Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2016/12/14 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the December 14, 2016 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, December 14, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Ley, Commissioners Michael Freeman, Lloyd Culbertson, Monica Ruggles, Tim Henry and Rosemary Kehr Commissioners absent: Commissioner Berg 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 October 12, 2016 and November 9, 2016 meetings. The minutes of the October 12, 2016 meeting were approved with corrections as requested by Commissioner Kehr. The minutes of the November 9, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital will present a status report on construction at the hospital campus, review the previously approved Campus Master Plan and introduce refinements proposed to align the Master Plan with the buildout and prepare for the next phase of work on the Campus. Introduction by: Thomas J. McAfee, President, Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Presentation by: Joseph Dant, V.P. of Operations, Lake Forest Hospital David Mikos, President and CEO, Anderson Mikos Architects, Ltd. Chairman Ley asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. Mr. McAfee stated that since the last meeting, there are no significant changes to the proposed updates to the hospital Master Plan. He reviewed that the intent is to update the Plan to reflect the current construction on the Campus and near term planning concepts. He stated that after the last meeting, and in response to letters received, he directed the hospital team to comprehensively review the concerns and provide detailed responses. He stated that during his time as President of the hospital, the hospital has been responsive to building a facility in which the community can take great pride. He introduced members of the hospital team. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 2 of 26 Mr. Dant recapped the updates proposed to the Master Plan and provided additional details on the support services building which is proposed for relocation to the Central Campus. He reviewed five pages from the Master Plan which are proposed for replacement with updated graphics. He noted that page 11 will be modified to reflect the as-built conditions of primarily the Central Campus. He noted that after the Master Plan was approved, during the development of the final site plan, the new hospital building was shifted to the east, closer to Route 41 and away from the residential neighbors in response to concerns heard during the master planning process. He noted that an unintended consequence of that change was that the parking lot impacted the existing Support Services Building. He reviewed the replacement for page 13 noting that the perimeter setbacks, total building square footage and required amount of open space, as originally approved in the Master Plan, do not change. He noted that the change reflects only the revised foot print of the hospital building. He noted that replacement page 15 reflects the road improvements as now built including the direct connection to Route 41, the addition of turn lanes at the Deerpath and Westmorland Road intersection and the construction of a service road near the southwest corner of the Central Campus which provides direct access to the hospital for emergency vehicles. He noted that the main entrance to the new hospital facility will be from Waukegan Road. He noted that the configuration of Westmoreland Road was modified in response to concerns from residents at Lake Forest Place about headlight impacts on their homes. He pointed out that new pedestrian paths were added to the Campus, with off site connections, to encourage use of the site by community members. He reviewed replacement page 21 noting that it focuses on the South Campus in the years 2020 and beyond. He stated that after fully moving into the new facility, the intention is to remove all or portions of the existing hospital building. He stated that an Historic Assessment Study was completed by Ramsey Historic Consultants and determined that the existing hospital building, overall, does not meet the criteria for a significant historic structure. He noted however that the history of the Campus and the original hospital building is important to the hospital and to the Board members, many of whom are Lake Forest residents. He stated that the hospital is committed to honoring the architecture of the original hospital building. He reiterated that significant changes on the south Campus will likely occur in 2020 or beyond. He stated however that the planning for those changes will be done before hand. He reiterated that preserving what the original building has meant to staff and patients over many decades is a high priority for the team. He reviewed the proposed replacement for page 27 noting that this graphic presents a concept for what the future could look like. He stated that it is hard to establish a timeframe for further expansion on the Campus given that the new hospital has not yet opened. He noted that the new hospital was designed to accommodate growth to the east, away from the neighboring residential properties. He stated however that expansion will depend on demand for services noting that future growth could be in five years, ten years, or beyond. He explained that the longer term concept is to establish a central spine road through the South Campus and identify future development zones primarily east of the road, away from the residential neighbors. He stated that the hospital is proud of work completed to date and offered some highlights of the accomplishments: over 100 acres of open Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 3 of 26 space is preserved on the Campus, the landscaping and berming along the perimeters of the Campus was accelerated by two years to allow additional time for the areas to stabilize before the opening of the new hospital, a continuous berm was constructed along the south property line instead of the previously approved multiple drumlins, additional storm water capacity was added to the Campus to accommodate water that flows on to the site from upstream, the height of the new hospital is considerable lower than permitted by the Master Plan, enhanced trails for pedestrians and bicycles were constructed through the Campus with connections to off site points, and the loading dock was located below grade to minimize visual and sound impacts. He stated that additional community enhancements are planned in the future. He discussed the Support Services Facility proposed for relocation to Central Campus. He noted that the facility is temporarily located on the southeast corner for the Westmoreland and Waukegan Roads intersection, in a visible area. He described the proposed location, on the south side of the service road, on the Central Campus. He explained that the intent is to construct the building into the berm to mitigate visual and acoustical impacts. He stated that the hospital conducted a sound study which included evaluating the sound impacts of trucks backing up. He stated that from off site, the increase is noise was negligible. He noted that in response to neighbors’ concerns about lighting levels, lighting in the parking lot near the 700 Medical Office Building was reduced in the evening and night time hours while still providing safe walking paths for employees and patients. He added that also in response to comments from neighbors, the plantings along the berm located behind the Lane Lorraine homes will be enhanced with a significant number of trees to provide additional screening for the neighbors and for patients. He stated that a planting plan, with species and sizes of trees at the time of planting, will be submitted to the City for review and approval. He stated that the height of the east end of the berm will be increased to the extent allowed by the width of the base of the berm as the construction on the Central Campus draws to a close. He noted that there is a significant distance between the homes on Lane Lorraine and the new hospital, approximately a distance of 700 feet at the closest point. He pointed out that the existing hospital and the activity associated with it are closer to the neighboring residences than the new hospital and related activity. He reviewed various stormwater management improvements made on the Campus explaining that in the vicinity of the berm, two older drainage pipes were replaced with larger pipes which increased the capacity to convey stormwater by 400 percent. He pointed out that the houses on Lane Lorraine are sited at a higher elevation than the hospital property and as a result, water flows from the neighboring properties, on to the hospital site. He noted that an existing swale, located near the base of the berm, was enhanced to more efficiently direct water to the pipes under the berm and through the hospital campus to the northeast. Mr. Mikos reviewed the proposed relocation of the Support Services Facility reviewing that the former maintenance facility was displaced by parking lots for the new hospital when the hospital building was shifted to the east as the final plans were developed. He pointed out the current location of the temporary maintenance facility on the southeast corner of Waukegan and Westmoreland Roads. He reviewed the proposed Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 4 of 26 location of the new Support Services Facility noting that as the work on the Central Campus is completed, the current temporary facility will need to be removed to allow the landscaping to be completed in accordance with the approved plan. He stated that an extensive study was done to evaluate the pros and cons of various locations for the facility on the Campus. He added that a decision was made to eliminate a portion of the facility by moving the laundry services completely off of the Campus. He noted however, that grounds maintenance services and equipment must be located on site for efficiency and safety reasons. He reviewed the proposed plan which would essentially bury the new facilities into the berm, on the south side of the service road. He noted that like the loading dock for the hospital which was located below grade to minimize visibility, the intent is to hide the Support Services Facility from view from off of the site and also from most points on the site. He reviewed the eight different locations that were considered for the facility, and summarized the pros and cons of each. He stated that at the proposed location, the Support Services Facility will be located at the 200 foot setback line with the only visible elevation facing the hospital. Mr. Dant reviewed the components of the Support Facility noting that the site will be comprised of a building, a service vehicle storage yard, lawn maintenance equipment and supplies, and snow removal equipment and supplies. He stated that the yard will be fenced. He stated that one 20 yard dumpster will be located on the site noting that the dumpster location will be further from the residential neighbors than it was at the previous location. He said that the hours of operation of the site will be 6 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except during times when snow and ice removal operations are required. He stated that the site will take deliveries of mulch and top soil. He stated that as necessary, hours of operation can be controlled. He noted that the facility is proposed in an area already approved for the extension of asphalt. He pointed out that this facility does not add new operations to the hospital campus, but instead, relocates existing activities, at a reduced scale, in a central and efficient location. Mr. McAfee concluded the presentation acknowledging that a great deal of information was presented quickly. He stated that the hospital team continues to invest considerable thought in planning for the future of the hospital campus and being responsive to the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that the end goal is to provide a hospital that is efficient and operationally configured to provide the best care possible while at the same time, regarded as a significant amenity for the community. He reviewed a story of a recent life that was saved as a result of the hospital being anchored to one of the best hospitals in the world. He noted that this project is the single biggest capital project in the history of the community. He stated that the hospital has invested a great deal to assure that it is a good neighbor. He reviewed that the hospital is committed to increasing the height of the berm and planting a forest on top of the berm if necessary to provide screening for the neighbors. He noted that the ability for the hospital site to accept drainage from upstream properties is 400 percent improved over what it was previously. He acknowledged that the future needs of the hospital are not fully known given the changing nature of health care however, he noted that the new hospital building was designed with the ability to add a third floor on the north pavilion and to add additional pavilions to the south and east, away from Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 5 of 26 the adjacent residential neighborhood, if needed in the future. He stated that removal of the existing hospital is years away and he committed that as the plans develop for that phase; they will be thoughtful and very mindful of the importance of that structure to the history of the hospital. He stated that the existing hospital will not be dealt with in a caviler fashion. He noted however that holding on to an old building that is not advancing the mission of the hospital would not be a responsible action. Ms. Czerniak stated that the detailed Master Plan originally approved for the hospital campus put in place a process that allows for regular updates. She noted that in recent discussions with hospital representatives, it became clear that now would be an opportune time to update the Master Plan to acknowledge the final plans for the Central Campus as now being built out, to set some further parameters about the future of the South Campus, and to respond to concerns raised by neighboring property owners. She reviewed that Master Plans do not approve a specific site plan or building, but instead, set parameters that must be followed as more detailed plans are developed for various elements of the site. She reviewed that no changes are proposed to key parameters of the Master Plan as originally approved. She noted that the previously approved perimeter setbacks, the required amount of open space and the allowable building square footages all remain unchanged. She explained that the Commission is asked to consider refinements to various pages which will take the form of replacing those pages while retaining the rest of the Master Plan as originally approved. She stated that the Commission’s charge is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed replacement pages. She summarized that on the Central Campus, the replacement pages reflect the as-built conditions of the new hospital, roads and overall site plan as well as the proposed relocation of the Support Services Facility which is necessary as a result of shifting the new hospital building further south and east. She stated that the replacement pages for the South Campus reflect two major themes, a re-aligned spine road to provide more direct access to the new hospital and to provide building areas for future development closer to Route 41, away from the adjacent residential neighborhood. She stated that the second theme is to be clear that going forward, the existing hospital will not serve the needs of the hospital and will be removed in part or completely. She stated that the Master Plan does not approve a specific plan for how the spine road or removal of the hospital will happen, however the conditions as recommended direct more in depth review at a later date as plans are developed for those initiatives. She added that from a neighbor perspective, updating the Master Plan at this time, allows conditions to be put in place to sensitively address the concerns raised by some neighbors. She reviewed that the recommended conditions require the height of the east end of the berm to be increased and additional landscaping to enhance the screening around the perimeter of the Campus. She pointed out that during the discussions of the original Master Plan, there was never a commitment or a desire to completely hide the hospital from all off site views however; there was a commitment to protecting the adjacent single family homes from impacts to the extent possible. She noted that concerns were raised by residents of the Middlefork Farm Subdivision about views from the intersection of Waukegan and Westmoreland Roads, into the Campus. She explained that to date, there have been some plantings completed near the intersection however, the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 6 of 26 temporary maintenance facility, the temporary employee parking lot and construction related equipment are currently located within the view corridor from the intersection, to the hospital building. She stated that over the coming months, the various temporary uses and structures will be removed from that corridor and landscaping and berming, as reflected on the approved plan, will be completed. She suggested that it makes sense to wait until the approved landscape plan is fully implemented before evaluating the views from that intersection. She added that as with any large development, after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the City Arborist will continue to monitor the plantings for five years to identify and require replacement of any plantings that are failing to thrive and to identify any areas of unintended gaps that need to be enhanced with additional plantings. She noted however, that it is important not to over plant at the outset to avoid stunting trees that if given time, will achieve the intended size and screening. She asked Dan Strahan, the City Engineer, to speak to drainage. Mr. Strahan stated that he walked the site last spring with the engineer and other members of the hospital team to observe the berm and drainage. He stated that his responsibility is to make sure that the improvements completed on the hospital campus do not cause any negative impacts on neighboring residential properties and ideally, result in some improvements for the upstream properties. He explained that the residential properties located to the south of the hospital campus sheet drain to the north, on to the hospital property. He reviewed a cross section noting that there is an undisturbed wooded area along the south edge of the hospital property through which drainage has never been very efficient. He reviewed that beyond that undisturbed area, the grade on the hospital property was actually lowered, to better accommodate upstream, overland flows. He explained that the hospital enhanced a swale, located on the south side of the berm, which directs water to the newly installed culverts. He acknowledged that at times, during the construction, there was standing water and areas where the water was not flowing properly, he explained that in response to what was observed, the City required the hospital to make a series of enhancements to the swale and culverts were added. He confirmed that the capacity of the culverts on the hospital campus was increased. He summarized that the hospital site today, accepts upstream stormwater more efficiently than it did in the past. Ms. Czerniak noted that she neglected to mention the conditions recommended in the staff report which address the condition of the buffer along the west property line of the South Campus. She pointed out that as approved in the original Master Plan, a 120 foot buffer is established in this area. She explained that some of the existing buildings on the hospital campus encroach into the 120 foot setback, but will be removed over time and no new construction will be permitted within the buffer area. She noted that the conditions as recommended in the staff report require the hospital to enhance the vegetation in this buffer area over time and to remove and replace vegetation that has died or been impacted by recent utility work in the area. She added that there is also a condition that directs that once the existing hospital is vacated, a reduced lighting plan must be put in place to reduce light from the existing hospital building to a level that meets minimum safety and security needs. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 7 of 26 In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Engineer visited the hospital campus last spring to review the drainage and noted that other engineering staff are on site frequently to observe conditions as construction continues. She confirmed that the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation on the proposed replacement pages as presented by the hospital, with consideration given to the conditions recommended by staff. She confirmed that detailed technical reviews will occur in the future, as detailed plans are developed for the Support Services Facility, spine road and removal of the existing hospital. She stated that those reviews will be based on the approved replacement pages in the Master Plan and on the established parameters. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Mr. Dant confirmed that the proposed maintenance facility will be about 7,500 square feet, the same size as the prior facility. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Dant confirmed that at a minimum, the height of the east end of the berm will be increased three to five feet and that any increase above that would be subject to what the base of the berm will support. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Dant clarified that the yard will be located near the maintenance building and will be screened by fencing. He confirmed that no portion of the building or the yard will be visible from the south side of the berm. In response to questions from Chairman Ley Mr. Dant explained that the yard at the Support Services Facility will be shielded from views from within the Campus with a fence and landscaping. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public testimony. Greg Hanrahan, 822 Lane Lorraine, stated that he has been a resident of the community since 1977. He stated that three years ago, when he purchased his house, he reviewed the Master Plan. He stated that in his opinion, the promises made in the Master Plan have not been kept. He stated that his property is located at the east end of the berm, where the berm is lower. He stated that the berm should be the same height all the way across. He stated that today, there is one tree on the berm and noted that the berm does not block views of the hospital. He stated that adding another three to five feet to the berm will not help much. He stated that during the project, bright construction lights shined into his family and dining rooms. He invited the Commission members to view the hospital from his front and back yards noting that it looks like a shopping center. He stated that no one told him that there would be a parking lot to the east of the end of Lane Lorraine after the 700 Medical Office Building was removed. He stated that the emergency room and the associated lights from the old hospital are now visible from his house. He stated that more trees should be planted in that area to block the views to the old hospital. He stated that although he is not an engineer, he knows that the drainage has gotten worse and existing trees are dying Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 8 of 26 from the water. He stated that the maintenance building should be put back where it was originally. He stated that he and other neighbors are upset about the impacts on their properties from the hospital. Maddie Dugan, 1090 Oak Grove Lane, stated that she lives off of Waukegan Road, south of the new hospital. She stated that she was born at the hospital and has lived in Lake Forest for all but four years of her life. She stated that she has been an active volunteer at the hospital for 51 years and served on the Lake Forest Hospital Women’s’ Board for 40 years. She reviewed the various positions she holds and has held at the hospital and in the larger community and noted the various community events that she has supported over the years. She stated that the property on which the current hospital is located and on which the new hospital is being built belonged to her great grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Albert Blake Dick. She stated that her grandfather, Albert Blake Dick, Jr., was the first President of the Lake Forest Hospital, from 1940 – 1951. She stated that her uncle, Albert Blake Dick, III, served on the Board of Directors for the hospital and was its President from 1983 to 1986. She stated that her mother, Helen Dick Bronson, volunteered at the hospital and served on the Board for over 60 years and as the Board President from 1962 to 1965. She stated that she; along with her cousin currently serve on the Capital Campaign Committee for the new hospital. She stated that it will be a sad day for her and others involved with the hospital if the main entrance to the original hospital needs to come down however, she noted that the community needs to be realistic. She stated that the hospital team is diligently working with an historic preservation architect, who is evaluating the building, its configuration and the opportunities and design implications of its potential for reuse. She stated that it may not make any sense to keep the building façade and the entrance main if it means incurring the expense of maintaining a building that does not serve a needed function in an effective and efficient way. She stated that she trusts that the hospital will make the right decision and will preserve part of the original building if at all possible. She noted that the goal of the original Alice Home and later, Lake Forest Hospital, was to deliver superior medical care to the community. She stated that it would be counterproductive to that goal to stand in the way of progress and as a result, deny present and future residents world class medical care in exchange for saving a 70 year building, as special as it is. She said that the hospital may need to choose between the best and latest technology and world class medical care, and an icon of Stanley Anderson’s work. She stated that if demolition is determined to be necessary to further the mission of the hospital, she will support that decision. Melissa Knorr, 910 Lane Lorraine, stated that she has lived in her home since 2000. She stated that she attended all of the meetings at which the hospital Master Plan was discussed. She said that she appreciates that by design, the drainage system should be carrying 400 percent more storm water than before, but it is not. She stated that it angers her that such representations are being made. She noted the location of the previous culvert and stated that the low area continues to collect water. She stated that early last spring; the hospital removed several trees in an effort to improve the drainage. She said that she walked back into the forest to observe the work and sunk a foot into the standing water where the culvert used to be. She acknowledged that Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 9 of 26 more water should be flowing into the new culverts, but it is not. She said that more needs to be done to direct water to the culverts. She stated that she agrees with all of the comments of Mr. Hanrahan. She stated that the neighbors were promised a complete screen all along the south property line. She stated that she would be happy to show anyone the problems that she is facing on her property. Bruce Ryland, 818 Larchmont Lane, stated that he has lived near the southwest portion of the South Campus of the hospital, near the Women’s’ Center building, for 19 years. He stated that he worked closely with the former hospital President, Bill Ries, when the Women’s’ Center was built and the hospital has been a good neighbor. He acknowledged that the hospital campus needs to change over time, but asked that commitments about what will be done for the neighbors be put in writing. He stated that the hospital is truly becoming a world class facility and noted that there is a great deal of focus around the construction of the new hospital. He asked that his portion of the neighborhood not be forgotten. He noted that in some areas, the perimeter setbacks are larger than in others. He noted that in the setback area near his home, ash, elm and evergreen trees have been lost to disease, thinning out the buffer. He stated that with future plans to demolish the existing hospital and redevelop the South Campus, he would like to see some level of commitment from the hospital to add plantings to the setback area that extends along the west property line, not just on the Central Campus. He stated this commitment will go a long way toward building a good relationship with the residents. He asked that a commitment to replanting along the west edge be documented in the minutes and in the recommendations. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Ley asked for additional information from the City Engineer. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Dan Strahan, City Engineer, stated that he did not walk the site prior to the start of construction however, he noted that by looking at the undisturbed area, it is clear that the basic drainage pattern remains unchanged, noting that the drainage flows to the north, from the residential properties, on to the lower hospital property. He stated that the forested area is partially on the residential property, and partially on the hospital property noting that it straddles the property line. He stated that removing some additional trees and vegetation could allow for more efficient stormwater flows, but would remove some of the existing screening. He stated that the swale located on the south side of the berm is lower than the surrounding properties noting that once water gets to the swale, it is directed to the culverts. He confirmed that prior to the recent construction activity, the residential area sheet drained to the north, on to the hospital property, as it does today. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Bleck explained that the prior berm was installed several years ago when the hospital built a parking lot north of the homes on Lane Lorraine as part of an earlier project. He stated that the new berm was built on the previous berm, to the north of the undisturbed forested area. He stated that the forested area was not altered. He stated that the old culvert was removed and several new pipes were put in to better capture water from the swale which was extended and Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 10 of 26 enhanced. He stated that there is a low spot in the forested area which pre-dates any construction activity. He stated that he walked the area last spring and found some of the neighboring backyards to be soggy. He reiterated that water sheet drains from the houses, into the woods. He stated that to improve drainage on the neighboring properties, the hospital is willing to allow residents to extend their own drain pipes to the hospital property line to discharge water directly into the forested area, rather than allow it to make its own way there through more slowly, through the backyards. He stated that during construction, he observed ponding during a period where existing pipes had been removed and the new pipes not yet installed. He also noted that the City stormsewer in Burton Drive is likely designed to handle a three to five year storm, not larger storms. He explained that during larger storms, there is likely to be back up on the street that could flow into the neighbor’s yards. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Bleck reviewed a diagram showing the pipes that were removed and explained that those pipes were previously under a six to eight foot tall berm. He explained that as the berm got wider to support the increased height, the pipes were too short to extend through the base of the berm. He noted that rather than extend the pipes, they were replaced with more, larger diameter pipes. He noted the location and size of each of the new pipes and described the swales that were extended to direct water to the new pipes. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Bleck stated that the three new pipes were installed over the last two years. He confirmed that the height of the eastern portion of the berm will be raised. He noted that currently, the construction trailer is located in this area which prevents the base of the berm from being wider which would allow the height of the berm to be increased. He stated that once the trailer is removed, the base can be widened and the height increased. He confirmed that the berm will be raised three to five feet and trees will be added to the berm. He confirmed that the neighboring residents can, if they choose to do so, extend stormwater pipes to the hospital property line. Commissioner Kehr suggested that the City staff continue to monitor the drainage issue and explore opportunities for improving upon the current situation. Chairman Ley invited rebuttal to public testimony from the petitioner. He asked the petitioner to specifically address whether the concerns that were voiced are being addressed. Mr. McAfee stated that he takes umbrage at the charge that the hospital has not been responsive. He stated that with respect to the berm and landscaping along the south property line, more has been done, in an earlier timeframe, than required by the original approvals. He stated that the original plan did not include a continuous berm along the south property line, but instead, a series of broken berms, but in response to neighbor concerns, a continuous berm, higher than originally proposed, was constructed. He explained that work on the Central Campus is not yet complete and in some cases, work needs to occur in a particular sequence. He noted however, that the hospital Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 11 of 26 continues to be willing to look at modifications and enhancements and is committed to doing so. He acknowledged that the comment about the west perimeter of the South Campus is a good one. He agreed that the hospital wants to invest early in enhancing the buffer in that area. He stated that the lighting level on the new parking lots has already been reduced in an effort to strike the right balance between safety and security and light impacts. He pointed out that the street lights on Lane Lorraine, in the front yards of the homes, are brighter than the lights in the hospital parking lots. He added that the hospital wants to insulate the Campus from views of neighboring homes, so there are shared goals. He reiterated that the new hospital was moved farther away from the surrounding residential neighborhood than originally planned in direct response to concerns raised by neighbors. He stated that the hospital has no incentive to be misleading and stated his hope that the hospital’s sensitivity and responsiveness is clear. He pointed out that by tucking the Support Services Facility into the berm to hide if from any views from off the site, the hospital is incurring significant additional expense. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as a follow up to the approval of the Master Plan, a Task Force was established by the City Manager to make final design decisions as the plans for the site and the hospital building were finalized. She stated that a similar, but smaller scale process may be directed by the City Manager as smaller elements of the Campus redevelopment come forward for final review and verification that they are consistent with the amended Master Plan. She emphasized that the hospital construction project is not yet complete and permits for the work are still open and subject to further inspections and ultimately, to City approval. She stated that the Campus continues to evolve which has led to some of the concerns raised by neighboring residents. She reviewed that in response to neighbor concerns, the installation of the berm along the south property line was accelerated however; construction was limited to some extent by the location of the construction trailer near the base of the east end of the berm. She stated that the hospital has stated a commitment to increasing the height of the berm and she stated that staff will work with the hospital team to see that the height is maximized to the extent possible. She noted that the hospital brought forward a very substantial plan for additional landscaping on the berm. She noted however, that plantings must be done carefully to assure that trees are planted in proper locations, which may not be at the top of the berm, to assure that the trees receive sufficient water, grow to the height and width intended and thrive so that the best possible screening is provided over the long term. She reviewed the conditions as recommended in the staff report noting that they require the height of the east end of the berm to be increased, additional plantings on the berms and enhanced plantings in the buffer area along the western edge of the South Campus. She stated confidence that these issues will be addressed to the extent possible. She added that the amendments proposed to the Master Plan also begin to provide greater certainty about future construction on the South Campus by identifying long term building areas closer to Route 41, and further away from the residential neighborhood than the original hospital building and its later additions. She noted that a condition requiring continued work on reducing off site light impacts from the Campus is also recommended. She acknowledged that at times, during construction, very bright, unshielded safety lights were used in the building for safety reasons. She Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 12 of 26 recommended approval of the proposed amendments subject to the conditions as offered in the staff report. Commissioner Kehr commented that the recommendations as proposed in the staff report appear to take the concerns expressed by the neighbors into consideration. In response to a question from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the staff report, including the recommendations, was available on the City’s website prior to the meeting and copies of the staff report were provided at the back of the Council Chambers along with the meeting agenda. Commissioner Kehr thanked Ms. Dugan for contributions her family has made to the hospital over the years. Commissioner Ruggles agreed that the conditions as recommended in the staff report take into account many of the issues raised during the public testimony. She stated that she is confident that the hospital will meet the community’s expectations. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited a motion. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment refining the Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Campus Master Plan to reflect the foot print of the new hospital and the configuration of the new parking lots and roads as previously approved and as now being constructed. He noted that the motion includes replacing pages 11, 13 and 15 of the Master Plan and is subject to the following conditions. a. The height of the east end of the berm that extends along the south property line shall be increased in height by no less than three feet to more closely align with portions of the berm located to the west. The increase in height shall be completed no later than 90 days after removal of the construction trailer currently located in that area. The height of the berm will be limited by the width of the space available for the base of the berm and the need to maintain a stable slope and will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. b. As plantings that are currently in place get established and begin to grow, the City Arborist shall, each spring and fall for five years following occupancy of the hospital, evaluate the plantings on the south berm and in other perimeter areas of the site to identify any plant materials that are failing to thrive and any areas where enhancement is needed to mitigate light impacts from the new hospital building and parking areas, once they are completed, on neighboring residential properties. Consideration shall be given to planting evergreens in areas where particularly acute light impacts are identified and in areas where evergreens can be expected to thrive. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 13 of 26 c. The City Arborist shall monitor the views from Middlefork Farm Drive, when exiting the Middlefork Farm Subdivision, to assure that as the temporary parking lot and the construction trailers and equipment are moved out of that view corridor, views into the hospital site are mitigated by adequate plantings distributed from the corner of the intersection, across the extensive prairie area yet to be established, to the hospital parking lot and the new hospital itself. d. The Central Campus Plan shall be amended to reflect the location of the Support Services Facility in the berm sited and designed in a manner to prevent any views of the facility from off of the hospital site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henry and approved by a 6 to 0 vote. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Campus Master Plan to reflect fundamental themes that will serve as a framework for future reuse and long term redevelopment of the South Campus. The themes include: 1) a central spine road extending north/south to provide direct access to the new hospital, 2) approval of demolition of all or significant portions of the existing main hospital building, and 3) approval of future buildable areas located on the middle and east portion of the South Campus. He noted that the motion includes replacing pages 21 and 27 and is subject to the following conditions. a. Future, specific building foot prints and road alignments will be subject to review and approval through a City process as directed by the City Council. b. A plan for memorializing the existing hospital shall be developed and submitted to the City for review through a process as directed by the City Council. c. Replacement and enhancement of vegetation along the west perimeter of the South Campus shall occur on an ongoing basis to, over time, establish a dense vegetative buffer. In particular, enhancement of the perimeter buffer in the area located south of the 800 Medical Office Building shall be pursued in the near term recognizing that the vehicle gate at the east end of Lane Lorraine was removed after a determination by City public safety staff that it was no longer needed. The plantings shall be located to avoid conflicts with existing utilities at the time of planting and as the vegetation matures, to the extent possible. d. As portions of the existing hospital are vacated, and during the interim period prior to demolition or reuse, a plan shall be developed to eliminate or reduce exterior lighting on the site in areas that directly impact neighboring residential properties. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henry and approved by a 6 to 0 vote. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 14 of 26 Chairman Ley suggested that the Commission direct staff to continue to monitor drainage in the area and explore opportunities for improvements that could be made to allow water to flow more efficiently into the culverts. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that staff will follow up with the neighboring property owners in the spring. The Commission took a brief recess. 4. Continued consideration of a Master Redevelopment Plan for the area east of McKinley Road and south of Westminster. Multi-family residential development is proposed. The proposed Plan includes properties addressed as 711, 721 and 725 McKinley Road and 361 E. Westminster. Consideration of a plat of consolidation for the 721 and 725 McKinley Road properties is also requested. 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) Presentation by: Peter Witmer, architect Chairman Ley asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. He noted that this is the third time this petition has been before the Commission. He stated that action on this item is scheduled if the Commission determines it is appropriate to proceed. He invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Witmer noted that this is a continuation of the discussions that the Commission has had at two previous meetings. He noted that at the first meeting, various concepts for overall development of the area were presented, at the second meeting a more refined plan was presented along with input from the Building Review Board. He noted that since the last meeting, the Building Review Board approved the first building planned for development. He stated that a final plan, which takes into account all of the input received to date, is presented for Commission action. He stated that the plan was developed with input from the City Engineer, the Police and Fire Departments and the City’s plan reviewers. He noted that in addition to two appearances before the Building Review Board, in between the meetings, he met with a design subcommittee of the Board. He noted that the design subcommittee will also review the final construction plans at the time they are submitted for a building permit to assure that the details are consistent with the Board’s discussion and direction. He presented renderings of the building as now designed from various viewpoints. He reviewed some of the architectural details noting in particular the details of the front entrance. He reviewed the proposed Master Plan noting that it reflects discussions to date. He noted that in response to input received, the plan no longer provides for a vehicle connection between the new development and the Library to avoid adding congestion to the Library parking lot. He noted that a pedestrian connection with the ability to provide emergency access is planned instead. He stated that the pedestrian connection is a Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 15 of 26 good solution. He asked for Commission approval of the Master Plan and the plat of consolidation. Ms. Czerniak reiterated that this matter is before the Commission for the third time. She reviewed that at the last meeting, the Commission forwarded a preferred plan to the City Council. She stated that because City owned property is involved, the City Council reviewed the preferred plan, expressed support for the direction of the plan and directed that work continue, consistent with the preferred plan to develop a Master Plan for the area. The Council expressed continued interest in incorporating the City parcel into the redevelopment plan. She noted that the Council also stated the intention to use various tools to assure that the area develops consistent with the Master Plan as it is ultimately approved. She stated that in developing the Master Plan, consideration was given to concerns expressed by the Library about “cut through” traffic. She stated that in response, as described by Mr. Witmer, the plan no longer provides for a vehicle connection into the Library parking lot, but still provides for additional parking spaces on the Library site. She reviewed that the Master Plan will establish parameters to guide future development of the area and provide some level of certainty for all parties about how the area will develop. She stated that the Master Plan is now before the Commission for consideration along with a plat of consolidation to create a single lot from the 721 and 725 McKinley Road parcels. She stated that although the design aspects of the petition are under the purview of the Building Review Board, the petitioner provided various images, elevations and a model to give the Commission and the public a clearer vision of what is intended for the area. She stated that this matter is back before the Commission for recommendations on the Master Plan and the plat of consolidation. She stated that two motions would be appropriate. She noted that the tentative schedule is that the recommendations from the Building Review Board and Plan Commission, along with a Memorandum of Understanding which will be prepared by the City Attorney, will be considered by the City Council at the January 17th meeting. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Witmer reviewed the traffic circulation pattern noting that traffic will enter from McKinley Road and move eastbound. He stated that traffic will exit the site on to Westminster adding that it will also be possible to access the parking garage for the first building from Westminster. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Mr. Witmer stated that the new one way road is 22 feet wide, a comfortable width for a travel land and parking. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Witmer stated that the units in the first building are planned at 3,000 to 4,000 square feet with two affordable units at 800 and 1,200 square feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Witmer stated that the Library expansion parcel will be deeded over to the Library for parking and circulation improvements. He clarified the boundaries of the area that will be added to the Library site and the area intended as a common open space, with public access. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 16 of 26 In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Witmer stated that room for approximately 15 to 18 spaces will be able to be added to the Library site depending upon the desires of the Library. In response to questions from Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Library could choose to not add parking and preserve the area as open space. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City will work to maintain over flow parking for the Library during construction as long as it is safe to do so. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. Witmer described the conceptual footprint of building two. He acknowledged that consideration will be given to the proper balance between the two buildings on the streetscape. He pointed to the model noting that it shows the intended massing with building two about 2/3 the width of the larger building. He stated that the building footprint of the second building is conceptually around 8,000 square feet, with two units per floor. He noted that the first building is intended to have three or four units per floor. He confirmed that the parking on the north side of the east/west road will be available to all of the buildings and he confirmed that each building will have sufficient underground parking. He stated that the open space will be landscaped to allow for sunlight. He stated that the intent is to put in large trees, but to maintain them and trim them as necessary as occurs in the Regent’s Row development. He stated that the width of the open space is about the same size as the Greensward in Market Square. He added that Mariani is very well versed at projecting how large certain types of trees will grow and selecting appropriate trees. He confirmed that the new road will be private and stated that further discussion with the City is needed to determine whether the alley will remain in public ownership, or become the responsibility of the development. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public testimony. Paul Hamann, 511 Beverly Drive stated that he is opposed to the Library losing access to the 17 parking spaces on the City parcel. Dan Sebald, 560 Ivy Court, stated opposition to the urban and auto-centric nature of the development. He stated that the balconies appear too urban and inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. He noted that grills and toys may be stored on the balconies and be visible from McKinley Road. He stated objection to allowing the development to access on to McKinley Road and questioned why so many parking spaces are being provided. He suggested that the east/west road could be eliminated and building two moved to the north to provide a larger open space adjacent to the Library. He noted that in the future, the Library could have the option of constructing underground parking. He questioned the appropriateness of the roof top patio and the lot consolidation which will allow for a large building foot print. He stated that it is not unreasonable to ask what is planned for the second building. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 17 of 26 Ruth Bruggeman, 55 Farnham Lane and a representative of the Church of the Covenants, stated that information on the second building and its potential impacts on the Church’s property are important to the Church. She stated concern about the massing of the development, particularly the size of the second building. She questioned what the setback distance will be adjacent to the Church. She questioned the intention for the City property and again expressed concern about the size of the proposed buildings. She questioned why so much is being crowded on to the small site. She suggested that the road should be adjacent to the Church property, rather than a building. She stated that the Church property will be dwarfed by the proposed development and privacy will be impacted. She stated that the neighborhood will be drastically changed. She stated opposition to the siting and size of the proposed building and any use of the roof top space for outdoor activity. She asked the Commission to consider what the neighborhood has been and the changes proposed. David Bruggeman, Pastor of the Church of the Covenants, noted that today, there is really no buffer between the Church property and the 711 McKinley Road office building. He questioned whether the massing of the second building will eliminate the ability to have a buffer between the properties. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Ley invited final questions from the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Master Plan will establish parameters which must be followed as detailed plans for the area are developed. She stated that if something drastically different is proposed; the Master Plan would need to be revisited before such a plan could move forward. She noted however that the Master Plan does not address the details of a development such as the exact size, shape or design of a building. She noted that conditions are included in the staff report to address some of the concerns raised such as a requirement that in considering future buildings, an appropriate transition to the adjacent Church property to the south and single family homes to the east should be considered. She stated that although the first building provides some roof top living space, that type of space may not be appropriate for later buildings given their proximity to other uses. She noted that the Master Plan establishes that building two will be set further away from the south property line than the existing 711 McKinley Road office building and further than the setback required by the Code. She stated that some type of vegetative buffer will be required in the setback area the specifics of which will be determined when a future building is considered. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak described the roof top patio space planned in the center of the building proposed as an amenity for the first building. She stated that the Commission could make a recommendation that the Declarations of Covenants for the development regulate how the roof top patios and the balconies can be used. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 18 of 26 In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the required side yard setback is five feet so the buildings could be located closer together than represented in the Master Plan. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Commissioner Freeman stated that the concern he voiced at the last meeting about piecemeal development is addressed with the adoption of a Master Plan for the area and the Council’s intention to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the developer. He noted that with those in place, a developer will have less flexibility to do something different from the Plan without coming back to the Commission to request modification of the Master Plan. He stated that putting the easement in place at the outset for the east/west road alleviates the concern about moving forward with the first building in advance of the rest of the development. He stated that without a Master Plan and a commitment to see the Plan implemented, he was concerned about the value of the property to the south and the City property. He stated that he is comfortable with linking the establishment of the easement to the approval of the Master Plan. He stated that although the overall plan has not changed much since the last meeting, the conditions that are now recommended provide the necessary comfort that the vision will be achieved. He stated that the City Council needs the Master Plan to proceed with negotiations about the City parcel. He stated that in his opinion, the actions now proposed will make the Cultural Corridor vision a reality noting that this is a great opportunity for the developer, and for the City. He noted that the Master Plan will bind any future developer. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited rebuttal from the petitioner, hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Freeman encouraged the developer to make the most of the sight lines from McKinley Road and the train station into the development. He noted the opportunity to create a building with an architectural feature, views of the landscaped open space and views of the Library dome noting that the end result could be very special. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley stated that in his opinion, the Master Plan has come a long way from when the Board first saw the petition. He stated that the creation of a circulation and pedestrian corridor in the area is a plus along with the addition of open space in the area north of the Library. He commended the developer and the Building Review Board on how far the building design has come. He stated that the project will be attractive and distinctive. Commissioner Henry stated agreement with the comments of the Chairman noting that the process works well. He commended all involved in getting the project to this point. He encouraged those who have concerns to look at what the site of Regent’s Row was before that development was constructed and to consider what the area looks like today. He noted that the community is fortunate to have the luxury of knowing that the developer, architect and landscape firm all have proven track records in the Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 19 of 26 community. He stated that all of the questions that were raised were answered. He acknowledged that although there is still an opportunity for the properties to change hands, the Master Plan will assure that a powerful development is created. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited a motion. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Master Plan as presented subject to the following conditions and recommendations. 1. The City Council should put appropriate measures and agreements in place in order to provide the highest assurance possible that buildout of the area occurs consistent with the approved Master Plan. 2. As buildings two and three are considered, careful attention should be given to providing for appropriate transitions to and buffering of the Church of the Covenants property and the single family homes to the east. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henry. Commissioner Freeman suggested that condition #2 be modified to encourage consideration of increasing setbacks beyond the minimum required by the Code taking into account the adjacent land uses at the time. Commissioner Culbertson agreed to the amendment to condition #2 as suggested by Commissioner Freeman noting that the conditions as amended read as follows. 1. The City Council should put appropriate measures and agreements in place in order to provide the highest assurance possible that buildout of the area occurs consistent with the approved Master Plan. 2. As buildings two and three are considered, careful attention should be given to providing for appropriate transitions to and buffering of the Church of the Covenants property and the single family homes to the east. Particular attention should be given to increasing the setbacks, beyond the minimum required by the Code as determined to be appropriate taking into account the adjacent land uses at the time. Commissioner Henry seconded the amended motion and the motion was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion recommending approval of the consolidation of the 721 and 725 properties into a single building lot subject to the following conditions. 1. During construction, consideration should be given to mitigating impacts on the surrounding uses: the Library, the Church of the Covenants, train station, the 333 E. Westminster building and the nearby single family homes. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 20 of 26 2. A plan should be developed to allow the Library to continue to use a portion of the 361 E. Westminster site for overflow parking during construction, to the extent possible taking into consideration the safety of Library employees and patrons. 3. The Declaration of Covenants for the condominiums shall regulate how the outdoor spaces including the roof top patios, balconies and ground level terraces may be used and shall place limitations on the outdoor storage of materials in those areas. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion recommending that the full access easement be put in place on the 711 McKinley Road property at the time of construction of the first building to encumber the 711 property further assuring buildout consistent with the Master Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman and was approved by the Commissioner by a 6 to 0 vote. 5. Continued 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 for property located on the north side of Westleigh Road, west of Stable Lane, addressed as 770 W. Westleigh Road. Owner: Lake Forest Open Land Foundation Contract Purchaser: The Janko Group (Gary and Susan Janko) Representatives: John Sentell, President, LFOLA Nick Patera, Teska Associates Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts and swore in all those intended to speak. Commissioner Culbertson stated that he lives in the neighboring subdivision and recused himself from participating in the deliberations on this petition. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioner Kehr stated that The Janko Group was previously a client and stated that to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest; she is recusing herself from participating in the deliberations on this petition. She stepped down from the dais. Chairman Ley swore in all those intending to testify and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Sentell introduced the petition stating that they are prepared to present answers to the questions raised at the last meeting. He stated that the plan, as modified to address the concerns, presents a first class residential project and the opportunity to provide the benefit of another nature preserve to the community. He stated that the presentation will zero in on the key questions raised. He stated that the permitted density will be Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 21 of 26 clarified, changes made to the plan to address setbacks and establish a conservation easement will be reviewed and further response to the suggestion that the development be accessed from Stable will be provided. He noted that Mr. Janko was called out of town on a family matter. He commented that next year is the 50th anniversary of Lake Forest Open Lands as a not for profit trust working in the community to preserve natural history, open spaces and to provide a connection to nature for everyone in the community. He stated that the development presented delivers on that goal. Mr. Patera reviewed the discussion that occurred at the last meeting. He stated that the plan presented preserves over 80% of the site as open space, 18 acres, by compressing the development and creating a unique community. He stated that after questions about the 10-lot yield plan, a 9-lot yield plan was developed to further demonstrate that the proposed plan complies with the allowable density. He stated that the planned development process works to preserve the natural features of the site while still allowing the by right density to be achieved. He noted that the setback distance of the development area from Westleigh Road was increased along with the setbacks of the building areas on each individual lot that back up to Westleigh Road to address the concerns raised. He explained that in addition, a Conservation Easement is now proposed in the area between the development and Westleigh Road to assure that a vegetative buffer is maintained. He stated that in response to questions about whether access to the development should be provided from the north end of Stable Lane, several disadvantages of that approach were identified. He stated that maintaining a separate curb cut for the new development allows the development to have a unique personality and does not associate this distinctive new development with a large lot subdivision. He stated that a separate curb cut is important to attain the desires personality for the development and to provide a unique marketing approach. He stated that entering the development from Stable Lane would essentially be entering the development from a back door. He added that from another perspective, accessing the new development from Stable Lane would disrupt the natural areas, bisect the 22 acre property, change a natural drainage course and impact the important hydrology of the site. He stated that a road bisecting the property would eliminate the desired concentration of open space and would be contrary to Open Lands’ mission. He stated that the goal is not to just have open space around the perimeter of the site, but to have a grand, unobstructed open space. He returned to the setback issue noting that the setbacks of all of the proposed homes near Westleigh Road exceed the median setback of other homes along Westleigh Road. He reviewed an illustration showing the proposed setbacks and those of neighboring properties. He stated that the transition between the conservation area and the backyards of the homes will be seamless and will be consistent with the character of the nature preserve. He reviewed an illustration of the required setbacks and pointed out that the proposed setbacks are significantly more than the distance required. He noted that evergreen screening is planned on the west side of the site, to screen the walking trail from the closest home to the west. He stated that the intent is to build compact homes, on compact sites, so that open space can be provided for public use offering interconnected trails to the larger preserved open spaces in the community. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 22 of 26 Ms. Czerniak stated that there are two action items before the Commission, a request for a zone change from R-5 to R-4 and a request for approval of the tentative plat of subdivision. She stated that findings are presented in the staff report in support of the zone change. She stated that since the last meeting, the site plan and tentative plat of subdivision were modified in response to public comments and direction from the Commission. She stated that staff recommends approval of the tentative plat noting that tentative approval signals to the developer that final engineering plans and a final plat should be prepared. She noted that the final plat will return to the Commission for final consideration and verification that the final plans conform to the representations and plans presented during the tentative stage. She stated that at the last meeting, the Commission identified a handful of issues for further study and clarification. She stated that the first issue was whether 10 lots could really be achieved in conformance with the R-4 zoning district. She stated that staff met with the petitioner and encouraged further due diligence on development of a conventional plan to justify the proposed density. She stated that although a 10-lot plan still seems achievable, but difficult, the petitioner developed a 9-lot plan which shows efforts to work around the wetlands on the property. She stated that the City Engineer confirmed that the 9-lot plan appears achievable, although it would not result in development of the site in a manner consistent with the City’s goal of preserving and protecting natural resources. She explained that the City has historically encouraged Planned Preservation Subdivisions and in calculating the allowable density, required land needed for roadways and access easements to be discounted from the density calculations, but not land on which natural resources; woodlands, wetlands and prairies, are located. She explained that if the density calculation required the exclusion of acreage on which natural resources are located, a Planned Preservation Subdivision would be of no value to a developer and instead, the natural resources would likely be impacted with development spread across the site. She stated that the second issue was the setback distance of the homes closest to Westleigh Road. She stated that as reviewed by Mr. Patera, the setback of the development cluster and the setback of each home on the individual lots were increased and together; are more than double the distance required by the Code. She stated that the recommended conditions require that a conservation easement of no less than 50 feet wide be established on the plat of subdivision along the Westleigh Road street frontage, near the home sites. She noted that in some areas, the depth of the easement will be greater than 50 feet. She stated that the third issue was to ensure privacy for the neighboring properties to the west from the trail. She noted that a condition is recommended to require year round screening in the area where the trail most closely approaches the neighboring home. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Mr. Patera confirmed that the parkway, between the property line and Westleigh Road, provides additional distance between the street and the new homes, in addition to the increased setback distances provided in the modified plan. He confirmed that more landscaping will be added to the conservation area than exists today. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 23 of 26 Mike Rummel, former Mayor of Lake Forest and currently a member of the Lake County Board and the Forest Preserve District, thanked the members for the important work done by the Commission. He stated that he is speaking in his capacity as a member of the Lake County Forest Preserve Board noting that the Forest Preserve owns property to the south of the site, the Prairie Wolf Slough, and is purchasing more land in the area. He noted that in a nearby development now underway on Route 22, the developer is maximizing the building and impervious surface on the site. He noted that maximizing the development of that site is causing water problems which so far have caused the project to be stopped twice. He stated that the development at 770 Westleigh Road does a great job of maintaining the natural flow of water through the area. He commended the project proposed by Open Lands and noted the past success of other projects including the Middlefork Farm Subdivision which preserved open space, wetlands and an oak savannah. He stated that the Forest Preserve heartily supports the plan as presented. He noted that smaller homes area appealing to people who wish to come to move to Lake County. Dan Sebald, 560 Ivy Court, stated that the surrounding area is more typical of R-5 zoning than R-4 and suggested that the property not be rezoned. He stated opposition to the proposed development noting that it is very auto intensive and will change the character of Westleigh Road. He stated that the property to the south is quintessential Lake Forest. He stated that the proposed development appears artificial, not natural. He stated that he appreciates the goal of Lake Forest Open Lands but noted that the Dickinson family, the prior owners, likely did not intend this type of development. Paul Hamman, 511 Beverly Drive, stated that he is a 58 year resident of Lake Forest. He stated that according to Lake Forest Open Lands’ mission statement, the organization is devoted to the acquisition of land. He noted that the mission statement does not indicate that Open Lands is a development company that buys property, holds it and later sells it to a developer for new homes. He stated that donors do not intend for the land they helped to purchase to be sold for development. Howard Simpson, 1480 N. Green Bay Road, stated that he has been involved with Lake Forest Open Lands Association for the last 49 during which time a great deal of land was preserved. He stated that when the planned preservation provisions were incorporated into the City Code, about 20 years ago, it was with the specific intent of supporting conservation developments like the one now before the Commission. He noted other successful subdivisions that Open Lands made possible. He stated that over the last 50 years, Lake Forest Open Lands has brought over $40,000,000 in corporate donations into the community and manages 300 acres of its own land as open space as well as portions of City owned properties and conservation easements. He added that Open Lands provides programs for school children. He stated that he wanted to set the record straight on Lake Forest Open Lands Association. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley invited final questions from the Commission. Hearing none, he invited rebuttal to public testimony Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 24 of 26 from the petitioner and City staff. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Ruggles thanked the petitioner for providing the additional information and for increasing the setbacks and providing a comparison of the proposed setbacks to the existing setbacks in the area. She commented that the information presented helps to clarify that the setbacks as now proposed are consistent with the character of the street. She stated that she is in favor of the petition noting that the plan is well done and stating appreciation for the preservation of natural features on the site. She stated that in her opinion, the petitioners have been very careful to work within the existing limits of the Code and are providing a different type of development than is readily available in the community. Commissioner Freeman thanked the petitioners for better defining the conservation easement. He stated that the petitioner made tremendous strides by increasing the buffer between the homes and the road while still managing to preserve the majority of the remnant mesic prairie. He said that the additional study and information on the density calculation was helpful noting that he supports the conservation approach to development in general. He stated that this property is precisely the type of site that benefits from a planned preservation subdivision approach. He thanked the petitioner for developing the 9-lot conventional plan noting that in his opinion, that plan, not the 10-lot plan, demonstrates that the proposed density can reasonably be accommodated on the site. In response to questions from Commissioner Henry, Ms. Czerniak stated that the conservation easement is reflected on the plat of subdivision. Hearing no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited a motion. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to recommend approval of a zone change from R-5 to R-4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ruggles and it was approved by a vote of 4 to 0. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to recommend approval of the tentative plat of subdivision for the 770 Westleigh Road Planned Preservation Subdivision subject to the following conditions. The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to consideration of a request for final plat approval by the Plan Commission. 1. Final engineering plans which have been determined to be complete, accurate and in conformance with all applicable regulations and standards by the City Engineer, and any other documents deemed necessary by the City Engineer shall be on file, in final form, with the City. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 25 of 26 a. Approvals from any outside agencies must be submitted as directed by the City Engineer. b. The engineering plans shall reflect the preservation of the existing topography to the extent possible with any grade changes kept to the minimum necessary to meet good engineering practices. 2. The final plat of subdivision shall be submitted and determined to meet all applicable requirements by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development. The following notations, and any other notes deemed appropriate by staff, shall be noted on the final plat of subdivision. a. No further subdivision of the open space areas is permitted. b. A Conservation Easement must be established the full length of Westleigh Road, except for the area where the curb cut is located with appropriate clearance for sightlines as required by the City Engineer. The Conservation Area must be a minimum depth of 50 feet except for the area which is immediately adjacent to Lots 7, 8 and 9, and Outlot D, in which case the Conservation Easement shall extend to the south property lines of those lots. c. The Conservation Easement shall be maintained as a vegetative buffer to preserve the natural streetscape of Westleigh Road. Any removals within the Conservation Area are subject to review and approval by the City along with a plan and timeline for replacement plantings to achieve a density and diversity of plantings that are consistent with the existing streetscape. d. A landscape buffer area shall be delineated on the plat to provide for year round, ongoing screening between the trail and the nearest homes located to the west of the property. The note shall state that the plantings in the landscape buffer area must be maintained and replaced as necessary as part of the ongoing care of the nature preserve area. e. The Homeowners’ Association is responsible for all ongoing maintenance of all private infrastructure including, but not limited to all aspects of the storm sewer system, the road and the common area. f. The party responsible for maintaining the nature preserve in perpetuity shall be stated on the plat. g. All new homes shall be equipped with residential sprinkler systems for fire protection. 3. A final tree removal and tree preservation plan shall be submitted including a total of tree inches proposed for removal. A tree planting plan shall provide a minimum of inch for inch replacement for the trees removed from the site. 4. A final landscape plan shall reflect plantings proposed on the site to provide screening from existing adjacent development and infill landscaping as determined to be necessary on the streetscape. The plan Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2016 Page 26 of 26 shall identify removals of dead, diseased and vegetation that is failing to thrive in these areas and reflect on the plan how the gaps left by removals will be filled and the perimeter areas enhanced. The final landscape plan shall reflect street tree plantings, plantings in common areas within the development site including around the ponds and provide a typical plantings plan for an individual lot. 5. A draft of the Declaration of Covenants shall be submitted subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development and if appropriate, the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Henry and was approved by the Commission by a 4 to 0 vote. Commissioners Kehr and Culbertson returned to the dais. 6. Additional public comment on non-agenda items No additional testimony was presented on non-agenda items. 7. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak distributed copies of the section of the Code related to wireless facilities. She stated that as a continuation of the process of reviewing and updating the Code, the Commission will be reviewing this section at the coming meetings. She noted that a while back a task force studied this section and recommendations from that group will be incorporated into an updated draft which will be distributed at a later date. She stated that part of the discussion will be about a potential additional site for a telecommunication tower in the vicinity of Waukegan and Everett Roads. She noted that there are options today for stealth tower installations that are less aesthetically jarring than the current towers. She stated that no action on this item is expected in January. Ms. Czerniak noted that the Commission received a draft meeting schedule for 2017 and asked for a motion to approve the schedule. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to approve the 2017 meeting schedule. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ruggles and was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development