City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Dec. 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, Bruckman, Kerch, Moore, Hainsfurther, Hecht
Director Fontane called the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Fontane
Student Rep.: Adriana Mendoza
Corporation Counsel: Marcus Martinez
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Hainsfurther stated that there are no minutes to approve.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Consideration of plat of resubdivision consolidation with variances for 166 Cedar and 980 Dean.
Chair Hainsfurther sought to specify that this was a Public Meeting as opposed to a Public Hearing.
Chair Hainsfurther continued, the matter at hand is a consideration of plat of resubdivision consolidation with variances for 1666 Cedar and 980 Dean Ave.
Planner Burhop presented plan, proposal to consolidate two properties, including new requirements due to two lots being combined into one. Currently there is one home on each lot, one of which would need to be demolished (980 Dean Ave). This is scheduled to b addressed on Thursday with the Historic Demolition Commission. Lot Shape and Property Nonconformity issues are what need to be addressed. Planner Burhop has been in contact with the applicant and it seems that this has been agreed upon and all time restraints are reasonable and possible to meet. All other issues are in compliance.
Chair Hainsfurther asked for clarification on which property would be demolished (Parcel 1). Planner Burhop responded that top property on diagram would be demolished.
Planner Burhop then went through Findings of Fact, including a note from the Forestry, indicating the concern about heritage tree and future development, indicating that there is no problem with the project, but would like to protect the heritage tree in any future plans.
Commissioner Quinlan asked about specifics of what possibilities regarding demolition in regard to code – home, fence, driveway, etc. Planner Burhop indicated that according to code, only the home would need to go – other “accessories” could stay if so desired by applicant.
Commissioner Hecht asked about the stucco coach house. If it can be lived in, then it should be considered a viable structure. Are they in violation of code? Discussion ensued.
Planner Burhop responded that if it is not being used as a home, then it can be considered an accessory. If property has nonconforming rights, then property can continue to be used in this way. That said, there can only be one principal structure on the property. If coach house has a kitchen and bathroom, it would be considered a dwelling and so would have to be demolished.
Chair Hainsfurther suggested letting applicant to address this after staff discussion.
Planner Burhop then referred the master plan for this area of the city and the re-subdivision exhibit. This topic had come up before and he found no graphic (usable records) addressing this structure.
Chair Hainsfurther questioned the possibility of historic preservation commission decides to delay or hold on demolition, what would happen. The committee discussed possible options and scenarios.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if applicant would like to address questions posed.
Marc Lichtman, attorney with law firm Lichtman, Eisen Partners is representing applicant to answer any questions.
Commissioner Hecht asked Mr. Lichtman to address the question of whether the coach house is capable of being considered a dwelling.
Mr. Lichtman did not know that answer but stated that from his experience on the Zoning Board, he understood that if the main house was destroyed, then the coach house would be considered an accessory to either principal home. One option would be to suggest that the structure would not be allowed to be used in that way and enter that into the agreement.
Planner Burhop agreed.
Director Fontane stated that it’s possible to put into the conditions that regardless of whether it can be used as a dwelling, that it would not be used in that way.
Commission Kerch asked about the prospective use of the property.
Corporation Council Martinez stated that there are no problems with using this structure as an additional garage or something of that sort.
Chair Hainsfurther reiterated that using the structure as a garage, etc. is not at issue here. The assurance that this will not be used as another dwelling unit is the concern. The ability exists currently but would not be acceptable (having two dwelling units on one piece of property).
Mr. Lichtman mentioned that if they wanted to use it as a pool house, for instance, that that would be allowable. Chair Hainsfurther agreed that that is a different scenario and that has been acceptable in the past.
Chair Hainsfurther asked for a motion to adopt the Findings of Fact recommending the plat consolidation to the City Council with the condition the coach house not be able to be used as a dwelling.
Commissioner Hecht so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Moore.
Director Fontane called the roll:
Ayes: Quinlan, Bruckman, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsfurther
Nays: None
Motion carried 6-0.
B. Continuation of Public Hearing #2022-SUP-008 – for a special use permit to allow an animal clinic or hospital as appropriate and a continuation of #2022-SPE-001 for a special exception to request off street parking relief to article 8, requirement of the zoning code and waiver of the payment in lieu of for 661 Central Avenue.
Chair Hainsfurther asked Commissioner Hecht if he had a chance to review materials previous to this meeting. Commissioner Hecht responded that he had.
Planner Burhop presented project summary, plan and proposal for occupation of an existing tenant space for care business in central business district, reiterating points that were made in last meeting (included in packet), and stating that area is zoned for situations such as this.
Planner Burhop did note that the properties, 661 Central Avenue and 655 Central Avenue are adjacent and are under common ownership. This is an occupation of an existing space.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if there were any questions from the committee. There were not.
Chair Hainsfurther is concerned about the parking spaces and suggested that the applicant purchase two additional E parking spaces, noting that employees must park in these designated E spaces. He would like to make this a condition of approval – to clarify why they should be required to purchase these spaces for the duration of their lease. Chair Hainsfurther also brought up the topic of front windows (signs or coverings) and specified that these should be under the heading of design review, which they were not discussing tonight. However, that there are very specific rules and standards set for the treatment of these windows and that the applicant must be aware of these.
Chair Hainsfurther went on to discuss easements. Easement cannot be blocked. Also, animals are not to be walked in the back of property. He wants to be sure that having this type of business in this area does not become a nuisance as it operates.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if petitioner had comments or questions. Reuben Warshawsky, lawyer with Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, LLC and appearing on behalf of Hal Frank, the applicant, requested clarification on the parking and stated that he saw this as a covenant issue.
Chair Hainsfurther and Commissioner Hecht discussed possible scenarios to clarify possible situations and options. Chair Hainsfurther wants to be sure that future owners and leasors will be required to have the appropriate amount of spots for the business. Mr. Warshawsky asked about the easement issue. Chair Hainsfurther stated that no, there shouldn’t be a problem with the easement – but he wanted to clarify the situation to be sure. Mr. Warshawsky offered to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Hecht asked for clarification regarding why 7 parking spots were being required here. Mr. Warshawsky acknowledged that the figure was determined by having veterinary services at 1700 sq. ft. with the medical clinic at 1700 sq. ft.
Chair Hainsfurther thanked Mr. Warshawsky and asked if there was anyone present who wanted to comment. Mr. Carey Weiman was sworn in and spoke. Wanted clarification:
∙ Hours of operation.
∙ What happens when one of the animals needs to be cared for overnight? ∙ Is rear entry an expanded use. “Public in and out – dropping off animals, etc.” His concern is that when cars go to drop off things in the back, it will block the easement.
∙ Will dogs be walked in from the front – wants to know how that would work.
He asked to read a statement for the record:
Submittal for meeting regarding objections for vet use of property 1799 Green Bay and adjacent parcel.
#2022 SUP-008 for a special use permit to allow an animal hospital or clinic located at 661 Central Avenue. Carey Weiman on behalf of Chicago Land Trust, land trust #8002370291 dated Jan 25, 2016, owner of 1799 Green Bay, Highland Park. Questioned parking situation as well as traffic issues, noting that it will affect all existing properties, citing specifics, as well as the fact that food products are coming and going, which brought concerns regarding animal feces and the like.
Chair Hainsfurther asked if Mr. Warshawsky would like to respond. Mr. Warshawsky and Mr. Craig Gibson, who had been sworn in at last meeting came to microphone.
Chair Hainsfurther posed questions as follows:
Hours of Operation: Mr. Gibson responded that the plan is to be normal retail hours 8am 6pm weekdays, 8am-1pm likely on Saturday for vet and retail purposes. Retail will also be open 8am-5pm on Sundays.
Animals overnight: Possible one or two animals in vet if necessary. Will not increase business hours. Animals would be kept in crates overnight. May be a vet that comes in to check in, but won’t be there overnight.
Chair Hainsfurther said that Mr. Gibson mentioned last week that customers (not staff) would be using the back door to enter building. Committee expressed discomfort and Chair Hainsfurther suggested that customers always use front door to enter and only staff would use the back. Mr. Gibson expressed that the back entrance has been used by past business (bike shop) and they would really like to be able to use the back entrance as well. Chair Hainsfurther explained his concern: there are two parking spaces and five employees on the property at any given time. Anyone not using those spots would need to have an E permit. Discussion regarding parking…
Vice Chair Moore questioned and asked for clarification regarding whether area in back would indeed be available to customers in certain situations (elderly dog, sick dog, etc.) – Mr. Warshawsky and Mr. Gibson clarified that customer would drop off dog, then be required to move their car (not unlike a hospital setting).
Mr. Gibson asked for clarification: If this vet business were being used in a conforming manner, would they be required to supply 7 parking spots. Chair Hainsfurther responded no, but this is not a conforming use of this space and so it’s been decided that these spaces will be required.
Discussion regarding the easement and who would be able to use it also was and the end result was that as long as the two spots in the back are used for employees, the rest of the space would be able to be used to drop off dogs, etc.
With the two spaces in the back settled on, Mr. Gibson asked about the remaining 5 spaces that they are required to purchase for staff. Chair Hainsfurther clarified that yes, he will be required to purchase 5 more E parking permits. Commissioner Hecht questioned why this would need to be approved. Chair Hainsfurther explained how the purpose is so that employees are not parking in spaces meant for customers, leaving enough parking spots for your customers (and those of your neighbors).
The hows and wherefores about parking spaces were discussed, how they are enforced, are they enforced, etc., and the perils of not enforcing these rules.
It was then addressed as to what the cost for an E permit was. It is $285 per year. Chair Hainsfurther suggested that that should not be a hardship for a business to pay.
Mr. Gibson suggested buying the E permits for his first 7 employees. Chair Hainsfurther questions where any remaining employees would park then – for now, 7 E permits will be plenty, but as the business grows, they will need more.
Councilmember Martinez brings up that determination was brought that a business this size would need 7 parking spots for this type of business. He thinks that they should be able to able to purchase 7 and be done with it.
Vice Chair Moore – many options on how to use the 2 spaces in the back, whether for employees or customers, or a combination of both.
Planner Fontane says that it needs to be clear which it is.
Vice Chair Moore mentions that this is a new way of using this business space and they need to understand all of the implications for that.
Chair Hainsfurther offers Mr. Weiman an opportunity to speak again. Questions non-clarity of signs. He mentioned that signs for Pets for Life went up previous to any discussions. They do not specify for employees or not, but they were up before anything was granted.
Chair Hainsfurther clarifies. They are required to provide 7 parking spaces period. They need to buy 5 E permits for spots that they are not capturing on-site. Signs can go up if they have a lease. They don’t need permission to put signs up – they need permission to run a veterinary clinic. The clinic doesn’t need to address parking for a permitted use. It’s just the veterinary part that needs permission.
Commissioner Kerch questions the time they are spending on the issue of parking.
Commissioner Hecht agreed.
Mr. Wieman clarified that his comments are not geared towards the parking per se. Brought up the hours.
Commissioner Hecht clarified that since Mr. Wieman’s business operates at night, that he is concerned about the amount of cars there at night for the veterinary practice.
Mr. Wieman explained that at times, the space in the back is used by trucks coming and going to deliver/pick up materials for their business. There are certain times that are busier than others. He is concerned that the trucks will have trouble back there due to customers moving in and out of that area. Asked if police could write a ticket on private property.
Corporate Council Martinez stated that the definition for animal hospitals and clinics includes overnight stays.
Chair Hainsfurther suggests figuring out how to handle this issue.
Commissioner Hecht mentioned: Regarding the number of E Permits the applicant will be required to purchase: Request is 7, applicant does not want to provide 7.
Chair Hainsfurther clarifies that the number is 5 (due to the 2 “given” in the back).
Commissioner Hecht verifies that these 7 spots can be used for staff or customers. He’s asking why they are requiring 7 E permits when they do not have to be used by employees.
Chair Hainsfurther says that it’s because they don’t have parking permits and the staff will need to have parking.
Vice Chair Moore responds that it is because they are wanting council to waive the parking in lieu permit fee so this was a way around that.
Commissioner Hecht states that then, the maximum amount required should be 5 since they are providing 2 spots. These are for staff or customers.
Vice Chair Moore agrees.
Chair Hainsfurther suggests that the order is amended to be 5 E permits required, and asks if there are any other amendments to the FOF that should be included.
Chair Hainsfurther seeks a motion to approve the finding of fact recommending approval to Planner Burhop interrupts to ask question of Council Martinez. Planner Burhop wonders if this motion should be included with the SUP or the special exception.
Council Martinez responds that it can only go in the SUP.
Mr. Warshawsky asked to be heard with a question. With the amendment from 7 to 5 spaces, is there a condition in the approval. He wants to ensure that there will be no conditions on the two spots in the back as to how they must be used.
Commissioner Hecht responded that it is a requirement of the approval that they maintain those two spots.
Commissioner Kerch moves approval of the FOF recommending approving of the special use permit with condition that in the PDC FOF and standards are met with granting of relief from the special exception and that the applicant provides 5 E permits for the number of spaces being granted relief for the duration of the lease.
Vice Chair Moore seconded the motion.
Chair Hainsfurther asks if there is any discussion. There is not.
Director Fontane calls the roll.
ROLL CALL
Ayes: Quinlan, Buckman, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsworth
Nays: none
Motion passes 6-0
Motion recommending approval of the special exception for relief from the required parking ordinance.
Moved by Vice Chair Moore, seconded by Commissioner Bruckman
Director Fontane calls the roll.
ROLL CALL
Ayes: Quinlan, Buckman, Kerch, Hecht, Moore, Hainsworth
Nays: none
Motion passes 6-0
Chair Hainsfurther thanks applicant, welcomes him to Highland Park, and suggests that he talk with his neighbor.
Administrative Design Review Update - None
Next Regular Meeting - December 20, 2022
Planner Burhop stated they will have two Public Hearings, including the continuing Wolbright multi-family development and a Public Hearing project from the city. The city will be an applicant for improvements at 1150 Half Day Road called the Salt Dome Project. Not sure about Design Reviews.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Hainsfurther entertained a motion to adjourn so motioned by Commission Hecht, seconded by Vice Chair Moore
On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 8:36 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2796&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up