Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan & Design Commission met Sept. 6.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

CALL TO ORDER

I. At 7:00 PM Chair Hainsfurther called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Quinlan, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther

Members Absent: Bruckman

Director Fontane called the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Akash, Burhop, Fontane

Student Rep.: None

Corporation Counsel: Martinez

Council Liaison: Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

August 16, 2022 Regular Meeting

Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2022 meeting. Vice Chair Moore motioned to approve, seconded by Commissioner Weil.

On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Hecht abstained.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

A. Design Review with variations for a New Car Dealership Building and Storage Lot with Accessory Structure (2860 Skokie Valley Road).

Planner Akash made a presentation for this item including project site, proposal, parking, landscaping plants proposed, landscaping plan, lighting plan, rendered view, proposed east and west elevations, design review standards, approval process and recommendation.

Commissioner Kerch asked about the variety of plants and if the number of plants required is correct.

Planner Akash stated yes.

Commissioner Kerch asked if the variations were separate regarding where they are supposed to go.

Planner Akash stated yes.

Commissioner Weil asked about a grass ROW in front.

Planner Akash stated there is a strip of trees there, but she did not see any grass.

Chair Hainsfurther asked about the lighting and what temperature lights did they require for the Exchange.

Councilman Stolberg stated it was 3000K.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he understood the 4000K, but if they have done 3000K for others he did not know why they cannot do 3000K. He thought they should be consistent.

Councilman Stolberg stated they had been pretty consistent on most projects. Planner Burhop (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated they treated dealerships differently and he wanted to be consistent among the uses. If they required 3000K with other dealerships that is what he wanted to do here.

Mr. Eric Pepa, Architect, stated Genesis is the high end of Hyundai and they are proposing a new dealership. He showed a rendering of one of the first dealership built in the country. He showed a video of other locations with modern glass and exposed steel construction, focus on electric vehicles, service entrance, blacks and greys, roof canopy overhang is black, similar color in back EIFS material, glass is mostly clear with emphasis on cars, will have a high class, high end feeling

Chair Hainsfurther asked about the canopy material.

Mr. Pepa stated it is ACM, a composite material and the same for the service drive.

Mr. Todd Roberts, Merit Corp.,Civil Engineer, stated the site is a parallelogram, which makes it less efficient. They did their best to try and meet all the requirements for parking for customers and inventory and also provide maneuvering aisles for emergency and deliver vehicles. There is a wide access drive for getting the vehicles in and out safely. They have special spaces for electric vehicles for charging. They will have an underground detention facility on the south end of the site. Stormwater management will be handled there.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they had nothing to do with the engineering and that is between them and the City. He asked who did the landscaping.

Mr. Roberts stated the landscape architect was not present and he could answer any questions.

Chair Hainsfurther stated there were a couple of areas on the south property line that were striped in between where there is vehicle inventory and the charging stations. He asked why that could not be landscaped. He saw two areas on the site plan.

Mr. Roberts stated it is a tight site to fit the number of inventory vehicles required by Genesis and to be able to manage the site when there is a snowfall. They have to move 140 cars out of the way to clear snow and they need a large area that is not inhibited by curb and landscape to be able to move the inventory around. It is an unusual shaped property that is very inefficient for providing things like landscaping islands. They pushed the proposed landscaping to the perimeter. There are strips of landscaping on Skokie Valley and on the south and north property lines. They are meeting the plantings required.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he saw areas that are not parked and they are not going to put a car there.

Mr. Roberts stated they end up double and triple stacking.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if they were going to put a car in the triangles and where were they going to put the snow.

Mr. Roberts stated in the parking stalls on the perimeter and the snow will be pushed out to the perimeter.

Mr. Greg Mauro, Owner, if they have a transport truck that has to come to the designated area they cannot park cars on the shoulder and unload. They have to be able to bring the semi in and turn it around and bring it out. Also, the fire truck has to be able to go around the entire building.

Mr. Roberts stated the area between the back of curb of Skokie Valley to the property line will continue to be grass.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if they were approving signs.

Planner Akash not stated at this time.

Chair Hainsfurther stated if it meets code they do not have to come back. Councilman Stolberg asked if it was bird friendly glass.

(unintelligible)

Councilman Stolberg asked if the parking lot was asphalt.

Mr. Mauro stated yes.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve. Commissioner Kerch so motioned with the condition the lighting be 3000. Commissioner Weil seconded.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion passed 6-0.

B. Design Review with variations for a ComEd Facility Addition and Accessory Structures (1785 Old Skokie Road).

Planner Akash make a presentation for this item including project site, proposal, parking, proposed fence, landscaping plan, lighting plan, proposed east elevation, design review standards, approval process and recommendation.

Vice Chair Moore asked if was an additional 12’ or 12” of barbed wire. Planner Akash stated it was 12” of barbed wire.

Vice Chair Moore stated it is mentioned on page 83 and should fixed. Commissioner Quinlan asked what is the existing land use.

Planner Akash stated it is a utility yard use which is a permitted use in the I district.

Commissioner Quinlan stated 81 parking spaces will be reduced 78 which is over 50 accessory spaces. He asked why 50 was relevant

Planner Akash stated the 50 are required spaces.

Commissioner Weil mentioned the mechanicals on top and asked if the neighbors to west will be able to see them.

Planner Akash stated she spoke to the applicant and she was not sure if the trees were evergreen or deciduous. She did not think you could see it. The applicant could answer this.

Mr. Scott Saef, Sidley Austin, Attorney, made a presentation including the ComEd property, project overview, view looking west, northwest north from main entrance, adding screening to the utility yard with new landscape plan, to the west there is a dense line of vegetation by homes, site plan, building plan, building plan, proposed interior floor plan and purpose of project.

Mr. Kyle Westrom, ComEd, stated the awning is huge and necessary, personnel come in during the winter and have to clean off the trucks. Having the awning will allow them to make sure the truck are ready to go. The materials will be out of the weather and additional office space is needed.

Mr. Mark Matuska, Architect, made a presentation including proposed site plan, paving impervious area to allow better circulation, additional parking, parking lot will be restriped, east line shows extent of canopy covering 18 spaces, site lighting plan adding five new fixtures that meet the requirements, lighting on building over doors, lighting meets requirements for light spread, zero foot candles at property lines, 7’ tall fence with barbed wire on top, chain link will match existing, barbed wire is inward facing, existing fence conditions, building exterior rendering, building is not highly visible, architecture is utilitarian consistent with existing, building is lower than existing, matching brick materials, canopy is a metal standing seam roof and cladding is a corrugated metal in keeping with existing materials, columns are steel and base is 4’ concrete, windows are in keeping with existing and are anodized aluminum, hollow metal doors, utilitarian building, brick elevation, building roof plan, parapet is 1.5’ high, units are 4.5’ high and will not be visible to residents.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if they brought samples this evening.

Mr. Matuska stated no.

Ms. Jennifer Draper, Landscape Architect, stated they are not adding parking, they are meeting landscaping requirements, adding foundation planting, site is very densely planted with existing trees, good amount of evergreens blocking view, dense deciduous planting, lower branches will help screen views, installing new shade trees that line the drive, new shade and ornamental trees will help with screening.

Vice Chair Moore asked if they were installing new lights in the lot. Mr. Saef stated they are replacement.

Vice Chair Moore asked if they would be the same.

Mr. Saef stated yes.

Commissioner Quinlan mentioned the bike path on the west and if there was to be any landscaping.

Mr. Saef stated in between the bike path and the building there is green vegetation on the ROW which acts as a buffer. There are no new plantings. The gravel and pavement will be repaved and upgraded. Other than the existing taller vegetation, there are no new plantings in part because of the transmission ROW.

Ms. Draper stated the property line is by the boundary of the asphalt and there is paving to the property lines so there is not enough space for planting.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he did not like approving design review without seeing materials. He preferred to continue until they bring back materials. He was not convinced about not screening the roof top equipment. He was worried about precedent and if they require everybody else to do it and not require them to do it, they will hear from every commercial building. He would prefer to continue, and wanted to hear from the Commission.

Commissioner Quinlan stated he could not find the definition for utility yard use in the code and would like to know for the future.

Vice Chair Moore stated she was concerned with the screening and they cannot rely on the other trees to do the screening. They could die and then there is no screening.

Mr. Saef stated he would like to avoid returning and if there could be a condition to work with staff. There are images of the materials.

Chair Hainsfurther stated images are not accurate. He did not know how you judge materials off a computer screen and he wanted to see them.

Vice Chair Moore stated if they saw samples for the new portion of the building they would also need to see the old.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he was concerned about the canopy. He did not know the color, corrugated metal and wanted to see physical samples. It is hard to approve materials looking at a screen. If the Commission wants to approve he would not stand in their way.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue. Commissioner Kerch motioned to continue to September 20, 2022. Commissioner Quinlan seconded.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion passed 6-0.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted to see the materials for the canopy and screening of the rooftop equipment.

C. Findings of Fact for Continued Public Hearing #2022-PUD-007 for a Special Use Permit in the nature of a Substantial Amendment to a planned development for a 10-unit residential development for the property at the southwest corner of Livingston St. and Compton Ave.; design review, platting and variations may be considered to Chapter 93, zoning, subdivision and design review requirements.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for this item including milling and resurfacing Livingston, applicant proposes connection to Highland Park Park District property, Park District provided comments in support of removing two ComEd poles, moved sidewalk back to the east side along the homes.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve findings of fact recommending approval to Council of the revised submission. Vice Chair Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Hecht.

Commissioner Quinlan asked if the sidewalk was on the east.

Chair Hainsfurther stated yes.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion passed 6-0.

D. Continued Public Hearing #2022-PUD-006 for an eight-unit attached townhome development; zoning relief for rear yard setback and other modifications or variations of Chapter 176 Design Review, Chapter 151 Subdivision, Chapter 150 Zoning Code and Chapter 93 of the City Code may be requested, as appropriate. Includes Design Review, Final Plat, Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Concurrent Preliminary and Final Planned Development, for 925, 929 and 937 Deerfield Rd.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for this item including project summary, existing conditions, neighborhood context, project summary, zoning relief, site plan, zoning analysis, landscaping, lighting, elevations, subdivision review and City comments.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if the comments by Engineering and the Fire Dept. need to be addressed before it goes to Council.

Director Fontane stated yes.

Chair Hainsfurther stated if they asked for findings of fact to be drafted they would want to include that they came to an agreement with the City on all the comments.

Planner Burhop stated the applicant is working with the City.

Chair Hainsfurther stated it is a procedural thing and if they were to approve he wanted to make sure they were doing it appropriately because it is final.

Councilman Stolberg stated all life safety compliances would have to be met before approval.

Mr. Kevin Campbell, Studio C, made a presentation including the driveway is a 16’ wide drive, they are proposing to construct the primary driveway with road rated permeable pavers from Unilock, Chicago uses them in alleys and they are rated for emergency purposes, they want aggressive storm water management so what falls on the lot, stays in the lot, brought sample of face brick they are using, Unilock will work with them on color palette the City finds acceptable, the pavers are on the red side to complement the face brick, guest parking spaces are using a slightly different product with a turf core, they want to have something which addresses greening of the space, regarding scaling back on the planting materials and each unit has its own backyard and rather than being prescriptive in planting, they want to encourage them in the planting and election of materials, there is room for more plantings in the yards and they want an opportunity to consider perennials and annuals, along the north there is a small low spot which they will use as a drainage swale along with the frontage on Deerfield Rd. is where they will be doing most of the landscaping, the first floor is face brick, they have updated the garage doors with a wood finish with lights at the top and complement the brick, above that there is Hardie board in terra cotta for the two upper floors, brick wraps all four facades, shingled roof in brown, lighting is solar powered with a lower kelvin rating.

Commissioner Weil asked about reusing the fence on the north side where the guest parking is.

Mr. Campbell stated it is on the east side as well as the west side.

Commissioner Weil asked about the condition of the fence.

Mr. Campbell stated there is existing fence on the west which is the neighbor’s, they are proposing one that would match.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if that was their fence or the other neighbor’s fence. Mr. Campbell (unintelligible) guest parking.

Commissioner Weil asked if it was a 6’ fence.

Mr. Campbell stated yes. The fence would match his fence.

Councilman Stolberg asked about snow removal.

Mr. Campbell stated there is the swale at the north end.

Councilman Stolberg stated that is a lot of snow from all those driveways. He asked if they could push it there without destroying the landscape.

Mr. Campbell stated it is wetland landscaping.

Councilman Stolberg asked about trash removal.

Mr. Campbell stated the garbage cans have been included in the footprint of the garage.

Councilman Stolberg asked if the truck would back out onto Deerfield Rd. He asked if the garbage cans are stored inside.

Mr. Campbell stated yes until the morning of the pickup at the end of the driveway. Councilman Stolberg stated the only question was access for the recycling truck. Mr. Campbell stated (unintelligible) on the inside of the fence.

Councilman Stolberg stated if someone lived to the north they would take the garbage out in December in the snow before the plow arrives and more it all the way to Deerfield Rd. He wanted to be smooth for Lakeshore and for the homeowners. He was a huge proponent of the affordable units and Highland Park needs three bedroom units.

Commissioner Hecht asked if Lakeshore decides where the cans go or is it the City.

Councilman Stolberg stated he assumed these were individual owners. Each owner would have the ability to contract with Lakeshore either for one day a week or depending on what they wanted to do. Lakeshore has a few service plans and this would be curbside.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they need to have a conversation with Lakeside and get the answers.

Mr. Campbell stated he understood.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he would give them a call. If they asked for findings of fact to be drafted they had a couple of weeks to come back with the answers.

Councilman Stolberg stated the lighting is solar and that in tough in the winter when it gets dark at 3:30 PM and gets light at 7:30 AM. The collectors do not stay lit very long.

Mr. Campbell stated he had installations for the last five years and they are 14-16 hours. The electronics have gotten better and they are pleased with the products.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they have to come back in probably two weeks and asked they bring the material samples with the Hardie board and color chips for the roof. He thought the pavers were great and wanted to make sure they know exactly what color it is. Anything they can do to help the residents keep maintenance as low as possible is a plus.

Councilman Stolberg asked about the three items of relief.

Chair Hainsfurther asked to see the items of relief. The 7’ setback is really a triangle and is 15 s.f. t is fairly deminimus. The next item is landscape. He stated they could take the subdivision relief first.

Planner Burhop stated the lot shape needs a variation and the lots pads (unintelligible).

Chair Hainsfurther asked if they had other development that looked like this. He do not have a problem with the relief. They are not meeting the landscaping requirement because they wanted the want the homeowners to have flexibility to personalize their yards.

Vice Chair Moore stated it is five pieces of landscaping per yard. She did not have a problem with it.

Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact in favor of the proposal and any City generated comments be addressed. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Weil.

Vice Chair Moore asked about the west side fence.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if they wanted them to construct a fence on their property. Vice Chair Moore stated they would request that to be consistent.

Commissioner Hecht stated if the one that is there is removed they would have to replace it. They did not have to put up a second fence. Commissioner Hecht amended his motion. Commissioner Weil accepted.

Commissioner Quinlan stated he though the garbage cans would go between the garages.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they go in the garages. They will come back with information as to how Lakeshore wants to handle it.

Councilman Stolberg stated Lakeshore will tell them.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion passed 6-0.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue to September 20, 2022. Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Moore.

On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

Director Fontane stated notice is actual.

E. Public Hearing #2022-PUD-007 and Public Meeting #2022-SUB-004 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Final Planned Development for a Re-Subdivision with Zoning Variations for Density, Minimum Lot Area, Bulk Requirements and Subdivision Variations (54 Laurel Ave.).

Planner Burhop made a presentation for this item including project summary, zoning variations, subdivision variations and recommendations.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they are proposing creating two lots. One lot has the existing building that will be sold and if it was added on to it would have to go through a hearing process.

Planner Burhop stated any single family use would have to meet Chapter 24 and meet the zoning.

Chair Hainsfurther stated if it changed use it would have to be rezoned. The existing conditions will stay and the neighbors would be notified if something changed.

Planner Burhop stated the zoning does not allow multi-family.

Chair Hainsfurther stated Lot 2 will run with an almost conservation easement. The City will own it and it will not be developed.

Commissioner Hecht asked why are they dividing it up instead of selling the entire thing subject to a conservation easement.

Councilman Stolberg stated there is an enormous expense to maintain Lot 2 which would be detrimental to selling Lot 1.

Director Fontane stated the City wants to maintain it (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated the City will be responsible for Lot 2 in its current state in perpetuity. It will not be improved or sold.

Commissioner Kerch (unintelligible)

Planner Burhop stated (unintelligible)

Commissioner Kerch asked how to access the lot.

Planner Burhop stated there is Laurel Ave. and a proposed easement.

Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible)

Planner Burhop stated the ROW runs through and there is an easement for access. Commissioner Kerch (unintelligible)

Planner Burhop stated the ROW does.

Commissioner Kerch (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated that was not in front of them.

Commissioner Kerch asked about the address.

Director Fontane stated they will assign an address after.

Commissioner Kerch asked if the public benefit was the preservation of open space. (unintelligible)

Director Fontane stated yes.

Commissioner Hecht stated it was supposed to be outside of the plan. Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible) two benches.

Director Fontane (unintelligible)

Councilman Stolberg (unintelligible)

Commissioner Hecht asked will there be beach access from Lot 1 and Lot 2. Director Fontane stated it is not maintained as a park.

Commissioner Hecht asked if the public can access Lot 2.

Director Fontane stated technically yes, but it is not going to be a park. It is still City property.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if there was a park at the end of Central.

Director Fontane stated yes.

Commissioner Quinlan stated he was looking through the neighborhood plans and the lake front and on page 12 there is a map of sub-dividable lots and it is blank. He asked if there is a map available.

Planner Burhop stated he would check and he referenced that in the findings of fact and there are one or two places that reference the master plan.

Commissioner Quinlan stated this came up during the Park District proposal as well.

Councilman Stolberg asked to see the FAR slide and asked once it is subdivided the existing property becomes a legal non-conformity.

Planner Burhop stated yes.

Councilman Stolberg asked what happens if they want to add to it.

Planner Burhop stated they would have to go to the ZBA.

Commissioner Hecht asked how big is the house.

Chair Hainsfurther stated 11,000 s.f.

Ms. Linda Wytzner stated she is on the other side of the line of the senior center. She asked if Lot 1 meant all of the table land (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated Lot 1 is table land and Lot 2 has a ravine and bluff and table land beyond the ravine.

Councilman Stolberg stated he did not think anything in Lot 2 is buildable.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they want to make sure all of the buildable area stays in Lot 1. The squiggly line which is the end of Lot 1 is the top of the ravine.

Planner Burhop stated yes.

Director Fontane (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated the reason they are doing this is so they maintain Lot 2 in perpetuity.

Director Fontane (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible)

Director Fontane (unintelligible)

Planner Burhop stated the purple line is the approximate top of the ravine and if you look at the proposed boundary line it is meant to be.

Director Fontane stated the sale of Lot 1 will generate proceeds for the general fund and the entirety will be put into the general fund.

Chair Hainsfurther asked about public benefit.

Vice Chair Moore stated she did not like it and she was concerned that anyone who buys the house on Lot 1 is going to consider that Lot 2 belongs to them and you do not know what they will be doing. They have seen cases where someone cut down trees on Park District land because it was blocking their view. They are giving up a lot of control over Lot 2. They may create a private beach and feel they own the property. They need to have a way to watch over it.

Chair Hainsfurther asked for a motion.

Ms. Mary Schneck asked who does she talk to about the public benefit. She stated she is a resident of Highland Park and was not aware if this was a done deal or if the public has something to say about. Almost every waterfront property builds a staircase to the beach and these people will not be able to do that.

Director Fontane stated they will know that buying in.

Councilman Stolberg stated it is no different than the Muller development and people speeding through the neighborhood. They have rules and if people violate them then the City has to enforce them. He stated the City Manager was a good place to start.

Commissioner Hecht stated the concern is not that someone will build an illegal staircase because the City can make them remove it. It is what the new owner will do to the other property that will change the character.

Councilman Stolberg stated it is historic (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated depending on the nature of the trees, they would have to comply with the ordinance.

Commissioner Hecht stated the issue is how do they get permission to take them down and how do you replace them.

Vice Chair Moore stated is you sell of Lot 1 you losing a valuable piece of City property you will never get back. She thought when you let Lot 1 go you have no other access to Lot 2 and it becomes their property. She thought they were losing leverage.

Commissioner Kerch stated he would like to continue and have the City come back with a better public benefit that addressed the concerns of the residents.

Director Fontane stated it could be a recommendation to Council.

Chair Hainsfurther stated (unintelligible) he would like to hear a more concrete recommendation if that is the way the Commission feels.

Commissioner Quinlan asked about a map of sub dividable lots in the lake front district. Chair Hainsfurther asked if there was a time crunch on this.

Director Fontane stated they would like to get it done by the end of the month.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if they continued it to September 20th could they still meet their goal.

Director Fontane stated they could, but it would be very close.

Councilman Stolberg stated if the Commission feels they need more time they are an applicant like anyone else. (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated he would like to see the map of lots along the lake front.

Commissioner Hecht asked if there were any private covenants that run through the subdivision that would restrict the use of Lot 1 beyond the historic preservation.

Director Fontane stated Vice Chair Moore was talking mainly about land and trees.

Vice Chair Moore stated she was concerned that by selling off Lot 1 you lose control over Lot 2. There is no public access to Lot 2 and she felt they are taking away from the public benefit by selling it off.

Commissioner Weil stated it seems they offered Lot 1 and no one wanted it. So whether you subdivide it or sell it off as one lot, the City has no control. Whoever buys it can do whatever they want to all of it. She would prefer they have control over part of it than none of it.

Vice Chair Moore stated it is an older house and probably needs a lot of work. She did not think they would get the money they think they are.

Commissioner Kerch asked why not sell the entire parcel.

Director Fontane stated the structure of the land sale is not before the Commission. Council has deemed this as something they are choosing to sell. This would be PUD subdivision that would pertain to these lots. They can come back with responses to questions. Lot 1 is a single-family home that is being sold and subject to Chapter 94 like any other property along the lakeshore.

Commissioner Hecht stated it is about the use of the land and also access to Lot 2 from Lot 1. You do not want someone building a staircase to the beach. He thought it should be spelled out and should not be changed by future ordinances.

Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible) use Lot 2 in any way

Commissioner Hecht stated not any more than the public.

Director Fontane stated it could be a condition of approval. (unintelligible)

Vice Chair Moore stated they could put those restrictions in place but that does not mean they are not going to do them. Once it is out of the bag you are never going to get that property back.

Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible)

Mr. William Levy, Resident, stated he favored the proposal and wanted to focus on public benefit. This house has been in hands of the City since 1975 and is a local landmark and is significant. The condition is deplorable and the City has not maintained it well. Returning it to private use will have the public benefit of preserving an important historic home on the lake front. It will return the property to the tax rolls. It will create an environment in the neighborhood that is more peaceful with less traffic. It will enhance property values. He did not think there was any question of public benefit. He thought it made sense to separate the lots and the relief is within reason.

Director Fontane stated there was a concerted effort over eight to nine years to achieve this stage of what they are proposing.

Councilman Stolberg stated he would like to keep in mind the dollars. This is a senior center that is not usable. The real public benefit is dollars that will build a better senior center at the former country club. He asked why this situation is any different than any lake front or park or shopping front parcel. When the land is sold there will be a plat of survey and the buyer will know what they are allowed to do. Why is it different that any other lot.

Commissioner Hecht asked if Lot 1 would be returned to the tax rolls. Director Fontane stated yes.

Chair Hainsfurther stated Mr. Levy’s comments were accurate regarding the public benefit. The neighbors do not have a problem. He asked if this was the best way to keep things from changing.

Ms. Schneck asked the Commission to walk down there. It is a public piece of property and everyone could walk down there and feel like they were at a waterfront property. It belongs to the City and the City belongs to the people.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he was familiar with the property and one of the neighbors is a friend of theirs. He thought it was odd ball that the City owned it.

Commissioner Kerch stated he knew Ms. Taylor. (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther asked for a motion. Commissioner Quinlan motioned to approve, seconded by Commissioner Weil.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Weil, Hecht, Hainsfurther

Nays: Kerch, Moore

Motion passed 4-2.

F. Pre-Application Discussion for 650 Walnut for a proposed multi-family project.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for this item including project summary, site plan, building and site design, zoning review, preliminary review of relief, elevations, zoning map, aerial of neighborhood, neighborhood heights, applicant preliminary setback relief and recommendation.

Mr. Mark Muller, Fulton Developers, stated he had built projects in the north shore for 20 years, this will be their sixth multi-family development in Highland Park. They received a positive recommendation for the Park Sheridan and are getting ready to break ground. They have completed Laurel Court, Laurel Apartments, Laurel Residences and One Highland Park. The Wolbright is their latest development and have been working on it for over one year. It consists of a four-story multi-residential building with 21 market units and 3 affordables. There are several amenities including a club room, fitness room (unintelligible). There is an underground garage with storage for each unit. (unintelligible) proposed with 24 units with maximum open space, landscaping and natural light. The project is a consolidation of six lots. The first property was acquired in 2012 and the last in 2021. They tried to acquire the property on the corner but were unsuccessful. They designed a project (unintelligible) into several corners emphasizing the open space and landscaping. The proposed material is natural stone (unintelligible). This stone can be found in several buildings in Highland Park (unintelligible). The rest of the materials will be metal cladding. They will bring samples for the public hearing. The outdoor space is a priority with large terraces for each unit. There will be outdoor common areas with seating (unintelligible). They are seeking zoning relief for height as well as (unintelligible) The property is comparable to One Highland Park to the south. They are seeking a variance of 12’ for the fourth floor (the balance of the presentation is unintelligible).

Commissioner Quinlan mentioned height and stated the context map was great and answered many questions. He asked about the power lines and where they will go. He asked about the variations requested.

Mr. Muller stated one is height, setback, lot coverage and off-street parking.

Commissioner Weil stated it is great looking and different then the other projects. She appreciated the Frank Lloyd Wright vibe and updated materials and shapes. She stated there was an increase in the impervious surface and asked if there was anything they could do to not have so much impervious surface.

Chair Hainsfurther stated maybe they could come with ideas to mitigate that.

Commissioner Hecht asked about public benefit and they are asking for a lot a relief – a 12’ height, a large variation for lot coverage and parking. He would encourage a commensurate public benefit.

Director Fontane stated they would provide insights to that based on past approvals. Vice Chair Moore stated she had no comments other than the others.

Commissioner Kerch agreed with Commissioner Hecht about the public benefit. (unintelligible) last building on the corner and thought they did an excellent using the frontages they have. He thought it looked gorgeous. There will always be this odd building on the corner.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he echoed that the public benefit will be critical and they asking for quite a bit of variation. He was not a fan of tandem spaces and would like to see them go away. He did not think they were practical (unintelligible). He would like to see the renderings provide more context. He thought they did quality work and supported what they are trying to do. He wanted to see how it fits into the neighborhood. He saw the height exhibit and most of them are four stories. Are they a tall four stories or a short four stories. He wanted a clear view of that. He asked for more dimensions for the garage level. (unintelligible) There are some spaces he did not know how you back out without bumping into the car behind. He wanted to know how big the spaces are. He wanted the square footage of the apartments and the size difference between the market and affordable units. He asked if this was a transit oriented development. He wanted material samples and photometrics. He thought it was an exciting development.

Mr. Muller stated they are not seeking transit oriented.

Councilman Stolberg stated each time they bring something before the Commission it is prettier than the previous. He could argue that because they are not building to density they are going to be less units and less bulk on the site. His objective is to maximize the affordable units so by building less there will be less affordables. Maybe as part of the public benefit they may want to consider something in the nature of a pay in lieu to the trust fund. There could be a true benefit instead of a park bench and they would be paying into the fund.

Director Fontane stated (unintelligible) 24 units they are proposing.

Mr. Muller (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated the relief requested is substantial and they need to consider the public benefit. He echoed Commissioner Weil and appreciated that it looks different than the others and it is nice to see a variety and it still echoes the quality they are known for in the community.

Director Fontane stated the downtown design guidelines were the inspiration.

G. Pre-Application Discussion for 1700 Old Deerfield (former Solo Cup site) for a proposed commercial/industrial site.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for this item including site plan, elevations, zoning review and City comments.

Mr. John Schiess, 905 Home Ave., Oak Park, IL, Applicant, stated they had discussions with City staff, consultation with consultants, consultation with commercial marketing team, concept site plan review with City staff, neighborhood meeting, comments from

City staff and Council consideration. This is a spec building. They had a meeting with the neighbors on August 15th. Committed to work with City staff and consultants to come up with a final application. Will come back with building materials, samples and photometrics. They will update tree inventory and tree survey. There are 28.61 acres and proposed use is light industrial warehouse. Intent is to keep with underlying zoning. Setback exceed the minimums in the zoning ordinance. Will be below or at maximum building height. Parking and loading will be consistent with the use. They are not seeking zoning relief. Parcel sits with commercial and residential neighbors.

Mr. Luay Aboona, KLOA, stated they did a traffic study of Old Deerfield & Richfield and identified existing constraints at the intersection. It does experience congestion and delays (unintelligible) that could extend several hundred feet in the evening peak hour. (unintelligible)

Mr. Schiess stated mentioned the public way improvements and there is a traffic condition that needs to be solved. They acknowledge the City’s comments that truck traffic should come in from the east side. They want to keep the 100’ landscape buffer along Ridge. There is a 50’ landscape buffer on the south. They will have a traffic plan for primary and secondary entrances. The docks will face inward to minimize noise. They want to minimize impact to heritage and significant trees and wetlands. They expect to use 70% of the land.

Mr. Jeremy Becker, stated over the weekend the trains backed up twice. He did not know how many trucks there would be and it could cause a problem. He asked if it is a 24-hour facility and would he be hearing trucks backing up. It could be a disaster.

Ms. Laurie Broutman, Resident, stated she could find nothing on line about the Red Cup Land Co. LLC and this concerned her. She was concerned about pollution, chemicals, sound and light. She lives close to the facility and was concerned about the proposed building. (unintelligible)

Ms. Sandra Lourie, Devonshire Ct., stated she was concerned about trucks idling, the building height of 41’, lights, not in knowing who is in the building and what they are doing. It is too unknowable as to what the buildings will be used for. The traffic light is a bad idea. She asked if the 48 docks were from 9-5.

Planner Burhop stated the received an email from Sonny Cohen and will resubmit for the public hearing.

Chair Hainsfurther the Red Cup LLC has been formed to develop this property. Commissioner Kerch stated dozens of things need to be addressed. (unintelligible) Vice Chair Moore stated she had no questions.

Commissioner Hecht stated he lives down the street from Mr. Becker and understood what he was talking about. He drives by the site everyday. He was stuck by a train blocking the intersection a couple of times yesterday. He though a light at Ridgefield would be the worst thing you could do and would make it worse. They need to address how ingress/egress is going to be achieved. It is going to come to Old Deerfield or is it going to be directed out the back closer to 41. Both ways are affected by the train. He did not know how they would Old Deerfield and where the land is coming from unless they are donating it. He wanted to know the exact use and what is the target audience. He did not hear anything about a TIF request.

Mr. Schiess stated they have developed a budget for public way improvements and they (unintelligible) for the TIF request for the improvements.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if the development was dependent on receiving approval for that request.

Mr. Schiess mentioned certain components of the public way components and they will need feedback to see how it impacts the project and they can come back with adjusted menu items.

Commissioner Hecht stated he wanted to know if this was a 24-hour facility and about security. On two sides it is residential and a memory care facility across the street, police station, grocery store and other businesses.

Commissioner Weil stated it was concerning not having a better idea who will use this and the types of businesses. Some purposes are by right and other conditional. She did not know who decides which tenants and users are acceptable.

Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible) will have to come back.

Director Fontane (unintelligible)

Councilman Stolberg stated Planner Burhop could send a table of conditional uses. Ms. Schiess stated they will make sure the tenants are compliant users.

Commissioner Weil mentioned a list of improvements regarding access and lights. The engineers are not in favor of a lot of what is proposed.

Mr. Schiess stated they will collaborate with the City.

Commissioner Quinlan stated he wanted make sure pedestrian safety is addressed. Mr. Schiess stated this is one of their goals.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted to see a target market study and noise study. He thought the residents had reason to be concerned. He could see it as a possible Amazon facility generating more traffic. It is not an industrial area. The hours of operation are critical and a semi could pull up at 10:00 PM. He wanted to know how they would address this. He asked if the docks could be inside so the neighbors did not see the trucks. He appreciated the improvements, but they are being done to facilitate the development. They are not really for the public benefit. He suggested they work with staff and continue to work with the and neighbors and come back for another pre-app. If they can workshop this together they will have a better opportunity to develop something that is appropriate. He wanted to see dimensions and wanted to see context. He did not know of anything that is 41’ high in the neighborhood. Their job is make it best possible development and that means the least impact on the surrounding properties.

Councilman Stolberg stated he was glad to see someone behind this development to get it done. They have seen other applicants and he shook his head and said no thanks. He was glad they put traffic front and center. The last applicant put it last. (unintelligible) He did not know if a traffic light was good or bad and any improvements on that street would be welcomed by the neighborhood. He thought it was important to see the context of the buildings off Ridge. (unintelligible) The police station is very active and taking away spots from their front door will be challenge. (unintelligible) the left turn out in front of the police station and that will (unintelligible) As far as the additional spots is it conducive for police needs and visitors to the safety center. (unintelligible)

H. Resolution approving 2023 Meeting Schedule.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to approve the schedule. Vice Chair Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Kerch.

Ayes: Quinlan, Kerch, Weil, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion passed 6-0.

Chair Hainsfurther (unintelligible) suggested 11th and 25th of July. They will see what the docket looks like and if they have to call a special meeting they will call a special meeting.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Next Regular Meeting – September 20, 2022

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 Vice Chair Moore.

On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 10:45 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2729&Inline=True