Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2010/03/16 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the March 16, 2010 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Avery, Commissioners Mark Shaw, Robert Franksen, Michael Adelman, Tim Newman, Jack Reisenberg and Catherine Waldeck. Commission members absent: None Staff present: Peter Coutant, Senior Planner, and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Avery opened the meeting and asked members of the Commission and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes from January 13, 2010 Plan Commission meeting. The minutes of the January 13, 2010, were approved subject to review and clarification of one paragraph as requested by Chairman Avery. 3. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a request for approval of the final plat and associated Special Use Permit for White Stable Vineyard Subdivision. The property is generally located south of Route 60 and west of Ridge Road and is commonly referred to as the Reilly property. A 34-lot single family residential subdivision and vineyard are proposed. Owner: Reilly Partnership Applicant and contract purchaser: Thomas Swarthout on behalf of The Highview Group, Ltd. Chairman Avery asked the Commissioners for any conflicts or interest of Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Waldeck stated that she has consulted with Mr. Swarthout regarding a potential home improvement project, but noted that she does not believe that the discussion will affect her ability to rule impartially on the petition. Chairman Avery swore in all those planning to speak and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Swarthout re-introduced the petition noting that a great deal of work has been accomplished since tentative approval of the plat of subdivision in the fall. He noted that since the Plan Commission last saw this project, tentative approval was granted by the City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission approved the relocation of the stable and coach house. He thanked those who have been involved in the project to date including the Plan Commission, Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 2 of 21 Lake Forest Open Lands, the Preservation Foundation, City staff and all of the neighbors who have offered comments and raised questions. He stated that the project is better as a result of the process. He noted that his team of professionals has made this project possible to this point and he introduced and thanked each member of the team. He noted that the wine maker is in attendance to answer any questions that may come up regarding the wine making process. He reiterated that the goal of the project from the out set has been to preserve the last farm in Lake Forest. He stated that in addition, the project goals include protecting and enhancing adjacent neighborhoods, preserving three historic structures on the site and creating the first “green” neighborhood in this area. Mr. Mitchell, Mariani Landscaping, reviewed the landscape plan noting that since tentative approval, the landscape plan has been detailed after several meetings with City staff. He gave an overview of the plan noting that the design is focused on the winery and maintaining the agricultural theme throughout the property. He explained the goals of the plan: to create a unique landscape based on a rural farmstead theme, to establish a native planting palette and a four season landscape, and to create a participatory environment. He reviewed the north perimeter of the site pointing out that the existing berm along Route 60 will be enhanced and an orchard planned in the northwest corner of the site. He described the mix of trees planned for the area noting a focus on fall color. He noted that no-mow grass will be used in many areas. He noted “fingers” of landscaping that will extend into the vineyard area from the north perimeter of the site. He confirmed that as noted in the staff report, the vegetation at the perimeters of the property will be maintained although scrub vegetation within those areas will be removed and replaced with native vegetation. He stated that in areas where additional plantings are needed to provide screening, City staff will be consulted. He discussed the areas around the ponds and described the wetland friendly plants and trees that will be used similar to the approach used by Lake Forest Open Lands. He discussed the east side of the site noting that the new road is configured to preserve the significant oaks on the property. He described the area around the stable and coach house noting formal and informal gathering spaces for wine tasting and a cutting garden. He discussed the plant materials that will be used around the winery noting that they will be native and in the character of a farmstead with edible materials. He explained that a working garden will be located in the center of the vineyard. He noted that as a vegetable garden, it will have seasonal changes. He discussed the individual lots that will be developed with new homes noting that plantings in the rear yards of the homes will be limited in order to preserve openness on the site and views to and from neighboring homes. He stated that evergreens and invasive species will be controlled through the Homeowners’ Association. Ms. Czerniak stated that this petition is now before the Commission for final approval. She noted that the staff report reviews the conditions of tentative approval and how they have been satisfied. She stated that the development and detailing of the landscape is the most significant change since the Plan Commission last saw this project. She confirmed that there have been several meetings and discussions regarding the landscape plan with City staff. She pointed out that the landscape plan essentially creates various “zones” on the site, each with a different landscape theme. She stated that as buildout of the development occurs, it will be important for staff to work closely with the developer on specific plantings or removal of vegetation to assure that the “zones” are planted out as established on the plan. She confirmed that final engineering plans have been reviewed by staff and final comments have been forwarded to the petitioner, none of which are significant or would result in a change to the overall plan. She noted that as part of tentative approval of the plan, the Commission asked that further consideration be given Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 3 of 21 to the intersection of Ridge Road, Route 61 and Route 41. She stated that both City staff and the petitioners had discussions with IDOT and agree that there is no opportunity or desire for an additional curb cut on to Route 60 in this area. She added that further consideration was given to aligning Ridge Road north and south of Route 60, but that there is agreement that encouraging cross traffic in this location is not desirable. She acknowledged that in the future, the State may make alterations to Route 41 in this area, but forecasted that any changes are likely some years out. She commented that the proposed development has three access points, two on Ridge Road and one to the west, connecting with Reilly Lane. She stated that the North Carroll Meadows subdivision was developed with the intention of extending Reilly Lane to serve the eventual development on the Reilly property. She referenced the recommended conditions of approval in the staff report and reviewed the issues addressed by the conditions. She confirmed that standard public notice was provided in accordance with the Code. She recommended final approval of the plat of subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit. Chairman Avery suggested that an additional condition be added to allow the City to step in and maintain the outlots and elements on those outlots, at the expense of the Homeowners’ Association, in the event that the Homeowners’ Association does not maintain the outlots in accordance with the original approvals and the Declaration of Covenants. He noted that the City would not necessarily do the maintenance, but could contract with a private contractor or for example, Lake Forest Open Lands, to assure maintenance in accordance with the approvals. He clarified that it is not his expectation that the Homeowners’ Association would not fulfill its responsibility, but offered that this condition should address concerns raised earlier about what happens if the winery is not successful In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Ms. Czerniak stated that conditions of this type are common and are most often used to assure proper maintenance of detention ponds. She explained that the five year landscape guarantee period is intended to provide for twice a year inspections of landscaping by City staff to confirm that the plantings are thriving consistent with the intent of the approved landscape plan. She explained that during this time, the City Arborist is able to require additional plantings to achieve the intent of the approved plan. She stated that a Letter of Credit from the developer is held by the City for this period during which the landscaping is expected to become established. She stated that during the first five years, the landscaping of all of the common areas will be inspected twice a year and the developer will be required to do replacement or enhancement plantings as determined to be necessary. She explained that if the plantings are not completed within the time frame allowed, the City has the ability to draw on the Letter of Credit to do the plantings. She explained that after the Letter of Credit expires, the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for the landscaping. Commissioner Adelman pointed out that the five year landscape guarantee period does not start until the City accepts the improvements of the subdivision which can be several years after the initial construction of the development begins. In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak stated that she believes that the streets in the Everett Farms subdivision are public streets. She stated that she does not know whether Lake Forest Open Lands or the homeowners pay for maintenance of the open space area associated with the development. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 4 of 21 In response to questions from Commissioner Reisenberg about the Declaration of Covenants, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the sanitary and storm sewers in the development will be public and therefore will be the responsibility of the City. She confirmed that snow plowing will be the responsibility of the Homeowners’ Association and that the Declaration of Covenants appropriately addresses this and other issues. She explained that in the staff report, only key aspects of the Covenants were highlighted. In response to questions from Commissioner Reisenberg, Mr. Swarthout confirmed that streets and driveways will be plowed by the Homeowners’ Association. He confirmed that residential sprinkler systems will be installed in the homes as required by the City. He confirmed that the coach house will be used first as a sales office and then either as offices for the winery or as an amenity for the homeowners. He confirmed that the small parking lot east of the coach house, near Ridge Road will accommodate about 20 cars. In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Mr. Coutant stated that homes of approximately 3,400 square feet could be constructed on lots of approximately 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Adelman expressed concern that the financial responsibilities of the vineyard could be an impediment to home buyers. Mr. Swarthout stated that he does not consider the vineyard as an impediment to selling the homes. He pointed out that there are only 34 lots in the development and that without the current economic condition, the question of whether the lots would sell would not even be an issue. In response to a question from Commissioner Franksen, Mr. Coutant confirmed that the homes will conform to the City’s building scale ordinance. In response to questions from Chairman Avery, Mr. Swarthout confirmed that there will be a deed restriction limiting fences on the individual lots consistent with the goal of preserving the views for all of the lots. Chairman Avery invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner, staff or the Commission. Commissioner Adelman commented that he was initially interested in aligning Ridge Road but has since received information and input that has caused him to accept the current situation of Ridge Road. He complimented the site plan but stated that he would prefer to see half acre lots, rather than lots of a third of an acre, to allow larger homes given the likely prices of the lots. He stated that he is still troubled by the fact that home buyers will be compelled to buy into the winery. Commissioner Franksen stated that he is still troubled by the Ridge Road, Route 60, Route 41 situation, but acknowledged that it will not change as part of this development. He observed that a “very vanilla” development proposal could have been presented for this property in a manner that satisfied the Code requirements. He commented that instead, a world class, sustainable development is proposed. He stated his support for the project. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 5 of 21 Commissioner Shaw stated that based on his comments and questions at the previous Plan Commission meeting and at this meeting, and based on the information provided, he intends to support the project. Commissioner Waldeck agreed with the comments of Commissioner Franksen agreeing that it is a unique project. She stated that the Commission has a duty to current residents to assure that development is done in a manner that is consistent with the quality of existing developments and in a manner that enhances property values. She stated that if she lived in this area, she would welcome the development of this site as proposed. Commissioner Newman stated support for the design aspect of the project but noted that he remains troubled by the economics of the project. He acknowledged that the economics are not the purview of the Commission and stated his intent to support the project. Chairman Avery stated support for the project noting that the City will require the necessary financial guarantees to assure that the project is completed consistent with the approvals. He stated that he believes that the project will be successful and reiterated that only 34 homes will need to be sold. He stated that the project will provide a unique product in the community and a different life style. He stated his hope that there will be strong demand for the benefit of both the City and the developer. In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Chairman Avery confirmed that he is comfortable that there will be sufficient financial guarantees to build the infrastructure and complete the landscaping. He acknowledged that the guarantees will not build the homes, but stated that with the completion of the infrastructure assured, he is comfortable with the project. Commissioner Franksen questioned whether there would be much less risk if this development were a standard development. He commented that if there is additional risk with this project, the open space and additional amenities offer benefits to the community that balance that risk. Commissioner Adelman stated that he doubts whether a developer would step forward with a standard subdivision for this property at this time. Commissioner Reisenberg stated that the Commission should applaud risk taking for the long term benefit of the community. Commissioner Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat of subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. All construction traffic shall be required to enter and exit the site using Ridge Road. Appropriate signage shall be installed as directed by the City. All contracts for work on the site shall stipulate the approved construction route. 2. “No thru commercial traffic” signs shall be installed at the completion of the project at the three entrances from Ridge Road. In addition, the City shall install “No thru commercial traffic” signs at Westleigh and Wallace Roads and Route 60 and Suffolk Lane within 90 days of the approval of this subdivision. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 6 of 21 3. All Outlots shall remain in use as common space for the benefit of the homeowners in the White Stable Vineyard development. No further subdivision of the outlots is permitted. 4. In the event that the agricultural use identified for specific outlots is unsuccessful, those outlots may be planted with alternative “crops” as approved by the Homeowners’ Association, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development or said outlots may be planted as naturalized areas. In all cases, the outlots shall remain as open space. No habitable structures are permitted on the outlots. Garden structures may be authorized through applicable City approval processes. 5. The City shall consult with, review and approve the installation of the landscape plan. On site modifications shall be authorized by the Director of Community Development and shall be noted on the approved plan to assure that the intent of the approved landscape plan is met as planting occurs. In particular, the following goals shall be met at the perimeter of the property through enhancements to approved plantings, changes in species or slight shifts in plant locations if determined to be necessary by the City.  A rural, wooded streetscape shall be maintained along Ridge Road.  A buffer of vegetation and trees shall be maintained along the west property line adjacent to the existing development in North Carroll Meadows. 6. After City acceptance of the White Stable Subdivision improvements, a five-year landscape guarantee period shall commence. The City shall conduct twice a year inspections and request replacement or enhancement of plantings as needed to achieve the intent of the approved landscape plan. 7. Marketing signage shall be subject to review and approval by the City in accordance with applicable Code provisions and processes. 8. Directional signage within the subdivision and identification signage shall be consistent with the provisions in the Code and approved through the standard process. 9. No retail sales are permitted on the property. 10. Use of the stable, coach house and surrounding open area shall be governed by the White Stable Vineyard Homeowners’ Association. These areas are intended for use by the homeowners in the subdivision similar to a private clubhouse and by the winery, as authorized by the Homeowners’ Association. Special events as defined by the City will require review and approval on an individual basis through the established City approval process for Special Events. 11. Residential fire protection sprinkler systems shall be installed in all of the new homes. Prior to recording the plat of subdivision, the following conditions shall be met: 12. The final engineering plans and the plat of subdivision shall be determined to be complete, accurate and in proper form by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 7 of 21 13. A Subdivision Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 14. A plan for construction access, staging and storage of materials shall be submitted subject to City review and approval. 15. All required financial guarantees and all other fees including, but not limited to impact fees, connection fees and legal fees, shall be paid to the City. Prior to infrastructure work, the following condition shall be met: 16. All necessary approvals from outside agencies shall be finalized and must meet the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first home, the following condition shall be met: 17. All building permits for reconstruction of the stable and coach house shall be issued and work on the structures, at the new location, must be underway. 18. In the event that any of the outlots, or the elements located on the outlots including, but not limited to ponds, landscaping, bioswales or structures are not maintained in a manner consistent with the approved plans, the Declaration of Covenants and any applicable rules or regulations, the City of Lake Forest shall have the authority to perform, or hire a contractor to perform, the required maintenance. All costs incurred by the City related to maintenance shall be assessed, along with an administrative fee, to the Homeowners’ Association for White Stable Vineyard. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reisenberg and was approved by a vote of six to one with Commissioner Adelman voting nay. Commissioner Adelman explained that his vote in opposition to the project is based on the single issue of financial viability. He wished the developer success with the project. 4. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a final plat to recognize an existing lot and an associated Special Use Permit to allow a small scale studio business in combination with a single family residence as an adaptive reuse of historic structures located at 1065 Acorn Trail. Owner: Craig Bergmann Chairman Avery asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to testify. Mr. Bergmann introduced the project and himself noting that he recently purchased the historic property at 1065 Acorn Trial with the intent of moving his residence and business to this location from Wilmette. He stated that he is a landscape architect and garden designer and has had his own firm for 30 years. He stated that his firm specializes in landscape design, installation and after care and pointed out that his clients are almost exclusively on the North Shore. He stated that his home and business are currently located in a complex of three buildings in Wilmette noting that 14 designers work out of the space. He reviewed various projects that his company Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 8 of 21 has been involved with in Lake Forest noting that much of the work is on historic homes. He stated that he is excited to make his home and locate his studio in the David Adler complex. He stated that including employees and himself, there will be up to 14 people on the site during a normal week day. He stated that on occasion, there may be limited weekend hours. He discussed the Waukegan Road entrance to the site that will be used by employees and the parking for employees that will be tucked under a allee of trees. He stated that the views of the buildings from Waukegan Road are currently obliterated by vegetation. He stated that the area will be cleared and the orchard re-established. He said that the neighbor to the south has a massive display of tulips in the spring and that he plans to have a display of daffodils to continue the theme of spring flowers along Waukegan Road. He noted that historically, there was a large tree planted in the center of the motor court and a tree will be replanted in that area. He noted that the two gate houses will be used as his residence. He discussed the southwest corner of the site noting the intent to construct a pool which will be in the character of a reflecting pool. He discussed the green house he plans to relocate to the site in keeping with the historic garden theme. He stated that he is the right person to take on the stewardship of this property and stated his intent to honor the work of David Adler, the Armour family and the traditions of Lake Forest. He stated that he has been an asset to the Wilmette community and his neighborhood for over 20 years and stated that he believes that he will be an asset to Lake Forest as well. He asked that the Commission whole heartedly support the request for a Special Use Permit to allow both his residence and his design firm to be located at this site. He introduced his architect, Michael Graham noting that he has had the privilege to work with Mr. Graham on many projects. Michael Graham, Liederbach and Graham Architects, stated that it is a privilege to work on this project given the historical significance and the opportunity to be involved in restoration of the site in such an appropriate manner. He pointed out that the buildings are intricately related to the Elawa Farm buildings owned by the City. He stated that the revitalization of this complex will be a benefit to the City. He stated that the primary access to the studio will be from Waukegan Road to limit traffic impacts on the adjacent residential neighbors. He explained that employees will park in the designated area which will be planted with trees and screened with hedges and walk across the courtyard to the studio which will be housed in the large coach house. He stated that the first floor of the building will be the design studio and the upper level, which historically served as apartments for workers on the site, will be used as offices for the administrative part of the business. He requested support of the Commission to allow the adaptive reuse of the property in the manner described. Mr. Coutant stated that this property has historical significance and is unique in the community and in the Waukegan Road corridor. He noted that Mr. Bergmann is proposing to preserve and rehabilitate the historic structures and grounds on the site. He confirmed that the site is proposed for use as Mr. Bergmann’s residence and as studio space for his landscape design business. He stated that the fate of this property has been in question for many years noting that the property presents a challenge to many conventional uses. He noted that in recent years, staff was approached by potential buyers of the property interested in developing a multi-family complex on the site or in subdividing the property. He stated that the current proposal is a creative opportunity to preserve and adaptively reuse this property. He stated that the property is in the Historic Residential Open Space overlay district and therefore a Special Use Permit is required. He noted that this district is intended to allow the flexibility needed to preserve and protect historic and natural resources. He stated that in this case, the Special Use Permit is the appropriate tool to allow the proposed adaptive reuse of the property. He stated that the Special Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 9 of 21 Use Permit can be tightly written to limit uses on the property to those described and will be written specifically for this owner, for this use and will not be transferable to a future owner or user of the site. He clarified that the studio and limited office uses for the landscape business, along with Mr. Bergmann’s residence, will be located on the property but no aspects of the maintenance or installation components of the business will be staged out of this site. He recommended approval of the final plan and the associated Special Use Permit and provided an overview of the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. Chairman Avery emphasized that as requested and recommended, this Special Use Permit would be unique to, and assigned to, this petitioner, this property and this studio operation. In response to a question from Commissioner Reisenberg, Mr. Bergmann confirmed that the chain link fence will be removed and replaced with a more historic fence noting that he has two dogs so a fence is necessary. In response to a question from Commissioner Adelman, Mr. Bergmann confirmed that the roof will be restored to slate. In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Mr. Coutant confirmed that personal celebrations or parties normally associated with a residence may occur on the site, but any large scale events or events associated with the business activity would not be permitted. He confirmed that originally, this site was addressed as Waukegan Road noting that the Acorn Trail address was assigned at the time of the Middlefork Farm subdivision. He confirmed that the address could be reconsidered if desired by the property owner. Mr. Bergmann stated his intention to request that the former address of 900 Waukegan Road be restored to the site. In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Mr. Graham described the employee parking area in more detail noting that the parking spaces will be gravel and will be located amongst trees. He described the hedge that will screen the parking area from the adjacent property owners. He added that there is a residential garage on the site which will be used by the homeowners. He stated that the petitioner has been proactive in contacting neighbors to discuss the proposed project. In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Mr. Coutant stated that this is a unique complex of buildings, not replicated elsewhere in the R-4 district. He stated that he cannot think of any other use in the City’s R-4 zoning district that is similar to what is proposed. He explained that the Special Use Permit would very clearly establish the history and uniqueness of this property and its one of a kind link to Elawa Farm, a working farm, which was linked to this complex of buildings. In response to questions from Commissioner Waldeck, Mr. Graham described the coach house proposed for use as a design studio noting that the first floor is brick, inside and out. He stated that the structure has a concrete floor and a large open space where vehicles were parked in the past. He noted that there is also a machine shop and a “boy’s room” on the first floor where workers gathered before and after work. He stated that upstairs there are two residential apartments and a sleeping porch which were used by workers hired by the Armour family. He stated that no alterations are required to allow the proposed adaptive reuse of the building. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 10 of 21 In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw about whether approval of this petition could be used as a precedent for non-residential use of other residential properties, Mr. Coutant stated that the Special Use Permit will authorize only Mr. Bergmann to operate the business as defined and identified in the Special Use Permit. He stated that any use or business other than what is specifically referenced in the Special Use Permit would require a separate public process and separate approval. He confirmed that the findings of fact that support the Special Use Permit will be written to recognize the uniqueness, historic character and unusual history of this property. He explained that the City Code permits very limited, small scale office uses in homes through the home occupation regulations. He noted that what is proposed on this site goes beyond the home occupation standards and therefore requires a Special use Permit Chairman Avery stated an understanding of Commissioner Shaw’s concerns about a future buyer of this property wanting to have a business at this location or an owner of another property pointing to the approvals for Bergmann Landscaping as a precedent to allow the same type of operation at another site. He stated that in his opinion, it is the cumulative nature of the various aspects of this site, including, but not limited to the link to Elawa Farm, direct access on to a State highway and the use of the historic use of the coach house for a quasi-business operation including a machine shop, that make this site distinguishable from all other sites. He added that the business proposed for the site is also unique in its operation, longevity and demonstrated success and involvement in the community. He noted that as the property sits today, it is impractical for use as a single family residential home. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Mr. Graham stated that after Mr. Bergmann’s renovation, the property will be more saleable than it is now. He stated that if in the future use of the property as a single family home is desired, the property, after renovation as planned, will be more available and conducive to that use than in the current condition. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Mr. Coutant clarified that the property today, under the current zoning regulations, is authorized for a single family home. He noted that if Mr. Bergmann’s use is not successful, the property will revert back to the permitted single family use under the R-4 zoning. Ms. Czerniak stated that today, the property is a “white elephant” and the work proposed for the site will make it less of one. She confirmed that as a result of the density calculations for the Middlefork Farm Subdivision, only a single residential unit is permitted on this parcel. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Mr. Coutant confirmed that any future proposal to alter or demolish the historic structures on this property would require review and approval by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Franksen reiterated that as was noted with the last petition, the Commission’s role is not to judge the economic viability of a proposed use. He stated that instead the Commission is charged with considering whether the proposed use or development is consistent with the zoning district and the character of the area and in the best interest of the overall community. In response to questions from Chairman Avery, Mr. Coutant confirmed that the three structures are historically significant and are currently in derelict condition. He stated that this is an opportunity to save a unique property and historic structures. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 11 of 21 In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Mr. Coutant stated that the Home Occupation standards in the Code are very specific and define what types of home businesses fall into this category and which cross over the line and require some other special approvals. Commissioner Adelman commented that the petitioner has been very up front with the City about his plans and his desire to operate a business on this site. He stated that he is certain that there are businesses operating out of homes that go beyond the Home Occupation standards but do not generate complaints because they are not out of character with the neighborhood. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Coutant confirmed that the findings of fact can be re-worked to emphasize that they are considered cumulatively in the approval of this use and that no single factor, on its own, was found to be sufficient to justify approval of this use. Chairman Avery invited public comment and swore in all those intending to speak. Timm Reynolds, 120 W. Westminster, stated that he is honored to speak on behalf of Mr. Bergmann and his business. He stated that Bergmann Landscaping has extensive experience and provides high quality design and service. He noted that he has had the opportunity to visit Mr. Bergmann’s current residence and studio in Wilmette and found it to be invisible as a place of business with no evidence of employees on the site. He stated his hope that the petition is supported by the Commission noting that Mr. Bergmann will be a great neighbor, will preserve the historic structures and re-establish a connection between this site and the gardens at Elawa Farm. Rich Baker stated that he lives two homes away from the site and supports the project for the reasons stated by the previous speaker. He stated that he has one concern, traffic from the business and its possible impact on Acorn Trail. He noted that many families walk along the street to reach the Open Lands property and noted that at times there are cars parked on the road. He noted that is he concerned particularly about traffic during the summer months when more people are using the Open Lands area. Chareton Drake, Mayflower Road, stated that she has known Mr. Bergmann in various capacities for over 20 years. She stated that the his attention to detail is amazing and that he operates with extreme professionalism. She commented on the amount of time Mr. Bergmann has put into planning this project to date and applauded his goal of restoring the property. She stated her hope that the project is approved to allow the structures to be restored, rather than torn down. Mary Carlson, resident of Summerfield subdivision, stated that the project will be a great enhancement to the area and the community. She stated however that Mr. Bergmann’s current design studio is in a much more commercial area and questioned how parking will be provided and how many cars will be accommodated on the site. Mr. Coutant responded to public comments noting that a condition is recommended requiring that Waukegan Road be used as the primary access for employees. He stated that parking on site is designed to fully accommodate the permitted number of employees and clients. Mr. Bergmann stated that Waukegan Road is intended to be the primary access for employees. He stated that the proposed parking area is designed to minimize the impact of parking on the Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 12 of 21 historic character of the site and on the neighborhood. He stated that the parking area will be gravel and that the number of spaces take into account that no parking is available on Waukegan Road or on Acorn Trail. He stated that the parking area will be a “green” solution. In response to questions from Chairman Avery, Mr. Coutant confirmed that the number of employees permitted on the site will be limited by the conditions of approval. He confirmed that the Commission could add a condition reserving the City’s right to prohibit access to Acorn Trail in the future if a problem arises. Commissioner Waldeck commented that the proposed use does not appear to be much of a change from the original use. She noted that the original use of the property included a business type operation in the coach house. She recognized the uniqueness of the property and the challenge of using it as a single family home. She stated that the uniqueness of this property protects this approval from being used as a precedent elsewhere. Commissioner Newman stated that this is a difficult property and someone has come along who is very passionate and talented and stated support for the project. Commissioner Shaw stated that this is an extraordinary and well thought out proposal. He stated that he is interested in findings that prevent someone from easily making the case to do the exact same thing on a different site or to do something different on this site. He reiterated that the findings should be bullet proof to avoid inappropriate use as a precedent else where. He agreed with the Chairman that the findings should be interconnected and viewed as a whole. He stated support for tightening up the language about traffic and access and agreed with limiting the number of employees permitted on the site. He stated that he is concerned that this approval could expand home occupation opportunities and requested that the ordinance be written to prevent that outcome. He noted that the property may be difficult to sell in the future. Commissioner Reisenberg stated that the proposed project is an incredible fit with the site. He suggested that the Commission give consideration to limiting access to Acorn Trail to emergency vehicles only. He stated that he is not overly concerned about a precedent being established because the City could say no to future requests for Special Use Permits. Chairman Avery noted that residential traffic should be permitted to access Acorn Trail, but agreed that it there is misuse by employees, further steps may need to be taken. Commissioner Adelman stated that his only concern is the business use of a residential property but he stated that the positives of this project outweigh the concerns. He agreed that this property is a white elephant and that the proposed use is a perfect match. He stated that he does not expect that cars on the site will be visible from off of the site due to the landscaping planned. He stated support for reserving the right for the City to restrict access to Acorn Trail in the future if it becomes a problem. He stated that at some times of the day, there may be a safety issue with cars accessing Waukegan Road. Commissioner Franksen agreed with the language discussed regarding Acorn Trail which would allow further restrictions if necessary in the future. He noted that the project restores Adler structures and locates administrative functions for a landscape architect on the site. He Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 13 of 21 acknowledged that the trade off is allowing a business use in a residential area, but stated that the use is compatible given the uniqueness of the site as previously discussed. Chairman Avery suggested language for an additional condition regarding access from Acorn Trail. He commended Mr. Bergmann for bringing the project forward noting that the City is fortunate to have him step forward for this unique property. He stated that in his opinion, once the work is completed, it may open up possibilities for future owners of the property. He invited a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat of subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit authorizing Craig Bergmann Landscaping to operate a design studio and administrative functions of the business on the property at 1065 Acorn Trail in conjunction with Mr. Bergmann’s residence on the site subject to the following conditions of approval which include the additional condition as recommended by Chairman Avery. He noted that included in the motion is a statement that the Commission’s endorsement of this project is in no way an endorsement generally of business uses in residential zoning districts. He added that the findings in support of the Special Use Permit should reflect that the findings cumulatively, and not individually, were found by the Commission to support the request for the Special Use Permit. 1. The Special Use Permit shall be issued specifically to Craig Bergmann Landscape Design, Inc. and may not be transferred to a subsequent owner of the property or business or to another business. 2. Any change or expansion of the use shall require further review and amendment of the Special Use Permit. 3. The Special Use Permit shall authorize the existing coach house to be occupied and used as a landscape design studio for the landscape design aspect of Craig Bergmann Landscape Design, Inc. The landscape design aspect of the business is limited to office related activity. 4. The operation of the business shall be limited to the confines of the coach house. The proposed gardens and greenhouse on the property may serve as ancillary to the business. 5. No uses, other than those which are permitted in the R-4 Residential District, shall be permitted in the gate lodges located on the property. 6. No activity relating to landscape installation or landscape maintenance aspects of the business shall occur on the property, including but not limited to the storage of materials, equipment and vehicles other than that which is specifically related to the normal landscaping of the property. 7. The Waukegan Road entrance shall serve as the primary access for vehicular activity associated with the business use of the property. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 14 of 21 8. Employee parking shall be limited to the proposed parking area on the north side of the site, identified on the Site Development Plan which shall be attached as an exhibit to the approving ordinance. 9. A vegetated screen shall be maintained surrounding the proposed parking area subject to the approval of the City Arborist. 10. No parking shall be permitted in the front yard along Waukegan Road. 11. Any exterior lighting shall be consistent with the City’s Residential Landscape Lighting Guidelines. 12. Any exterior signage shall be oriented to Waukegan Road and subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. 13. A maximum of 15 employees shall work out of the coach house building at any one time 14. Periodic visits to the property by clients are permitted. 15. The property is expected to contain “showcase” caliber gardens, and as such, may from time to time be open to the public or part of an organized community “garden walk.” 16. No special events specifically associated with the business use shall be permitted on the property without prior approval of the City Manager or City Council. 17. The City reserves the right to restrict access for non-residential traffic to the site to Waukegan Road only if determines it to be necessary, at the sole discretion of the City, to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Newman seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. 5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 46, Sections 68 and 69, Personal Wireless Service Facilities Overlay District, to include a City owned parcel, located on the northeast corner of Westleigh Road and Western Avenue, in the District. The amendment would permit telecommunication antennas and a tower on the site subject to conditions and City approvals. Chairman Avery introduced the item. He asked the Commission members to identify any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation Ms. Czerniak noted that several letters on this matter were received and provided to the Commission. She acknowledged that cellular antennas are not a popular subject. She stated that there will likely be an increased number of cellular towers and antennas in the community in the future to meet increasing demand for wireless service. She explained that the City is required to allow telecommunications facilities to be provided throughout the community, but can designate particular locations for the facilities. She pointed out that under the current Code provisions, Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 15 of 21 wireless facilities, including a cell tower, are currently permitted on the Barat property. She stated that the City has received complaints from residents about poor cell phone service in southeast Lake Forest and contacts from telecommunications companies interested in enhancing coverage in this part of Lake Forest and other areas. She explained that this discussion is in response to questions about whether a City owned parcel, in lieu of the Barat property, should be considered as a permitted site for telecommunications facilities. She commented that a tower on the City property would bring revenue to the City through lease agreements with the service providers. She clarified that this is not a request to approve a tower, but instead, an opportunity for the Commission to consider whether a Code amendment should be considered to provide the opportunity for a tower to be located on a City parcel. She added that since the City’s ordinance was adopted, technology has improved noting the example of a tower recently erected on the College property that has no externally mounted antennas. She suggested that consideration be given to an amendment to the Code that addresses the issue of internal versus external antennas. She stated that staff estimates that the height of the trees on the City property near Barat Campus is about 80’ noting that a tower would need to exceed that height to be effective and that in accordance with the Code; the height of the tower should be such that multiple carriers could be accommodated on a single monopole. She informed the Commission that concerns have been raised by residents about the potential health impacts of towers and antennas located in residential neighborhoods. She stated that in response to concerns raised, the City Attorney confirmed that the City is required by law to permit the buildout of telecommunication facilities, but has the ability to regulate the facilities through zoning provisions. She reviewed the location of existing towers in the community. She noted that there are other City owned parcels and rights-of-way in the general area of Barat Campus that could be possible sites. She stated that this matter is before the Commission for discussion and direction on whether a Code amendment should be considered or whether the currently identified site is the best option. In response to questions from Chairman Avery, Ms. Czerniak provided photographs of a tower within the community with external antennas and the tower recently erected at the College with only internal antennas. She stated that the tower at the College is approximately 80 feet but is constructed in a ravine. She reviewed a map showing the area on Barat Campus where a tower of 110 feet is currently permitted and the location of nearby parcels owned by the City where a tower could potentially be placed if the Code were amended. Chairman Avery questioned whether a the City owned right-of-way where the ComEd substation is located would be a better location than the Westleigh Road and Western Avenue parcel. In response to a question from Chairman Avery, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a 110 foot tower could be erected at Barat Campus because it is a permitted location for a tower in the City Code. She said the Council directed the Plan Commission to consider whether the Code should be amended to identify a City parcel, in addition to or instead of, Barat Campus as a permitted site. In response to a question from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Code authorizes towers of varying heights at different locations throughout the City. She noted that there is a provision in the Code that allows an additional 20 feet in height, beyond that permitted in the Code, under certain conditions. She confirmed that if the Code is amended to add a site, the regulations could be tailored to that particular site. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 16 of 21 In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that Federal law requires municipalities to allow telecommunications providers to build out their systems to provide coverage to all areas. She confirmed that the Code could be amended to place limitations on height, appearance of the tower and specific locations. Commissioner Newman commented that since the Code allows a tower to be built on Barat Campus, the question is whether Barat is the preferred location for a tower, not whether there should be a tower. He compared the debate to Costco noting that there will likely be a tower in this area and the City may or may not share in the revenues from that build out. Commissioner Franksen concurred that there are no good cell towers and no good sites. He agreed that the discussion is whether the City should be prepared to offer a site on City owned property in the event that a tower is proposed. Commissioner Adelman stated that the high voltage wires are visible from Sheridan Road in this area. He pointed out that the cell tower near The Lockup is shorter than the utility towers along Route 41 and the high voltage lines. He stated that the visual impact is the base of the antenna unless you are a distance off from the tower. He stated that at the City site, the base of the tower would be heavily screened by the trees. In response to questions from Commissioner Reisenberg, Ms. Czerniak stated that in 1997, the City adopted Code provisions identifying locations in the community for towers and antennas. She stated that the sites were identified with the support of the property owners. She said that towers and antennas are permitted at the identified sites with only review as part of the building permit process. She noted as part of that process, requirements such as landscape screening, would be assured. She stated that if a permit were applied for tomorrow, a permit could be issued within 15 business days. She stated that if the Commission chooses to approve a new site, a recommendation could be made that Barat campus be removed as a permitted site. In response to questions from Chairman Avery, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that normally small portions of a parcel are leased for towers and revenues from the leased area accrue to the property owner. In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Ms. Czerniak explained that under the Federal Communications Act, the City cannot disapprove a tower because of health concerns. She confirmed that several towers are located on the Lake Forest Hospital campus. In response to a question from Commissioner Waldeck, Ms. Czerniak stated that the trees on the City owned parcel at Western Avenue and Westleigh Road are estimated at 80 feet in height. Ms. Czerniak stated that the spirit of the current Code provisions is that the number of towers should be limited and that co-location of multiple carriers at a single site should be encouraged. Commissioner Newman noted that in looking at the map of the approved tower sites, it is apparent that the area being discussed has a gap in coverage. He expressed interest in understanding what minimum tower height might serve to adequately cover the gap that exists. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 17 of 21 Chairman Avery invited public testimony and swore in all those intending to speak. He recognized that there may be parties in the audience speaking on behalf of telecommunications companies and commented that those individuals are welcome to speak, but cautioned the Commission that if the City wants an expert opinion on technical aspects of this issue, those speakers should not be considered as an independent, expert opinion. Richard Riley identified himself as an attorney speaking on behalf of SBA Towers, a major tower owner and operator. He stated that he is also the Chairman of the Regulatory Committee for the State of Illinois Wireless Association. He discussed how signals are provided and the expected demand for wireless service in the future. He stated that the growth in demand is phenomenal. He provided graphs of usage data and slides of coverage throughout Lake Forest. He discussed the City parcel noting that it is deeper than it appears and provides dense tree coverage. He stated that he looked at Barat Campus and talked with the Court appointed receiver. He stated that the City site will provide the best coverage for this area. Wanchay Chanthadouangsy stated that she is an attorney representing T-Mobil, LLC. She stated that when complaints about service are received, representatives are sent to evaluate those areas and said that she has been sent to find a solution to poor T-Mobile coverage in this area. She noted that she met with City staff to discuss opportunities for improving coverage and as a follow up, continued her research examining various locations to improve coverage. She stated that T-Mobile engineers determined that a height of 160 feet could provide the necessary improvements to coverage in this area. She stated that a minimum height could be looked at to determine what would be lost with a lower height. She noted that coverage is not the only issue, but also capacity given the increased demand for wireless service. Kathy Dorman, 730 Highview Terrace, stated that she was on the Trustee Improvement Committee at Lake Forest College when the new tower was approved. She stated that the tower is located in a ravine and about one-third of the tower is below the surrounding land. She noted that the operating equipment for the tower is located in the ravine. She stated that the existing nearby smokestack is visible so the addition of the tower in this area does not attract attention. Resident of 1075 Ringwood Road discussed health issues related to electromagnetic fields and health concerns. He referenced a study completed in California and other studies that have concluded that there are health impacts from electrical fields. He stated that the proximity of the tower to neighboring schools needs to be considered. He stated that locating a tower near a residential area will impact the property values and children. He asked that a study be completed to determine the impact of emissions of the cell tower. He asked that all avenues be considered, not just the potential revenues. Michael Williams, 428 Beverly Place, stated that he recently moved to a house near the proposed site and is shocked to hear that a tower of 160 feet is being considered in this location. He questioned how a tower of that height could be screened. He stated that if he had known of this proposal, he would not have purchased his home. He said the Commission’s role is also to consider the impact of any development on property values. He questioned why, if wireless service is so bad in the area, it has taken so long for the companies to add facilities. Sandy Ganun, Lake Forest resident, stated that he submitted a letter to the Commission. He stated that there is a problem with adequately notifying the public about items being discussed. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 18 of 21 He stated that the proposed tower will be a visual blight to this area. He questioned whether the height of existing towers could be increased to provide better coverage. He noted that the long term health effects from EMF radiation are unknown. He questioned whether a tower should be located in a residential neighborhood and near schools. Nina Ganun stated that she because aware of the discussion of this matter by seeing the last Plan Commission meeting on television. She asked if the Barat site could be excluded from the Code. She asked if trees would be removed to accommodate a tower on the City parcel. She asked about the revenue the City would receive and questioned whether that would balance the loss in property values. She questioned whether there is a problem with service in the area and asked that a survey be conducted on this matter. She asked that the City develop an email list to keep residents informed on issues in the community. She stated that the City has an opportunity to preserve, not destroy adjoining neighborhoods and the Barat property. She stated that the risk is not worth the reward. She stated that the City can just say no. She noted that schools were not notified of this item and that there are deficiencies in the City notification process. Georgia Keriacu, 454 Beverly Place, noted the Commission stated earlier that it is the duty of the Commission not to do anything that has a negative effect on property values. She discussed the Costco matter noting that she was a supporter of Costco, but noted that it was turned down due to environmental impacts. She said if environmental impacts influenced that decision, they must be considered here given the location in a residential neighborhood. She stated that it is not the Commission’s responsibility to generate revenue for the City. She questioned how many families are complaining about poor service and whether the City is out of compliance with Federal laws pertaining to wireless facilities. She said that future technology will make towers obsolete. She said that if there is compliance with Federal laws, no new towers should be constructed. She encouraged the Commission to reject the proposal. Abby Fassnacht, 451 Beverly Place, read a letter from her neighbor, a physician, expressing concern about health issues related to cell towers. Holly Williams, 428 Beverly, stated that she returned to Lake Forest because it is a special place and holds itself to high standards. She stated that there may be a need for more wireless capacity, but the site needs to be selected carefully. She stated that the tower will destroy the character that the community is trying to retain. Ms. Czerniak responded to public comments noting that towers and antennas are located on the campuses of several educational institutions and on the hospital campus. She stated that this matter is not before the Commission solely as a revenue matter, but instead, the City Council sought to be proactive in considering whether Barat Campus is the appropriate site for a tower in this area. She reconfirmed that the Barat site could be removed as a permitted tower site if another site is determined to be better for the community. She stated that the Barat property has challenges that make future redevelopment complicated and commented that adding a tower to the site when the future of the property is unknown could further complicate redevelopment. She stated that public notice was provided over and above the Code requirements. She acknowledged that some tree removal would be required if the City site was determined to be appropriate for a future tower but that removal would be minimized and significant trees would remain on the site to provide screening at the base of the tower. She stated that the City can work to verify whether gaps in coverage exist. She said the question is not whether the City is in Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 19 of 21 compliance with Federal law, but that the Federal laws require the City to allow companies to build out their systems. She stated that staff can seek further input from the City Attorney on the obligations of the City, as well as the limitations. In response to questions from Commissioner Franksen, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that Fort Sheridan is not owned by the City, but acknowledged that it could be considered as a possible site if the property owner is willing. She clarified that if the Commission determines that Barat Campus is the best site in this part of the community, the Code could be left alone. She commented that based on the information available to the City at this time, it is likely that additional telecommunication facilities will be needed to serve this area sooner or later. . Commissioner Reisenberg commented that this is a difficult decision and suggested that other possible sites in the area be considered. He stated that the City is faced with the question of not whether a new tower will be needed at some point, but where it should be located and how it should be constructed to minimize the impact on the community. Commissioner Newman suggested reviewing City owned parcels in this vicinity to understand possible options to help determine whether the Barat site can be replaced with another location. Commissioner Franksen reiterated that the issue is how additional wireless coverage will be provided to the area, now whether there will be additional coverage. He stated that the question is how this gets accomplished with the least impact on the community. He supported continuing discussion of this matter to allow additional information to be provided. He stated that the Commission owes it to the community to consider various options and potential sites. Commissioner Adelman stated that the issue is the aesthetics of a tower and visual impact on the surrounding area. He noted that people are bombarded by radiation on a daily basis, from various sources but agreed that the health effects may not be fully known. Commissioner Franksen confirmed that the Commission’s role is look at this issue from a broad perspective and clarified that the Commission’s job is not to find ways to generate revenues for the City. He stated that it is appropriate for the Commission to reconsider whether the approved site on Barat Campus is in the best long term interest of the community, or whether some other site would be better. He cautioned that the due diligence should be completed quickly given that a tower is today permitted on Barat Campus. Commission Waldeck stated that additional wireless service facilities are inevitable but agreed that the Commission should evaluate the options available and put tools in place to control what is constructed to the extent possible. Commissioner Newman stated that he lives in the neighborhood and noted that other Commissioners do as well. He stated that he respects the arguments presented by the neighbors but said that some of the comments are based on fear and fail to recognize the position the City is in with respect to allowing the provision of wireless service, by various companies, in the community. He stated that the Commission’s role is to control, to the extent possible, what facilities are built, how they are built and where they are built. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 20 of 21 Chairman Avery noted that he lives in Whispering Oaks, near the proposed site. He pointed out that the City cannot deny a tower based solely on aesthetics. He stated that although he drives around the community often, once this issue came up, he had to actively look for the existing towers. He stated that once a tower is constructed, it blends into the skyline. He noted that with respect to health issues, towers are currently located at the hospital and on the campuses of schools within the community, at the request of those institutions. He acknowledged that a 160 foot height is too tall and that there needs to be better understanding of the minimum height required to provide proper service. He stated that tree removal can be addressed in a manner that ensures continued screening. He acknowledged that technology is changing, but stated that no one is predicting the need for fewer towers in the near future. He stated his preference is to have the tower, if one is needed, on a City owned property so that the City has control of the site and can assure removal of the tower if the technology becomes obsolete. He stated that the reality of the situation needs to be considered and agreed with other Commissioners that consideration should be given to the best location to allow the City to be proactive in directing where future facilities are permitted. He recommended the location on City right-of-way, near the ComEd substation as a more suitable location than the Western Avenue and Westleigh Road site. He acknowledged that there is less screening in that immediate area, but noted that the homes may be better screened overall from the site. He stated that this matter needs further discussion by the Commission as additional information becomes available. Commissioner Franksen stated that it will be important for the Commission to have an understanding of the minimum height needed to address the coverage needs. He suggested that City staff seek an independent expert opinion on this question. He asked that consideration be given to providing graphics to illustrate the height of the tower and its visibility from different points. He made a motion to continue discussion of this item to a future Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Reisenberg seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Commission. 6. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 46, Sections 52 thru 53.3 relating to vacant storefront windows in business districts. Mr. Coutant introduced this item noting that several months ago, the Commission directed staff to draft Code language to address vacant store front windows for consideration by the Commission and for public comment. He directed the Commission to the draft language included in the Commission’s packet commenting that the proposed language is intended to be short and simple with the goal of achieving “neat and clean” store front windows in spaces that are either vacant or under construction. He stated that the language is not intended to be burdensome to the property owners, pointing out that a minimum requirement is established that can be easily and inexpensively achieved. He noted however that the proposed language also provides the opportunity to enhance store front windows through coordination with local not for profit groups or neighboring businesses to install window displays. He explained that the language permits store front windows to be used for displays of artwork, historical information or for display of items that are for sale in neighboring businesses. He stated that the sign regulations in the Code would still apply. He noted that in developing the proposed language, staff invited review, comment and ideas from the Chamber of Commerce, the City’s Economic Development Coordinator and the Deerpath Art League. Plan Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Page 21 of 21 Commissioner Franksen stated that support for the amendment as presented. In response to questions from Commissioner Adelman, Commissioner Franksen noted that the permitted signage would provide information on the exhibitor. Commissioner Adelman questioned whether the permitted size of the sign is large enough. Chairman Avery suggested that the size of the sign as proposed is appropriate and invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from staff and the Commission. Commissioner Franksen made a motion to recommend to the City Council amendment to the City Code as presented in the staff report, pertaining to vacant storefront window. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reisenberg and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 7. Public testimony on non-agenda items. There were no additional comments from the public. 8. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak stated that the City Council asked the Plan Commission to consider whether the City should establish a policy, either for the short term or for the long term, regarding incentives for residential developments under certain conditions. She stated that staff, working with the City Attorney, identified three categories of possible incentives: give aways such as approving increased density or relaxing regulations, deferrals such as delaying the timing of impact fee payments, and financial tax incentives such as the creation of special assessment or special service districts or Tax Increment Financing districts. She stated that the Council’s direction to the Plan Commission included the directive that the Council is not interested in “give aways” that would result in lower quality developments or straying from the community traditions of preservation of open space and other standards. She explained that the Council directed the Plan Commission to consider the value to the community of offering incentives that may fall into the categories of deferrals and or financial incentives. She stated that given the late hour, this matter will be brought back to the Commission for discussion at a future meeting. She provided the Commission with a background memo and some articles on the matter. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development