Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2010/09/15 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the September 15, 2010 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 15, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Jack Reisenberg, Commissioners Mark Shaw, Tim Newman, Catherine Waldeck, Beth Miller and Jeff Kuchman. Commission members absent: Commissioner Michael Adelman Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Reisenberg opened the meeting and introduced members of the Commission and staff. 2. Approval of the minutes from the May 12, 2010 and June 9, 2010 Plan Commission meetings. The minutes of the May 12, 2010 meeting were approved as submitted. The minutes of the June 9, 2010 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Public Hearing and Action: Continued consideration of amendments to Chapter 38 of the City Code, Subdivisions. This is part of an ongoing effort by the Plan Commission to update and clarify various sections of the City Code pertaining to development. Chairman Reisenberg asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts on this agenda item. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from staff noting that this agenda item is a continuation of previous Plan Commission discussions on amendments to the Subdivision Chapter. Ms. Czerniak reiterated that this is a continuation of previous Plan Commission public hearings on this matter. She stated that this is the fourth Plan Commission meeting on this item noting that previous comments of the Commissioners are incorporated into this draft. She noted that based on staff research, most of this Chapter has not been revised since 1946. She pointed out that much has changed since that time with respect to development noting that flood plain regulations, wetlands, a steep slope ordinance, new engineering standards and new processes are now in place and are not accurately and thoroughly addressed in the Chapter. She stated that the proposed revisions do not alter the current subdivision process, but instead attempt to clearly articulate current practices and set out requirements and evaluation criteria. She noted that the proposed changes are again reflected in strikeout text and that changes from the most recent Plan Commission discussion are further identified using yellow highlighting. She acknowledged that working with the strikeout format, assuring that the formatting and numbering is correct is difficult, she stated that once the content and language is accepted by the Plan Commission, Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 2 of 10 further cleanup of the document will occur. She noted that the City Engineer and City Attorney are also involved in reviewing and editing this Chapter. She stated that once the Plan Commission is comfortable with the proposed changes, it would be appropriate for the Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council. She pointed out that when revising an entire Chapter of the Code, the end document is never perfect. She noted however that with the update of the entire Chapter, it will be simpler to bring forward minor amendments or updates to the Commission as flaws are identified and as changes occur that necessitate further updates. She emphasized that the Code should be a dynamic document that is updated on an ongoing basis as needed, rather than waiting to do an overall update every few decades. She acknowledged that during times of very heavy development activity, it is difficult for the Commission and for staff to give the attention needed to Code updates. Ms. Czerniak highlighted the changes made, at the Commission’s direction, to the portion of the Chapter that was previously reviewed. She noted that at the request of Commissioner Adelman, the term Fee Schedule was defined and language was added to note the legal importance of a plat of subdivision. She noted that the language pertaining to variances was modified based on a fairly extensive discussion by the Commission. She noted that “disclosure of interest” language was added under the tentative plat provisions and that this language was moved to this location from a later part of the Chapter for clarity. She stated that the language itself was not changed. Commissioner Miller suggested incorporating a reference to LLC’s and managing partners in this section. Ms. Czerniak continued noting that some additional application requirements were suggested by the City Engineer and were added. She noted that the language pertaining to property lines was clarified and a reference was added to the City’s Engineering and Development Standards so that it is clear which standards will apply to particular types of developments. She commented that the City’s Engineering and Development Standards are on the City’s website. Commissioner Miller suggested that some specificity be added to define the type and extent of information that should be provided by the applicant to demonstrate financial capacity and project viability. In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak stated that financial guarantees are addressed later in the Chapter but the Performa is intended to give the Commission a general sense of whether the project is based on comprehensive planning and a reasonable framework. She stated that the Commission’s role is not to evaluate the financial success of a project or determine the economic wisdom or economic viability of the project. She noted that the Performa itself is not a financial guarantee, but instead a source of information for the Commission in an effort to have a broad understanding of the proposed project. Hearing no further questions, Ms. Czerniak summarized that since the last meeting, the first part of the Chapter was further modified in these areas: definitions were added, the variance language was modified and the tentative plat requirements were enhanced. She noted that the additional modifications offered by the Commission will be incorporated. Ms. Czerniak discussed the changes made to the second half of the Chapter noting that some portions of the second half fit more logically into the first half of the Chapter and therefore, were Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 3 of 10 incorporated into the portion of the Chapter already reviewed by the Commission. She noted that public notice requirements are now spelled out in the Chapter. She explained that currently, the public notice requirements are detailed on the subdivision application, but do not appear in the Code. She stated that the public notice requirements are consistent with the requirements in the State Statutes. She stated that the tentative plat procedures were clarified, but no substantial changes were made. She pointed out that the language tries to more clearly set forth that there are two phases of subdivision approval, the tentative phase and the final phase. She noted that currently, the Code allows 12 months, with a provision for a 12 month extension, between the time that the City Council grants tentative plat approval of a plat and the time that the developer must submit an application for final plat approval. She asked for Commission input on whether an opportunity for a second extension of tentative approval should be provided for in the Code. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak explained that if tentative plat approval is granted and approximately 10 months have passed and no application for final plat approval has been submitted, staff will contact the developer to encourage submittal of a request for the 12 month extension. She acknowledged that if the time frame for tentative plat approval expires and the same subdivision is resubmitted, the review process is likely to be streamlined unless regulations, requirements or the conditions of or near the property have changed since the last review. In response to a question from Chairman Reisenberg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that currently, the Code only permits one 12 month extension. Chairman Reisenberg commented that in these troubled times, it may be appropriate to provide the opportunity for a second extension. Commissioner Kuchman questioned whether a tentative plat approval should expire. Commissioner Miller stated that there needs to be an expiration date noting that tentative plat approval carries with it requests for specific information and approvals of specific elements of the proposed development. She noted that over time, the regulations and ordinances on which those approvals are based may change. She noted that an unresolved tentative plat approval on a property could tie it up for the future. In response to questions, Ms. Czerniak explained that when tentative plat approval is granted, technical issues of the proposed development have been found to meet current requirements at the County and local level. She noted that those requirements may change from time to time. She added that development patterns or traffic patterns around a particular parcel may change over time resulting in a change to what the City may approve for the parcel. Chairman Reisenberg stated support for providing the opportunity to request a second 12 month extension of tentative plat approval from the City Council noting that this would allow a developer a total of 36 months from the date of tentative plat approval from the City Council to submittal of an application for final plat approval. Hearing no further questions, Ms. Czerniak continued noting that as was done for tentative plat approval, the application requirements for final plat approval are detailed in the Chapter. She added that the procedures for final plat approval are also clarified. She stated that a section was Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 4 of 10 added detailing what information is required prior to recording a plat of subdivision after final plat approval. She stated that currently, this information does not appear in the Code. She discussed the improvement standards section noting that most of this language remains the same. She noted that a reference was added to the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance and that language was added to address detention ponds since those requirements were not in place in 1946 when this Chapter was originally adopted. She discussed the final section on design standards noting that language in this section was clarified with respect to lot configurations to support subdivisions that create lots that provide for a reasonable buildable area. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak noted that the specific requirements for slopes of bluffs and ravines are included in another part of the Code. She confirmed that 22% is the angle at which a slope is stable. She acknowledged that depending on the specific situation, the City Engineer may approve the use of a retaining wall or other structure to achieve the necessary stability. Ms. Czerniak concluded the review after noting the changes made since the Commission’s last review of the proposed amendments. She asked for further Commission direction noting that if the Commission chooses to move the amendments forward to the City Council, the final comments of the Commission will be incorporated into the document, the formatting will be cleaned up and final reviews will be done by the City Engineer and City Attorney. She stated that alternatively, if the Commission would like to see the document again, with the comments from this meeting incorporated into the Chapter, the matter should be continued to the next Commission meeting. In response to questions from Commissioner Miller regarding the language pertaining to lot configuration, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that there are many parcels in the community with irregular shapes noting that the Code does not preclude unique lot configurations if warranted due to physical constraints on the property. She explained that the Code language provides for generally regular lot configurations in most circumstances to provide for workable buildable areas. Chairman Reisenberg stated support for moving the Code amendments forward subject to final review by the City Engineer and City Attorney and final wording refinements. Commissioner Newman agreed noting that if during the final refinement process some significant changes occur, the matter should be brought back to the Commission for further review. Commissioner Miller disagreed and suggested that the document be refined and some of the language be cleaned up and returned to the Commission for final review before the Commission takes action on the proposed amendments. She stated that currently some of the language is poorly written and hard to follow. Chairman Reisenberg accepted Commissioner Miller’s suggestion and recommended that the Commission continue the matter to allow staff to bring the amended Chapter back to the Commission one more time. He asked that sections that are modified from the version reviewed by the Commission be highlighted as was done with this version. Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 5 of 10 Chairman Reisenberg invited public comment, hearing none; he invited a motion to continue the matter. Commissioner Miller made a motion to continue consideration of the amendments to the next meeting to allow final changes and refinements to be made as directed by the Commission and to provide an opportunity for final review by the City Engineer and City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Newman and the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. The Commission took a brief recess. 4. Information Only: Update from the City’s Housing Trust on the results of the recent Affordable Housing Survey and City Council discussions on the City’s Affordable Housing Plan, policies and regulations. Chairman Reisenberg asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts relating to this agenda item. Commissioner Shaw noted that he previously recused himself from participating in the Commission’s public hearing on the proposed Settler’s Green affordable housing development due to a business relationship with the developer. He noted however that since tonight’s presentation pertains to affordable housing in general, he is able to participate in the discussion. He noted that at his request, staff confirmed with the City Attorney that his participation is appropriate. Chairman Reisenberg invited a presentation from Michael Burns, the Chairman of the City’s Housing Trust Board noting that the Commission will hear an update on affordable housing and emphasized that the Commission is not considering any specific project at this meeting. Michael Burns stated that tonight’s presentation is an overview and update on affordable housing in Lake Forest. He stated that he will provide a brief review of the results of the recent survey which was done by the Housing Trust to assess the community’s need for affordable housing, provide an update on recent City Council discussions on affordable housing and provide an overview of the work of the Housing Trust. He noted that the Housing Trust’s role is to propose, review and recommend updates to specific policies of the City that address affordable housing. He noted that the Trust is also responsible for facilitating the creation of affordable housing units in the community and supporting specific affordable housing developments. He provided some historical background on affordable housing in Lake Forest noting that prior to 1920, the areas near the Central Business District, the high school and West Park were developed with affordable units. He continued noting that during the period from the 1920’s through the late 1970’s, additional affordable units were built in the Whispering Oaks and H.O. Stone subdivisions and near South Park. He stated that since the 1970’s, affordable units have been lost in the community as land prices rose and demolitions and home additions and alterations occurred. He stated that affordable housing has really been a part of the history of Lake Forest since the beginning. He read a narrative of the history of the area around West Park pointing out that this area was intentionally developed for working people, particularly those in public Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 6 of 10 service. He explained that much has been lost in the diversity of housing in the community. He reviewed actions taken by the City Council in support of affordable housing in recent years. He noted that in 2003 the City Council adopted a Resolution in support of affordable housing and in 2004, identified some City owned properties as surplus and appropriate for affordable housing developments. He noted that in 2005, the Council adopted the City’s first Affordable Housing Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. He stated that in 2006, the Council approved a Demolition Tax which is levied on homes that are demolished to allow replacement structures to be built. He noted that a portion of the tax goes to support the creation of affordable housing units in the community. He stated that in 2006, the Housing Trust Board was established to focus on affordable housing goals. He continued noting that in 2008, the City Council passed a Resolution in support of interjurisdictional cooperation on affordable housing issues and in 2009, the Council approved a motion in support of application being made for tax credits for the proposed Settler’s Green development. He discussed the definition of affordable housing noting that “affordable” means that not more than 30% of a family’s gross income is needed for housing expenses. He reviewed target income ranges for households of various sizes. He noted that depending on the type of affordable housing project, different income ranges and standards are targeted. He noted that the income ranges are developed based on the Chicago Standard Statistical Area. He reviewed 2000 Census data noting that 17% percent of the households in Lake Forest fell in the target range for affordable housing units with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 per year. He stated that in the recent survey conducted by the Housing Trust, 24% of the non-senior households, and 22% of the senior households fell within targeted income ranges with incomes between $40,000 and $80,000 per year. He stated that updated data, from the 2010 Census, is expected in the first quarter of 2011. He commented that given the current state of the economy, the numbers from the census are expected to show that the number of households in need of affordable housing is not going down. He discussed local employees noting that 50.2% of the survey respondents, or about 7,200 employees, have household incomes of $40,000 or less. He noted that due to the corporate head quarters located in Conway Park, data shows that there has been some increase in the household incomes of employees working in Lake Forest in recent years. He noted however that the number of employees living in Lake Forest is down from previous years indicating the lack of affordable housing for employees in certain salary ranges. He discussed the affordable housing survey conducted by the Housing Trust noting that is was conducted from May thru July of this year, 2010. He noted that the survey targeted three groups, City of Lake Forest residents who are seniors, City of Lake Forest residents who are non-seniors and employees who work in Lake Forest. He stated that 1200 responds were received with 73% of the respondents being employees and 27% of the respondents being residents. He commented that the response rate reflects that it is easier to reach employees through a company Human Resources Department. He reviewed the survey results for each group noting that the uncertainty of being able to find affordable housing was a key element factoring into whether people plan to remain in Lake Forest. He discussed employees noting that a very high percentage of employees drive alone to work noting that the lack of local affordable housing is an issue for employers. He stated that driving times are between 30 and 60 minutes one way for many employees. He reviewed the availability of homes in Lake Forest available for sale or rent which have price points within the affordable range. He noted that the supply of affordable homes is limited, even in the current economic climate. He said that surprisingly only 2.8% of the available units fall below $200, 000 and only 2.6% fall between $200,000 and $300,000. He noted that the majority of available housing stock in the community is still over $500,000. He stated that foreclosed homes do not really represent the supply of affordable units that many expect. He reviewed next steps noting that the Council is Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 7 of 10 currently in the process of considering amendments to the Affordable Housing Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as recommended by the Housing Trust. He reviewed the recommendations from the Housing Trust that are now before the City Council for consideration. 1. The inclusion of single family, detached home subdivisions in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (This recommendation would require future action by the Plan Commission.) 2. Increasing the amount of the payment in lieu of affordable units for new developments. (This recommendation would require future action by the Plan Commission.) 3. Increasing the amount of the demolition tax. 4. Directing the Housing Trust to work with the Senior Resources Commission to expand the Neighborhood Homes Without Walls Program. He noted that the City’s Comprehensive Plan has not yet been revised to incorporate the City’s adopted affordable housing goals noting that the City Council may direct this work to be done and if so, the Plan Commission would be involved in this process. He concluded noting that the Housing Trust will continue to work on specific affordable housing projects as well. He stated that the presentation was intended to provide an update and a brief overview of the work completed to date on affordable housing for the new Commissioners. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Mr. Burns stated that the Housing Trust has not conducted research on the availability of affordable units in nearby communities. Commissioner Waldeck noted concern about the focus on providing affordable units for employees. She commented that there are likely rental units available in neighboring communities less than 30 minutes away. In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Michael Burns stated that many of the rental units available in the surrounding communities are not family units. He stated that much of the need is for families in the community who are going through changes such as the loss of the job and those affected by divorce. He stated that these families want to stay in the community. Commissioner Waldeck said that she is struggling with the responsibility of this community to address the needs of employee who are commuting to work. She stated that there is a difference between long time residents who have fallen on hard times and those who are commuting to work in Lake Forest. She noted that many Lake Forest residents commute an hour or more downtown to work because they choose to live in Lake Forest. Mr. Burns stated that it is not simply the commute distance but the importance of some of these employees to supporting the community such as the hospital. He noted that the hospital has repeatedly expressed concern that the ability to provide critical services to the community is affected by the fact that employees need to live so far away. Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 8 of 10 Chairman Reisenberg noted that when the community first actively got involved in affordable housing the economy was very different. He questioned how the current economy is affecting the City’s efforts or position on affordable housing. Mr. Burns stated that in fact there may be more need for affordable housing today than in 2003 when these discussions began. He acknowledged that in 2003, employees were not as large a part of the discussion as they are today. He added that corporate businesses support the community through taxes and in return the community needs to support their need to retain and attract employees. The Housing Trust now sees a broader need, at various levels and categories, than was apparent in 2003. In response to a question from Chairman Reisenberg, Mr. Burns agreed that the Trust expected that with the current economy, the number of houses at lower price points would be increased. He noted however that the demolitions of single family homes that occurred in the 1990’s impacted the supply of affordable homes. He stated that the number of houses below the $400,000 price point has declined considerably as a result of demolitions and price inflations. He noted that current economic condition has not brought as many homes back to the affordable range as some might expect. In response to questions from Commissioner Miller, Mr. Burns confirmed that the lower end of existing units includes some Crystal Point units. He stated that he does not believe that the price points include assessments or other fixed costs. In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck Ms. Czerniak stated that the survey was developed and conducted by City staff, not an outside consultant. She stated that the survey was distributed through local employers including the schools, Lake Forest College, the hospital, the City and large employers such as those at Conway Farm. She added that the Senior Center assisted with the distribution of the surveys. She explained that the survey was intended to identify and quantify the interest in and need for affordable housing in the community. Commissioner Shaw questioned the value of the survey since it was not distributed to the full community. Mr. Burns explained that the survey was an effort to identify the extent of need for and interest in affordable housing and to confirm how many units might be needed. He stated that the survey was not meant to be a comparison of the need for affordable housing with the whole population of Lake Forest or a survey of the level of support for affordable housing. . In response to a question from Commissioner Kuchman, Mr. Burns stated that over the next 10 years, it is anticipated that there could be a need for 70 to 80 affordable units. In response to a question from Commissioner Newman, Mr. Burns noted that the purpose of this presentation is to provide a review, but not focus on a specific project. He noted however that with State involvement, the City would have less control over an affordable housing development than if it was financed locally. Chairman Reisenberg invited public comments Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 9 of 10 Richard Repko, 825 Fox Trail Court, noted that most employees drive 30 to 60 minutes to work because it is their choice. He stated that if people wanted to live and work here, they would. He stated that this is not a valid consideration for affordable housing. He stated that most employees who work in the community will not qualify based on the target ranges due to their income levels. He stated that the bottom line is that the need is for senior citizens who want to live here. He stated that there are 66 affordable units in Lake Forest and Lake Bluff already noting that there is no need for the City to spend time and money to build units that already exist. He stated that the money should be used elsewhere in the community. Skip Thompson, 1055 Arcady, questioned how the survey results compare with the communities that have similar office parks and asked what other communities are doing if there is a similar need. He stated that he is familiar with some of the efforts of Highland Park but noted that the survey results show that people want to own homes with two car garages. He questioned whether there is really a need for housing for hospital employees and questioned whether the acquisition by Northwestern has caused any changes. He stated that employees at St. Mary’s west campus did not receive surveys noting that he wife works there. Jane Partridge, 1799 Farm Road, stated that she has lived here 38 years and stated that she knows many people who need places to live noting that some of them have children in schools and want to stay in the community. She noted that the Senior Center always has a list of people in need of housing. She stated that the need is real. A resident at 1100 Sir William Lane stated that he can read the survey data and come to different conclusions. He noted that the early affordable units in the community were associated with the estates and supported workers because transportation was not available at that time. He noted that the needs were different than they are now. He discussed the 2000 Census results noting that if 15% of the population within the income target ranges is living here today, how are they making it work. He noted that the 15% of people in these ranges already meet the 10% requirement for affordable housing in the community. He questioned whether there is something more than income that should be factored in to the income ranges. He questioned whether a need exists in the community. He noted that the data on employees is unclear due to the lack of information about the underlying data. He stated that he is a proponent of affordable housing and stated that in his opinion, the Housing Trust should be doing something for long time Lake Forest residents. He stated that it is not the government’s responsibility to provide housing for employees living in other communities. He questioned whether there are creative ways, other than building new homes, to help long time residents who have fallen on hard times. He noted that second mortgages or other mechanisms may be possible. A resident at 1068 Arcady stated that the survey should have included surrounding communities noting that if people have a hard time living in Lake Forest, they should look in other communities. He noted that Lake Bluff is a good place. He stated that there is a great diversity in housing in the communities around Lake Forest noting that more affordable housing is available. He stated that the Plan Commission is entrusted with making long tern decisions for Lake Forest. He cautioned against making decisions that build structures that will need to be maintained by future generations. He agreed that the community should look at providing financial assistance to those in need noting that such a program would be easier to administer than the creation of public housing. He noted that building a project brings with it the difficult decisions of who should live there. He noted that helping people financially could allow them to Plan Commission Minutes – September 15, 2010 Page 10 of 10 live in Conway Farms and no one would know. He stated that thought needs to be given to the overall approach before jumping to specific solutions. Ms. Partridge noted that some people are moving in with their parents or other people in crowded situations. She commented that most people who are having difficult times do not what their names used. She said that she could write up stories about many situations. She stated that historically Lake Forest has provided homes for people with different levels of income. She commented that much of that housing stock was lost with demolition and reconstruction of larger homes. She stated that some of the people in need have given great service to the community and volunteered time and effort to make the community a better place. Mr. Burns thanked the Commission for the opportunity to provide an update. He stated appreciation for the thoughts about grants but noted that pursuing grants is not the Housing Trust’s mandate and that instead, the Housing Trust is mandated to provide additional affordable housing units as the Council has directed. He noted that Lake Forest has a history of diversity in housing price points. He stated that in recent years, the community has turned its back on the diversity that always existed. He stated that in his opinion, it is a disappointment to see the community turn its back on this tradition. In response to questions from Chairman Reisenberg, Mr. Burns stated that tax reductions for senior citizens is out of the purview of the Housing Trust but noted that taxing decisions are under the purview of the various taxing bodies. Commissioner Miller described some of the tax reduction mechanisms available for senior citizens noting that they are based on income levels. . 5. Public testimony on non-agenda items. There was no public testimony on non-agenda items. 6. Additional information from staff. Staff provided an overview of upcoming agenda items. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development