this project, they are here for the public hearing regarding the rezoning of the triangle piece and a change to the preliminary approval which changes the floor plan by converting the commercial to residential, everything is minor and cosmetic and the standard for everything else except for those two issues is whether this final approval substantially conforms to what was approved by Council in June.

Mr. Andrew Yule, Applicant, made a presentation including revisions per preliminary approval comments, site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, pedway, materials, exterior lighting, signage, parking, traffic, inclusionary housing plan, relief requested, project benefits, floor plan for ground floor, updated north, south, west and east elevations, night aerial, walk-up units, window coverings, materials and design, canopy sign, parking signs, parking demo plan, final parking plan, truck turning diagrams, landscaping plan and lighting.

Mr. Paul Alessandro, Architect, stated bicycle parking is included, spandrel panels are larger, pilasters have widened, have proper roof enclosures to cover stair, elevator and mechanical equipment and will be clad in material that matches the composite panels of the upper floors, window patterns have changed to reflect floor plans.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the updates were great and there were some conflicts between the drawings. The first floor stairwell in the middle of site does not appear on the basement plan.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is the internal stair for the building and exits at the first floor. There is a stair that goes to the basement adjacent to the elevator core and that is the only stair that continues to the basement.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated there are no stairs from the elevator core to the basement and the only way to get down is via elevator.

Mr. Alessandro stated the stair by the elevator goes down and the east stair stops at the garage.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the access to the bike parking.

Mr. Alessandro stated there is a ramp aligned with the back of the ramp going down to garage below.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if there was a wall on north side of the bike parking. Mr. Alessandro stated there is a partial height wall that is the crash wall. Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the large space and what was it for.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is just a large space with more paving.

Commissioner Kutscheid state the second floor shows the extent of the glass canopy and it seems to conflict with the location of a trellis in the courtyard. It is on page 55 of the packet.

Mr. Yule stated the glass canopy is actually below the second floor and is not on top of the podium. The podium is an outdoor terrace for the residents to use.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated on all the other plans they show a trellis.

Mr. Yule stated the trellis is more inbound.

Mr. Alessandro stated the last two glass canopies should not be there.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated they have not really seen what the trellis will look like. Mr. Yule stated the trellis is not overhanging the stalls.

Mr. Alessandro stated the trellis is over the walkway.

Planner Cross asked if any of the glass canopies need to be removed because of the conflict.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated either the canopies or the trellis need to be removed. They cannot co-exist.

Mr. Yule stated they need to be removed.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated in front of the farthest south residential unit there is a narrow sliver of walkway in between the unit and the stairway vestibule. He asked how wide it was.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is 4’ wide.

Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the stairway and will it include handrails that extend into the ROW.

Mr. Alessandro stated they do not plan on changing the stairs.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the stairs leading to the unit and will that have handrails that extend into the ROW.

Mr. Alessandro stated no.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it made sense to shift the stair into the more open area.

Mr. Yule stated yes, it made more sense.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if there was a planter on west side where they almost meet at the corner.

Mr. Alessandro stated there is no planter there.

Commissioner Kutscheid thought they put it back 8’-10’.

Mr. Alessandro stated that may require more relief.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he was OK with shifting it north and thought they needed the gap there.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated there was a conflict between the tree planters and the detail of the planters. They are showing two-year soil which is stabilized in the tree pits but the details show they are in raised planters.

Mr. Alessandro stated these are the elongated planters and not the tree pits.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he did not see the detail for the pits where the tree is flush and there is a tree grate.

Mr. Alessandro stated yes.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the soil would extend beyond the edge of the tree grate to make the 300 s.f. they had labeled on the landscape plan.

Mr. Alessandro asked if he meant the tree pits or planters.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated for the pits they had the soil at 300 s.f. per tree on the plan.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is 300 s.f. and incorporates the depth of planters.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated there is a dashed line there to represent the whole size of the planting area.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is the area that will have the dirt in it so the root ball has a place to go.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the concrete paver for the entry under the main pathway.

Mr. Alessandro stated the main entry has a blue slate paver.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the brick there now is a clay brick and the two materials do not look great side by side.

Mr. Yule stated he wanted the walk off mat signifying the front door and asked if he would be open to darker tones in similar brick with a different pattern.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he would and a clay paver as well. Mr. Yule stated it could change color.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated yes and size.

Mr. Yule stated they can do that.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated they have stamped concrete and it was labeled as an industrial plank paver.

Mr. Yule stated they have it as a plank or an approved. They do not know which way it is going to go.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he liked pavers better than stamped concrete because you end up having to dig into the concrete and it is hard to match when you put it back together and it looks like you have a fixed spot in the pathway.

Mr. Yule stated their intention was to have a plank paver all the way and they can keep that.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the material under the trellis.

Mr. Alessandro stated it was a continuation of the paver in a pattern to be determined.

Commissioner Kutscheid mentioned the detail for the brick pavers and he thought it was on a concrete subbase with an asphalt underlayment and it is not on gravel and sand. He stated what is there does not move at all and is good for pavers that have been here 30 years. He assumed it was concrete on asphalt. He thought it would match the detail of the existing and would be preferable.

Mr. Yule stated they can do that. They have to make sure there are no trip hazards also and keeping them in place is important.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the plantings will have irrigation. Mr. Yule stated yes.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked if it was from the property line in or all the way out to the curb.

Mr. Alessandro all of it is irrigated.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the planter details are raised but in the pictures they seem to be flush.

Mr. Alessandro stated they will be per the details in the landscape plan.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated the address is 1849 Green Bay but it presents itself on Elm.

Mr. Yule stated they will petition the USPS for an Elm address. The whole development is known as 1849 Green Bay.

Commissioner Kutscheid asked about the three units.

Mr. Yule stated the whole building will have the same address and the mail room is in the main building. It is up to the postmaster.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he liked the softening of the line across the top. He wanted to rezone the three lots so there is no split zoning.

Mr. Passman asked if that is their intention to have the air rights parcel as B4-5. Mr. Yule stated yes, from Green Bay all the way to Second.

Mr. Yule stated they are down zoning and thought it was the right thing to bring them all together.

Commissioner Moore stated all the buildings should be in one zone.

Commissioner Glazer stated it was much improved and a stronger project and was a good looking building. He was happy with how it has progressed.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the parking signs were halo illuminated. Mr. Alessandro stated yes.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there is no illumination on the canopy sign even though the drawing says it is illuminated.

Mr. Alessandro stated yes.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked why the logo needs to be as tall as it is. They are 30” letters and a 38” logo and generally those are the types of signs they see on more highway type of condition. He thought the sign was rather large and wondered if they could make it smaller.

Mr. Yule stated he would leave this to Mr. Alessandro. He wanted it to look scalable and not too small. They could take off a couple of inches.

Mr. Alessandro stated they can scale it down a little.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like it to be closer to 24” and scale down the logo a little. He thought the Fire Dept. sets the addresses and it should read Elm.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated in the public parking area where they identify the large paved area off Elm and asked if it is curbed.

Mr. Alessandro stated the area with the bikes is curbed similar to the other side of the drive.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he supported the townhomes and was loath to change the zoning because once they change this parcel it is going to creep. He was confident the City will approve some kind of overlay district that will include this parcel. He had no problem with the parcel across the street. He would like to see the overlay district and was not prepared to support changing the underlying zoning. It is a PUD and can they grant an exception to the underlying zoning that would allow them to build the townhomes without changing it.

Director Fontane stated it is use variation and they do not allow use variations.

Mr. Passman stated the setback relief can be granted. It would not be necessary if the use is approved.

Commissioner Hecht stated his feelings about the project were reflected the last time. He did not see them as major changes except eliminating the requirement for first floor commercial which he understood. He did not know if he wanted residential on the first floor but understood why they would not want to require commercial on the first floor.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she was curious about the bird logo and if it was Albion’s logo. She stated she liked the consistency of the B4-5 and it helps to visualize as they move forward as a Commission what they decide to do. She stated there is a draft ordinance in the packet and if they are going to consider it tonight and there were two minor typos.

Chair Reinstein stated they have to do the plat of subdivision and if they have to come back they could address Commissioner Kutscheid’s comments which are minor adjustments to plans. He stated if she had comments on the draft findings she could state them now.

Commissioner Lidawer stated on page 196 it should be “delivery trucks” and on page 196, p.2, it should say “it will be held.” She thought it was improved tremendously.

Chair Reinstein stated they talked about Renaissance Place and their restriction on the size of a truck they allow in. He asked if they had a similar restriction.

Mr. Yule stated they cannot have a semi. Their moves are local people and their units are not large enough to require a huge truck.

Chair Reinstein agreed with the comment about the sign on Elm and thought it was bigger than what anyone could need to see it. He asked about the metal areas in the pedestrian pathway and parking garage. He asked just what it was they are proposing.

Mr. Yule stated it is on the blade sign and coming down near the entry and a little located around the parking facilities.

Chair Reinstein stated it is on page 67 of the packet and says blade sign inspiration. He asked what they are approving.

Mr. Alessandro stated the drawing of the blade sign is what it will look like. The inspiration images show the concept of pierced metal work and they do not have an exact pattern. When the contractor is onboard they will be able to fabricate the pattern.

Chair Reinstein asked if the contractor is going to provide the design or go off the plan on page 67.

Mr. Alessandro stated they will provide the design for the pierce work and the fabricator will get the samples.

Chair Reinstein stated they has not presented the design.

Mr. Alessandro stated they had not presented the final pierce work pattern.

Mr. Bernstein asked when they could do that.

Mr. Yule stated they were a year away from that person being on board and going to their shop and making sure they print it. They will return with a sample for approval but he could not provide that for another year.

Chair Reinstein asked if they can do that. Director Fontane stated yes.

Chair Reinstein asked if the same concept applied to the cut metal outside the parking garage.

Mr. Yule stated it is the same pattern and they are reusing it in different shapes. When they bring the sample it will be a size sample so they can see how the pattern goes from top to bottom.

Chair Reinstein mentioned the parking signs for public parking and asked the height.

Mr. Alessandro stated if you look at the sign exhibit there is a P in a circle that is a blade sign coming out so people driving can see the sign and location of the parking.

Mr. Yule stated it looks like they are 2’-6” to 2’-8”.

Chair Reinstein mentioned the circular parking blade sign.

Mr. Yule stated it is off to the side on the rendering.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is immediately adjacent to the parking entry.

Mr. Yule stated you can see it as you come down the street and know it is a public garage.

Chair Reinstein asked about the size and color.

Mr. Alessandro stated it is 2’-8” and these would be the silver background with a blue letter.

Chair Reinstein stated sometimes they are green. Mr. Yule asked if he had a preference.

Chair Reinstein stated he did not know if he had a preference but he would like to see it in the rendering.

Mr. Yule stated they can do that at the same time as pierced metal with different options. It is the City’s garage so it should be their decision.

Chair Reinstein stated on page 71 there is an illustration of the pedway and the clear or translucent coverings over the stalls have a dark anodized structure holding them up. He asked if they liked that look.

Mr. Alessandro stated they do, but are not married to it. He asked for different suggestions.

Chair Reinstein stated he would prefer almost anything else. He understood some of these things are subjective and was not sure about the idea of going translucent.

Mr. Yule stated these could be anodized in any color. This stems from the preliminary approval over the market stalls. They have received calls about how to set up a market stall. It is to try and protect them from the elements. They need a bracing for it and thought it made sense. He was open to a different color.

Mr. Alessandro stated all metal is the same color on the building but they can make it anodized silver or an off-white.

Chair Reinstein stated they could try it.

Chair Reinstein asked about the garden wall and who painted it.

Mr. Yule stated it is an art wall with public art. A local artist will be using mosaic tile or some kind of artistic work. They will work with the City for acknowledgements and approvals.

Chair Reinstein asked if they would work with some commission or art council.

Mr. Yule stated yes.

Mr. Alessandro stated they are doing something similar across the street at Karger. Mr. Yule stated they did this in Oak Park and Evanston and it has been well received.

Chair Reinstein stated he thought when the dust settles that the B5 district has one corner zoned B4-5. He said it was more of a message to Director Fontane if there is an overlay this should be a B5 district property subject to the overlay.

Commissioner Moore asked if there was a way to approve it as B4-5 to get them moving and then contingent if they do put the overlay in back to B5.

Mr. Passman stated it is a matter of timing and if this is approved it would be before the overlay is fully vetted. The development will have been entitled under the zoning at the time. They would have to see what the overlay district would look like to determine if they make any accommodations. What they have now in November and December is the existing zoning and no overlay exists. If it is approved and assuming it is constructed according to the schedule, any future zoning change would not adversely affect them.

Commissioner Moore stated she was thinking of the future 40 years from now and if the building came down and it is B4-5 could something they do not want come in there.

Director Fontane stated if the overlay goes forward it can be cleaned up a later time and it would not affect their project.

Chair Reinstein asked if they could bifurcate the three addresses on the west side of Green Bay and do the zoning tonight and leave the rest.

Director Fontane stated he would do it all as one. The zone change is proposed to include those three addresses, the Saks parcel and the parking lot. The Commission can recommend a different delineation but the applicant has applied for the entirety.

Chair Reinstein asked for comments from the Commission.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther agreed with bifurcating. He mentioned the timing and there is a contractual obligation to start construction. He asked about the obligation between the City and the developer. Are they up against the clock or do they have a little time.

Director Fontane stated they have a purchase and sale agreement which have dates by the end of the year with governmental approvals.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about government approval for what.

Director Fontane stated if the development needs a zone change to happen that is part of the government approval. It is the zoning approval in full context.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the final PUD has to be approved before the end of the year.

Mr. Bernstein stated they are pushing to it get done this year is so they can comply with terms and conditions of the purchase and sale agreement. They agree this is what they want to do and they are pushing ahead with the project and want to move forward. They do not know how long the overlay zone will take.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they grant the zoning change would they object to it reverting to B5 if and when the overlay district was approved.

Mr. Bernstein stated they want the ability to build what the plan is and what they call it is less important to them. They want their entitlement to build the building proposed with first floor residential.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they could clean it up after the fact.

Mr. Yule stated it was more of a Corporation Counsel question. If he got approval for B4- 5 and then the City changes it to a B5 overlay is it paperwork or another public hearing and what has to happen.

Mr. Passman stated it depends on how it is rezoned. If there were a B-5 overlay district and if the provisions of the district somehow on paper inhibited any portion of the zoning that would be approved for this development beforehand whether there was a need to change approvals for this development would depend on how far along the applicant was in their development. There are two paths to approving this development if the City is inclined to approve. One is to proceed with the pending application which includes the B4-5 rezoning for this development site as well as the three lots on the west side of Green Bay. The second which necessitates a delay in approval would be whatever the B5 overlay looks like and then they would be approved under that. Mr. Bernstein stated he did not really care what we called it as long as they are allowed to build. If they do not like the development one way to stop it is not to rezone it now. If they like the development and do not want to delay it, but do not think it should be zoned B4-5 that puts everyone is a pickle because there is no way to do this development under the B5 zoning because there is no overlay.

Chair Reinstein asked when the overlay is coming back.

Director Fontane stated the overlay is advertised for public hearing December 1st. They need a subdivision from the applicant. Unlike the preliminary approval where they did not have it, they cannot do it at the final stage.

Chair Reinstein stated he and Vice Chair Hainsfurther were alright with splitting the Green Bay properties and approving the three tonight and waiting on the other.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not think it should be split. She thought it was poor planning because they are not the body that will approve whether or not it will be built. They are anticipating two sets of laws and changes and they do not have control over them. She was in favor of moving forward and not bifurcating.

Commissioner Glazer agreed with Commissioner Lidawer.

Chair Reinstein stated they have to come back and it does not delay them.

Commissioner Glazer stated in the general thrust of this and the idea they are going to get caught up on a zoning technicality when do not have to.

Chair Reinstein stated that is what happens when you put residential on the ground floor.

Mr. Bernstein stated they are a recommending body to Council. They can bifurcate this and not change the zoning. It gets to Council December 16th for final consideration without a positive recommendation on the B4-5 and what if Council decided not to move forward with the overlay. Where does that leave them.

Chair Reinstein stated the reason that are talking about an overlay is because Council wants them to. They did not dream it up.

Director Fontane stated earlier they indicated that they need a subdivision to be part of the final consideration. That is not before them tonight. There will be another meeting in terms of a continuation regardless. They need the entirety of the project to be included with the recommendation going forward.

Mr. Passman stated it makes sense to do that.

Director Fontane stated December 1st is possible or December 15th. The December 15th meeting is after Council’s December 14th meeting which is the last meeting this year. The subdivision is on the critical path and second the overlay will be back on December 1st. Whether or not they deliberate and vote in the affirmative will be seen on December 1st. The applicant has to supply a subdivision and he did not know if that could be done for the December 1st meeting. They will put this on for December 1st to give any and all opportunity for that. Both matters could be before them on December 1st.

Commissioner Hecht stated they should do it all at once rather piecemeal it. He had no objection to dealing with the three parcels across the street. He mentioned the rezoning and thought the subdivision had to be submitted. He did not know how they could vote on that until they saw it. He did not see anything lost by continuing to whenever the applicant can submit the subdivision.

Commissioner Kutscheid stated he agreed with Commissioners Glazer and Lidawer.

Commissioner Moore stated they had not see the subdivision and was not sure what it entailed.

Chair Reinstein stated he meant about bifurcating the Green Bay sites and taking care of the three on the west side.

Commissioner Moore stated she was alright with that.

Mr. Passman stated if they desire to bifurcate there is not a Council meeting between now and December 1st. Whether they issue some or all of the recommendations tonight or on December 1st it is all going to the December 14th meeting.

Chair Reinstein stated they should push it all to the next meeting.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue to December 1st, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.

Planner Cross called the roll:

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

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

Chair Reinstein thanked the applicant for his efforts.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Discussion Items

B. Next Regular Meeting – December 1, 2020

Planner Cross stated two items continued to the agenda will not be heard – B’Nai Torah

and The Shops on Elm.

C. 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.

Director Fontane called the roll:

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

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 11:00 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2445&Inline=True