Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Plan & Design Commission met Nov. 15.

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, Bruckman, Kerch, Moore, Hainsfurther

Members Absent: Hecht

Director Fontane called the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop, Fontane

Student Rep.: Adriana Mendoza

Corporation Counsel: Martinez

Council Liaison: Stolberg

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 18, 2022 Special Meeting

Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2022 meeting. Vice Chair Moore motioned to approve, seconded by Commissioner Bruckman.

On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS

A. Public Hearing #2022-SUP-008 for a Special Use Permit to allow an Animal Clinic or Hospital land use; to include Design Review and zoning variations, as appropriate and #2022-SPE-001 for a Special Exception to request off-street parking relief to Article 8 requirements of the Zoning Code and waiver of payment-in-lieu (661 Central Ave.).

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project summary, neighborhood, zoning review, floor plans, off-street parking, design review, other review and comments and recommendation.

Commissioner Quinlan mentioned the special exception and if they disapprove the use in the B5 and was it an oversight to not make it parking exemption.

Director Fontane stated staff made a recommendation to allow this to be a permitted use and it was chosen by the PDC and Council to make it a conditional use and there were implications regarding other regulations one of which is this. It is before the PDC properly and it is not an oversight.

Chair Hainsfurther stated it allows them to look at the specific request and to opine upon that specific request. He did not think it was an oversight, but a part of doing business.

Commissioner Quinlan asked if grooming was exempt because of the density of downtown but use is not. The traffic appears to be the same.

Director Fontane stated this is a public hearing about the special use permit, not the zoning text amendment.

Mr. Reuben Warshawsky, Attorney, Pets for Life, stated they are asking for a special use permit for a veterinary clinic and for the special exception for off-street parking. Ms. Meg Revord and Mr. Greg Gibson from Pets for Life are present. They are proposing to fill an existing vacancy which has been vacant for quite some time. It will bring strong business to an important part of Highland Park. He wanted to address the parking exception. An analogy was made to a medical clinic of 1700 s.f. A veterinary clinic with only two vets is a much less intensive use. They have agreed to lease two spaces which is one of the reasons for the back door from the same owner who owns the building next to it. It will reduce it from seven to five. There is a lot of parking on the street and they are committed to telling its employees that street parking is not where they will park. There are two municipal lots nearby and they will be parking there. They are committed to monitoring the parking of their employees. There will be plenty of spaces in front and along the street. The former tenant was a bike shop and there was never a problem with parking and it was a more intensive use. There are mitigating factors relating to the parking issue and there should be plenty of parking.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they are leasing two spaces from the owner next to them who currently owns both buildings. He asked if there was a lease that shows how long it runs. He asked if there was a calculation that asks if they can even lease the spaces because they have a required number of spaces and they do not have an excess they do not have the ability to lease spaces to them even if they want to.

Mr. Warshawsky stated they have not made a determination. He had not seen a lease, but the intent would be that they are co-terminus.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted to see a copy of the lease.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he would expect a condition that they will buy E permits for employee parking. If they are going to park in a City lot they have to have an E permit. There have been other developments in the community where there was a parking deficiency and one of the requirements for getting approval was that the developer would buy as many E permits as the deficiency. It was not enough to say their employees are going to park in a City lot. Committing to buying E permits every quarter guarantees that they will park there.

Mr. Warshawsky stated adding a condition to that request is within the purview of the PDC and should they decide it will be a requirement.

Chair Hainsfurther stated this makes it more enforceable.

Councilman Stolberg asked the cost of the E permit.

Director Fontane stated it was on the City’s website.

Ms. Meg Revord, Applicant, stated she and her brother are launching the business and are excited are about the location in Highland Park. They are talking about a vet clinic and they way they think of it is a full service pet care business where owners can serve all of their pet needs in one stop. The grooming services have been curated with trusted vet services. There is a vet who is making sure you are feeding pets correctly and grooming them properly. It is supposed to be a fun experiential setting. There will be educational activities, training and Highland Park is a dynamic community. They have looked at different locations and this is a beautiful spot for this business. They think it is very symbiotic with other businesses around. They have met other neighbors and hope it will be a vibrant part of downtown. It is a new business and have a vet who would like to join them.

Commissioner Kerch stated there was a contention that the additional mass of the clinic would not produce any more traffic than the grooming alone. He asked what evidence they had of that.

Mr. Greg Gibson, Applicant, stated regarding the parking, they have the ability to open a 5000 s.f. grooming facility and the traffic for a grooming facility that might have 20 stalls vs. what they are offering plus two exam rooms. As a retail use, they do not see it exceeding any use in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Kerch stated it is versus if you took the space and made it all retail. He asked about the surgery room and would pets stay overnight.

Mr. Gibson stated the most they would expect would be to have one to two overnights in extreme cases as with any vet practice. They are not planning on it, but it happens. It is not a boarding facility.

Commissioner Bruckman asked if they talked to the neighbors in the surrounding stores and their thoughts.

Mr. Gibson stated they walked door to door and met seven neighbors and they were all excited. It is a dog friendly town and each of the stores let pets in their stores.

Chair Hainsfurther stated in a grooming business people drop their dogs off and then pick them up. The first thing his dog does when he gets out of the car is go to the bathroom. He asked where they would relieve themselves.

Mr. Gibson stated they will have the ability for them to relieve themselves in the basement. There are places around town where they have witnessed dogs relieving themselves. Any pet that is with them for any amount of time would relieve themselves in the facility.

Chair Hainsfurther stated there is a parklet next to it. He asked if it was conceivable for them to put a bag station in the parklet.

Mr. Gibson stated yes and they will have something on the lower level to manage that.

Chair Hainsfurther asked about the number of customers per house for the vet and people waiting for grooming.

Mr. Gibson stated the 15 minute spaces are more for the grooming. For the vet practice they have a maximum of eight per hour.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if this was for one or two vets.

Mr. Gibson stated this was for two vets. They will be starting with one as it will be a startup practice and it will be a slow growth to full capacity.

Chair Hainsfurther asked about the hours of operation.

Mr. Gibson stated for the vet practice it would be 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mon. - Fri. and for Sat. 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The retail would be open on Sun., but not the grooming.

Chair Hainsfurther asked how many groomers there would be.

Mr. Gibson stated there would be 8-10 employees and 3-4 groomers and a retail employee.

Chari Hainsfurther asked if they are required to have one space for every employee. Planner Burhop stated they are not required to meet the requirement.

Mr. Gibson stated the prior use was a 5000 s.f. bike shop with a basement utilized for fitness classes with 15-20 people. There was no parking requirement for them. Parking is the issue they have been most concerned about.

Chair Hainsfurther stated it was for the employees.

Director Fontane stated they took the floor area and divided it based on their plans for the uses they were proposing. The uses otherwise permitted as a P in the code did not require parking for that area. Only vet clinic space was used to calculate the parking requirement and they used a similar parking requirement to do that. It was a medical office because that best matched. That was the logic behind the determination what the use would require. $285 is the annual cost for an E permit.

Mr. Warshawsky stated the expectation is not that people will come in and wait in the retail area while the dogs are being groomed. The expectation is they will drop off their dogs for grooming and shop in the retail area. The grooming can take two to four hours depending on the dog. The expectation is not that they will be maintaining that parking. It will be a transient parking for grooming.

Mr. Hal Emilfarb, 601 Mulberry, Highland Park, IL., stated he owns the property in the alley behind the subject property and have a 9’ easement. The building he owns is 1799 Green Bay which is Studio 1. They have had access to the alley since 1940. He thought this should be shown on the site plan. They seem to have arrangements with the owner next door. He did not see a reason for the public to enter from the back because that would be a problem. They are mentioning fencing, loading and unloading, garbage, etc. They cannot have interference with the 9’ easement or they will go out of business and they relied on getting the easement when they bought the building. When they bought they were given the easement by the Moose and they often use it. They want to make sure there is no dog walking and no public back there. He could understand loading and unloading and would like to see where the fence is going to be and the garbage can.

Chair Hainsfurther asked if the easement was on the north side.

Mr. Emilfarb stated it is on the north side. It is a crowded alley and the easement has to stay open. If they can keep their activities within their area and there is not much room for anything else.

Mr. Warshawsky asked if the easement was exclusive.

Mr. Emilfarb stated it is a shared easement and they have ingress and egress. If they interfere with that then they are interfering with the easement.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they can enter or exit the back area which is permitted. If they park a car in the easement that would be an issue.

Mr. Emilfarb stated he was concerned about the entranceway. The key is having the right conditions. He did not see any fencing and he wanted make sure they respect the easement.

Mr. William Farrell, 675 Central, Highland Park, IL, Architect, stated he was not notified of the project. Regarding the dogs exiting the cars and urinating on the planters, this has to be considered in the design. They mentioned two 15’ loading spaces and he has a restaurant below his office and that has been their primary source of ingress and egress for people picking up lunch.

Ms. Revord stated they want to be good neighbors to all the people around them. They will not be blocking anyone’s access. They want a clean environment and it is a great location and they want to be good neighbors. Regarding the use of the back entrance, that would be an occasional use if a dog needs to be carried. That is not the primary entrance.

Mr. Gibson stated they are not putting up any fencing.

Chair Hainsfurther stated to get the parking exemption they need a unanimous vote. They are short a member and he wanted to give them the opportunity to decide if they want to continue and he wanted to be fair. He wanted to consider the special use and how the PDC wanted to proceed.

Commissioner Kerch motioned to approve and to direct staff to draft findings of fact approving the special use permit. Commissioner Bruckman seconded.

Commissioner Quinlan (unintelligible)

Chair Hainsfurther stated they will do the special use first and then the other. Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion carried 5-0.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he was not comfortable passing or denying the exception because he wanted to see the lease and the calculation on the parking of all the spaces to make sure they are not creating something that does not meet the regulations. At least he wanted staff to see this. He was not prepared to vote tonight. Since they need five votes he recommended continuing until December.

Councilman Stolberg stated he understood they need to come back and would the PDC be alright with approving subject to review so staff could calculate.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they needed to consider recommending whether to waive the payment in lieu. He thought they should require them to buy seven spaces.

Planner Burhop stated seven are required.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he would require for the perpetuity of the lease that they provide that number of E permits on an annual basis for granting the exception for the parking and then they can talk about whether they are willing to recommend they waive the fee.

Director Fontane stated they will prepare the requisite recommendation in draft form. He asked if the condition was that they purchase E permits not in consideration of the waiver, but the special exception.

Chair Hainsfurther stated yes.

Mr. Warshawsky stated with respect to the conditions for the E permits, the issue is if they have employees who are commuting and not parking.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they have to do the whole thing.

Commissioner Kerch asked if it was another impact fee.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they are asking to waive a requirement. The employees have to park somewhere.

Commissioner Kerch stated there is a huge parking structure and he has never seen it full.

Chair Hainsfurther stated those are time limit spaces. Employees are required to have an E permit.

Commissioner Kerch stated it was hard to encourage a growing business in a dense downtown. He thought is was onerous and they did not need this parking requirement. He thought they were making too hard.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he looked at precedent and when there was a parking variance required for a development the developer was required to buy E permits for their employees because the employees had to park in a lot. Rather then put the burden on the employee, they are putting the burden on the business owner. He thought it was a benefit to the employees.

Director Fontane stated he was saying the E permits should be purchased as a condition of granting the special exception not in lieu of the payment in lieu.

Chair Hainsfurther stated waiving the fee in lieu has more impact on the bottom line than requiring them to spend $1500 a year for parking.

Director Fontane asked if he was proposing that be done.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he wanted the parking passes regardless.

Planner Burhop (unintelligible)

Commissioner Kerch asked if it would be an acceptable compromise if he moved to approve this special exemption on the condition they buy five or seven permits as determined but they agree to waive the payments.

Commissioner Kerch so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Moore.

Vice Chair Moore stated requiring them to pay the parking fee of $15,000 per space is onerous especially when they are trying to refill downtown. They need to encourage that the employees park in a lot.

Chair Hainsfurther stated the motion is to approve the exception with the condition they buy the permits and to recommend to Council they waive the fee in lieu.

Commissioner Quinlan mentioned Attachment 6 - Special Exception and asked if those were the 12 exceptions since 2000. He asked how many were requested.

Planner Burhop stated these were the only 12 he could find.

Commissioner Quinlan stated he was trying to get a sense of how often this comes up based on the types of uses allowed in B5.

Director Fontane stated it is a change in use to a permitted use and this does not apply. Commissioner Quinlan asked if there was a table in the code where he could see this use. Planner Burhop stated it is in Section 150 which talks about a permitted use. Director Fontane stated a permitted use is different than a conditional use.

Councilman Stolberg asked if it said something about the use must be equal or less intense.

Planner Burhop stated in the case of Section 150 where it talks about a permitted use if a permitted use is replacing a conforming use it says even if the permitted use has a greater requirement it still does not have to.

Director Fontane called the roll:

Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Moore, Hainsfurther

Nays: None

Motion passed 5-0.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they needed a continuation of the public hearing. Planner Burhop stated it would be December 6, 2022.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue to December 6, 2022. Vice Chair Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Bruckman.

On a voice vote the motion carried unanimously.

B. Public Hearing #2022-PUD-009 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final Planned Development for a 24-unit multi-family development; Design Review and Plat of Consolidation; and zoning and subdivision variations for height, stories, setbacks, maximum lot coverage, burial of utility lines, and other requests as appropriate, including lighting, landscaping and off-street parking (636, 640 and 650 Walnut St. and 0, 1606 and 1622 Oakwood Ave.).

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project summary, zoning map, neighborhood, site plan, building and site design, zoning - variations or clarifications needed, zoning review, public benefit, applicant setback relief, subdivision review, elevations, neighborhood heights, parking, landscaping, lighting, City comments and recommendation.

Vice Chair Moore mentioned on packet page 43 where it talks about the total lot allowance is 33.3% and they are requesting 49% for an additional 15.7% of the total lot. They are asking to increase the allowance by 47%.

Mr. Eliot Wiczer, Attorney, stated the PDC was familiar with Fulton Developers and they understand the community. They have developed projects at the Laurel Ct. Townhomes, Laurel Apts., Laurel Residence and are completing One Highland Park and recently received approval for the Park Sheridan project. They have a lot of experience in developing in Highland Park. He mentioned One Highland Park and one of the biggest things about development is height. The developer was able to step back the fourth floor and when you stand in front of the project it is hard to see. This project is a PUD which gives the PDC some say so in terms of what the project will look like. This project can be built as of right and you can build on this land as of right. From a density standpoint you would be looking at 35 units and probably an apartment building because of the number of units. Instead of underground ground parking there would probably be outdoor paved parking. Instead the developer wants to go through the PUD process in exchange for the public comments. There are gives and takes in terms of the PUD on zoning relief, etc. that these developments seek. These are the types of variations for a PUD that are typical. They do not take them lightly and the are common types of variations. Fulton is very keen on community outreach and they sent 300 notices to neighbors affected and 25 people attended the meeting. They made a presentation and comments were made. They take those comments seriously and they were incorporated into the development. They also Zoomed with several people. Some people came to the office and requested information. At the pre-app there was good exchange an those comments were incorporated into the plans. There was discussion about public benefit and the Housing Commission approved this 6-0. They engaged a traffic study which was very comprehensive and they rate the impact from A to F and there is no increase in traffic impact based on this development.

Mr. Mark Muller, Fulton Developers, stated the had pre-app in September and he wanted to go over some of the things that were discussed. They have been doing projects in North Shore for 20 years and this will be their sixth multi-family development in Highland Park. In March they received a positive recommendation from the PDC regarding the Park Sheridan project. They started construction a few weeks ago and are about to start pouring the concrete foundation. He mentioned Laurel Court, Laurel Apartments and Laurel Residences. There were some homes in not good shape in that part of town. They have recently completed construction of One Highland Park which is one building south of the proposed development. Wolbright is their latest project which they have been working on for over one year. It has four stories, 21 market rate units and 3 affordable units. It will have a club room, fitness room, club and patios with seating and lounge areas. It will have an underground heated garage with storage. They would be allowed to build up to 35 units and they are proposing 24. Their intention is to create a development that maximizes the open space, landscaping and creates ample natural light. They want to be sure they can provide a project that could have two parking spaces for each unit. The property consists of the consolidation of six lots and was acquired in February 2020 and the last one in April 2021. For two years they tried to acquire the property at the corner of Walnut and Oakwood but they were not successful. They designed a project that breaks down the mass into several corners emphasizing the open space and landscaping. The proposed material is natural stone. It is similar to several buildings nearby. The rest of the material will be metal cladding and composite wood. The outer space is a priority and they have incorporated large terraces or patios for each of the units. They have also done this for the affordable units. They have incorporated outer common areas. They are seeking zoning relief and one of the components is the height. What they are proposing is comparable to the one granted for One Highland Park. For that project they received a variance relief in height for the fourth floor of just over 4’ and the fourth floor was set back and they are proposing a similar configuration to minimize the height of the building. The required open space is 20%, but they are proposing over 30%. In order to achieve this additional open space and landscaping they are locating the three units on the top of the building set back from both sides. One Highland Park is located within the RM1 district. This project is within the RM2 district and provides for a more dense development. The buildings nearby are four- and five story buildings. They did studies to step back the fourth floor to minimize the mass and bulk. The lot is triangular and it was a challenge to find a way to locate the building and that is why they need some relief for the setbacks. They are respecting the setback along Oakwood and Walnut. The entire building is behind the 25’setback. LaSalle has very little traffic where they propose the setback they are showing on the image. Some of the existing structures are right on the public sidewalk with no setback, they felt that having the building set back on LaSalle with landscaping and open space will be an improvement to the existing conditions. On the image the buildings in red are the existing buildings and they are right on the property line on LaSalle. A typical lot coverage for a multi-family in Highland Park is approximately 50%. The three projects they did along Laurel have a lot coverage of 50% and they proposing 49%. They have included the landscape plan showing the additional of 74 new trees. They made a few changes to engineering plans and will make adjustments to take care of comments from the Engineering Dept. and traffic study. The lighting and photopmetrics were submitted. They were asked to minimize impervious surface and they changed the handicapped parking to permeable pavers. There was a patio on the north side which they have converted to a landscape area. They made some revisions to the garage to make it easier to maneuver. They are proposing to include three affordable units on site. They sent a letter to over 300 neighbors. They answered questions and received calls. There was not a strong objection to the relief sought as long as they increased the public benefit. They are proposing as the public benefits the four components Planner Burhop went over and one was to add a public sidewalk along Walnut, replace the sidewalk on Oakwood and LaSalle and to include a $7500 donation to the downtown streetscape amenity project and $50,000 to the housing trust.

Commissioner Quinlan asked about the power lines and proposed locations.

Mr. Muller stated they met with Com Ed and these power lines are feeding buildings that are not part of their parcel and are part of Com Ed’s grid. They would not be able to remove the power lines without adding new ones. They have so much equipment that they cannot just remove it without adding new power lines.

Commissioner Quinlan stated he was looking for the location.

Commissioner Kerch mentioned the trash bin and why is it encroaching on the setback and why can’t it be somewhere else.

Mr. Muller stated they are willing to push it further back so it is not encroaching in the front setback.

Mr. Kyle Fell, Fulton Developers, stated this is a hold over area for trash and the main trash facilities are held underground garage area and there is a trash area for the dumpsters.

Commissioner Kerch asked if it was Lake Shore that wants to pick up on Walnut instead of LaSalle.

Mr. Muller stated they will pick up wherever they place the dumpsters. The dumpsters ae kept inside the building and taken out once a week for pick up. They plan to push them further back so they are not so close to the sidewalk.

Chair Hainsfurther asked who rolls the dumpsters out to the corral.

Mr. Fell stated the maintenance man.

Commissioner Kerch stated there was a question in the City report about the sewers and manhole covers and a response that they have changed the sewer hookups.

Mr. Muller stated there was a comment regarding the water line. They wanted them to not tap into the main without having a manhole and also for the a sanitary line. They have made these changes and they will continue working with the engineer.

Commissioner Kerch stated it would be a public benefit to have an upgrade to the sewer lines in that area.

Mr. Muller stated the have modified the plans and their intention is to comply with requirements from the Engr. Dept.

Commissioner Kerch stated the Housing Commission required them to upgrade one of the affordable units to a three-bedroom.

Mr. Fell stated when they went before the Housing Commission they put 20-30% extra square footage in all of the units and that is why it was easily changed to a three bedroom.

Commissioner Kerch asked about protecting the trees during construction.

Vice Chair Moore stated the trash needed to be moved away from the sidewalk and she was glad to see they were going to do that. She asked looking at the garage map and the spaces and guest space 01 and regular space 01 and she did not understand how you could get into since it was right next to the entry and wall. The ADA space is a little far away from the door. She did not know if there was a requirement for how close it needs to be to the door. They have been comparing the height of the building in stories to the neighborhood nearby. She would like to see the actual height of the buildings. It seems like that is the number they need to compare to.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he had concerns about functionality of the garage parking. He was concerned about cars that are backing out and do they have enough room. He mentioned spaces 30 and 25 and they would not be able to turn the car without running in to the wall to back out. The trash enclosure has to be removed from the front yard and he did not want to see it in the required front yard. If he lived on Walnut and was walking down the street he would not want to see the trash enclosure. It needs to go in the back of the house which seems to be LaSalle. He had concerns about the handicapped space and grade and it is a long way away from the entrance to the space and they are supposed to be as close to the entrance as possible. He was concerned about someone coming up the ramp and leaving and someone trying to get out of that space. The turning radius is not great. Most of the people who buy these units are not necessarily 20 years old and do not have the reactions they used to have. There a lot of seniors and they have to be able to accommodate slower reaction times. He mentioned a bike storage room and thought even if it means getting rid of one of the tandem spaces it would be a good thing to do that. He appreciated what they proposing for the public benefit, but he did not think it captured what the discussion was at the pre-app meeting. At the Park Sheridan it is quite a bit below what they were able to build by right. This means they do not get the affordables the would have had they developed it to the maximum allowed in terms of density. He thought this was what Councilman Stolberg meant when he said what did we miss out in approving Park Sheridan that they could have had with more density. He did not understand how they are not required to install a public sidewalk in any frontage. To him that is not a public benefit. He would rather see money spent on affordable housing than anything else. He would rather see them take $150,000. They are under where they could have been and there is a need for affordable housing in the community and the only way they are going to be able make it up is by either building to the maximum density or getting payment for the affordable housing units they are not realizing. They need to take a look at the public benefit and there is a lot of relief they are asking for. He mentioned engineering and they rely on the City to tell them what is allowed from an engineering standpoint. They will need to meet all requirements that Public Works and the Engineering Dept. place on the development. They cannot change drainage pattern and cannot let water run across the neighbors’ property. They want to protect the ravines and make sure they are not increasing flooding and he trusted the Engineering Dept. to do that.

Commissioner Quinlan asked if they could open Google maps and zoom in on Walnut and Second St. in the aerial with the painted crosswalks. He mentioned pedestrian safety and there concrete pavers on the north side of Walnut that intersect on both corners. They will be adding the sidewalk on the southern end and there is a painted crosswalk on the western side and there is an opportunity for a painted sidewalk on the eastern as well. The vehicular entrance and exit will be to the west. He did not see a lot in the maps that encompassed the crosswalks.

Mr. Muller that is part of their plan to add the crosswalks going to the east side of Second St.

Director Fontane stated for the public benefit the applicant has proposed $50,000 as an additional payment to affordable housing. There is the delta between what could be and what is being proposed in terms of the number of units. The difference between the two was 1.8. He mentioned $150,000 and these are not just random numbers. Their leverage ratio is for every $85,000 they grant they can leverage a unit. They take the grant money and get additional funds from other sources. The $150,000 is roughly the delta that would be the 1.8.

Planner Burhop stated there were two written comments that came in late that were not posted in the packet and will be posted in a future packet.

Director Fontane stated they talked about the sidewalks and affordable housing and is the interest more on the affordable housing. Does that mean that the PDC is not as concerned what is being done in terms of the sidewalks.

Chair Hainsfurther stated his feeling was he would prioritize affordable housing over anything else.

Mr. Steven Pike, 1547 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL, stated the project will exceed the maximum lot coverage by 33% and this will be 49%. He was concerned the impervious surface will increase from 14,500 s.f. to less than 25,500 s.f. which is an increase of one quarter acre. These figures are based on the situation that all of the lots have houses and are maxed out at 33%. Two of the three largest lots have no buildings on them and are permeable. The project will increase the impervious coverage much more than is happening now. He asked the PDC to consider the current situation as the base line. Stormwater runoff from the project goes into ravine #7. Developments on Oakwood, Mulberry and the train station parking lot have each incrementally caused the watershed to be less permeable. The master plan for the lakefront speaks about avoiding zoning variances for lot coverage and limiting impervious surfaces as a way to control volume and velocity of stormwater. This is to prevent erosion in ravines. Filing a variance goes against the recommendation of the master plan. Nearly the entire area bounded by Green Bay, Walnut, Oakwood and both sides of LaSalle will be impervious, removing a significant amount of permeable land. The current watershed drainage system cannot handle anymore runoff. They are not at or have exceeded the capacity. He saw the affects of this in increased flooding at the intersection of St. Johns, Mulberry and Sheridan. Water can cover the entire intersection and top the curb and sidewalks. This creates an unsafe traffic condition. The situation has worsened since One Highland Park was completed. East of his house is the ravine which is experiencing erosion due to increased water flow. There are parts of the sanitary sewer line that are exposed. Repairs have been made to washed out sanitary lines and manholes. This project impacts stormwater entering the ravine he asked the PDC to consider the input from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Ms. Gail Shaps, One Highland Park, Highland Park, IL, and they have three affordable units and they are welcome in the building. In their building the paid millions for their condos and they paid a couple hundred thousand. When they need things done it puts a strain on the people in affordable housing. With more affordable housing the strain is going to get higher. It gets more difficult as the price of condos gets higher and makes it more difficult for the affordables. She was told the electricity does not go off very often and she wanted to make sure it will not affect the power. She thought there should be more street parking available.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he has lived in Highland Park for 39 years and it goes out more often than they would like to see. It is not up to the developer to provide the electric. That is a Com Ed question. It is wind and snow and squirrels that cause it to go out. Street parking is what it is and they cannot create additional street parking and is not a developer problem. There are lots for the trains close to the development and not many people park there now. He suggested she attend a Council meeting with questions.

Mr. Kevin Cullather, 1549 Green Bay, Highland Park, IL, and received a letter for this project. Everyday he sees a four-story building behind his house and he fought it when they did it they and they are trying to do it again. He has a different solution which is if

Fulton Developers is given the variance for the height limit it could be a net zero building. This will support the governor’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emission and go carbon free. It will help Highland Park meet the goals set when it signed onto a cap to reduce greenhouse gases. Studies from the Brookings Institute stated it will take an effort from communities around the world. Every climate zone in the USA can be net zero. He has provided documents and if the residents who purchase into the new building are similar to those who moved into One Highland Park they will appreciate a net zero energy building that is built to the highest standards and will save them from dealing with Com Ed in outages. He was the former Senior Policy Manager of the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. It will help the affordable owners as well as the other residents.

Mr. Rick Atterbury, 1660 First St., Highland Park, IL, stated he had a letter and there are references to drawings in the letter that are not accurate because it was based on the information in the packet of the earlier meeting. They are talking about the heights of the buildings, especially to the north. They are in a different zoning category in RO north of Walnut and they are RM. So it is talking apples and oranges. It is relevant from aesthetics, but for the zoning it is a completely different category. He mentioned the power lines and has a background in emergency management downstate and was a public information officer. Burying power lines is not a matter of aesthetics, but an important step in securing a community against extended power outages. They have the opportunity to have those power lines buried. It is a red herring for Com Ed to say they have a lot of equipment there and it will be a hassle for us. On the temporary signs on one of the maps submitted on the northwest corner of Walnut and First they said they were going to put sidewalk closed and there is no other side. There is no sidewalk on the east side of First. So they are sending you to a grass bank and a bush and if you follow the angle of the curb cut they are sending you to the middle of the driveway to the train station. Details matter and that is a safety issue. Since the corner lot is not involved the sign could be moved on the other side of Walnut.

Ms. Ruth Freer, 1660 First St., Highland Park, IL, stated she was concerned about traffic ad safety. The point of entry and exit on Walnut is unnecessary and dangerous. The building could empty out using other alternates. Her window is by the corner of Walnut and First. Her grandson comes over and they count the cars and 1 in 10 cars stops. Having 24 more families and all the service vehicles enter and exit on Walnut which is already narrow and overworked and it will snarl the very bad traffic situation. She did not believe the study and she sees it everyday. Walnut, Oakwood and first are not just streets. They serve functions beyond the community. Oakwood is a shortcut into downtown. Adding more traffic would put stress on Walnut and cause a lot of extra traffic. Ambulances, fire trucks and police cars – this is where they come. Adding extra traffic would not help and if people are trying to get into their condo and stopping traffic on Walnut is a disaster. They are making it dangerous to walk. The entrance and exit could be on LaSalle. Consider entering one way and exiting another way. Behind her building they have zero guest parking. They are off the alley and they have the option of going out on Walnut or on Laurel. They were told by the City there is a dangerous exit on Laurel. The only way they can have a direct exit is onto Walnut. Walnut and Oakwood serve a lot of purposes and this could be altered so the burden is shared. She thought it was time to channel the traffic away from an already crowded and dangerous area.

Mr. Mark Rosen, stated he was in favor of the project and it will be an improvement. He was concerned about traffic and if you look at the Google map Walnut is only a block long and goes from Green Bay right through to Oakwood. There is plenty of traffic in the morning and there is more traffic than you think. He thought the exit and entrance should come out on LaSalle.

Ms. Gail __________ , 1633 Second St., Highland Park, IL. She wanted reiterate what Ms. Freer and Mr. Rosen said and also comment on the traffic study. When she looked at the maps on the traffic study LaSalle was on the map. This means they did not consider having the traffic go in and out onto LaSalle. She wanted the traffic study reissued and thought there is a lot more traffic.

Ms. Beth Russell, Walnut & Second St., Highland Park, IL, stated her unit looks at the intersection and there is a lot of traffic. She was concerned with the study and where the driveway is out onto Walnut. It is very close to Green Bay between Second and Green Bay. Walnut is an emergency access for the First Dept. They see the fire trucks and ambulances all day long. She was concerned with the driveway where it is located they are going to have the refuse trucks going in and out and people emerging and not looking and she felt there was a liability to have the driveway so close to Green Bay off Walnut.

She agreed with the other residents that LaSalle is a quiet street and have the owners go around the block and have the refuse trucks and it would not interfere with any traffic.

Mr. William Farrell, Highland Park, IL, stated he agreed about the refuse container. The handicapped space can be located in the garage area if the developer choses to expand one of the spaces in order to incorporate that space. If it does need to be outside then it needs to be pulled off the sidewalk. The developer stated he revised the landscape plan and there is no landscape between the handicapped space and the sidewalk. Regarding the height, the developer has referenced One Highland Park and he looked at the heights. The developer was very sensitive to that at the time and did an overhang in front that hides it. He also kept the height of the penthouses down to 10’-11’ ceiling height. The plan is lacking some information in the building sections that would help the PDC analyze and determine whether the proposed ceiling heights proposed create a hardship and are they consistent with other developments in the community. These penthouses have anywhere from a 12’ to 15’ ceiling. They also have large overhangs that project out from the stepped back façade of this building. Going down Oakwood there is a lot of Ravinia traffic in the summer that goes to overflow parking and a lot of people go west and east on Walnut going to the train station in the morning. The view of this building from the corner from the train station will be a visual look and to have a two-story complex on the corner an a 42’ high building within 15’ of each other is going to be a challenge aesthetically. The corner should be stepped back and a study in the landscape materials to create a buffer. Fulton Developments are aesthetically pleasing and this piece will be a new, modern piece for the town which is a breath of fresh air from what has been built in the last couple of years. The thought the developer should correct some of the inconsistencies in the plan. The side walk will wipe out the two to three trees in front.

Mr. Wiczer suggested they can continue.

Commissioner Kerch asked why they chose the entrance and exit on Walnut and not LaSalle.

Chair Hainsfurther stated there is a hammerhead to LaSalle and he did not know why it ends the way it does. It is offset in a way that potentially could cause a traffic issue. As was pointed out they need to understand why that condition has to exist he way it does.

Mr. Muller stated when they started the project they had the access to the garage off LaSalle and the Forester mentioned the tree to the left of the building is a heritage tree and they decided to change it to Walnut. The other reason is a difference in grade and there is a shorter distance between the ramp and LaSalle and in order to go down that depth they could not make it work and they did not want to kill the tree.

Commissioner Quinlan asked may units are in Park Sheridan.

Mr. Muller stated 20 units.

Chair Hainsfurther stated they need to a look at the entrance and he appreciated the Forester’s opinion. Somehow there has be to a way to work it out. He was not comfortable with it where it is currently located because he was concerned about and maybe it is question of traffic. On Second there is a major thoroughfare that is 75’ wide. The 25’ approach looks like it is smaller. The comment about making sure everything agrees and is consistent is important to address. There needs to be more thought and discussion about public benefit.

Councilman Stolberg stated traffic is always the biggest concern in any development. It is important to understand that when applicant commissions a traffic study and it tries to address is the change that the project will create. When people talk about the existing traffic conditions that is not what they look at in the traffic study. They look at how the proposed development is going to change what is already existing. That is what the report is based on. They have talked about lots of traffic in that area and are aware of the emergency vehicles. With any development it is not the existing conditions, but any changes that the project creates above and beyond what is there. That is where they grade it from A to F.

Chair Hainsfurther stated he was not concerned about the additional traffic, but the potential for conflict. Are they creating a dangerous situation and because they have this approach and part of it they are mitigating but are they creating a problem. He could see someone making a left out of the development and it is arrowed with right in right out only, but arrows are meaningless. Maybe they need to put a pork chop in so people are forced. They have to figure a way to make it safer whether is it putting it on LaSalle or physical restrictions. He asked what can they do to make it physically as difficult as possible to cause a problem. The better solution is to try and get them out on LaSalle.

Commissioner Quinlan stated they are trying to address crashes. On page 11 of Move HP there is a map that takes data from the City and State and lays it out in Highland Park. If this were updated it would be nice to have.

Chair Hainsfurther asked how long they needed to make the modifications that will allow them to come back.

Director Fontane stated December 20, 2022 is the next available meeting. Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue to December 20, 2022.

Mr. Muller stated that was acceptable.

Ms. Shaps stated if they are going to change to LaSalle will the people on LaSalle get notice.

Chair Hainsfurther stated there will be a packet posted on the Friday before the meeting. They will not get a written notice. It will be continued on open session.

Councilman Stolberg stated they received notice of the public meeting. As long as this meeting remains open the notice is actual.

Director Fontane stated the sign will remain on the property.

Planner Burhop stated if neighbors have concerns they can call him or email to make inquires about the meeting.

Chair Hainsfurther motioned to continue to December 20, 2022. Vice Chair Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Quinlan.

C. Public Hearing #2022-ZTA-001 for a Zoning Text Amendment to modify Chapter 150, the Zoning Code, to add regulations pertaining to required bicycle parking standards, vehicle parking reductions for developments providing bicycle parking, internal parking lot pedestrian circulation systems, and requiring development connectivity to existing/planned trails and multi-use paths.

Director Fontane stated this item will be renoticed.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Informational Item - 2023 PDC Work Plan

Director Fontane stated each year they prepare the budget and there was a public hearing and there will be a formal vote on it. This is sent as an informational item and the budget document has commission budgets as part of it. There is Community Development and the commissions each have their own budgets.

B. Administrative Design Review Update - None

Planner Burhop stated staff will up date the PDC as to administrative design reviews at every meeting on a monthly basis.

Chair Hainsfurther stated staff has the ability to approve design reviews for a limited scope projects.

Director Fontane stated the idea was so the PDC would know it was a design review approval.

C. Next Regular Meting - December 6, 2022

Planner Burhop stated they will have findings of fact for the SUP continued to that meeting. There will be one plat of consolidation and several design reviews.

D. Case Briefing

Director Fontane stated Hidden Oak was approved. They have been working with the Building Div. to get their drainage and grading permit started. They do not have house plans.

Director Fontane stated Council adopted a resolution to deny the Mueller item for the special use permit.

Chair Hainsfurther stated Mr. Mueller has agreed to construct the service facility with the same concessions that were agreed to in front of the PDC. Now there is no storage.

Director Fontane stated there is still a design review approval and they are taking the revisions that were made and they are looking at those as an administrative matter.

VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Moore so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Quinlan.

On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 10:15 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2775&Inline=True