City of Highland Park Committee of the Whole met Jan. 4.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
CALL TO ORDER
I. At 6:30 PM Chair Hainsfurther called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Weil (6:40), Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther 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: Martinez, Schuster
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 7, 2021 Special Meeting
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2021 meeting. Commissioner Kerch, so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Moore.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 6-0.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Continued Public Hearing #2021-PUD-008 and Draft Findings of Fact 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 including location map, application update, conditions and responses, site plans, landscaping plant schedules, public benefit update, photometric change, traffic visibility review, public comments and recommendation.
Chair Hainsfurther asked Commissioner Quinlan if he had watched the videos of previous meetings.
Commissioner Quinlan stated yes.
Mr. Michael Weiss, Applicant, stated he had no presentation and Planner Burhop had covered all nine items and he could answer any questions.
Commissioner Hecht stated he had no questions and his feelings were known.
Commissioner Weil stated she had no questions.
Commissioner Kerch stated he had no questions.
Commissioner Bruckman stated she had no questions.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the sidewalks continue through the driveway.
Mr. Brian Giles, Applicant, stated it will be a concrete sidewalk through the drives.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the power lines above the parkway will be moved.
Mr. Giles stated they had met with Comm Ed and they will not be moving them. The service into the building will be underground from the pole. They are in discussions and starting the engineering.
Commissioner Quinlan stated the parkway is 2’ and the new sidewalk is 5’ wide. He asked how the public will know the difference between the public sidewalk and the area for the business’ tables.
Mr. Giles stated it will be flat work concrete and scored in a manner that the public sidewalk will be on the west portion. It will not be differentiated otherwise.
Vice Chair Moore stated she was concerned about the relief needed for the visibility on the south driveway. She was looking at packet page 31 and it looked like the wall and bush were beyond the west side of the wall. She was concerned for pedestrians and asked if there was a way to shorten the wall.
Mr. Aaron Beyers, Level Architecture, stated there was opportunity to make those isolated shifts as needed. From what was originally submitted there are two different standard ways to approaching how visibility works in relation to ROW. There are two wing walls and there is no magic for exactly where the wing wall begins or ends. Right now it is shown as coming to the corner. As the parking was reworked to one-way drive it meant reworking some of the wing walls. If they needed to skinny up the north wall that does not have any structural implications, just a matter of reducing by a couple of feet.
Vice Chair Moore stated it was the one on the south that concerned her because when people are walking they generally walk on the right of the sidewalk and it makes it difficult to see into the exit way. It would be hard to see a car.
Mr. Michael Weiss stated it is not a full height wall and only goes up 4’ or 5’. The extra 17.5’ wide parking lot will also help with visibility.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it was not clear the difference between the height of the rooftop units and the height of the screen. He asked if there was a problem with modifying the condition to say the units will be fully screened.
Mr. Giles stated it is 5’.
Mr. Weiss stated they can provide the screening.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they can condition it as being the height of the units. The contractor may come up with different unit. He mentioned page 39, CEX3 on the engineering drawings and stated there is an exhibit with a fire truck and an exhibit with a garbage truck. He asked if it was showing a turning radius and if those vehicles can maneuver through the lot.
Planner Burhop stated it is showing the fire apparatus pulling up the front. It is not intended that it can go in or circle around the building. It was reviewed by the Fire Dept. and their comments would not require redesign.
Chair Hainsfurther asked how the garbage will be picked up.
Mr. Weiss stated they met with the representative for Lakeshore Recycling and they have reviewed the design. There are a couple different options and it depends on what truck they assign to pick up. They have confirmed, based on the current design, the location of the dumpsters and there are no issues servicing the building.
Chair Hainsfurther asked what is the maximum height of a single family building for this property.
Planner Burhop stated homes over 30’ can be constructed in Braeside. There are four zoning districts - RM1, B1, R5 and R6. The R6 is single family and allows a maximum height of 30’. All the other single family properties are zoned R5 and that allows a maximum height of 32’. In B1 and RM1 allow up to 35’ in height.
Mr. Simon Halfin, Resident, asked about installing a mirror so people can see. He asked about the conditions and asked if those were embodied in the approvals the Commission decides on. He asked if they will run with new owners so if someone else buys the property will the City enforce that.
Chair Hainsfurther stated yes to both.
Director Fontane stated the Office of Community Development enforces the development agreements and the ordinances associated with it and land development in the City.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it goes with the development, not the developer.
Mr. Halfin stated there was a finding there would be no substantial depreciation in the values of the properties. He did not see anything that was based on talking with a realtor or appraising values of the property. He asked how the finding was arrived at.
Planner Cross stated in the past the finding has been based on that no evidence has been submitted at hearings that the development will have a depreciating effect on adjacent properties.
Planner Burhop the Commission can vote on the findings and can either accept as drafted or they can amend.
Mr. Halfin stated it appears in a couple of places and page 39 was where he saw it.
Chair Hainsfurther stated in the past that is a matter of opinion and he has seen it where appraisers have almost always said it does not. If there is an objector their appraiser would perhaps argue that. It is a permitted use and it is a fair assumption it will not diminish the property value because they are developing it in accordance with the ordinance.
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Romick, Residents, asked about the landscaping and the height of the foliage. They want to keep it at 8’. He asked if the applicant would agree to put in 10’ arbor vitae at the fence.
Ms. Sally Martin, Resident, stated she was excited about the development and asked about the height of the fence. If it is in an area, then where there are children it needs to be shorter than a kindergartener. She was concerned about the safety of the kids.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if she was talking about the wing wall.
Ms. Martin stated she did not want to be redundant, but wanted to say it was beside the school.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the applicant could respond to the two requests, one being the 10’ high plantings along the east.
Mr. Weiss stated the 8’ is in reference to the fence. They had agreed to a certain height they felt appropriate. There was discussion about the height and the landscape architect felt strongly about a certain height being planted and how it would affect the long term growth. The request from some of the public was the initial height be 20’ and they had agreed to increase to 15’ for arbor vitae.
Mr. & Mrs. Rudick, Residents, stated this item was not brought up in the public meeting, but on a phone call with the developer. Regarding the existing fence as it stands, they want to make sure the fence remains until the new fence is put in. He asked how they could address any lighting issue when it shines into their property. He asked if there was any recourse.
Director Fontane stated he heard about fencing during construction and what happens after installation of everything including lighting. During construction they will be requiring fencing be installed around the perimeter of the project. It needs to be maintained during construction. They would see to it the fence is maintained. If something seems amiss with the lighting after the project is complete, they can call the office and report the complaint. They hope they can work it out with the applicant, but staff will check to see if it is an actual violation of any code or approvals granted. There are always tweaks that happen as a projects is completed. On the drawings and plans they have lighting photometric plans that are in compliance with the code and need to be installed as such.
Chair Hainsfurther mentioned the wing wall on the south. He stated they were concerned about the safety of the kids and asked the minimum height they could live with. He asked if they could hold it back to the beginning of the parking space.
Mr. Weiss stated they will work with the structural team and pull back the best they can or look into other options. It is hard to speak specifically without the structural team digging into it and they will investigate and improve compared to the present design.
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adopt the draft finding of fact. Vice Chair Moore motioned to adopt the findings of fact with the nine conditions, seconded by Commissioner Bruckman.
Chair Hainsfurther offered a friendly amendment that the approval is based on the plans submitted and substantially in conformance with the plans submitted and the height of the screen will fully screen the rooftop units.
Vice Chair Moore stated it was acceptable.
Commissioner Bruckman stated it was acceptable.
Commissioner Hecht stated his concern is the size and fitting in with what is there. The current owner has let the entire property go to pot. The code says that residential is permitted above first floor commercial and over half of the building is over a parking lot. He had concerns about the legality. He might be more interested if the project was not treating the commercial aspect as an after thought.
Commissioner Weil stated she does not like it for the neighborhood and she thought the retail is minimal. She would love a thriving retail establishment at that location but she was not sure that was guaranteed. There is an apartment building three stories high on the street which may not have the benefit of retail.
Planner Cross stated she could have concerns about the project, but take into consideration the zoning consideration and the underlying zoning district and the zoning paradigm that Planner Burhop has explained.
Commissioner Kerch thanked the developers and staff for their time and effort. He thanked the community members who gave testimony or sent emails. This is a PUD the intent and purpose of which is to promote ingenuity and imagination in design to make a better built environment than they could otherwise with the underlying zoning. This is a gateway project and the PUD makes it higher bar. He agreed with Commissioner Hecht in that the retail portion is designed to be minimal and he did not think minimal is what they want with this kind of profile. He agreed with Commissioner Weil and cannot find any building that relates to this visually. He thought it was out of character with the neighborhood and under the PUD ordinance that is a reason they vote against the findings. No one wants to live there with a vacant lot and a crumbling parking lot and an empty building. He mentioned Ravinia Crossing and see what happens when five retail properties are built under a massive apartment building. What happens when they are empty. He thought they owed more to the neighborhood than to just accept it. He did not see it as meeting all the criteria. He thought the public benefit is not commensurate with the relief being sought.
Commissioner Bruckman thanked everyone and appreciated the information. There is nothing there now and the structure seems out of place.
Commissioner Quinlan commended everyone on the work done and could see the balancing act for the parking requirements, the number of units and preserving the green space. It made sense to him.
Vice Chair Moore stated there has been a lot of work done and appreciated that it made a better project. There are a number of modern homes in the area. It does fit in with Ravinia Park with the new buildings and dining pavilion.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he does not love the project and did not think it was contextual. It meets the zoning ordinance and the developer has the right to rely on the ordinance when they are making an investment in the community. He would support the project. The developer has worked hard in trying to make this as good a development as possible. The neighbors had mentioned a masonry wall and he would not support that as they are a maintenance nightmare. In this case the fence will give adequate protection. Should the fence fall into disrepair it will have to repaired by whoever owns the property and they are protected.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: Kerch, Weil, Hecht
Motion passed 4-3.
Chair Hainsfurther asked Director Fontane when they prepare the memo to make sure that the nay vote concerns are related in the memo to the City Council.
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.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including recommendation, proposed land use, proposed land use allowances, proposed land use, parking regulations and recommendation.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about the usage and if this was a ghost retail store front. He wondered about allowing this in a B4-BG space. He asked who is making the request for this type of space.
Planner Burhop stated there has been interest in this type of development and the code is based on specific land use type. They cannot accommodate that request unless the text amendment is completed. This is a staff driven text amendment and there is no private party.
Director Fontane stated in consultation with the City Manager, they were directed to move forward with developing a recommendation to have these types of uses. This is a petition from the City Manager.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he was looking at the zoning map and did not see B4-BG. He saw a B4, B4-4, B4-5 and B4-6. He asked where B4-BG is.
Commissioner Hecht stated it is on Old Deerfield by Briergate.
Director Fontane stated there might be some connectivity issues.
Planner Cross stated it is a very finite location.
Commissioner Quinlan stated it gave him pause because of the grocery store there and there might be better uses than warehouse storage.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if the Toys R Us part of the B4-BG.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Commissioner Kerch stated staff did a good job and it was very clear to him.
Commissioner Weil agreed felt it was pretty clear last time and this clarified a couple of issues that came up. She was fine with it.
Commissioner Hecht stated his only concern was that if this is a permitted use there is no control over it. This is not a use he saw as a huge benefit. He did not know about sales tax and it is not drawing people to other neighboring uses. He would be more comfortable if
this was a conditional or special use where they had some control over how many and where these could be located. He would not want to see it at any random spot. Other than that he did not have a problem with it.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if even in the I and B3 he would want it as a conditional use. Commissioner Hecht stated maybe not in I but he did not want to see it in Briergate. Chair Hainsfurther stated it is a conditional use in Briergate.
Commissioner Hecht stated maybe not in I, but just to get some control so they can address issues with traffic and how many. What happens 50 years from now. This will affect the community for decades and he wanted to be mindful of that so they do not end up with an empty Saks building.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he asked last time about food uses in terms of ghost kitchens and pick-up and they are not permitted. They are not considered retail.
Planner Burhop stated this amendment does not address this.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if a commercial kitchen is considered retail.
Mr. Schuster stated this did not fall within this definition. This is about warehouse and customer pickup is the operative use. It does not cover manufacturing specifically of food and is meant to be storage of goods for customer pick up.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it is more of a commercial kitchen and is preparing food that people either pick-up or delivery as opposed to a brick and mortar restaurant. What you see is a number of businesses sharing a facility. He wanted to make sure they are clear that does not fall within this.
Mr. Schuster stated there is nothing about production of food in this definition. This definition would not cover ghost kitchens.
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to recommend approval of draft findings of fact. Commissioner Weil so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kerch.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if they wanted to make the use conditional in the B3 as well as the B4-BG as suggested by Commissioner Hecht.
Commissioner Hecht stated he would offer a friendly amendment.
Commissioner Kerch stated he did not say that is was necessary given that it is basically permitted in those two already as staff outlined.
Commissioner Weil stated she could go either way and respected Commissioner’s Hecht view of the issues and the long term affects of their decisions. It would not upset her to make it conditional and she could support it either way.
Chair Hainsfurther asked Commissioner Hecht for a motion.
Commissioner Hecht motioned to amend the draft findings of fact to provide that the proposed use is conditional in B3. Seconded by Vice Chair Moore.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they are leaving the P in the I district and asking in the B3 they are both conditional.
Mr. Schuster stated the motion could be not to amend the findings, but to approve the findings subject to the B3 being changed to a conditional use.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they need to recommend approval as amended. Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
C. Plat of Subdivision with Variation – 234 Green Bay Rd.
Planner Cross made a presentation for the above item including subject property at 234 Green Bay Rd., application summary - Martin Resubdivision, new access easement, variation request, plat of subdivision, subdivision code - variations and exceptions, landscaping and screening, zoning analysis, findings of fact and recommendation.
Commissioner Hecht asked if they have a copy of proposed easement.
Planner Cross stated it was among the attachments to the report and has been recorded with the County. Any property owner can record an easement on their property without City approval. The applicant did send the easement to the City for review and Pubic Works did comment that if this was put in it should leave room for utilities which the applicant did. The City is not a position to prohibit or deny it. To the question of why the easement is over the property and why not purchase part of the property and make it part of the subdivision and whether that would that make 741 Stone Gate a non-conforming property: 741 Stonegate is a big lot and the loss of the 5,000-6,000 s.f. would not take it out of conformance from a lot size standard. It would still be a conforming lot.
Commissioner Weil stated they are not lots in depth only because they were not designated before.
Planner Cross illustrated a section of the City code which shows a lot in depth which has a rectangle and a stem. This is one lot being split into two.
Commissioner Weil asked if the stem on the lot in depth was owned by that property owner.
Planner Cross stated in a traditional lot in depth if you were to make one now you would own the flag and flagpole. It is all one contiguous lot and here you are using an easement.
Commissioner Kerch asked why the second easement is proposed if the first runs across the north of both lots.
Planner Cross stated he would defer this to the applicant.
Commissioner Quinlan stated mentioned page 74, and asked what are we being asked. If this were denied would it be a hardship.
Planner Cross stated his questions was similar to Commissioner Kerch’s - why is this being asked. There are other opportunities so why is the variation request before the PDC.
Vice Chair Moore asked why they can’t use one easement.
Mr. James Martin, Applicant, stated he bought the property five years ago and thought they could create four or five homes. It turns out to create more than one lot it you can’t necessarily have one driveway connecting three houses. The one easement should only be for one home. This way they have one driveway to one home. Otherwise it would be a PUD and possibly put four or five homes there. The developers who have tried to buy the lot would try build an entire street and have many houses connected. They were told the biggest issue was drainage. They purchased 741 Stonegate and rehabbed the back of the property and created a drainage easement through there. It was suggested by a couple of developers it would be worthwhile to have access on Stonegate and the piece of land to the east of the 741 house is a perfect place for a driveway. It is more desirable and they can achieve one driveway for one house.
Planner Cross stated it depends on the proposal. They looked at early plans for developing this lot that had a full street. When it is a pubic street, the lots to the north have their back yards facing it. If a public street were installed where the easement is now, then those back yards would become required front yards. This would likely produce a lot of zoning non-conformities on these abutting properties. There are cul-de sacs with multiple driveways. There is not a strict rule that one driveway serves one property and it is more complex. There are planned development concepts that could be considered.
Director Fontane stated if you try to do a traditional subdivision it essentially would yield a need for relief on abutting properties. To develop the area in the back it would require additional relief for the abutters and they would have to be a party to the application to obtain the relief. He was not sure how many houses could go there and there may be sufficient land area but there is not sufficient access. Frontage is important and fundamental to subdivisions and how you get access is through the frontage. They have this easement system they would like to use as opposed to ownership of the way or the access to the actual public streets. Without the relief he understood there is no option for development.
Planner Cross stated the relief would be required even if the lots both used the north easement.
Director Fontane stated they can put conditions of approval on these if they are reasonably related to what is going on in terms of the subdivision. He would seek Corporate Counsel’s advice. Although it is not a lot in depth, they are granting relief if there is some kind of consideration that is needed to make development in this area work that might have lot in depths considerations that could also be discussed.
Mrs. Martin stated they live at 232 Green Bay Rd. and it would be nicer and safer and better for the neighborhood. They want something that will make everyone happy.
Mr. Martin stated they have been thinking about the types of houses they want to put back there. There are a lot of animals and nature back there. Their house was built in 1855 and the property has been around for a long time. They did an historical restoration on a Tudor home. They are IT people and have an interest in making the neighborhood awesome. They purchased 714 and created the easement and have been working with City for about five years. They have been manipulating the houses they might want to build on the property and they imagine ranch homes for baby boomers. The homes would have a great view from the property and they are seeing the single drive from Stone Gate. You would drive up to the house and it would have a glorious view. They have been envisioning this for many years.
Vice Chair Moore asked if the easement on 741 is part of the drainage.
Mr. Martin stated it is because the property slopes down from front to back from Green Bay to the west and they need to create downward drainage. The drainage easement is on the west side and the driveway is on east. The drainage will be underground.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the easement is for Lot 1 and asked how it goes to get to Lot 1.
Planner Cross stated the easement was recorded for the whole subdivision in 2000 which was in place when the easement was recorded.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if they had to redo that easement to say Lot 2.
Mr. Schuster stated no. It would be to the benefit of Lot 1 as defined legally on the old subdivision. The fact that they are renumbered into a new subdivision does not wipe that out.
Mr. Josh Weiner, 222 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL, stated Lot 2 relies upon the easement recorded over 741 Stonegate, the adjacent property to the south, and the applicant has provided a letter for the need for the variance. Does Lot 2 rely on the easement recorded over 741. The existing access easement recorded over 232 Green Bay Rd. should provide ample access to the current property. He wanted to highlight the easement recorded over 741 Stonegate was applied for by the current owners of 234 Green Bay Rd. They purchased the property and obtained the property and drainage easement and sold the property. In Finding of Facts #5 it states the existing property does not have frontage on a public street and has relied on easement over existing property access to Green Bay Rd. since 1926. This easement will continue to provide access to Lot 1 in the subdivision and a new easement will provide access to Lot 2. He asked if the new easement was safe to use for access to Lot 2. There is already an existing easement through 232 Green Bay Rd. which will continue to provide access to Lot 1. The new driveway will be built adjacent to three existing homes. He thought it needlessly impacts each of the three homes and the character and safety of the immediate neighborhood. Stonegate has a steep curve coming from Green Bay Rd. and a high tree cover. This creates a limited visibility situation for both cars and pedestrians. In the findings of fact under conditions of approval it states any driveway installed within the easement on 741 Stonegate will be subject to landscaping. He asked if the PDC can hold conditions for screening to a higher standard. The grade of the land creates and issue for screening. The screening needs to be higher than what would be granted for an evenly graded parcel of land. He thought the screening should be 10’. The property is privately owned and they want to make sure what is done is in the best interests of the neighbors and within the character of what make this area special. They are willing to work with them on a solution that works for everyone.
Chair Hainsfurther motioned to adopt findings of fact. Commissioner Hecht motioned to direct staff to draft findings of fact recommending approval, seconded by Commissioner Kerch.
Planner Cross stated the motion would be to adopt the findings of fact recommending approval with conditions including landscaping.
Commissioner Hecht stated he did not see how the property could be developed without the variations requested. Otherwise they will have this big field with nothing on it. This is a solution to a problem that started 150 years ago and he was alright with it.
Commissioner Weil stated she was alright with it and was concerned with the neighbors. She would want some of the concerns considered and agreed that overall the plan makes sense.
Commissioner Kerch stated he was fine with it if they are using the same landscaping criteria they use for all other lots in depth.
Commissioner Bruckman agreed and it makes sense to move forward to develop the property.
Commissioner Quinlan stated it makes sense.
Vice Chair Moore stated she did not see a compelling reason to grant the extra driveway easement to a property that is sitting on a driveway easement. Unless there is some specific rule they cannot share driveways she did not see this should be different unless there is an underlying reason why they would need a separate driveway. It sounds like if they had two driveways it will keep the property as two lots. She did not see a compelling reason to add the second driveway.
Planner Cross stated it was important to understand this plat of subdivision is not approving the second driveway as such. The easement is already in place and it is the relief to consider. If you look at the plat, Lot 2 is designed and oriented towards the south and the frontage is towards the south. He thought she would rather it be oriented to the north and share the existing easement.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it seems odd that on Lot 1 is the rear yard and on Lot 2 it is the front yard and they do not align. He thought it could be more uniform. He was concerned about precedent and that the City was discouraging lots in depth and did not want to see new developments with lots in depth.
Councilman Stolberg stated they encouraged the assembly of properties and lots in depth are tough.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he was concerned about easements as opposed to creating a flag lot for Lot 2. Are they going to get a rash of people trying to develop properties. If they did not use an easement they would be creating a non-conformity. By allowing them to use an easement are they going to develop properties that otherwise would not be able to be developed because of the fact they could create a non-conforming lot on the front parcel. He had no problem with using the access easement for Lot 1, but was torn about Lot 2. What is the precedent they are going to set and will they see more of these. It is not specific to this proposal other than and once they approve this they need to understand it will become difficult not to approve for subsequent petitions.
Planner Cross stated it was worth noting the unique situation the lot is in. This is the first time they have run into this. The subdivision code is designed to discourage this.
Chair Hainsfurther stated if they grant it here and someone comes in next week and asks for the same thing it becomes hard to turn them down.
Mr. Martin stated they had been in the house since 2007 and having two houses the cars merge and create more of a danger. The safer way would be through Stonegate.
Chair Hainsfurther stated that the easement is in place and is not part of this petition. He was concerned about orientation of what is considered to be front yard/back yard and trying to align it up so it looks more consistent. He did not think that prohibits them from using Stonegate as a driveway and when you go to get a building permit they are going to need 40’ on the north side and 30’ on the south side.
Planner Cross stated he was talking about the zoning setback lines on the plat of subdivision. The houses can be built anywhere in the buildable areas and while the lines are inconsistent with each other, the houses may not appear as inconsistent with each other.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted make sure one house was not sticking out in front of another house. By changing that they can still build a house, it is just the way it is oriented. He asked if these were platted building lines.
Planner Cross stated they are setback lines reflected on the property.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it was a question of how to interpret it - what the front yard is and what the back yard is.
Planner Cross stated if this is going to be oriented to the south this is the front yard.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the bigger point is how to handle the easement and the impact in the future.
Mr. Schuster stated if you approve the findings and recommend approval of the subdivision and if you go ahead and approve, the owners of the lots can use either the 20’ ingress/egress easement that currently exists across both lots or for Lot 2 they would be able to use the easement off Stonegate. There is nothing to prohibit them from choosing what they want to do in the future. If you decide to approve do you want to put conditions on who can use which easement or not.
Mr. Martin stated it is called out in the easement that only one party can use the easement on Stonegate.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the easement off Stonegate can only be used for Lot 2.
Planner Cross stated the motion is to approve findings of fact with conditions recommending approval of the proposed plat of subdivision with variation.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Hecht
Nays: Moore, Hainsfurther
Motion passed 5-2.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Next Special Meeting – January 18, 2022
Planner Cross stated the agenda is light - one public hearing for a special use permit for a gas station.
Mr. Schuster stated he has been working with the PDC for 10 years and will continue to do so, but they will see Mr. Martinez on a more regular basis and he will cover the majority of the meetings.
Director Fontane stated he looked forward to working with Mr. Martinez. B. Case Briefing – None
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Weil so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 9:10 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2626&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up