City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met June 7.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
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, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Members Absent: Bruckman, Weil
Director Fontane called the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Fontane
Student Rep.: Mendoza
Corporation Counsel: Martinez
Council Liaison: None
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 3, 2022 Meeting
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2022 meeting. Vice Chair Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Quinlan.
On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
May 17, 2022 Meeting
Minutes for the May 17, 2022 meeting will be considered at the June 21, 2022 meeting.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Pre-Application Discussion for 580-582 Glenview Ave. & 2100 Green Bay Rd. for a New Four-Story Multi-Family Development.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project summary, existing conditions, neighborhood context, zoning relief, site plan, elevations and materials, landscaping and lighting, other zoning, design review, renderings and recommendation.
Commissioner Kerch asked if two separate parcels would be combined.
Planner Burhop stated the parcel lines they are looking at normally corresponding to the platted lot lines. They correspond 80-90% of the time. He illustrated how the lots were platted.
Commissioner Kerch asked if they were RM2.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Commissioner Kerch asked if commercial was not allowed in RM2.
Planner Burhop stated, for the most part, commercial is not allowed. This is probably a relic of the past.
Commissioner Kerch asked if they are building to the south which is in use as a commercial property and that is also zoned RM2.
Planner Burhop stated it is also zoned RM2 and perhaps is was permitted under different zoning regulations. It is somewhat common for this corridor.
Commissioner Hecht stated there has to be a plat of resubdivision to consolidate into two lots. He asked if that was by ordinance.
Planner Burhop stated alternatively, rather than consolidate, they could seek additional relief for building over a property line. Setbacks are measured to the property line. If they did not want to consolidate they could ask for relief to build over a property line. They would not be compelled to do the plat of consolidation.
Vice Chair Moore stated on page 45 of the packet it says that the maximum allowed height in RM2 is 40’ and maximum of three stories. She asked why is it three and not four stories.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it pre-dates Planner Burhop and Director Fontane.
Director Fontane stated this is the existing zoning code and height and stories allotment that was approved at the time. Stories change in height depending on the use. Commercial tends to be taller. People think everything is 10’ but that is not necessarily the case. When you look at various heights to try to match them so they can be done reasonably. In the zoning code changes they have made they wanted to make sure the height and feet accommodate the stores properly. This is an existing district and zoned this way purposely. There may be other uses there that may be non-conforming. Zoning is a long term proposition and the uses do not go away and they have rights. Just because it is a non-conforming use does not mean the zoning district is wrong, it means it was changed.
Vice Chair Moore mentioned Section 150.704D states “top of the second story of a multi-family residence structure located in a multiple family residential district shall not be located at a point higher than 25’ above grade.” She thought there was a disconnect between the 25’ and the 40’.
Planner Burhop speculated this is so people do not request garages that are gigantic because that would limit how big you can make a garage.
Chair Hainsfurther asked about differential size between a market rate and an affordable unit. He thought the spirit was to make them as similar as possible. There is a significant difference between the affordables and the market rate size.
Director Fontane stated the code provides for minimum size for affordable units as long as it meets code. The units do not have to be as large.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if there was a not less than “x” percent rule. Director Fontane stated there was a table with square feet.
Chair Hainsfurther asked Director Fontane to provide a table for the next meeting. Director Fontane stated yes. The Housing Commission will be reviewing this.
Commissioner Quinlan stated he wanted to summarize the variation request which are setback for north, east and maybe the south, height variation 45’ vs. 40’, lot coverage 33% vs. 38%, parking 45 vs. 51 spaces. He asked if the loading dock was proposed in a public way outside of their property.
Planner Burhop stated the loading space is required and has to be on site. When they submit the formal application they will either request relief or propose it in the ROW. Then they will have to see what Engineering and Public Works have to say.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about a landscaping plan.
Planner Burhop stated the first two were items he specifically identified. The others are a list of items for the applicant to be aware of. He did not know if they were asking for lighting and landscaping relief.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they needed more information.
Mr. Martinez stated he found the ordinance that covers the difference between affordable and market rate. Affordables may differ from market rate units regarding interior gross floor area provided that the affordable unit is no less than 75% of the market rates.
Planner Burhop mentioned the front yard relief and they did have pre-application meetings with the applicant and Article 23 requirements would have been discussed. These are the street frontage requirements and have go to zones where you have to move it closer to the street. It is not required for this district and does not apply. If it did apply maybe it was their intention to meet that requirement.
Chair Hainsfurther stated when they come for formal application they will have to demonstrate what they need.
Mr. David Shaw, Attorney, stated this is an enigmatic parcel and zoned RM 2 and that corridor goes all the way from Vine to Park. There are some strange uses including one on their parcel which is a wallpaper store. To the south is the Highland Pop and there are condos on Homewood which are four-story structures. Across the street is a Shell station and converted garage which is now a dance studio. The building is long and narrow, all brick with no windows on the side facing them. There are no windows on the north and only two windows on the south. There are no setbacks and it is flush to their lot line. It is still used as a print shop and they tried to purchase the building. There have been many incarnations of what was presented and it is not an easy site to develop. Construction is extremely difficult and expensive and materials and plans have changed because of costs. They want to make a presentation that encompasses a quality product that will be a substantial benefit and improvement to what is an underutilized site with two old frame buildings. They want to conform with what is there with minimal impact to residential properties. There is one large multi-family building to the west on the north side of Glenview that seems to be higher than 40’. It does exist and impacts the neighborhood and lends credence to their request.
Mr. Joe Pascolla, JTS Architects, stated there are a few challenges with the site the first being the setback requirements. Some of the setbacks called out for 25’ as a minimum requirement. There is a graphic depicting this as a downtown zoning section. It is 150- 23-1 in the code. Basing it off the zoning code there is a build to suit or to a maximum of a 5’ minimum to a 25’maximum build to area. They wanted to move this large mass of a building away from the single family residences as possible. They want to be connected to the area. That is why they want to stay as far away from the alley and single family residences as possible due to the four-story mass. The only way they can make it work for parking requirements is to have the garage on the first floor on grade and build three stories above.
Commissioner Hecht stated they were asking for a lot of relief with the height and setbacks and there will be a lot on the site.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if he had a problem with the relief for the setbacks.
Commissioner Hecht stated he thought it was a lot on two-thirds of an acre site. He was concerned about the availability of parking. He did not think it was within one-quarter mile of the train station.
Mr. Pascolla stated here was a bus stop.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he looked the routes and did not see a stop in front of the building. When they come back they need to prove they are entitled to it.
Commissioner Hecht stated that was an issue for him because a bus stop is not the same as a train.
Commissioner Kerch mentioned PUDs and stated he thought they could add design excellence and innovation. He could not stand ground level parking and understood why they have to do it economically. The streetscape along Green Bay is stark and uninviting and a blank wall. There is also a blank wall on Glenview and he did not see how it will pass design review. Green Bay is a major thoroughfare and they have turned their back on it. Instead they have a beautiful façade on the west side that only one or two single family homes are going to see. He had a problem with that and if they could abut the print shop that might avoid problems in the future because some day that will probably go out of business and he did not know what anyone would develop there.
Vice Chair Moore agreed with the other commissioners. She noticed the blank wall along Green Bay and it reminded her of the grey building across from the post office which looks cold and unwelcoming. There are walkers and high schoolers and it would be nice if it were warmer. She agreed about the bus and it runs only a few times a day. She was concerned about the 45’ and it is only 5’ more than allowed. The property at Park and Green Bay is also four stories, but that building is sunk in the ground and is lower than grade.
Chair Hainsfurther suggested they come back with actual with measurements. They will have the opportunity to clear these up during the application process. They can take notes and they can have a discussion after they hear what the Board has to say.
Vice Chair Moore agreed it was asking for a little too much on this property. If they drop the number of units they do not need so much parking and less relief would be needed.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the west property line would be asphalt up to the property line.
Mr. Pascolla stated there would be grass or small plantings. They only have 4’-7”.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about landscaping and lighting.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they would have to come back with a landscape and lighting plan.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about access from the alley as opposed to new entrances on Glenview.
Mr. Pascolla stated the reason they do not have access from the alley is to minimize the impact on adding new traffic. It is not in a great state and they do not wan to add more vehicular traffic. The trash is there because it is used for trash pick up anyway. The curb cuts are existing.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he was concerned about density and scale. He understood there is a building on Glenview that is taller. If they were to come today that would not be built with out significant relief. He was concerned with precedent and once they grant four stories and 45’ they will have them up and down the road. They will have to make a case as to why. He asked if they were the contract purchaser or do they own it.
Mr. Pascolla stated they were the contract purchaser.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if this was conditioned on getting zoning approval. This is contingent on action taken by Council. He had concerns with the height. He did not have concerns about the setback. He had heard good points about what it looks like from the street and thought they could do better. He did not think it was an appealing look as you drive down Green Bay which is a primary street in the area.
Mr. Pascolla stated it is a challenge with construction costs.
Chair Hainsfurther stated he deals with construction costs every day and is an architect and project manager. The City has a certain standard they expect and if they cannot met it they have to have a good reason and cost is not one of them. He thought they should go back and use their architectural skills do see what than can do better. It does not have to be spandrel glass, but something else. Maybe an opening with some kind of screen. They have to do something to break up the monotony. They do not need to do a PUD, but if they do not they will have to prove a hardship to the ZBA. If they do a PUD they need to come up with a public benefit commensurate with the relief requested. They are asking for a lot of relief and they will be looking for a sizeable public benefit whether it is burying the utility lines in front or something else. When they come back he wanted to see dimensioned plans particularly the site plan. They need to know exact sizes of things. They will want to see a physical material board and samples. He wanted to see more detail on the floor plans and understand they comply with the 75% rule. There is a 300 s.f. difference between an affordable unit and a market rate unit.
Vice Chair Moore stated the affordable units were clustered together in the building and she thought they were supposed to be more spread out in the building.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they will have to go through the process with the Housing Commission. He thought given where this in relation to single family housing, a shadow study would be appropriate. He did not think they needed a traffic study. He would like a market study for apartments. He wanted see the bus stop location and bus schedule and there is no regularity to the schedule. He thought it interesting is a one-quarter mile distance to the bus stop. He did not have a problem with relief for the loading space.
Vice Chair Moore asked about how the building fits in design wise with the neighborhood.
Chair Hainsfurther stated there are a bunch of old buildings and he wanted to see the context of what is around there especially if they are comparing themselves to the condos at Homewood. Those are all brick an they have a certain level of quality and if that is the context they want to fit into, they need to see the building matches the context. He thought it was mostly anonymous type of buildings in that area and as long as the materials meet the design requirements he was loath to being the arbitrator of taste in the community. He cared about the context and thought they would have a problem with the four stories. They are a few blocks away from some four-story buildings that are half a story down but he is kind of on an island currently. He is looking at them as being a tone setter for developing those properties as they come along. The PDC will have to decide whether or not they want four stories and 45’ as a standard. Once they open the box they will see it from more and more people.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about the loading.
Mr. Pascolla stated loading is required at over 25 units. The reason for the street loading is because across the street they having loading. It is for people moving in and they are out within a couple of hours every so often.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it still requires relief because it is on site.
Mr. Pascolla stated he was requesting for it to be on the street.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they will have to curb it and mark it off. He did not know how to police that to keep people from parking there and it needs more thought.
Mr. Shaw stated they have applied for a PUD and they are pursuing that.
Director Fontane mentioned the height and there have been approvals in the past for relief. When considering the design of the building, they actually attempted to mitigate what the height would mean. There is a building on Oakwood with a setback such that it is hard to see and it is not an imposing extra story.
Chair Hainsfurther asked where is the HVAC and it is rooftop equipment or individual units in the units. He asked what is going on regarding the roof to make sure it meets the screening requirements.
Vice Chair Moore stated they mentioned the other buildings and they are set back a little more from the street. The upper story is set back and when you have a tall building right next to the street with little setback it will close the Green Bay corridor.
Chair Hainsfurther stated if they look at what else has been built in the community that is right on the street, McGovern House being an example, there is a lot of feeling that this was not the best design for that property. He understood what they are trying to do and they have some work to do.
Commissioner Kerch asked if there was some sense that the decision to push it all the way east may be wrong. There is an alley that separates it from the single family home.
Chair Hainsfurther stated that is way he thought the shadow study would tell them something. If it was pushed back the shadow would be closer.
Commissioner Kerch stated the façade presents a problem and one way to correct it would be to re-site the building.
Commissioner Hecht asked how they came to 26 units. The affordable requirement triggers 20 and because they are providing affordable units on site they get 6. He was curious if it was intentional and how they came up with that number.
Mr. Shaw stated they went by the book and discussed it with staff. That is the maximum allowed. They verified this with staff.
Director Fontane stated staff will verify things as they arise. They do not do the entirety of the work. If there is concern they will check the calculation. They are allowed a density bonus should they so choose. The are allowed to create affordable units smaller than the others. There is a minimum size table in the code with regard to the minimum square feet. There are some differences they can make in the units. They need to distribute them throughout the building. At this time they do not take preliminary applications to the Housing Commission and that is the substance of what the Housing Commission deals with. If they apply for a formal consideration through a PUD they will then schedule them for a Housing Commission preliminary application.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they should meet with the neighbors before they come back.
Mr. Shaw stated they had planned on that when there was some feeling for what they are doing.
B. Pre-Application Discussion for 925-937 Deerfield Rd. for an Eight-Townhome Residential Development.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project summary, existing conditions, neighborhood context, zoning relief, site plan, elevations, landscaping and lighting, other zoning, design review and recommendation.
Commissioner Kerch stated the project is oriented to the west, but it looked as though the backyards are oriented to the west.
Planner Burhop stated he may not have indicated as well as he could.
Commissioner Kerch asked if the houses are vacant and if they are, there are a lot of items sitting around like bicycles, etc.
Commissioner Quinlan stated mentioned the variations and the common open space may or may not fall in line with the requirements.
Director Fontane stated those were listed as reference points and that will be determined and brought to the PDC.
Planner Burhop stated there was only one relief and that is the setback for the rear yard encroachment.
Commissioner Quinlan stated the height is very minor, 35’ vs. 37’.
Planner Burhop stated when the applicant submits a formal height review sheet they will not actually need relief based on the way it is defined. This does need to be verified.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the coverage will be determined when they submit.
Planner Burhop stated he did not see any type of coverage calculation. The applicant will verify this.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they are installing permeable pavers and if that counts against the coverage.
Planner Burhop stated the coverage is defined in Section 150.202 and only accessory and principal buildings count against the coverage requirement and it is regulated in the bulk table. It is more about the footprint of the buildings.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about landscaping in the future.
Planner Burhop stated they are not 100% sure at this point.
Commissioner Hecht stated he knew the entire project is affordable and there are three different categories, two for sale, and six units are being sold for different incomes, and two for rent. He asked how that works with the ordinance.
Chair Hainsfurther stated you need to verify they are affordable and they are under the code.
Planner Burhop stated this includes Housing Commission review and final recommendation before Council.
Commissioner Hecht stated he was concerned that there is a mix of units for sale and rent and how that all plays together. He did not want to have an issue later on.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the affordable development at Hyacinth and Western has both rental and purchase units and they are in two separate buildings on the site. He had heard from a financing standpoint you cannot co-locate rental and purchase in the same building. He did not know if that was true. He suggested when the applicant comes back they need an explanation as to how it works.
Commissioner Hecht stated FHA has limits and they will not finance on buildings that have over the certain percentage of rentals.
Director Fontane stated the financing structure and requirement might be of interest, but it is not something under their purview.
Chair Hainsfurther stated are they approving something that cannot be built.
Director Fontane stated in terms of the affordability that is part of the zoning analysis and it requires an interpretation of the code. They will make this clear in their report to the Commission.
Vice Chair Moore stated she was glad to see something like this coming to town.
Mr. Rob Anthony, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Applicant, stated they are a non-profit organization that serves people to secure and retain quality housing. They are an outgrowth of the PDC, Highland Park, Human Relations Commission, Housing Commission and the Preservation Commission. They were initiated as a land trust in 2019 and merged with two other non-profit housing organizations. They are also certified housing counseling agency and prepare people for responsible homeownership. They do foreclosure prevention and have rental assistance programs. The have rental assistance and have administered almost $3,000,000 in rental assistance related to COVID. They help administer inclusionary housing programs. The proposed development is a site that has been blighted and in disrepair for many years. They feel this is a double benefit of providing affordable housing and strengthening the block. Under the inclusionary housing ordinance for ownership projects half the units have to be affordable for people at 80% of AMI and half can be affordable to people up to 120% AMI. That is where they get the three and three split. On the rental side the units have to be affordable at various income levels and below the lowest level at 60%. 80% of AMI for a four-person household is about $83,000 which would be the maximum household income. For the 120% AMI limit it is about $125,000 maximum household income. The 60% AMI for rental is about $62,000. The funding comes from a grant from State Sen. Julie Morrison, Lake County, the Highland Park Housing Trust Fund and the Illinois Affordable Housing Tax Credit. They have the funding lined up.
Mr. Chase Morris, Architect, stated they see this as a tremendous asset and benefit to Highland Park. The various three income categories allows for housing diversity and encourages affordable home ownership. They are looking forward to working with the Commission to bring this to reality. They look forward to their feedback.
Mr. Kevin Campbell, President/Partner, Studio C, stated the townhomes were inspired by the home his uncle lived in. He is an Evanston resident and understands the context of doing housing in what represents the community. He stated the parking lot at City Hall uses permeable pavers and they are looking for locally sourced materials. Unilok now has a second generation of permeable pavers. Those are the kinds of materials they are looking to use. They are incorporating permeable pavers and a drainage swale to make it a greener site and more welcoming and comfortable. He works with Chalet Nursery and Oregon Urban Forestry. They want to use native plants indigenous to the North Shore. The people at Oregon have taken some of the trees they were going to have to harvest from the site and repurposed those wood products in the development. They are looking to do the 25’ setback on Deerfield so they maintain the parkway trees. They have listened to the neighbors about their concerns and desires and they have a palette of materials that reflects the neighborhood and blends with the community.
Commissioner Kerch stated he knew how difficult these projects are to develop and this one is really good. He loved the mix of the units and that they are all inclusionary. The design is kind of a typical urban townhome. He liked the extra touches with the masonry, the color variations and the Hardy plank. He stated the images in their packet did not look anything like the rendering they showed. They one they showed is a lot livelier and more of what he would want to see. He stated there is no street frontage and would here be some signage or identifying element.
Mr. Campbell stated they talked about that and it can be incorporated. The fencing is at the setback line. There are windows and doors for the first unit that face the street. They were struggling with it looking like the front door for the development and that resident would have people knocking on their door. There are architectural things they can do at the entrance. (unintelligible) One of the things is an awning and they can use it as an entrance feature element. It can be screened or gated so people do not walk up to someone’s door. They could set the fence back so it more of an opening to the property and walkway.
Commissioner Kerch stated there is a tremendous amount of positives to the project and he looked forward to its submission.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the units are 20’ wide.
Mr. Campbell stated they are 20’.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about the garage door.
Mr. Campbell stated the garage door is 18’.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the proposed fences are 4’.
Mr. Campbell stated what is in the drawing is 4’, but in walking the site the neighbor to the west has a 5’ fence. For the rear yards they would probably go with 5’ to be consistent.
Commissioner Quinlan asked if the AC units would be in the back yard. Mr. Campbell stated yes.
Commissioner Hecht applauded what they are doing and looked forward to seeing how this progresses. They have a mix of units for sale and rent and 25% of the units are for rent. The buyers of the six units are not buyers who will put 50% down. He thought they would be more likely to use financing and mortgage programs that allow for smaller down payments such as FHA. Those programs have limits on the percentage of projects that are rented. If he used FHA financing and the building is below 25% that are rented they are ineligible for FHA financing. He was concerned if this is approved, built, and they cannot sell the units because the target audience cannot get financing. He did not want to see that.
Chair Hainsfurther stated when they come back for a formal presentation they can answer that.
Director Fontane stated they can change the formal ownership. Mark Muller received approval for rental and he changed to condo. He understood the notion about the mix. When you are approving a development of townhouses for purpose of land use it does not matter. If that happens they can come back and convert to ownership and sell them.
Mr. Campbell stated for some of developments they have done in Hyde Park there are some models those clients have enabled to work.
Vice Chair Moore asked if the rental units will be substantially different on the inside from the others or will they be the same.
Mr. Campbell stated that was one of the things they emphasized in the design they could not make that distinction.
Vice Chair Moore stated she was at First Bank and they had a presentation for the project. She was excited about the project and it made her feel proud to live in Highland Park.
Chair Hainsfurther stated the appreciated the work CPA does and that they are bring this project forward. He lives close to the project at Hyacinth and Western and is proud of it from a standpoint of its affordability and also it is a lovely design. He was concerned about the wall of garage doors and would like to see something that breaks up the mass of doors. He would challenge them to maybe break up some of the monotony on the building. One of the things that is outstanding at Hyacinth and Western is that it does not look like an affordable building. He thought they could better. When they come back he wanted to see landscape plan, lighting plan, dimensions on the plans so staff can navigate their way through that. He also wanted to see physical materials. The relief normally would trigger some sense of public benefit, but he thought affordable housing is a public benefit. He appreciated the permeable pavers. He looked forward to the project coming forward and it is a vast improvement over what is there. With minor tweaking he thought they can get a place where they all feel comfortable.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about the trash cans.
Mr. Campbell stated there are within the unit.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they will wheel them out on trash collection days. Chair Hainsfurther stated they should come with a fence detail.
Mr. Campbell the garage drive was sized to accommodate it.
Chair Hainsfurther stated they want to know about the fence for design review. C. Resolution honoring outgoing student representative.
Chair Hainsfurther read a resolution commending Ari Nathanson for his service as a student representative for the PDC.
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve. Commissioner Kerch so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Moore.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 5-0.
D. Resolution amending the Plan & Design Commission Schedule of Meetings for 2022 calendar year.
Chair Hainsfurther stated starting July 5, 2022 to end of year the PDC meetings will commence at 7:00 PM.
Planner Burhop stated this is moving the meetings to 7:00 PM starting July 5, 2022. He asked if he should include the June 21st meeting.
Director Fontane stated they are fine in commencing on July 5, 2022.
Commissioner Hecht stated maybe it could have been worded as the schedule adopted is hereby amended.
Chair Hainsfurther stated it is titled a Resolution Amending the Schedule of Regular Meetings.
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve, indicating this would be for the July meetings on and the June 21 meeting will still be at 6:30 pm. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Moore.
Director Fontane called the roll.
Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion passed 5-0.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Next Regular Meeting - June 21, 2022 at 6:30 PM
B. Case Briefing - None
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Quinlan.
On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:25 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2699&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up