Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Dec. 7.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

CALL TO ORDER

I. At 6:30 PM Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein 

Members Absent: None

Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop, Cross

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: Stolberg

Corporation Counsel: Schuster

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

November 2, 2021 Special Meeting

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the November 2, 2021 with corrections. Commissioner Weil so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.

Planner Cross called the roll:

Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

A. Continued Public Hearing #2021-PUD-008 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final Planned Development for a Mixed-Use Commercial and Multi Family Development at 55-57 St. Johns Ave., including Zoning Relief and Design Review.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including location map, revisions to project, revised relief summary, neighbor setbacks, parking lot and off-street parking relief, landscaping, public benefit, inclusionary zoning, public comments and recommendation.

Mr. David Shaw, Attorney, stated the proposal involved a highly visible site that has been vacant for years, this is first time a developer has brought a viable proposal to the City, it is a high quality and aesthetically pleasing project, except for two variances it will conform to the standards of the B1 zoning, extraordinary effort to engage with the residents in the area, numerous group meetings, comments have been incorporated into the revised plan, expressions of support outnumber opposing positions by 2-1, have responded to comments by the Commission, it is an excellent project and code compliant which enhances the neighborhood and will be an asset to the City.

Mr. Michael Weiss, Applicant, stated they have made an effort to dig into the feedback, have plan they are proud of, have made changes and modifications driven by feedback, site plan modification, revision of traffic flow, new public benefit, changes to lighting.

Mr. Aaron Beyers, Level Architecture, illustrated the previous and present site plan, maximized the distance away from back lot line, main update is parking in an effort to provide more space for landscape buffer along east boundary, one-way in and out, 60º angle parking, 5’ setback, 8’ fence along east, wood battens overlap for fence, no light filtration, continuous evergreen buffer in front of fence, same fixture specs, downlight fixtures, updated fixtures from 4000K to 3000K for warmer effect, does impact photometrics, no light bleed.

Mr. Josh Anderson, Landscape Architect, stated they extended the rear buffer wall, screening shrubs at northwest corner, back wall has variety of plantings, unable to provide foundation plantings on perimeter due to canopy, agreed to move planting shrubs and provide greater amount of screening, preserving oak and elm forest to the south, variety of screening shrubs and deciduous shrubs planted at edges of parking area, conifer trees along the rear, flowering and deciduous trees in front parkway, ground cover throughout the site, required to provide 850 s.f. of landscape buffer and they are providing 1470 s.f., do not meet required canopy trees and shrub plantings on site, but are preserving oak, elm and hickory trees by not developing the property further.

Mr. Beyers stated the only difference at the corner is the wing wall that needed to shift for the drive aisle on the south. It was positioned so it serves as a screen for the covered parking behind.

Mr. Anderson stated they met the intent of the ordinance by preserving the public health, safety and welfare of the public by providing landscape solutions to minimize negative impacts by maintaining an established forest canopy and providing minimal site development.

Mr. Brian Giles, Applicant, mentioned the public benefit and retaining the green space on the south did qualify as a public benefit. Neighbors were concerned about bike traffic and they came up with a bike oasis in the middle of the green space and will not be removing

any trees. There will also be public benches and they have plans for bike racks. The property is under contract and they envisioned transforming it into something that is code compliant. The are proud of the project and feel it is within the spirit of the master plan.

Commissioner Hecht had a concern and read the zoning ordinance Section 150.403 which is allowable uses it says no building or premises shall be used and no building hereafter erected, converted and enlarged…..except for purposes as permitted in the district in which the land is located as shown in the table of allowable uses. In the table there is a P in B1 but it is for dwellings only above first floor commercial or office uses. This building has a portion of the first floor that is commercial but most of the building is on stilts. He was concerned they do not have commercial for the entire first floor and this was prohibited by the ordinance. He did not want to find out later this was a problem.

Director Fontane stated he thought it met the use category and the question of what portion of the ground floor is something other than residential has been a question since the use was around. He did not interpret it as the entire first floor has to be commercial. There can be parking and there has to be a commercial component. Whether that is sufficient is something that could be discussed. They looked at it as the minimum needed to pass muster.

Commissioner Weil stated the applicant had done a great job and responded to the neighbors’ concerns. She has lived in Braeside for 24 years. She asked about the stilt material and if they were black.

Mr. Beyers stated it was a masonry wall, dark grey with dark grout.

Commissioner Weil stated asked about the street level view of the building and thought overall it was an attractive building. She thought the stilts would be what you see when you drive by. There are no foundation plantings and nothing to soften it. She was concerned with that aesthetically. Most of the houses in the neighborhood are light in color and she thought it was a big, dark building. She did not think there was a relationship with the prairie style. She was concerned if they cannot retain a retail tenant then will have a large dark building with no benefit to the neighborhood.

Mr. Giles stated they heard the concerns relative to the building on stilts and part of that is a desire to be a flexible as possible with the parking. They heard the objection to the aesthetic from the street and this is still preliminary. They are trying to be as flexible as possible with the structure. On the main façade they have masonry at the base as opposed to the piers and columns. Relative to the color it was their impression they could diminish the appearance of those because they are set back from the façade and by making them dark they thought they would become less visible than if they were white. They want to make it less apparent.

Mr. Weiss stated the existing site today has 6000 s.f. of retail. Bob’s Pantry has been vacant for quite a while. Their proposal has 2000 s.f. They have done initial outreach with strong interest from different operators. They believe redeveloping this site and bringing residential and a more conducive site plan will revitalize the area and bring additional traffic. It is one third of what is there today and they have received good feedback.

Commissioner Kerch asked about the public benefit and the preservation of the natural space. As he read the code the public benefit needs to be a donation or a dedication or an improvement. They are counting on not doing something by leaving it intact. What is the guarantee the land will be preserved for a long time or in perpetuity.

Mr. Giles stated regarding the actual improvement what they are showing is improving that portion of the property with the path and furnishings. It will be very tastefully executed. There will be an easement so there will be a formal document that allows the public to come on a private property. The public benefit for a planned development should be commensurate with the amount of relief requested and he thought they exceeded that.

Chair Reinstein stated Commissioner Kerch wanted to know how they plan on keeping it public forever.

Mr. Giles stated there will be an easement in perpetuity.

Commissioner Kerch asked if this was for the entire nature area.

Mr. Giles stated is it open and will not be restricted. In the development agreement they can craft some language that will be acceptable to both parties. They are more than willing to work with the City.

Commissioner Kerch stated they are asking for a big setback. He did not know if a circle of bike racks was commensurate and maybe they needed more.

Mr. Giles stated the front yard setback is beneficial for the development at large and specifically if gives a nice buffer to the homes to the east. He did not know if he was aware of how they had been working with the City, the Commission and the residents.

Commissioner Kerch stated they have done an amazing job of engaging the residents.

Mr. Giles stated he was not looking for a pat on the back and when they talk about the variance, unanimously with the commissioners it is good urban planning and appropriate for the district.

Commissioner Kerch stated they were counting on this non-developed space as a major factor in the public benefit and he would like to see a guarantee that the space will remain in its natural state.

Mr. Schuster stated in the past when they have dealt with spaces such as pocket parks the way they do it is that the planned development ordinance would have to contain a condition. First, they have to use the entire property in accordance with the plans which would include this landscaped area. Second, a condition of the zoning is that it would be open to the public. That would run with the zoning. Unless the building is torn down and the zoning is changed that would remain open to the public. They would not put it in the development agreement because it will go away once the construction is complete. The planned development ordinance will be recorded against the property and would remain as long as the zoning is a planned development.

Planner Cross asked about the process if a developer violated it and what recourse does the City have if a condition of approval is violated.

Mr. Schuster stated if somehow the applicant or subsequent owner were to close off the area they could revoke the zoning for the property. They would not have the right to remain as a planned development or the modifications granted and they would take action to enforce that. If they want it to remain in perpetuity that is a different issue and they could ask the applicant to consider if that is viable. Typically the question about perpetuity is one they have not done for similar types of pocket parks. It is more as long as the zoning is a planned development.

Director Fontane stated any changes to a planned development would require an amendment. There are controls in place ensuring the public benefit as stated would stay in substantial conformance with the approved plans.

Mr. Weiss stated their intention is to work with the City to come up with a similar concept to that described. There was an initial design that had the building located in the center with similar parking in front. They made a modification and pushed the building toward the street based on feedback from the PDC and the public. They redesigned the building to push it to the west to allow for significant distance in the back.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there is a pocket park about 200’ from the site which serves the same purpose as their public benefit. He proposed a different public benefit and would like to see a small bike shed at the Metra station. There is a similar arrangement at the Lake Forest station. He did not see it as a public benefit because they are duplicating something that already exists. He thought the site plan was illegible. He stated the angles were 60º for parking and asked the minimum aisle width for 60º parking. He was concerned about the overhang for the cars. They had an exhibit that showed the cars overhanging into the planting areas. He thought they could shorten the spaces in a way that will allow the overhang to stay from the plantings. He did not want cars destroying the plantings. He did not know how deep the spaces were and thought it was 21’1” or 21.1”. He asked if that was the minimum for 60º parking. He wanted to know if there was a way to pull the parking further west. They can increase the landscape and give the trees more opportunity to grow. He asked how fast the evergreens on the east will grow.

Mr. Anderson stated they have moderate growth and will have adequate sun. Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked the maximum height.

Mr. Anderson stated it is approximately 20’.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked how long it would take to get to 20’.

Mr. Anderson stated about 10 years.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if he was comfortable that the fence will not transmit any light to any neighbor.

Mr. Anderson stated with the overlapping vertical panels light would not be transmitted.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was thinking of a stockade fence. He stated there are bushes screening parking from St. Johns and a wing wall and some bushes and they are 30”.

Mr. Anderson asked if he meant at the northwest corner.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they could have taller bushes and 30” will not screen a car. He was looking for something that will screen a car. Their precedent is a recently approved project in downtown Highland Park where they are putting up a physical screen to screen the parking form the street. He preferred the landscaping but 30” as not enough.

Mr. Anderson stated they can revise to met that need.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked if they would accept that as a condition. Mr. Anderson stated yes.

Planner Burhop stated for 60º parking the aisle is 16.5’.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was looking for the depth of the lot if he was going at a 90º angle from the building.

Planner Burhop stated for 90º the stall length is 17.9’.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like to see it pulled back and that would give a little more buffer for the neighbors.

Mr. Beyers asked for clarification.

Mr. Wilkinson stated there is a practical vehicular circulation radius and traffic patterns that have to be taken into consideration. They have a team who has been working on a civil design for the lot that they are comfortable with.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was trying to make the neighbors as comfortable as he could. He thought they had a right to not be impacted by having a parking lot backing up to them. This is something they have done in other places and he was trying to be consistent. He was happy to have them work it out with staff and condition it on the spaces and drive aisles be the minimum possible so they can maximize the distance from the east property line. He mentioned the light fixture, W1, and did not understand where the light source is and whether you can see it. He would like it lowered so it is below the height of the landscaping on the east side, 8’ maximum off the ground.

Mr. Giles stated in terms of the location of the fixtures that is on the face of the building and they will mount them at the lowest possible point on the building. It is going to be in excess of 8’ because from the ground it is more than 8’. From the perspective of where that is relative to the homes it will have an unobtrusive impact.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it he was alright with this as long as they mounted them as low as possible.

Mr. Giles stated regarding the parking, if they can shorten the spaces they will but they have to consider the maneuverability and people coming in and out of the spaces. He has never made spaces too wide or too deep and if they can benefit the neighbors to the east so much the better.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked for a condition of directional signage indicating this is one-way traffic would be installed. The height and bulk are permitted by code and they should not be an issue.

Commissioner Moore stated she appreciated the applicant’s work and thought it was a nice plan. She thought the one-way drive aisle would be safer for pedestrians. She wanted to make sure the south wing wall will not obstruct the view of the drivers as they leave. She thought if it was too close to the sidewalk it would be hard to see the pedestrians. She liked the idea of the bike oasis and if they wanted more public benefit maybe they could install a drinking fountain.

Commissioner Weil mentioned the bike oasis and there is something similar south of the lot and there is a fountain there. Maybe they could look into something else. The area to the south is sparse and asked if there could be some parking there. It is not really beautiful and if they took down some trees and planted some evergreens to fill it out maybe that would be a possibility.

Mr. Simon Halfin, Resident, stated he liked the change and additional buffer. He asked if the trees die or if the fence needs repairing or lets light through who is responsible for the maintenance and if that is built into the approval.

Director Fontane stated once the zoning approvals are made and the conditions placed those would need to remain and maintained properly and if something died it would need to be replaced in a timely manner or an enforcement action could take place.

Mr. Halfin asked about trash cans for the bike oasis. He asked about water runoff and wanted make sure there would be no water runoff onto this property.

Director Fontane stated they cannot create a situation that exacerbates any water flow onto his property. It has to remain the same or better.

Ms. Ellen Romick, Resident, stated wood expands in different weather and felt a wood fence will reduce in size and thought they should consider a stone wall. Once they make the investment it will not have to be repaired. It will take a while for the trees to grow to protect them from the light.

Mr. Chuck Romick, Resident, stated he was concerned about drainage into the open space and in the summer there mosquito infestations and asked about mitigation. He was concerned about the HVAC noise and the developers were supposed to present new fencing to reduce the noise.

Director Fontane stated if there are issues with mosquitos, the Mosquito Control Abatement District is charged with abating mosquito issues and they will test properties to see if there is an issue and they will treat it throughout the season.

Ms. Marnie Rudick, Resident, stated she appreciated the changes. She was concerned about the height of the trees and fence. She asked if there would be a 6’ or 8’ fence.

Planner Cross stated there is an 8’ fence along the east property line and to the north the fence is 6’.

Ms. Rudick mentioned the 8’ trees and having to wait 10 years for growth. She asked about having mature trees at 20’. The building tenants will be looking into their back yards. The gas station at Rt. 41 and Half Day Rd. has mature trees. Will there be enough space for the trees to develop.

Chair Reinstein asked about the city code covering height and maturity of plantings.

Director Fontane stated the gas station had 12’ arbor vitae. The growth rate will change depending on the light. The Commission could talk about a different height and could seek taller plantings. 20’ is a very tall planting and he would not recommend going that far. The Forester recommend 12’ and that is a high planting.

Mr. Giles stated they looked at the particular species that is used at the gas station. They have their aesthetics to consider in their development and they appreciate Ms. Rudick’s concern and the are proposing the 8’ which is what the code requires. In terms of the distance from the residents to their property line they feel good about the screening impact.

Mr. Anderson stated they are different opinions about planting a more mature 12’ evergreen vs. a younger 8’ tree. Sometimes there is a transition shock that slows the growth rate. It will sit stagnant as the root ball adjusts to the new conditions and there is a slower growth rate. They are willing to work with staff and the neighbors to move the project along.

Chair Reinstein stated there is a shortfall in the landscaping of shrubs and shade or ornamental trees. He asked if there was room at the south end to accommodate the shortfall and they would have less relief.

Mr. Anderson stated there is room to fill the forest but they would be impacting the root zones of the established trees.

Chair Reinstein asked about the property line at the corner where the sidewalk is. Mr. Anderson stated there could be opportunities for more plantings.

Chair Reinstein asked them to take a look at this. He liked the idea of a bike oasis but did not like the impervious surface.

Mr. Anderson stated the intent of the design is to have a decomposed granite path or something permeable.

Chair Reinstein asked about the up light and if the City had signed off or had they ruled that out.

Planner Cross stated up lighting is allowed through a design review variation and are called architectural up lights and they need to be reviewed to see where the light is aimed and the strength.

Chair Reinstein assumed the time to do that is now or do they do that later.

Director Fontane stated they want to steer clear on lighting and sometimes they have applicants who have chosen to have the light shine downward along with building.

Planner Burhop asked if he was referring to the lights on the front façade. Chair Reinstein stated he was referring to all the fixtures and one of them was an up light.

Mr. Wilkinson stated one of the fixtures was an in-ground up light fixture and the question was where are they and how many and what are they being used for.

Mr. Beyers stated the are located at the base of the two wing walls along St. Johns.

Mr. Wilkinson stated they are also those that are stepped back off the face of the building so even if they shine up there is the building to prevent it from going indefinitely.

Chair Reinstein asked if this was a preliminary and final or is the final to come back. Planner Burhop stated the applicant requested preliminary and final.

Chair Reinstein stated they were items they cannot figure out and do they need to wait until there is a plan.

Director Fontane stated they are going to need to direct findings of fact. These are important items and need to be clarified in time for the next meeting.

Chair Reinstein stated he would like to focus on the condition and they can move this forward.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated what was not addressed was they need to see the screening material for the HVAC. He was thinking about a couple of conditions.

Planner Cross recommended they complete the public testimony.

Planner Burhop read three public comments into the record. There is one other comment more than 200 words which will be made part of the record.

Chair Reinstein stated read the conditions: 1. the HVAC screening material will be made available for review: 2. review the parking area to make sure the buffer is being maximized: 3. mount the lights at the lowest point on the building: 4. provide trash can at the bike oasis: 5. shrink the relief requested on the landscaping by adding shrubs and trees the code calls for in the south area: 6. the fence does not transmit light: 7. site plan needs to be clarified for staff review. They can draft findings of fact for approval subject to items 1-7.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated there are two other items: 1. directional signage indicating the entrance and exit and one-way traffic: 2. increase the height to 4’ of the shrubs in the northwest corner to screen parked cars.

Mr. Chuck Romick asked about the fencing and landscaping and if contiguous to their fence there will be no trees for a space of 10’. The plans says mulch but no trees.

Mr. Weiss stated there are four trees shown.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther asked about eliminating a parking space.

Planner Cross stated they may throw off the dimensions for the other spaces. Planner Burhop stated the requirement is for 33 off-street spaces and they identified 29 spaces. They had also asked for a 15% relief based on proximity to transit to go to 28. They have 29 spaces and have asked for a reduction to 28 as part of the relief.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated if they grant the relief request they have one more than required.

Planner Burhop stated they asked for relief to 28 and have identified they are going to provide 29.

Mr. Wilkinson stated they could add three arbor vitae which are tall and thin and they would pick up three more in their quota.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he was alright with that.

Ms. Rudick stated she had not heard about the height of the trees.

Mr. Giles stated they are now putting the three arbor vitae.

Mr. Wilkinson stated they are tall and thin and when you put in a more established tree there is shock involved and a taller tree does not mean it will grow faster. They are pretty fast growing and he did not know how fast they will grow.

Mr. Giles stated they are 8’ especially all the evergreens.

Mr. Rudick asked for a condition so they have a chance to talk with experts as to the types of trees that should go in.

Chair Reinstein stated the question is does the applicant want to continue to work with the neighbors to resolve this one issue.

Mr. Giles stated they have worked with the neighbors throughout the process and they are working with the Forester and they defer to their landscape architect. Their intention is what they have planned right now. They will proceed with all the other conditions.

Chair Reinstein stated they have nine conditions. The are going to look at the site and shrink the relief they need.

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to ask staff to draft findings of fact in approval subject to the nine conditions discussed.

Commissioner Weil stated there is a parklet south and asked if this is the appropriate public benefit. She wanted to know more about the materials for the stilts.

Chair Reinstein stated they were brick as shown at a previous meeting.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated at this point they would not have a structural design that would tell how big they are. That is something they would not ask a petitioner to invest that kind of money until they had an approved development. He would like some consideration on the public benefit since there is a parklet within 200’ of this development.

Mr. Giles asked if they were suggesting a payment in lieu. He stated the public comments were in support to the bike oasis. He stated they would work with them.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like them to make a deal with Metra to build a bike shed on the railroad property. That may or may not be possible. If they make a good faith effort and they cannot come to terms then he would accept a fee in lieu. The public may not realize there is a park 200’ away. He wanted to do something that is good for the community.

Chair Reinstein asked where the park was.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated it is at the corner of Lake Cook and St. Johns.

Planner Cross stated there could be a recommendation to evaluate options and the Commission could include a recommendation to Council or notes on ideas.

Chair Reinstein stated there are two different things about the public benefit and one was whether it was enough. He thought what is proposed is enough. The second is whether what is proposed is duplicating what is close by. They have the space in the south area. Maybe there could a condition that the use could be re-thought. He asked if the applicant was willing to give it more thought.

Mr. Weiss stated they would be willing to take the feedback and take another look at it.

Mr. Giles stated the bike shed is a great concept but dealing with Metra will be a challenge. Maybe they can do something even better.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated they could look at the one in Lake Forest. Planner Cross stated it is covered bike shelter.

Chair Reinstein asked if you left your bike there all day it would not be rained on. Planner Cross stated it is meant to cover bikes for commuters.

Director Fontane stated the other public benefit would be used in conjunction with TIF monies. Making a condition that someone work with someone else is not a reasonable condition.

Chair Reinstein stated it did not hold a lot of sway for him, but if the Commission would like to look into that the applicant was willing to work with them.

Chair Reinstein stated he was looking for a motion.

Mr. Gary Gerber, Resident, stated the bike oasis is not a duplicate of the parklet on Lake Cook. The new development will change the traffic pattern for bikes. People who visit the retail are not going to park at the parklet at Lake Cook. He did not want to see a parking lot for bikes in the green space.

Chair Reinstein stated they have proposed their public benefit and have said they would work with the City and Commission. He was alright with the benefit as proposed. They do not need that as a condition. He was looking for a motion.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther motioned to direct staff to draft findings of fact in support of the petition with the nine conditions as outlined by the Chair’s previous listing. Commissioner Moore seconded.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Bruckman, Moore, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: Kerch, Weil, Hecht

Motion passed 4-3.

Planner Cross stated the next step is to continue to a date certain. There is a meeting on December 21st which would allow little time for the applicant. The next meeting is January 4, 2022.

Chair Reinstein asked if January 4th was acceptable to the applicant.

Mr. Giles stated December 21st was acceptable.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated this will not go to Council before next year and motioned to move to January 4, 2022. Seconded by Commissioner Moore.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

Director Fontane stated there will be no additional notice.

B. Continued Public Hearing #2021-ZTA-005 for a Zoning Text Amendment for a New Land Use and Related Regulations for a Pick-Up and Delivery Retail Type Land Use that Includes Storage On-Site.

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to continue the above item to January 4, 2022. Commissioner Kerch so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0

C. Pre-Application Discussion for a Planned Development at 1950 Sheridan Rd.

Planner Cross made a presentation for the above including project summary, aerial view, site plan, building design and design review, zoning summary, Article 23: Downtown Form and Design, off-street parking, zoning relief, subdivision/consolidation, pre application discussion and recommendation.

Mr. Elliot Wiczer, Attorney, stated he has worked with Fulton for a long time, this is a simple project in terms of zoning, relief sought is deminimus, side yard relief of 2’, Com Ed not recommending they move lines, project has inclusionary housing, would welcome comments on public benefit.

Mr. Mark Muller, Fulton Developers, made a presentation including they have worked on the north shore since 2002, have completed several projects in Highland Park including Laurel Court, Laurel Apartments, Laurel Residences, One Highland Park, Park Sheridan is latest development and is a four-story condominium with 18 market rate units with two affordable units, it will have a club room, fitness room, enclosed park on the west side with seating, underground heated garage, guest parking, they are allowed to build 62 units and a five story building, they are proposing 20 units and four stories, trying to create quality project that maximizes the open space with landscaping, ample natural light, generous outdoor living spaces, requirement in Highland Park is for 20% open space, their project will have over 30% open space without taking into account the park on the west side of the property, current site is covered by two buildings and a parking lot with little green area, proposed development will have 10,000 s.f. less impervious surface than current site, materials proposed are stone, limestone, brick and metal cladding which require little maintenance, the stone and limestone are found on several buildings in Highland Park, have made an effort to treat all sides of the building the same as Sheridan Rd., are complying with height and density, relief is two tips on north side of property that only occurs on the fourth floor, seeking relief for power lines, Com Ed has stated it is not possible to remove the power lines without adding new poles, confident that the proposed project will satisfy the market demand for these types of residences.

Chair Reinstein asked if anyone else from their team wanted to speak.

Mr. Muller stated they wanted to keep it short now and have been working for eight months to get to this point.

Director Fontane stated they are very excited about seeing a proposal like this. Fulton has done wonderful work throughout the City and they were very impressed with this building as well. He looked forward to hearing more about it.

Chair Reinstein stated each commissioner will address the applicant and focus on their reactions to the proposal and any specific feedback they can provide.

Commissioner Kerch stated they had answered his first question about the density. Maybe on their next project they could have more density and make them more affordable. He stated this was the intent of the residential overlay for downtown and they were alright with losing the amount of commercial space they are losing.

Director Fontane stated this was correct. The intent of the overlay was to allow this type of use.

Commissioner Kerch asked if they anticipated they would lose the orthodontist building.

Director Fontane stated they were glad that that the land was assembled to make way. Part of the difficulty of developing this corner was that the parcel was separate and apart and Fulton has helped enable this building.

Commissioner Kerch stated both properties looked under used.

Director Fontane stated from staff’s perspective they thought it was wonderful the land was assembled and glad to see to overlay recently created is being utilized.

Commissioner Kerch stated his one impression was it was kind of walled off for the size of the building. He thought the upper stories were fine but at the ground level he thought they may want to concentrate on how it relates to the street and being across from the Arts Center and maybe using art work to be that and as part of the public benefit.

Commissioner Bruckman stated it was important to get more people into the downtown area. She asked about the alley and the parking.

Mr. Muller stated the intention is that they want to keep Sheridan Rd. with no cars parked. They do not want to have a garage access or ramp. They are trying to minimize the car path. On Park Ave. they are removing two curb cuts and adding street parking for the City. They have done this on several other buildings. The trash pick-up occurs in the alley and they do not want trash cans that can been seen from Sheridan Rd. or Park Ave. The alley works really well for that purpose.

Director Fontane stated Mr. Muller is working with Public Works to address the issues related to use of the alley and that will be part of the approvals. The aesthetics they are trying to achieve are important and worthy of consideration.

Commissioner Weil stated it looks beautiful and she was impressed that they are not trying to wring every unit out of it they could. She liked the access to the garage through the alley. She asked about street parking on Park Ave. and how many spaces there would be.

Mr. Muller two or three spaces would be added no the street.

Commissioner Weil stated they are in a unique situation because of the Art Center and they are concerned about street parking. She asked about the first floor outdoor space and someone having a patio up against the sidewalk.

Mr. Muller stated they did something very similar on One Highland Park where they thought it was good to have the building slightly elevated so the first floor is about 30” above the sidewalk and the brick wall is about 42” so they end up with a wall that encloses the patio.

Commissioner Hecht stated it is a beautiful looking project and thought it would be a welcome addition. They need more residential and hopefully something for families at least not geared toward empty nesters, but more younger people. Once they passed the residential overlay into the central business district he wondered how it transitioned. This project is right on the edge of it and you walk off the property and you are in the central business district. He did not want to see something that sticks out like a sore thumb. He asked how they will have it flow into the commercial portion of the downtown area.

Mr. Muller stated they are trying to integrate the project with the neighboring parcels by having this open building and they are not creating a wall. There are ins and outs and landscaping and this is the start of the residential district and they are trying to do something that is not imposing or bulky. Even though they are not required, they are stepping back the fourth floor. They are stepping back the entry as shown on the rendering. They are trying to create a project that integrates with the neighboring parcels without being imposing.

Mr. Kyle ____________ stated they talk about it as transitioning and how they are moving from one place to the other and they have the Arts Center across the street. They are setting back the entry and increasing the green space by 10,000 s.f. to help blend the idea of these neighborhoods that are just a few doors down. They do not want to make a wall and wrap the corner on Sheridan to Park.

Commissioner Moore stated it was lovely looking and was impressed with the applicant’s other projects. She thought it was a nice fit for downtown and looked forward to learning more about it.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated he echoed everything the other commissioners had said. He wanted to see the floor and garage plans. He assumed these were larger units. They are looking for larger units so they can have more variety. He had no issue with the zoning relief. He wanted to see physical material samples and some of the context with the area. He saw this as a transitional area between the downtown and the single family residences to the north. He was in favor of building things that are in context and how it fits into the larger framework. They have heard some concerns from the Arts Center and

he encouraged them to work with the neighbors to make sure the concerns are addressed. When they start their plans he encouraged to take a look at getting the trash in the building as opposed to the dumpster enclosures in the alley. He stated in a building of this quality he did not think people will be carrying their trash out. They will want a chute to a container on the first floor or in the garage. He looked forward to seeing them in the near future.

Mr. Kyle _________ stated they are temporary.

Chair Reinstein stated he did not have a problem with the relief and asked them to revisit burying the electric. Com Ed doesn’t ever want to do anything and he was pretty sure the City had to sue them to get better service here. Getting rid of the poles and putting service underground is a great idea. When the City did the rezoning in the heart of downtown and added the overlay district he was not sure if everyone had in mind luxury housing for just

20 units. For him it was disappointing but they have to make a profit and they have identified a market. There are examples all over town of their projects and they are really nice buildings and he would expect this building to be no different. It was hard for him to find the brick and maybe the brick will be the same color and the accent will be one of texture. They looked at a rendering of a building where the Highland Park Theater used to be and the actual building did not measure up to the rendering they were shown. He looked forward to seeing the full application.

Planner Cross thanked the applicant and said they would be in touch.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Planner Cross stated the only question about the December 21, 2021 meeting was whether they were going to get 55 St. Johns on the agenda. There are no items for the December 21st meeting and at this point he anticipated cancelling the meeting.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther congratulated Commissioner Bruckman on expanding her family.

Commissioner Bruckman expressed her thanks.

Vice Chair Hainsfurther stated this was Chair Reinstein’s last meeting and read a proclamation thanking him for his leadership and service.

Chair Reinstein thanked the Commission and stated they were lucky to be working with Director Fontane, Planner Cross and staff.

Director Fontane stated he had been a wonderful chair and excellent commissioner and it was an honor to serve with him. He wished him the best in his endeavors.

B. Case Briefing –

Planner Cross stated they would be meeting in 2022 with new Chair, Walter Hainsfurther and Vice Chair Karen Moore.

The 425 Bloom project improved throughout the hearing process and it was an ongoing cooperative dialogue. It received final approval by Council and is underway.

The Ravinia fire station is underway as well as the Saks building. He commended the Commission for doing an excellent job. When a commission does not do an excellent job it filters down and this does not happen with this commission. Trust takes a long time to build and is easily lost and that is not a concern with this commission. He looked forward to the meetings and enjoyed working with this group. He looked forward to next year.

Councilman Stolberg thanked Chair Reinstein for a job well done and he hoped he would stay involved with other commissions.

VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - None

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Hainsfurther.

Planner Cross called the roll:

Ayes: Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Moore, Hecht, Hainsfurther, Reinstein

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 10:00 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2617&Inline=True