Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2016/10/12 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the October 12, 2016 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Ley, Commissioners Michael Freeman, Tim Henry, Lloyd Culbertson, Guy Berg, Monica Ruggles and Rosemary Kehr Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Ley introduced the members of the Commission and City staff. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the September 14, 2016 meeting. The minutes of the September 14, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of amending the “Environment chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to include elements of the recently drafted Sustainability Plan. Presented by: Chuck Myers, Superintendent of Parks, Forestry and the Cemetery, City of Lake Forest Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this matter and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Myers introduced the agenda item noting that the City’s 2013 – 2018 Strategic Plan recommended that a Sustainabil ity Plan be developed to identify community priorities and guide future decisions. He explained that to achieve the goal, the City requested assistance from the Lake Forest Collaborative for Environmental Leadership (LFCEL). He stated that LFCEL was formed in 2013, as a partnership of community institutions; the City, Lake Forest College, School Districts 115 and 67 and Lake Forest Open Lands’ Association, for the purpose of educating the community about and engaging residents in environmentally sustainable actions. He stated that the process of developing the plan began with reviews of Sustainability Plans developed by other cities, agencies and by Lake County. He stated that next; LFCEL conducted a survey of local residents to solicit ideas around which to build a sustainable vision and establish goals. He stated that over 400 responses to the survey were received and over 80 percent of the respondents agreed that the community should have a Sustainability Plan. He added that the survey Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 20 indicated that three out of five respondents want to be more engaged in sustainability efforts. He stated that as the draft plan took shape, LFCEL hosted two community forums and the College and the high school held forums as well. He stated that based on the input, the draft plan was developed around five themes: stormwater management, water use, ecosystem vitality, ravine conservation, waste management, renewable energy, and transportation and air quality. He stated that the draft Sustainability Plan, which establishes a vision and goals, was presented to the City Council in August. He stated that the City Council directed the Plan Commission to consider the appropriateness of incorporating the sustainable vision and goals into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Czerniak explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is a guiding document. She clarified that the plan does not mandate any specific actions or establish any regulations, but instead, sets out an overall vision and is intended to guide long term decisions related to operations, development, business, community amenities and character, and to factor into budget decisions as may be applicable. She stated that it is appropriate that the work done by LFCEL be memorialized by incorporation of the vision and goals into the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the last complete re-write of the City’s Comprehensive Plan occurred in 1998 and noted that since then, a number of amendments to the Plan have been made. She stated that she expects that within the next couple years, staff will request approval from the City Council to review the overall Comprehensive Plan to allow the later amendments, such as the goals related to sustainability, to be incorporated more fully into the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. She stated that the Plan Commission is responsible for considering and holding a public hearing on any amendments proposed to the Comprehensive Plan. She stated staff support for incorporating the vision and goals from the Sustainability Plan into the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that if the Commission determines that it is appropriate to do so, a recommendation along those lines should be forwarded by the Commission to the City Council. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Myers provided some background on recycling activity in the City and reviewed some of the efforts in recent years to reduce waste that goes to the landfill and increase the volume of recycling. He stated that the recycling rate in the community at the time the plan was developed was around 40% and that it has risen since then. He stated that the community is moving in the right direction with recycling. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Myers stated that consideration of how to increase opportunities for recycling in public areas, such as in Market Square, is under consideration. He stated that the efforts will try to strike the proper balance between increasing the visibility of recycling receptacles and being sensitive to the aesthetic impact of receptacles. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that implementation of some of the goals could impact the cost of construction. She stated that the City Council could direct consideration of amendments to sections of the City’s Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 20 building codes in response to the sustainable vision and goals and noted that those types of changes would be considered through a separate public review process. She noted that if there are any of the goals that the Commission feels are not appropriate for the community, those should be discussed by the Commission and any concerns forwarded to the City Council. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. Ms. Cain, representing the League of Women Voters, stated that the League is pleased that City is supporting the Sustainability Plan adding that the League looks forward to participating in discussions about implementation of strategies to achieve the goals in the Plan. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley invited comments, discussion or a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the vision and goals of the Sustainability Plan into the Environment Chapter. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kehr. Chairman Ley commended the work of the Collaborative in preparing the Sustainability Plan. He stated that the Plan is well done and easy to understand. He stated that he looks forward to using the goals in the consideration of matters that come before the Commission in the future. The motion was approved by a 7 to 0 vote. 4. Public Hearing and Action: Continued consideration of a conceptual overall redevelopment plan for the area east of McKinley Road, south of Westminster and consideration of a request for approval of a plat of consolidation, an access easement, road circulation layout and the first phase (first building) of the proposed multi-family residential development project. The first phase involves all or portions of properties currently addressed as 711, 721 and 725 McKinley Road. Owners: 711 McKinley LLC (Peter Witmer and Todd Altounian), 721 McKinley LLC (Todd Altounian and Jim Altounian) and 725 McKinley LLC (Todd Altounian, Peter Witmer and Jerry Jacks) Representative: Peter Witmer, architect Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this matter and invited a presentation from the petitioner. He noted that this is the third time the Commission is hearing information on this project. He opened the public hearing. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 20 Mr. Witmer introduced the agenda item noting that he will talk about the overall area, which includes the 711, 721 and 725 McKinley Road properties and the City owned 361 Westminster property first; and then focus on the project that is now before the Commission for action. He stated that in response to a request at the last Commission meeting, he explored a plan that locates the north/south road along the east property line. He presented a concept plan noting that locating the road along the east property line compromises the existing single family home to the east by adding a road on a third side of the property. He noted that the road would also compromise the new single family lot proposed on the north end of the City property, again, by creating a lot that is adjacent to a road on three sides. He noted that a driveway for the 333 Westminster building would need to be extended to the east to reach the new north/south road and pointed out that the guest parking for the 333 building would need to be reconfigured. He pointed out that with the road on the east side of the site, the relationship between the larger of the proposed condominium buildings, and the smaller building to the east, would be tight and would eliminate the opportunity for private spaces for the units in the easternmost building since the building would likely front on to the street and face the existing single family homes to the east. He acknowledged that with the road on the east perimeter, there could be an increased opportunity for open space internal to the site. He reviewed the revised preferred site plan. He explained that the open space was increased from the previous plan and pointed out the improved pedestrian connections throughout the area. He noted that the size of the open space could be increased by narrowing the road connection to the Library and allowing only one-way through traffic. He noted that input from the Library is needed on that issue. He noted that in the preferred plan, a single family lot is created at the north end of the City property, with a 40 foot setback from Westminster. He stated that a single family home fits naturally into the streetscape at this location. He pointed out that in the preferred plan, the access for the 333 Westminster building remains unchanged with access off the City alley to the underground garage and guest parking. He reviewed the proposed plat of consolidation of the 721 and 725 McKinley Road properties. He noted that egress to the building on the consolidated parcel would be from an east/west easement on the 711 McKinley Road property. He stated that no change to or development on the City parcel is proposed as part of the construction of the first building. He reviewed the proposed setbacks for the first building noting that the building conforms to the 25-foot front yard setback with the face of the building located 29 feet from the front property line along McKinley Road. He explained that the balconies on the building currently proposed are cantilevered out from the building and project two feet into the front yard setback to provide 6-foot wide, useable balconies. He reviewed the relationship of the proposed building to the 333 Westminster building and to the street noting the consistency between the two buildings. He noted that the side yard setbacks for the proposed building exceed the 5 foot side yard setback requirement noting that there is a 15-foot setback on the north side and a 21 foot setback on the south side. He provided an east/west section through the site noting the three foot change in elevation that occurs over the east/west length of the site. He stated that the roof is at 33 feet with the parapet wall and railing rising above that height. He pointed out the penthouses, roof top units and Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 5 of 20 override for the elevators and explained that the parapet wall and railing will hide views of the roof top elements similar to what occurs on the 333 Westminster building. Ms. Czerniak noted that the Commission has discussed this redevelopment proposal over the course of the last several meetings. She noted that the Commission’s role is to consider an overall development plan for the area and consider approvals required for construction of the first building. She stated that unlike a subdivision, this project does not involve complicated engineering plans, wetlands, tree removal or detention ponds. She stated that as presented, a variance from the front yard zoning setback along McKinley Road is requested along with a height variance to accommodate the change in grade over the site and to screen roof top equipment. She explained that the developer could have proceeded with redevelopment of the 721 and 725 McKinley Road parcels without the larger discussion about the overall area however; the City encouraged the developer to pause to allow discussion about a master plan for the larger area which could be achieved over the long term. She stated that as a result, future residents of the area, the Library, the community and the City will likely benefit. She reviewed that at the last meeting, the Commission expressed general support for preserving some land for the benefit of the Library, as did the City Council in recent discussions, and support for looking at the area as a whole to provide some certainty for the later phases of development in the area. She noted that the Commission also expressed general support for creating a single family or duplex lot on the north end of the City property, fronting on Westminster. She stated that the Commission asked that consideration be given to locating the north/south road along the east side of the City parcel. She noted that today, the Library uses parking spaces on the south portion of the City property for overflow parking. She noted that the circulation to and through that area is not ideal. She explained that if land is reserved for the benefit of the Library, the Library Board and staff would take the lead on determining how the property would be used to improve the operation of the Library site and provide some separation between the Library and the new development. She reviewed the proposed access for the first building noting that an access easement would be located along the north side of the 711 McKinley Road property to create a new east/west road into the area. She stated that the three curb cuts on to McKinley Road will be reduced to a single curb cut as proposed. She stated that other than the access easement and road, no other changes are proposed at this time for the 711 McKinley Road property or for the City property. She added that the construction of the first building would be consistent with the preferred plan presented by the petitioner for the overall area. She stated that if the City property is reconfigured and incorporated into the development, further review by the Commission will occur in the future. She noted that since the last meeting, the Building Review Board began its review of the first building to consider design, massing, exterior materials, landscaping and lighting. She stated that the Board provided direction and noted that the petitioner is working to further refinement the architectural design and massing of the building. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that after the first building is constructed, the developer could choose to sell off the 711 McKinley Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 6 of 20 Road property with the easement as an encumbrance on the property. She stated that the development, even under a different ownership, would be guided by the overall master plan for the area, assuming that the Plan Commission and City Council approve an overall plan as part of the ongoing process. She acknowledged that the current or a future developer could seek modifications to the plan through a public process at some later date. She explained that the City cannot dictate the timing of the development of the three separate parcels but can guide redevelopment through approval of a master development plan for the area. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that at this time, there is no proposal to change the property lines for the 711 McKinley Road property. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the access easement will be put in place on the 711 McKinley Road property, as part of this approval, to create the east/west road to serve the new building. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the preferred plan in the Commission’s packet is the proposed overall master development plan for the area. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak noted that in the past, an easement on the 711 McKinley Road property provided access to the 721 property. She stated that in this case, an easement is an acceptable way to provide access and said that modification of the property lines is not necessary. Commissioner Henry noted the substantial grade change that occurs on the property. In response to questions from Kehr, Mr. Witmer estimated that the existing alley is about 22 feet wide but noted that the building on the City property is located at the edge of the alley giving the sense of it being very narrow. He explained that the intent is to create an alley that is wide enough for two cars, but narrow enough to slow traffic in the area. Commissioner Kehr questioned whether the narrow width of the alley could present an obstacle to moving forward with the construction of the first building. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Czerniak noted that private roads are normally narrower than public roads. She stated that the City Engineer will verify whether, as proposed, the alley is wide enough to support two way traffic or, if additional width is needed. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Ms. Czerniak explained that the property is in the O-1, Office zoning district and that the zoning setbacks, together with the height limitation, determine the allowable building square footage and ultimately, the number of units. She added that virtually the entire site is paved today and noted Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 7 of 20 that the amount of impervious surface will likely be decreased in the area, not increased. Commissioner Ruggles pointed out that the 333 Westminster building has more green space around it than the plan currently proposed. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Mr. Witmer stated that the stairs to the Church encroach into the front yard setback. He added that the house to the south is owned by the Church and is located close to the 25 foot setback line. He stated that the 333 Westminster building appears to meet the setback and acknowledged that it is screened by extensive landscaping. He stated that landscaping is planned along the streetscape in front of the new building however he noted that it is not the intention to completely hide the building. He noted that the new building will be setback further than required from the side yard setbacks and will provide further separation from the 333 Westminster building than exists today. He confirmed that consideration was given to the rhythm of buildings along the street. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Witmer stated that approval of the first building will preserve options for the rest of the site. He stated that although an overall concept plan was developed for the area and is under review by the Plan Commission, design development has focused on the first building since that is the only building proposed for construction at this time. He stated that in designing the building, extensive consideration was given to the relationship of the new building to surrounding buildings and to the street. He stated that the massing of the buildings throughout the Central Business District was studied extensively including, but not limited to the Walgreens’ and the Lantern buildings. He stated a willingness to explore a mansard roof design concept, but expressed concern that the roof could look contrived noting that Mansard roofs must be done properly. He stated that future buildings in this area are not anticipated to be exact copies of the first building and noted that each building will be considered through a public process before the Building Review Board. He stated that the palette of materials used for each of the buildings may be similar however, the buildings may have different massing and may be made up of different parts. He stated that the intent is that the new residential buildings in this area appear as though they were constructed over time, by different people. Commissioner Berg commented that the proposed building has a larger foot print than the 333 Westminster building with no modulation or articulation. He stated that refinement could significantly improve the buildings’ impact on the streetscape and on the surrounding buildings. Commissioner Kehr commented on the proposed plan in relation to the Commission’s prior action in support of sustainability goals. She noted that roof top living space is proposed which is a new concept for Lake Forest. She suggested that consideration be given to providing space for bicycle parking and charging stations for electric vehicles. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 8 of 20 In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Witmer stated that the Walgreens’ building is three feet taller than the proposed building. He pointed out that the elevation of the proposed development site is eight to nine feet lower than the railroad tracks which will impact the perceived building height in relation to buildings on the west side of the tracks. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Witmer reviewed the floor to ceiling heights noting that space is needed for fire sprinklers and HVAC ducts which limit the extent to which the ceiling height can be reduced. He stated that the intent is to maintain an 8’6” ceiling height, with increased height in limited areas. He confirmed that the floors will be poured concrete. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. Lynn Casper, President of the Lake Forest Library Board and a resident of Burr Oak, stated that other Board members, Library staff and interested members of the public are in attendance in support of the Library. She stated that Library representatives have attended all of the meetings to date and raised questions and offered public comments. She stated that there are many unanswered questions. She reviewed data about Library usage noting that on average, there are 130 users every hour that the Library was open. She noted that parking is limited and some patrons park across the street and must cross Deerpath, which is difficult. She stated that the shortage of parking runs counter to the mission of making the Library available to everyone. She stated that the City has been aware of the shortage of parking at the Library for many years. She expressed concern about the impact of construction on the Library operations noting that access must be maintained for patrons, garbage collection, book drop offs and other services during construction. She stated that the Library is open all day, every day, with only a few exceptions, and should not be subject to interruptions due to construction and patrons should not be inconvenienced. She expressed concern about a phased buildout of the site. She said that to date, there has been no assurance that the parking needs of the Library will be addressed or that the overflow parking on the City parcel currently used by Library patrons and staff will be replaced. She stated that a full site plan should be approved before moving forward with the construction of the first building. She expressed concern that the needs of the Library may not be addressed if the developer’s plans change. She stated that the Library is trying to be a fully informed partner and a good neighbor. She asked that the Library be kept informed and consulted as the project moves forward. Ruth Bruggeman, representing the Church of the Covenants, agreed with concerns raised by the Library concerning approval of the development in phases. She stated that approval of the first building could set a precedent for future buildings. She stated that this could be particularly troubling for the building that will be located to the north of the single family home owned by the Church. She expressed concern about the density on the site, height of the buildings, foot print of the buildings and proximity of one of the new buildings to the single family residence. She noted that the buildings Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 9 of 20 should be setback from the street to avoid screening views from the single family residence. She raised questions about the height of the future building that will be adjacent to the single family home and stated that providing a roof top terrace on that building will impact the privacy of the single family home. She stated that the residence will be dwarfed. She stated that it is important that the Commission understand the massing proposed for the overall site. She noted that the existing residences to the east of the site are separated from the new development a greater distance than the house owned by the Church. She stated that the proposed development will result in a significant change for the Church property and the overall neighborhood. She stated that presently, there is no certainty with respect to the later buildings. She stated that she would like to see a massing model to better understand the impact and size of the development in relation to the surrounding areas. She stated that if the first building is approved, approval of the remainder of the project should not be guaranteed. She suggested that the City consider swapping the City property for the 711 McKinley Road property and using the 711 property for open space on the McKinley Road streetscape. She noted that a new building could be shifted east to the area behind the Library. Ray Stephen Piece, 775 N. McKinley Road, stated that the development appears to be a win/win for the developer and the City. He encouraged the Plan Commission to be bold and different. He noted that this is a great opportunity to preserve the property for public use and not develop it as a residential property. He noted Millennium Park and the St. Louis Arch as examples of public spaces. He suggested that the City construct underground parking on the site to meet needs in the Central Business District. He suggested that the developer could be contracted to do the work for the City. He suggested that the Library could be expanded to provide an entrepreneurial area and suggested that a park and fountain could be added to the area for public use. He stated that locating a large building in this area is the wrong way to proceed on this property. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley invited the petitioner to respond to public comment. Mr. Witmer acknowledged that the first building will help to define the area by locating the east/west street and creating a pedestrian corridor. He stated however that the first building will establish a context for future buildout in the area but will allow for some flexibility as future pieces of the project are brought forward for public review. He stated that the goal is to make the Central Business District a better place. He noted that the project offers a new type of residential development in the community. He agreed to study the idea of a mansard roof. He stated that the proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the streetscape. He stated that the balconies will encroach into the setback and will require a variance. He acknowledged that the width of the balconies could be reduced but noted that the intent is to make the balconies wide enough to be an amenity to the residents of the building. Chairman Ley invited a staff response to public testimony. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 10 of 20 Ms. Czerniak reviewed that redevelopment of the McKinley Road area for multi-family residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the recommendation of the Cultural Corridor Task Force and the current zoning on the property. She noted that the City does not have the ability to dictate that the area be redeveloped all at one time, but can approve parameters that will establish a framework for the redevelopment whether it occurs now or in the future, regardless of who develops the later phases. She noted that the City Council is looking to the Plan Commission for input on the highest and best use for the City property, 361 Westminster. She noted that to date, the Commission has discussed the potential for swapping a portion of the City property for a portion of the developer’s property to provide additional land for the Library. She stated that if that approach is taken, the Library will determine how the additional property should be used to benefit the Library in the future. She stated that Commission input is requested on desired aspects for the overall area and based on that, a determination can be made on whether the first building, as proposed, is consistent with the long term vision. Chairman Ley asked for Commission input on the preferred plan as proposed by the petitioner. He reviewed the key aspects of the preferred plan including: the provision of land adjacent to the Library to provide the opportunity for improvements on the Library site and to serve as a buffer between the Library and future residential development, the creation of a single east/west road, use of the alley in generally its existing location and the creation of a single family or duplex lot on the north end of the City property. In response to Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the alley is public right-of-way and all adjacent properties have the right to take access from the alley. Commissioner Culbertson stated support for the petitioner’s Plan B which locates the north/south road along the east property line. He noted that the new road could be narrow and lined with trees to provide a buffer for the existing single family homes to the east. He stated that in his opinion, a road along the east property line of the City parcel makes more sense than the present location because it provides for direct access to the Library parking lot and allows the green space to be enlarged to more closely resemble the front lawn of the Library. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Aboona, KLOA, traffic engineer for the petitioner, reviewed the estimated trips that will be generated by the proposed development both after the construction of the first building and after full buildout as now envisioned. He stated that the vehicle trips that will be generated by residential development of this property will be significantly less than peak hour traffic that would be generated by redevelopment of the site for office use. He stated that the trip counts were generated without discounting for the fact that some residents living in this area may take the train or walk to their destination. He stated that the estimates were based on a total of 30 new residential units in the area which, he acknowledged, may Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 11 of 20 be more than will be built on the site. He stated that the estimates were done conservatively to evaluate a worst case scenario. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Aboona stated that an access road through to the Library would simply provide another option. He explained that if there was a road connection through to the Library, vehicles entering from Westminster, and not entering the underground garage, could continue through the Library site to Deerpath. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Witmer explained that the additional parking spaces shown on the proposed, expanded Library site represent one concept of how additional land area could benefit the Library. He stated that the additional land area as shown on the preferred plan, could more than replace the number of overflow parking spaces currently available to the Library on the City property. He stated that responsibility for maintenance of the north/south road would need to be resolved with the City. Commissioner Kehr stated that there are many good concepts presented but noted that the details of the later phases of the development are not clear. Chairman Ley asked for input from the Commission on the location of the north/south road noting Commissioner’s Culbertson’s comments in support of locating the road on the east property line. He reiterated that the Commission was directed to provide input to the City Council on an overall development concept for the area. He stated that redevelopment of the area will occur over time and that the overall redevelopment concept will be a framework for redevelopment of the area going forward. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Czerniak stated that based on a recommendation from the Commission, the City Council will consider approving an overall redevelopment concept plan for the area. She noted that the City will have leverage in the future since other approvals will be needed, a future subdivision to reconfigure the lots and design review and approval. She explained that any substantial variance from the approved redevelopment plan would be subject to further City review and approval. Commissioner Freeman summarized that there appears to be two questions before the Commission, first consideration of the overall conceptual site plan for the area and second, the specific approvals necessary to allow construction of the first building. Chairman Ley confirmed that the two matters before the Commission for action are as described by Commissioner Freeman. He stated that it is his expectation that the Commission will act on both items. He asked for comments on the overall site plan. Commissioner Freeman stated support for the land swap and Library green as reflected on the preferred site plan. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 12 of 20 Commissioner Henry also stated support for the petitioner’s preferred plan as presented. He noted that the Commission has discussed the redevelopment of this area for several months and the developer has been responsive to the questions raised. He noted that as a result of redevelopment of the area with multi-family residential buildings, instead of office buildings, the traffic in the area will be less than half of what it could have been under the current zoning. He stated that the best way to assure that the area will buildout as intended is to allow the developer to proceed with the first building. He stated that the City should not be in the real estate business and noted that the City property should be put into the hands of one or more developers since the City Council has already determined that it is not needed for City purposes. He stated that the opportunity to work with an adjacent land holder will not likely come again. He stated that in his opinion, the north/south road should remain where it is to allow the new buildings to relate to each other. He reiterated his support for the petitioner’s preferred plan. Chairman Ley summarized that it appears that only one Commissioner favors locating the north/south road on the east property line. Commissioner Ruggles stated concern about the easement for the east/west road on the 711 McKinley Road property. She stated that by encumbering that property, a larger building can be constructed on the 721 and 725 McKinley Road properties. She stated that the massing and footprint of the proposed building is not consistent with the 333 Westminster building. She stated that in her opinion, the width of the building now proposed is problematic. She stated that perhaps the roadway could be located more equally on the 721 and 711 McKinley Road properties as a safeguard in the event that ownership of the 711 McKinley Road property changes. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if an overall redevelopment plan is approved by the City Council for the area, any substantial deviations from the plan would require further review by the Plan Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that once an overall redevelopment plan is approved by the City Council, the location of the roads, whether or not additional property will be added to the Library and a requirement for open space would all be established as parameters that must be met as the area is redeveloped. She stated that once a plan is approved, the City Council would then negotiate with the owner of the adjacent property. Commissioner Freeman noted that the community has the opportunity to implement a grand vision for this area. He stated that the preferred plan benefits the Library but noted that the Library representatives do not appear to feel that their concerns have been taken into account. He encouraged the parties to work together. He stated that he is not in favor of proceeding with a large building without an understanding of the overall plan. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 13 of 20 Chairman Ley clarified that forwarding an overall site plan to the City Council will allow the City to take the appropriate next steps if the Council supports the plan. Commissioner Freeman noted however that if the office building remains on the 711 McKinley Road property, the grand vision will not be achieved. Commissioner Berg noted that the first building as proposed presents a larger building at the expense of the 711 McKinley Road property as a consequence of locating the road on the 711 property. He stated that the building placement appears right, pulling the massing away from the back of the Library however, he encouraged further study. He stated that he understands the advantage of building one building at a time. Commissioner Henry made a motion approving the preferred plan as presented including the City property as a critical part of the plan and providing additional land for the Library. Commissioner Freeman seconded the motion. Commissioners Henry and Freeman accepted an amendment to the motion as suggested by Commissioner Berg to allow the exact location of the east/west road to be further modified, if appropriate, as the plan is finalized. Chairman Ley indicated his support for the motion and called for a vote. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3 with Commissioners Berg, Culbertson and Ruggles voting nay. Chairman Ley asked for a motion to approve the consolidation of the 721 and 725 properties and the front yard variance for the balconies. Commissioner Freeman stated that in his opinion, a vote on the first phase of the project is premature. He noted that there are still questions about the placement of the building and the east/west road. He stated that he would like to know that the needs of the Library are satisfied and that all parties are committed to moving forward with the plan. Commissioner Berg suggested that further review by the Building Review Board would be helpful. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that review by the Building Review Board will continue based on the feedback from the Commission. She stated that efforts will continue to get input from the Library. She added that the preferred plan, as recommended by the Commission, will be presented to the City Council for input and a determination of whether the City parcel will be incorporated into the plan as proposed. Commissioner Henry made a motion to approve the consolidation of the 721 and 725 lots and the variance needed to allow construction of the first building to get underway. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 14 of 20 The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to continue the matter to a future meeting to allow for further study and continued review by the Building Review Board and input from the City Council on whether the Council supports the conceptual overall site plan and the inclusion of the City property in the development site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Culbertson and was approved by the Commission by a 6 to 1 vote with Commissioner Henry voting nay. 5. Introduction: Consideration of requests for 1) a zone change from R-5 to R-4 and 2) tentative approval of a 9-lot Planned Preservation Subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit for property located on the north side of Westleigh Road, west of Stable Lane, and addressed as 770 W. Westleigh Road. Owner: Lake Forest Land Foundation Contract Purchaser: Janko Group LLC (Gary and Susan Janko) Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Culbertson stated that he is a neighboring property owner and a representative of the North Carroll Meadows Homeowners’ Association. He recused himself from participating in the Commission’s consideration of this matter. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioner Kehr stated that the Janko Group was her client in the past. She recused herself from participating in the Commission’s consideration of this matter due to the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. She stepped down from the dais. Chairman Ley noted that this petition is being introduced to the Commission at this time and that the Commission will not take action on this matter at this meeting. He noted that the public hearing on this matter will be officially held when the petitioner returns to the Commission with a request for action. He noted however that public testimony will be invited later in the meeting, after the petitioner’s presentation. Mr. Sentell, President of Lake Forest Open Lands Foundation, introduced the agenda item . He stated that several years ago, Lake Forest Open Lands Foundation acquired the 22 acre 770 Westleigh Road site about ten years ago with the intention of preserving a significant portion of the property for a public nature preserve. He stated that the property was acquired and has since been improved without the use of any public taxpayer dollars. He stated that preserving a large portion of the property as open space benefits the entire community by providing opportunities for trail connections, recreation and by adding to the quality of life in Lake Forest. He stated that the property has natural and strategic value as a preserved area. He noted that Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 15 of 20 the property is connected to a greenway that totals over 900 acres. He recognized the generosity of the Dickinson family, the prior owners of the property, noting that they forgave part of the mortgage. He explained that 17 acres of the 22 acre parcel will be owned and managed by Lake Forest Open Lands. He noted that the opportunity to connect and extend existing and future nature preserves is made possible by selectively selling off a small portion of the land for controlled development. He stated that this proposed subdivision builds on the success of other conservation subdivisions including Everett Farm, Middlefork Farm and Melody Farm. He stated that the proposed plan permanently preserves the highest quality natural areas and hydrological connections to surrounding properties. He stated that originally, Open Lands intended to sell the existing house on a 10 acre parcel, and preserve 12 acres of the site as open space. He stated however that after extensive marketing efforts, it became clear that there is no market for the house on a large parcel. He stated that Open Lands did not want to engage with developers who wanted to acquire the property, with no limits on development activity. He stated that Open Lands was pleased with the proposal from the Janko Group which will allow Open Lands’ goal to be surpassed by preserving an additional five acres of land and a rare mesic prairie located close to the north end of Stable Lane. He stated that the proposed plan best preserves the natural areas, retains the natural drainage pattern and results in a development in keeping with character of the surrounding area. In summary, he stated that the proposed subdivision will benefit the community in several ways: it will expand the recreational open space in the community, support the vision for a western green way, offer a unique residential product consistent with the density of other developments in the area and provide the opportunity for walking trails to connect to the Reilly property in the future and existing nature preserves. He added that all of the benefits will be provided without tax payer dollars. Jim Puritin, Janko Group, reviewed how the proposed plan was developed noting that the significant natural resources on the site were considered. He stated that clustered homes, on small lots on the southern portion of the site, proved to be the best way to preserve the significant natural features including wetlands, a grove of hickory trees and a mesic prairie. He stated that the proposed development is set back from the edges of the property to respect the neighboring properties and to preserve the bucolic character of Westleigh Road. He stated the intent to add a split rail fence along Westleigh Road. He stated that the estate home on the site was constructed in 1933 and noted that a study completed by a preservation consultant concluded that the house does not have significant historic value. He stated the intent to reuse materials from the house, including the limestone. He stated that based on a market analysis, there is a strong demand for smaller lots and homes in Lake Forest. He stated that the homes will have an old world theme and will be designed to blend into the natural surroundings. He stated that the homes will be high quality and environmentally friendly. Joy Corona, Bleck Engineering, reviewed the existing and proposed drainage patterns in the area noting the properties to the north and west that are tributary to the pond at the north edge of this site. She explained that the area proposed for development will Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 16 of 20 drain to the south, to a swale along Westleigh Road, and will not contribute to the drainage that currently flows from the property along the west property line. Nick Patera, Teska Associates, reiterated that the goal of the project is to merge significant natural areas on this property with surrounding preserved open land. He stated that a great deal of background work has gone into the development of the proposed plan. He stated that a wetland delineation and a tree survey were both completed. He noted that various configurations for the development were studied. He explained that only five acres of the 22 acre site are proposed for development. He stated that the amount of the site that will be preserved open space is unprecedented. He reviewed several goals of the development including preserving the natural appearance of the Westleigh Road streetscape. He noted that the entrance to the subdivision is shifted west of the existing driveway to avoid impacts on the house across the street. He stated that the existing driveway will be infilled with plantings. He noted that as needed, additional plantings will also be added to the perimeter of the site. He stated that the road into the development will be narrow. He pointed out the proposed site improvements that are part of the stormwater management plan for the property. He noted that the ponds are located to enhance views from the homes. He stated that the preserved open space will transition nicely to the preserved open space. Chuck Byrum, attorney for the petitioners, reiterated that the purpose of this presentation is to introduce the Plan Commission and the public to the project and to the project team. He stated that the project seeks three approvals from the City, a zone change from R-5 to R-4, approval of the subdivision and approval of the associated Special Use Permit since this property is within the Historic Residential Open Space Preservation Overlay District. Ms. Czerniak reiterated that this agenda item is presented to the Commission at this time as an introduction to the petition. She stated that no action is requested at this meeting. She stated that questions and requests for clarification or additional information would be helpful to allow the petitioner and staff to prepare for the next meeting. She noted that some letters were received in response to the public notice that was sent out and were provided to the Commission. She recommended that the Commission also allow the opportunity for public comment during the meeting. She reviewed that the petitioner is requesting approval of a zone change from the R-5 district, with a three acre minimum lot size, to R-4, with a 60,000 square foot minimum lot size. She explained that since the property is located in the Historic Residential and Open Space Preservation Overlay District, the underlying zoning determines the allowable density. She explained that the Overlay District allows for flexiblity with respect to lot size, setbacks and other subdivision standards. She explained that the R-5 District is routinely applied to properties upon annexation unless a development plan is presented concurrent with annexation. She stated that in this case, the property remained in the ownership of a single family for decades and therefore, the R-5 zoning was retained. She noted that in some areas of the City, where services and access is limited, the R-5 zoning may be appropriate for the long term. She noted that in this Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 17 of 20 case, all of the surrounding properties are zoned and developed based on R-4 zoning. She noted that approval of the tentative plat of subdivision is also requested. She noted that because the property is in the Overlay District, final approval will be granted through a Special Use Permit. She stated that the preliminary engineering plans for the proposed subdivision were reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be workable and raised no specific concerns. In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the minimum lot size in the R-4 District is 60,000 square feet. She noted that a conventional subdivision plan is included in the Commission’s packet to demonstrate the allowable density. She noted that the conventional plan reflects ten lots. She stated that nine buildable lots are proposed. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Patera reviewed the setbacks noting that the lots will be setback about 45’ from Westleigh Road and each house will be setback 30’ further on the individual lots. He stated that the intent is to preserve a landscape buffer along Westleigh Road but acknowledged that as currently proposed, some of the homes may be visible during some part of the year. He noted that removals of some non-native species in the area may occur over time. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Mr. Puritin stated that the new houses will range in size from 3,000 to 3,500 square feet and will be priced at around $1.2 to $1.5 million dollars. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Sentell confirmed that the remainder of the property will be preserved as open space in perpetuity. In response to a question from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Puritin confirmed that the houses will be constructed on lots of about 14, 000 square feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the surrounding area is zoned R-4. She confirmed that final approval of the subdivision would be granted through a Special Use Permit which could include specific conditions of approval. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. Bryant Kiel, 765 Westleigh Road, stated that he met with the developers and acknowledged that they were thoughtful to show him the plan in advance of the meeting. He stated that he is pro-development but was taken aback by the proposed density and the proximity of the proposed homes to Westleigh Road. He stated that the new homes will likely be visible even in the middle of the summer with full foliage. He commented that no other homes in the area are as close to the road as the plan proposes. He questioned the location of the detention ponds and asked why the development is not accessed from Stable Lane. He stated that it appears that Stable Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 18 of 20 Lane was designed to serve the property now proposed for development. He stated that he is not opposed to development of the property and stated support for preserving as much open space as possible for the community. He noted that the site and streetscape are beautiful and expressed concern that putting too much density on the site will do more harm to the community than the benefits received from the preserved open land behind the homes. He stated that views of the open space will be blocked by the homes on half acre lots, on a cul-de-sac. He stated that Open Lands was involved in developing the subdivision on Stable Lane, on the south side of Westleigh Road, near his home, and did a phenomenal job of preserving open space while creating larger lots with significant set backs. He suggested that the site should be developed with a couple houses off of Westleigh Road and the rest should take access from Stable Lane. He stated that a development, close to Westleigh Road, will forever change the character of the area. He asked that the Commission think about the community as a whol e noting that many would be against adding the proposed density close to Westleigh Road. He reiterated that he supports development and the mission of Open Lands. He stated however that the proposed development seems to be financially motivated rather than motivated by the preservation of open space. He reiterated his opposition to the proposed layout and to approval of the plan as presented. He stated that the homes on lots 7, 8 and 9 will block the vista from Westleigh Road forever. He noted that buckthorn which is a weed and is very dense along the streetscape in the summer, but noted that in winter, there are clear views into the site. Lloyd Culbertson, 145 Suffolk Lane, stated that he lives in the North Carroll Meadows Subdivision. He noted that water from the 770 Westleigh Road property runs through his subdivision and expressed concern that the proposed development may exacerbate the situation. He also questioned why the proposed development is not setback further into the open land area and why access to the new homes is not provided off of Stable Lane. He stated that he prefers that the trails leading into the nature preserve extend due south, away from the North Carroll Meadows Subdivision. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley invited further questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Henry questioned whether there are any covenants or agreements that were put in place when Lake Forest Open Lands took ownership of the property or that run with the land. He questioned where the proceeds from the development will go. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that when the subdivision to the east was approved, the opportunity for future access to the 770 Westleigh Road property from the Stable Lane cul -de-sac was provided. She noted that early plans for the 770 Westleigh Road property explored access from Stable Lane however, due to various conditions found on the property, the access to the new subdivision is proposed directly from Westleigh Road. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 19 of 20 Commissioner Berg stated a preference for eliminating dead end streets to bring neighborhoods together. He noted that Stable Lane is a unique street and suggested that a road could extend from Stable Lane into the property and continue through to connect to Westleigh Road to allow the public to get closer to the preserved open lands. He noted that in historic photos, the area appears to have been farmland. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Sentell agreed that it is a beautiful site and confirmed that the intent is to invite people in to the preserved area to see the pond, woodlands and wetlands. He stated that consistent with that goal, as much of the property is being preserved as possible, in particular, the high quality areas are proposed for protection and preservation including the mesic prairie. He added that the hydrology of the site adds to its splendor and to the quality of the wildlife habitat. He stated that the goal is to disturb the property as little as possible to protect the high quality natural areas and explained that as a result, the development is limited to a small portion of the site. In response to questions form Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Sentell confirmed that the intent is to ultimately connect walking trails between this development and the future development on the Reilly property. In response to a question from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City approved the subdivision proposed for the Reilly property just to the north of the site now being considered. She stated that to date, the plat of subdivision has not yet been submitted to the City for recording. She stated that she does not know the status of the negotiations between the developer and property owner. Commissioner Berg commented that the three houses closest to Westleigh Road do create a character that does not exist today. Commissioner Henry made a motion to continue consideration of the petition at the November 9th meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 6. Additional public comment on non-agenda items No additional testimony was presented on non-agenda items. 7. Additional information from staff. No additional information was presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2016 Page 20 of 20 Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development