Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission Met March 2.

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: Hainsfurther, Hecht, Lidawer, Marcus, Moore, Reinstein, Weil Members Absent: None

Planner Cross took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Cross

Student Rep.: Nathanson

Corporation Counsel: Fiske

Council Liaison: Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 16, 2021 Regular Meeting

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the February 16, 2021 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Moore.

Planner Cross called the roll:

Ayes: Hainsfurther, Hecht, Lidawer, Marcus, Moore, Reinstein, Weil

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

A. Design Review - 2679 Waukegan Ave. - NAPA Auto Parts - Continued from February 16, 2021.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he asked about the standards they need to evaluate the materials. He asked if the petitioner could address how this material meets the requirement of being durable and easily maintained.

Planner Cross stated Chap. 176 of the code establishes the general design standards for the City. Under the category of building standards there is a standard for building materials. They must be durable and conducive for easy maintenance and upkeep.

Mr. Helmuth Redschlag, Architect, stated this is a product they have used throughout several locations in northern IL. It is durable can withstand the elements. The color is maintenance free and holds up to UV rays. Regarding surface integrity, the panels can be removed and replaced as warranted. There is approximately 304 s.f. of this material on the elevation. Only a small portion would be in an area prone to any type of contact. The most susceptible areas will be protected with post bollards.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if this went on all four sides of the building.

Mr. Redschlag stated they are using it to cover up some scars by closing windows in the masonry. This uniform skin is cosmetically the neatest and cleanest way to apply a skin that will cover the blemishes.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked which elevations are involved.

Mr. Redschlag stated just the west elevation. All other walls remain exposed concrete masonry and will be painted.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if the paint will match the siding on the front. Mr. Redschlag replied it will.

Chair Reinstein asked if the siding was an approved NAPA exterior skin.

Mr. Redschlag stated it is the standard for retrofits and renovations. This is the 12th renovation in northern IL and they used this product on almost every installation.

Chair Reinstein asked if there was another product that was approved they could fall back on.

Mr. Redschlag stated there is Dryvit, a synthetic plaster system, which some municipalities do not see any more favorably. They would texture it and create some sort of shadow lines and incorporate some fluting or ribs to give it some texture.

Chair Reinstein asked if there was anything other than Dryvit.

Mr. Redschlag there was vinyl siding and they are trying to do the buildings economically and they look at products that cover surface area efficiently and durably.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there is a variety of materials that could be used and it could be Hardi board or some kind of cement panel. He was concerned and had problems with how it fits in the context of the area. On one side there is a brown brick building and on the other side a frame house. He found the material to be not particularly durable and could see it being dented regularly. He stated the one building with metal siding in town is on the highway and is not in a commercial district. He would like to see them come back with something more substantial. He was also concerned it will only be on one face of the building and will look unfinished. He did not think they would accept that kind of appearance from any other building in town. The only mitigating factor is that it is set so far back. He was worried if they set a precedent they will have a hard time putting that horse back in the barn. He could not support the proposal.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she wanted to see the color also and concurred with Vice Chair Hainsfurther in terms of the quality of the material and the way it would look in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Weil stated it was a huge improvement and agreed it belongs on the highway and not in the neighborhood. She wanted to see what other options are available.

Commissioner Hecht stated he did not see the materials and would have liked more time to look at the sample. He could not comment on the materials. It was in the middle of a commercial area and was not sure what the concerns are. It is an eyesore now and he would welcome an update. He could not comment and would defer to those who had viewed the materials.

Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Hecht in that it needs a clean up. Any surface out there will show wear and tear and will show staining. She did not know if vinyl was a good option. She thought it was small enough and far enough back and did not think it was a problem. She asked if this was opening the doors to everyone for a metal sided building and was alright with it.

Commissioner Marcus thought the quality of the siding was not as expected. She recognized the challenge to keep within budget. She would like to see Hardi board which is long lasting but did not know their budget. She agreed it felt flimsy and was not attractive.

Mr. Redschlag stated the panels are anchored 24” on center vertically and are backed with 1.5” of rigid insulation so it is not just a skin of metal. The intent is to cover the blemishes. He wanted to know if they wanted it on all elevations.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted to see it on three sides of the building and was not worried about the east elevation. The north elevation is visible from the office building to the north and the south elevation is visible particularly if the property is redeveloped. He was not thrilled with Dryvit and did not think it would hold up well. He thought some kind of Hardi board or cement board would be better long term and it could be done fairly inexpensively. He was aware of budgets and the condition of the building is not good. To put lipstick on a pig is not necessarily what they require. He was looking at it from meeting the standards. Someone will come along and only want to do the front of their building. Once the exception is granted it is hard to go back. They are in a North Shore community that is fairly affluent and the building should look appropriate.

Chair Reinstein thought there was generalized agreement about the sheet metal siding. He also heard agreement about alternates that were mentioned. If they say no to this he thought they owed it to the petitioner to say yes to something. He asked for discussion.

Commissioner Moore stated there are two issues – one is whether they like this particular material and the other is are they going to allow the front to be fixed or do they need to do the other facades.

Chair Reinstein stated the owner was saying only the one elevation needed work and the brick was in good shape on the rest of it and would get a coat of Napa grey paint.

Commissioner Moore stated some of the Commissioners are saying they would like to see all three sides paneled or treated in some manner.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was alright with cement board or a metal panel that was more like Alucobond, which is an insulated panel. There were many types of panelized fronts. If they want to keep the masonry on the sides, then that was fine.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she did not have a problem with other three sides. She would like to see other materials in the same range.

Chair Reinstein stated it sounded like one to the options was a heavier grade metal panel.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not want the corrugated metal panel. The Alucobond is a sandwich panel with a neoprene center and prefinished and not inexpensive.

Mr. Redschlag stated it is ten times the cost.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would give on the other elevations if they can get a quality material for the front elevation. A cement board is a reasonably-priced alternative. There are a number of products and they need a more substantial panel that makes it look more like the sides they are going to paint. They need a flat panel on the front.

Chair Reinstein asked how the cement board wears where it meets the sidewalk.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated is wears and pretty well and is substantial. The townhouses at Bloom and Waukegan were proposing this.

Chair Reinstein asked for a show of hands for who would support the cement board. He asked if the applicant wanted to come back or vote tonight.

Planner Cross stated they could have a continuation for as long as the applicant desires.

Mr. Redschlag stated they need to this wrap up and asked what they wanted to see – a painted sample or renderings.

Chair Reinstein stated just the rendering and painted sample should be sufficient. Vice Char Hainsfurther asked if they could get it before two days before the meeting. Planner Cross stated the next meetings are March 16th and April 6th.

Mr. Redschlag stated March 16th was acceptable.

Chair Reinstein stated he appreciated the applicant’s patience.

Chair Reinstein asked for a motion to continue to March 16th. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther.

Planner Cross called the roll:

Ayes: Weil, Marcus, Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

B. Public Hearing #2021-SUP-001 for Staff Drafted Findings of Fact for a Special Use Permit to Operate an Adult Cannabis Dispensary at 1460 Skokie Valley Rd.

Planner Cross read an email from Catherine Spencer into the record.

Chair Reinstein asked for public comment.

Planner Cross stated no members of the public raised their hand to speak.

Councilman Stolberg stated he received the same email from Ms. Spencer and he thought she brought up a good point in that sometimes signage is enough of a deterrent for someone to look up at see it before they do something wrong. He thought they should ask the applicant if they were willing to have two signs in the parking lot and why wait until there is a problem to ask them then to put up a sign. Then they can say they have done everything and then it becomes a police matter.

Commissioner Lidawer stated in the findings of fact it says hours of operation cannot extend beyond 8:00 PM. She thought they were clear on saying 8:00 PM on the weekends and during the week it would be 6:00 PM. She mentioned Northbrook’s ordinance which is different at 6:00 PM except for the weekends and they were going to mirror that. She thought it needed to be tweaked in terms of the language that hours of operation cannot extend beyond 8:00 PM on Friday and Saturday and cannot extend beyond 6:00 PM for the remainder of the days. She wanted to see that clarified. She agreed with Councilman

Stolberg about the signs and is it a small thing and why wouldn’t they want to be careful and cautious.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he looked at the minutes and it did condition it with a limit on the end hour of 8:00 PM.

Commissioner Hecht stated he recalled that also.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she went through the minutes carefully.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was looking at them now and it says “Commissioner Lidawer motioned to direct staff to develop findings of fact in favor of the petition with a limit on the end hours of 8:00 PM. Commissioner Weil seconded.”

Commissioner Lidawer stated she was not sure it captured the intent and she would prefer 8:00 PM on Friday and Saturday and 6:00 PM for the rest.

Commissioner Marcus stated the dispensary in Northbrook are open 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Sunday.

Commissioner Lidawer stated she was recalling it incorrectly.

Chair Reinstein asked if the petitioner was present.

Planner Cross stated Mr. Bernstein was present.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated it was not an issue placing some signs in the lot. The policy of the dispensary is not to allow consumption on site. Regarding Commissioner Lidawer’s comments, he had reviewed his notes and they showed 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM also and that was acceptable to the applicant. There was discussion that if it were earlier, then it would put them at a competitive disadvantage with the neighboring community.

Councilman Stolberg stated he appreciated the applicant’s willingness to do that. He would like staff to generate the language in conformity with the code and municipal ordinance rather than have the applicant do it. He asked if staff could create the language for the sign.

Mr. Bernstein stated the one caveat is the landlord owns the lot and they will have to run it past the landlord and they need his consent. He stated they will use their best efforts and they have to consult with the landlord.

Planner Cross stated it would work best for the applicant to get the details worked out on their own and present the sign proposal to staff.

Councilman Stolberg stated that was fine as long as it let patrons know there was no consumption on site or in public.

Mr. Bernstein stated they will contact the landlord and work with staff.

Chair Reinstein stated the have findings of fact and they are at a point where they can approve with the condition that with all approvals necessary and the tenant pay for signage alerting people that consumption on site is illegal.

Chair Reinstein asked for a motion to approve the findings with that condition. Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the findings of fact with the condition that signage related to the consumption be put on the premises and be presented to staff for approval, seconded by Commissioner Lidawer.

Planner Cross called the roll:

Ayes: Weil, Marcus, Moore, Lidawer, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Discussion Items - None

B. Next Regular Meeting - March 16, 2021

Planner Cross stated there was a full agenda and there are no planning or development items on the agenda. There will be a code consideration relating to Article VII in the code.

There will be more discussion about the Crossroads subarea plan.

Legal training will take place.

The design review application relating to Open Lands and a fence proposal was withdrawn.

C. Case Briefing - None

VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - None

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Lidawer so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Weil.

Planner Cross called the roll:

Ayes: Hainsfurther, Hecht, Lidawer, Marcus, Moore, Reinstein, Weil Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:25 PM.

https://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2490&Inline=True