Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2016/11/09 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the November 9, 2016 Meeting A meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Ley, Commissioners Michael Freeman, Lloyd Culbertson, Guy Berg, Monica Ruggles, Tim Henry and Rosemary Kehr Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Ley introduced the members of the Commission and City staff. 2. Consideration of the minutes of the October 12, 2016 meeting. Consideration of the minutes was postponed. 3. Status Report and Introduction: Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital will present a status report on construction at the hospital campus, review the previously approved Campus Master Plan and introduce refinements proposed to align the Master Plan with the buildout and prepare for the next phase of work on the Campus. Introduction by: Thomas J. McAfee, President, Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Presentation by: David Mikos, President and CEO, Anderson Mikos Architects, Ltd. Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this matter and opened the public hearing. He invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. McAfee introduced the agenda item. He stated that the hospital is pleased with the progress to date on the new hospital. He noted that the City approved the Master Plan for redevelopment of the hospital campus in 2012 after an 18-month public process. He provided an update on the status of the construction now underway on the campus. He stated that the design of the hospital is spectacular and stated his confidence that the new hospital will be a benefit to the patients, physicians and community overall. He noted that concurrent with the construction on the campus, there have been changes within the Northwestern Medicine organization which will be manifested physically in the new hospital. He noted that a new integrated electronic records platform will be rolled out when the new hospital is opened and will change the patient experience in a positive way. He added that Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 2 of 19 new clinical sub-specialties are being brought to the campus noting that the new facilities are proving to be a powerful tool in recruiting new talent to the community. He stated that the outside envelope of the building is 99 percent complete and the building is water tight. He noted that the water feature on the east side of the building is nearly complete and will be activated on a trial basis over the next month. He stated that work on the perimeter landscaping and berms is underway to more fully insulate the neighboring residential properties from the hospital. He stated that the facility is on target to open in fall, 2017, with activation of the outpatient clinics as the first phase. He stated that the inpatient component of the hospital is on target to open early in 2018. He reviewed the refinements that have occurred since the Master Plan was adopted in 2012, as design development proceeded with City oversight. He explained that at the time the Central Campus concept was approved through the Master Plan, the ultimate design of the hospital building was not known. He pointed out that the Master Plan approved a general location for the new hospital which was shown as a rectangular form. He reviewed that the Master Plan breaks the campus up into three components: North Campus, on which the childcare and health and fitness facilities are located; Central Campus, the location of the new hospital and primarily where work to date has occurred; and South Campus, the location of the existing hospital facilities. He reviewed the perimeter setbacks as reflected in the approved Master Plan and noted that the buildout is occurring consistent with the established setbacks. He stated that going forward; there is no intent to request any changes to the approved setbacks. He explained that through working with the design team, the community and the City, the new hospital building was moved slightly to the east and south of the conceptual foot print reflected in the Master Plan. He provided an overlay showing how the building was shifted. He added that as the design progressed, the water feature grew in size to adequately accommodate not only the stormwater from the new development on the campus, but also recognizing that the hospital campus accepts water from the larger region as it flows to the east, under the railroad tracks. He explained that the road alignment was refined in response to concerns and suggestions from residents at Lake Forest Place. He noted that as refined, the road directs traffic toward the hospital, rather than on to Westmoreland Road, and, headlights from cars leaving the hospital; are directed away from the neighboring residences. He noted that as a result of the shift of the hospital building, the grounds building and other support services buildings were impacted. He stated that temporarily, the grounds building is located in the northwest corner of the campus, near the intersection of Westmoreland and Waukegan Roads. He explained that after study, a location, on the Central Campus, was found and determined to be the most workable and invisible from off of the campus. He stated that the grounds building is used for storage of seed, mowers and other equipment needed by the grounds’ crew. He stated that more information will be provided on the proposed location later in the discussion. He noted that the east 700 building was removed in order to accommodate convenient parking for patients using the 800 and 900 Medical Office Buildings during construction. He stated that to date, the perimeter of the campus has been significantly enhanced. He noted that work around the perimeter was advanced by about two years in response to community requests. He reviewed Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 3 of 19 the road improvements completed on the campus noting that a goal of the Master Plan was to remove traffic from Deerpath, and to encourage direct access to the Central Campus. He noted that a new right in/right out access on to Route 41 directly from the campus is now in place and is already well used. He noted that turn lanes were added at the Deerpath and Westmoreland Road intersection and a service road into the campus from Waukegan Road is now in place. He provided preliminary comments on plans for the South Campus. He explained that as functions of the hospital are consolidated on the Central Campus, there is a need to provide more direct access into the campus for those who do enter from Deerpath. He explained that the existing north/south spine through the campus is circuitous. He explained that ultimately, locating the north/south access road as a center spine through South Campus will provide both direct access and will allow long term building potential to be located primarily east of the new central road, away from the neighboring residents, closer to Route 41. He added that as the South Campus is reconfigured; parking will be located closer to the 800 and 900 Medical Office Buildings, which will remain on the Campus so patients will not need to walk across the access road to get from the parking to those buildings. He stated that significant portions of the existing hospital are planned for removal. He stated that exactly which portions will be removed has not yet been determined. He noted that it is not in the hospital’s interest to maintain a 1942 building which has been modified and reconfigured many times since it was constructed, noting that the building does not meet the needs of health care looking to the future. He stated however that it will take some time for all of the functions currently located on the South Campus to be fully integrated into the Central Campus and anticipated that it will be several years before the reconfiguration of South Campus takes place. He noted that the Hunter Center, on South Campus, is a well-placed, strong building, and is planned for reuse. He stated that other structures, those that no longer make sense to keep on the campus, will be removed. He noted that the hospital pressed hard to reduce the overall height of the new hospital in response to comments and concerns heard during the public hearing process. He stated that the height of the building, as finally proposed and approved, is significantly lower than the height permitted in the Master Plan. He explained that the hospital building is located further to the east, closer to Route 41, than originally proposed again, in response to public comment. He noted that the new hospital is forward thinking and provides the opportunity for future growth. He noted that the northernmost pavilion is being constructed at two stories, but can accommodate an additional floor in the future to match the other pavilions. He also pointed out that the site design accommodates expansion of the hospital to the south and east, continuing the arc of the building around the pond. He stated that the hospital as being constructed is expected to adequately serve the community and the larger region to 2020 and beyond. He commented that the health care industry needs and trends are expected to continue to change. He stated that with the construction of the new hospital well underway, the hospital is turning its attention to some preliminary reorganization of the south campus, as noted above, with the intent of, over time, advancing the research and education activities on the campus. He stated the intent is to continue the thoughtful process followed to date and to remain true to the fundamental principles of the approved Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 4 of 19 Master Plan. He stated that the project is proceeding in a manner that minimizes impacts on the surrounding properties and that approach is intended to be followed in the future. Ms. Czerniak stated that this presentation is intended as an introduction to the hospital project for the new members of the Commission and an update for Commissioners who were on the Commission at the time the Master Plan was reviewed. She noted that a copy of the Master Plan approved in 2012 was provided to the Commissioners several weeks ago to allow time for review as a starting point for the discussion about refinements to the Plan. She explained that in ongoing discussions with the hospital team, it was decided that now was a good time to bring the hospital project forward to update the Commission and the community on the progress of work on the campus and to review refinements made through the design development phase and how they relate to the approved Master Plan. She noted that at the same time, the Commission and community will hear about longer term plans for the southern portion of the campus that are beginning to take shape. She stated that at the next meeting, the Commission will be asked to consider refinements to and replacements of various pages of the approved Master Plan to reflect the as-built conditions on the Central Campus and to begin to reflect more detail about the plans for South Campus to the extent known at this time. She provided a brief review of how master plans are used by institutions throughout the community noting that master plans are approved through the Special Use Permit process. She explained that non-residential uses such as the hospital, schools, private clubs, churches and Lake Forest College, are permitted in residential zoning districts, and are permitted to grow and change, only after a public review process. She stated that the adoption and continued updating of master plans, allows parameters to be put in place as determined to be appropriate to mitigate off site impacts and provides some certainty for neighbors, the larger community, and the institution with respect to the future. She reviewed that master plans do not mandate or approve design aspects, building footprints or road alignments, but instead, establish a framework for how the site, in general, can be developed and uses. She noted that over the course of construction to date, the City has received input from some neighboring residents about the inadequacy of the buffer areas, the berms and the landscaping. She noted that the perimeter areas are not yet completed and once completed, will take time to get fully established. She noted however, that as acknowledged in the discussions during the review of the original Master Plan for the hospital, the Plan Commission and City Council acknowledged that there is no expectation that the hospital will be fully screened from all views. She stated that instead, setbacks as determined to be appropriate were established and berms and landscaping to filter views were required as part of the approved plan. She stated that discussion of enhancing these areas is continuing. She reiterated that after this introduction, the Commission is expected to continue consideration of proposed refinements to the approved Master Plan at the December 14th meeting. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Mikos stated that the maximum height permitted in the approved Master Plan for the Central Campus is a Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 5 of 19 range of 60 – 81 feet. He stated that as designed and constructed, the pavilions are well below the permitted height at 41 to 42 feet without the mechanical penthouses. Commissioner Freeman acknowledged the creative approach taken in designing the new hospital building. He stated that although he was not on the Commission during the earlier review process, he watched the meetings very closely. He acknowledged the extensive approval process that was followed and the sensitivity to the community shown by the hospital. He noted that the new hospital building sets a high bar for future buildings on the campus. He thanked the hospital for the interest, commitment and investment in the community. In response to further questions from Commissioner Freemen, Mr. McAfee described the vision of providing a more direct route from the south to the new hospital. He noted that to achieve that goal, a new center spine road, through the south campus, is proposed. He noted that the existing road banks hard to the east and follows Route 41, almost as a frontage road. He added that the current location of the north/south access road limits the opportunity to locate any future buildings on this part off the campus to the east, near Route 41, consistent with the public input received during the Master Plan review process. He stated that a central spine road sets the south campus up nicely for potential future redevelopment. He confirmed that to achieve the central spine, some of the existing buildings will need to come down. He noted however that a final determination has not yet been made on what portions of the existing buildings will need to come down and which portions should be retained. He reiterated that the Hunter Pavilion is well placed. He predicted that it will be 2020 or beyond before the hospital will be able to speak with clarity about detailed plans for the south campus. He noted five years ago, during discussions of the Master Plan, the hospital could not speak with the level of clarity that is available today about the Central Campus. He reiterated that no changes are proposed to the fundamental requirements for open space, perimeter buffers and total building square footage established in the approved Master Plan. Commissioner Kehr commented that the Hunter Center, the current Women’s Center, was recently constructed. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. McAfee stated that the hospital is committed to preserving 100 acres of the campus as open space and providing walking trails consistent with the identity of the campus as a health and wellness center. He stated that retaining the old hospital and existing parking lot configurations on the South Campus does not make sense in the context of the overall campus. He stated the intent to ultimately create a cohesive campus, with open vistas. He stated that it was anticipated in the approved Master Plan that the South Campus would evolve after the development of the Central Campus. He stated however at this time, general themes for the South Campus are known, but a longer term specific plan for the area is not yet known. He stated that gaining approval for the re-routing of the road circulation and reaffirming the perimeter buffers are the current goals. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 6 of 19 Commissioner Berg commented that the existing historic building may be able to be retrofitted for future uses such as offices. He acknowledged that with the current proposal to extend a road up the center of the South Campus, the neighbors would benefit from the removal of the mass of the existing building. He questioned whether future structures would be constructed at the setback lines along the west side of the South Campus. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. McAfee pointed out that some of the existing buildings on the South Campus today extend over the 120 foot setback along the west property line which was established by the Master Plan. He stated that the newly established 120 foot setback is a significant increase over what exists today adding that the new hospital, the hub of activity, is located even further away from the neighboring residences. He stated that although existing buildings will be removed on South Campus, and new buildings constructed over time, the total building square footage will not increase beyond the square footage approved in the Master Plan. He stated that the refinements on the South Campus now requested will set the stage for redevelopment in this area beyond 2020. He reiterated that the Hunter Center is well placed, but noted that decisions on how that building will be reused have not yet been made. He noted for example, discussions are underway on whether it makes sense to accommodate more facilities for long term care on the hospital campus. He added that currently, the Hunter Center is tethered, from a support systems perspective, to the main hospital, so that will need to be addressed prior to removal of the existing hospital. He stated that after the new hospital is completed, upgrades are planned to the 700, 800 and 900 Medical Office buildings. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. McAfee confirmed that the hospital has received feedback from the neighbors about berms, landscaping and lighting and noted that he personally toured surrounding properties. He stated that the performance of the landscaping, as it begins to take root and grow in, will be evaluated continually. He acknowledged that as a result of the removal of the east 700 building to provide parking for the 800 and 900 Medical Office Buildings during construction of the new hospital, views into the existing hospital campus were opened up. He stated that low wattage lights were used in the parking lot constructed in that area. He stated that some landscaping was added to provide screening for the homes at the end of Lane Lorraine and he committed to continuing to enhance landscaping in that area as needed. He acknowledged that some neighbors have raised concerns about drainage. He stated that significant investments were made in improving upon existing drainage conditions at the perimeter of the hospital campus. He noted that the hospital site is lower than the adjacent residential properties adding that drainage moves generally from west to east in the area. He noted that the berm is set back from the common property line with the Lane Lorraine neighbors and a swale and storm drainage pipes were installed between the berm and the neighboring properties to capture stormwater and direct it to the east. He added that a new drainage system was also installed to Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 7 of 19 the west of the 800 and 900 Medical Office Buildings. He pointed out that the berm constructed to date north of the Lane Lorraine properties is higher than originally planned adding that the hospital will continue to look at opportunities to enhance the buffer and screening for the Lane Lorraine neighbors. Commissioner Kehr noted that she toured the hospital campus prior to the meeting. In response to questions from Commissioner Kehr, Mr. McAfee reviewed the location of the emergency entrance at the new hospital. He described the various routes to the emergency entrance adding that the planned realignment of the road on the South Campus will provide direct access to the entrance for those coming from the southeast. He stated that sightline studies were completed and illustrate that the neighboring residents will not have a direct sightline to the new emergency entrance. He stated however that in response to concerns, the hospital is revisiting the potential for increasing the height of the portion of the berm that is located directly west of the 800 and 900 Medical Office Buildings. Chairman Ley commented that when he viewed the campus recently, he was struck by the fact that at the east end, the berm appears to be three to five feet lower than the berm to the west. In response to Chairman Ley’s comments, Mr. McAfee noted that the berm in that area was not scheduled to be constructed until after the construction trailer was removed however, in an effort to address the neighbors’ concerns early in the process, the construction was advanced while there were still restrictions in that area that limited the height of the berm. He agreed to revisit the height of the berm in that area. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. Kathryn Duffy, 1102 Emmons Court, representing the Middlefork Farm Subdivision Homeowners’ Association, stated that unlike other areas of the hospital campus, there is no landscaping on the southeast corner of the intersection of Waukegan and Westmoreland Roads to screen the campus. She pointed out that Lake Forest Place, on the northeast corner of the intersection, is heavily landscaped. She asked the Commission and the hospital to look at the intersection from the perspective of the Middlefork Farm residents. Annette Champion, resident on Lane Lorraine, stated that she is a direct neighbor of the hospital and stated that from her perspective, there are problems. She stated that she has a problem with drainage and mosquitos and other issues. She noted a heavy storm earlier this year, on July 23rd, after which she experienced flooding. She stated that the landscaping and trees are not as dense as originally represented. Melissa Knorr, 810 Lane Lorraine, stated that she lives directly behind the proposed grounds building noting that this is the first she has heard of this additional building. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 8 of 19 She asked that more information be provided noting that a maintenance building could have noise and light impacts and could attract rodents. She stated that the berm does not provide a complete noise barrier. She asked whether dumpsters will be located near the grounds building. She stated that based on the information provided, it is unclear what is intended in that area. She stated that drainage is an issue and explained that there was a berm in the area before the new berm was built. She added that there was a culvert that extended through the former berm but noted that it was filled in and as a result, water that used to run from south to north, from her property on to the hospital site, now backs up on the south side of the berm. She stated that City staff and representatives from the hospital walked the neighborhood and experienced the mushiness of the back yards. She noted that the lighting on the hospital campus is visible from her house. She asked the Plan Commission to view the hospital site from the perspective of the Lane Lorraine neighbors to understand the problems they are experiencing. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that there are many members of the Foundation who are great supporters of the hospital and the expansion of the facilities. He noted that the tradition of Lake Forest is continuity which often means, rather than building new, existing buildings are adaptively reused. He stated that many people are interested in seeing the iconic 1942 hospital building, and what it represents to Lake Forest, preserved. He suggested that the building may offer some possibilities and residents may be willing to support alternative uses and restoration of the original portion of the building. He encouraged options other than completely eliminating the building. He suggested that compromises could be considered such as including the building within the 65% of open space required by the Master Plan. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley offered the petitioner an opportunity to respond to public comment. Mr. McAfee stated appreciation for the feedback and stated that the hospital will continue to consider all input received as the process continues. Chairman Ley invited final questions or comments from the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. McAfee confirmed that there are still more plantings planned for the campus and a few additional berms. He stated that the plantings along the Waukegan Road streetscape are largely complete but noted that evaluation of the plantings, with City staff, will continue for several years and replacement and enhancement will occur as needed as the plantings get established and begin to grow. He added that the temporary grounds building and the temporary parking lot, both visible from Waukegan Road, will be removed as work on the site nears completion adding that those areas will be enhanced with berms and landscaping in accordance with the approved plan. He stated that the hospital intends to make every effort to heal the site and minimize Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 9 of 19 disruption. He noted that currently, 40 to 50 trees are being planted in the common area, in front of the hospital. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City’s engineering staff and the City’s arborist regularly inspect the hospital site to monitor both drainage and the plantings. She stated that the City Engineer will be available to speak to the drainage at the next meeting. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. McAfee stated that the hospital values its 115 year history in the community starting with a location on the east side of Lake Forest. He noted however that the existing hospital building has evolved with a series of additions resulting in a circuitous building which is difficult to navigate. He added that the building has approximately 18 different entrances which are difficult to manage. He stated that the hospital is going through a thoughtful exercise to consider how to best memorialize the history of this great institution. He stated that it is clear that significant portions of the existing hospital building will be razed. He said that it does not make sense for the hospital to invest in maintaining a building of that size which is no longer consistent with the mission of the hospital. He added that removal of the building will also fulfill the hospitals commitment to open space and reducing impervious surface on the site where possible. He stated that the hospital will be thoughtful in its consideration of future options. Chairman Ley expressed his hope that at least a piece of the 1942 building will be saved in a way that enhances the overall project. He acknowledged that it is clear from the aerial view of the hospital that there have been six or seven additions over time and stated that he understands that the hospital building overall has outlived its useful life. In response to a question from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak stated that City staff will work with hospital representatives to respond to the questions and comments raised by the Commission and by members of the public. Commissioner Berg suggested that if Commissioners have additional ideas or questions on this matter prior to the next meeting, they should be forwarded to the Chairman and City staff. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited a motion. Commissioner Berg made a motion to continue consideration of the petition to the December 14th meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman and was approved by the Commission by vote of 7 to 0. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 10 of 19 3. Introduction: Consideration of requests for 1) a zone change from R-5 to R-4 and 2) tentative approval of a 9-lot Planned Preservation Subdivision and the associated Special Use Permit for property located on the north side of Westleigh Road, west of Stable Lane, and addressed as 770 W. Westleigh Road. Owner: Lake Forest Land Foundation Contract Purchaser: Janko Group LLC (Gary and Susan Janko) Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Kehr recused herself from participating in consideration of the petition stating that Gary Janko and the Janko Group have been a business client in the past. She noted that although she feels she could rule impartially on the petition, her past business association may give the perception of a conflict of interest. She left the dais. Commissioner Culbertson recused himself from participating in consideration of the petition noting that he resides in the adjacent subdivision and has a personal interest in the petition. He left the dais. Chairman Ley introduced the petition and swore in all those who plan to speak on this matter. Mr. Sentell, President of the Lake Forest Open Lands Association, noted that after an introduction of this project at the last meeting, the petition is now presented to the Commission for formal consideration and action. He stated that the 770 W. Westleigh Subdivision is proposed as a conservation development and will provide the community with a seventh nature preserve. He stated that this public asset will be provided as an amenity to residents with no public funding. He stated that Open Lands acquired this 22 acre site not only for its natural beauty, but also because of its strategic value. He provided an image showing the site in the context of the larger open lands greenway that extends throughout the center of the community totaling more than 900 acres. He noted that the property is the site of a relic of wet mesic prairie, a stand of Shagbark Hickory trees and wetlands. He noted that the proposed conservation subdivision is a piece of the puzzle, an area that Open Lands refers to as the Western Lakeshore, an expanded nature preserve, greenway and interconnected trails that extends along the Middle Fork of the Chicago River. He noted that Open Lands has owned the 770 W. Westleigh Road parcel since 2008. He acknowledged that the Dickinson family’s generosity, forgiving a portion of the acquisition cost, is a significant factor in making the preservation of 17 of the 22 acres possible. He explained that the nature preserve will be forever owned and managed by Lake Forest Open Lands as a public nature preserve and will be directly linked to the popular West Skokie Nature Preserve across the street making it possible to create over 2-1/2 miles of interconnected trails. He explained that by selling of a small portion of the land for controlled development, it becomes possible to preserve significant open space. He stated that the proposed development builds on the successful conservation approach used elsewhere in the community noting that this Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 11 of 19 approach makes the preservation of open space possible at no cost to the taxpayers. He explained that after buying the land, Open Lands initially thought it might be possible to sell the existing house, on a large lot; however, after a decade of trying to sell the house, which is not significant, another approach is being pursued. He noted that Open Lands was not willing to engage buyers who were not willing to commit to preserving a significant portion of the site as permanent open space. He stated that Open Lands was pleased to find the Janko Group, a willing partner in providing a high quality unique development in conjunction with preserving much of the site as permanent open space. He stated that the proposed development is sensitive to the hydrology of the entire site. He noted that at the last meeting, there were questions about trail locations, privacy and whether the proposed layout would allow the community to enjoy the vistas. He stated that since the last meeting, meetings were held on site with interested neighbors to discuss the proposed trail locations. He stated that an agreement was reached to plant conifers west of the trail, in the area where it most closely approaches the neighboring home. He noted that trail connection opportunities that will be provided to allow the future connection of trails from the Reilly property. He stated that the development is designed to offer vistas into the property from many surrounding areas. He stated that bisecting the property with a road from Stable Lane would impact the most sensitive land, impact the hydrology of the larger area and disrupt the passive experience for those using the preserve. He stated that the plan presented, after consideration of many site plans, locates the development on the least valuable portion of the site and minimizes impacts to the most sensitive areas and the hydrology of the site. He stated that this site holds and manages a tremendous amount of water which benefits surrounding properties. He noted the importance of not disrupting the valued natural infrastructure on the site related to managing stormwater. He pointed out the high quality wetlands in center and on the eastern portion of the property noting the importance of minimizing changes on the site that could alter those areas. He noted that the Army Corps of Engineers supports the proposed plan. He summarized that the proposed plan expands recreational open space in the center of the community, extends the western greenway, offers a unique residential product consistent with the density in the area, preserves the rural character of the Westleigh Road corridor, provides inter-connected walking trails and offers the community an amenity at no cost to the taxpayers. He stated that Open Lands prides itself on being a good neighbor and adding real value to neighborhoods. Jim Puritan, the Janko Group, reviewed an aerial photo of the area noting the surrounding single family homes and pointing out that the surrounding area is all zoned R-4. He stated that with a conventional plan, based on R-4 zoning, the property could be developed with up to ten lots, each with a home of 8,000 square feet. He noted that once Lake Forest Open Land Foundation took ownership of the property, the potential for a conventional subdivision was eliminated due to Open Lands' interest in preserving open space. He stated that a subdivision with small lots and clustered homes is proposed. He explained that considerable study went in to determining where the development should be located on the property. He noted Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 12 of 19 that there are significant natural resources located on the site including wetland areas that are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, mesic prairie, woodland areas and a stand of hickory trees. He stated that the proposed location for the subdivision is the only logical area on the site for development. He reviewed various options that were considered for developing the site noting that some of the options studied would require filling and mitigating portions of the wetlands. He noted that in recognition of the residence located directly across Westleigh Road, the driveway entrance to the development was shifted to the west, about 300 feet, to avoid headlight impacts on the existing home. He stated that the proposed homes are setback from Westleigh Road a greater distance than required by the zoning district. He stated that the proposed homes will be 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. He stated that the Janko Group has already received some informal inquiries about the lots. He stated that the existing residence was evaluated by a consultant and found to be in fair to poor condition. He stated that from an historic perspective, the consultant determined that the house is not significant. He stated that as a result, the house is proposed for demolition however, materials from the house will be salvaged and reused on the site. He stated that the intent is to create a high end, environmentally sensitive community and to preserve unique resources in the area. Joy Corona, Bleck Engineering, reviewed the hydrology of the site noting that a significant amount of water flows on to and through the site from properties to the north. She noted that as a result, the Reilly pond and the high quality wetlands are important components of managing the stormwater in this area. She noted that the majority of the water from the property currently flows to the west and into the Middle Fork. She noted that currently, runoff from a small portion of the property flows directly south, under Westleigh Road. She explained that maintaining the hydrology of the wetlands is critical. She stated that the subdivision is planned to contain all additional runoff generated by the development through a series of swales and on site detention ponds and direct water to the south, into a swale along Westleigh Road. She stated that about two acres of the site that previously flowed to the west; will be directed to the south off-loading some of the existing water volume from the swale on the neighboring property to the west. Nick Patera, Teska Associates, reiterated that five acres of the 22 acre site will be preserved as open space, 77 percent of the site will be preserved. He stated that extending a road from Stable Lane would bisect the wetlands and noted that moving the development north on the site will result in less preserved open space. He noted that a buffer, compatible with the existing streetscape, will be provided along Westleigh Road. He stated that the current plan preserves the grove of hickory trees and the prairie areas. He reviewed the proposed driveway location noting that the existing curb cut will be filled in with vegetation. He noted that by moving the driveway to the west, as now proposed, views into the site from Westleigh Road will be into the preserved open land area, rather than to the new houses. He added that the road was moved in response to neighbor concerns. He noted that native plantings are proposed to provide for a seamless transition to the preserved open space. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 13 of 19 Ms. Czerniak reviewed that two separate actions are requested, approval of a zone change and approval of a tentative plat of subdivision. She explained that a zone change from the R-5 to R-4 is requested. She noted that the R-5 district is primarily considered a holding district and is applied when properties located within developed areas of the City are annexed without a concurrent development plan. She stated that because this property remained in the ownership of the Dickinson family for many years, no zone change was ever pursued to align the property with the zoning on the surrounding properties. She stated that the requested R-4 district has a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet for purposes of calculating the permitted density. She stated that the surrounding properties are all zoned and developed in accordance with the R-4 zoning district. She stated that the staff report provides a review of the criteria on which zone changes must be evaluated. She stated that staff recommends approval of the zone change as requested. She reviewed the tentative plat of subdivision noting that the property is in the Historic Residential Open Space Preservation Overlay District which allows, and encourages, flexibility with respect to lot sizes, setbacks and road configurations in order to preserve natural resources. She noted that the overlay district has been successfully used in the past and noted two successful examples, the Middlefork Farm and Everett Farm subdivisions. She stated that the concept of providing smaller lots for new construction is consistent with the feedback the City is hearing from realtors and others in the community that the City has a sufficient number of acre and a half and larger lots. She stated that the tentative plat of subdivision was reviewed by City staff and found to be consistent with the applicable Code requirements. She added that the City Engineer completed review of the preliminary engineering for the proposed development and determined that with minor revisions and additional detailing, which will be addressed as the final engineering plans are prepared, the plans are acceptable. She stated that staff recommends that the Commission forward two motions to the City Council, one in support of the zone change request and the other approving the tentative plat of subdivision. She noted that the final plat of subdivision will come back to the Commission for action once it is prepared and any conditions of tentative approval are satisfied. She stated that ultimately, if the subdivision is approved, the City Council will approve it through a Special Use Permit as required for subdivisions of land located within the overlay district. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Comprehensive Plan encourages establishing conservation buffers around new developments, but does not specify how screening of new developments should occur. She noted that the staff report recommends a number of conditions of approval including a requirement for a conservation buffer along Westleigh Road to screen the new homes from the streetscape and to preserve the rural character of the street. She noted that conservation areas allow for the removal of non-native vegetation subject to approval of an acceptable plan for replacement plantings by the City. She stated that the replacement plantings should achieve the same density and provide the same or enhanced screening as the original buffer. She added that a condition for a landscape buffer in the area west of the nature trail, in Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 14 of 19 the area where it most closely approaches the neighboring home, is also recommended. Commissioner Freeman stated that in his opinion, the flexibility offered by the overlay district is appropriately applied to this property. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Patera reviewed that assuming agreement on the R-4 zoning; a ten lot conventional subdivision could be developed on the site. He stated that in a conventional subdivision, lots with a minimum width of 150 feet could be extended along Westleigh Road and homes could be constructed within 50 feet of the front property line. He stated that in the development as proposed, the homes will be setback over 70 feet from the property line along Westleigh Road, a greater distance than would occur with a conventional plan. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Patera acknowledged that when the subdivision to the east was developed, there was a provision made to provide for access from the cul-de-sac at the north end of Stable Lane into the property now proposed for redevelopment. He stated that at the time of the earlier subdivision, the significance of the natural features of the 770 Westleigh property were likely not fully understood. He reviewed earlier site plans that were considered and noted the impacts of extending a road into the site from Stable Lane. He noted that significant natural areas on the property would be impacted. He noted that a road connection from Stable Lane was rejected because of the impacts to the wetlands. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Corona, explained that some wetlands are more valuable than others. She explained that some wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and others, wetlands determined to be isolated, are under the jurisdiction of the County. She explained that the permitting agencies are reluctant to issue permits allowing filling or mitigation of wetlands if there are alternative development opportunities for the site that reduce wetland impacts. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Mr. Sentell stated that the wetlands on the north part of the site are waters of the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated that the wetlands on the southern part of the property are lower quality, regional wetlands, which can more easily be mitigated. He stated that in return for mitigating the wetlands that will be impacted by the development, other areas of the property will be enhanced. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Sentell explained that impacting the high quality wetlands would negatively impact the hydrology of the site. He stated that impacting the most significant portion of the site will impact wildlife habitat and the Shagbark Hickory grove. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 15 of 19 In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Sentell explained that the basis for the 9-lot proposal is the fact that based on a conventional plan; the property could be developed with 10 lots. He acknowledged that such a development would not be desirable, would be costly, and would likely involve a lengthy permitting process. Commissioner Berg questioned whether a portion of the site is unbuildable noting that if that is the case, the density may not be well founded. He stated support for the conservation approach to subdivisions. Commissioner Freeman asked for clarification on whether the Army Corps of Engineers rejected the 10-lot plan. Ms. Corona reviewed a color coded exhibit showing the official wetland boundary noting that the boundary is based on hydrology, vegetation and soil. She pointed out other areas of the plan that are habitat and prairie areas which do not have restrictions. She noted that in the conventional plan, there are buildable areas on each lot. She stated that the conventional plan would be an uphill battle, but is feasible. Ms. Czerniak added that the Code does not require that a conventional plan be taken through an engineering evaluation, only that the plan be presented to demonstrate the number of lots, based on the minimum lot size, that could reasonably be achieved on the overall site. She acknowledged that the conventional plan is not desirable. She stated that historically, the City has accepted conventional plans as a means to establish a maximum density with the understanding that achieving full buildout with a plan that meets minimum lot size could be difficult and costly. She stated that the tradeoff is that significant open land and natural resources have been preserved. In response to questions from Commissioner Ruggles, Mr. Patera stated that a survey of setbacks in the area was not completed but he noted that he observed that some homes in the area are closer than the setback distance proposed here, and others setback a greater distance. Commissioner Ruggles summarized that the goal is to screen the new homes from views from the street. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Sentell noted that representatives of Lake Forest Open Lands or the Janko Group met with all but one neighbor in the immediate area. He stated that comments received have been incorporated into shaping the plan. Ms. Corona and Mr. Sentell noted that there have been discussions with the Webbs, the neighbors directly to the west of the property, to address drainage and privacy concerns. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 16 of 19 Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public comment. Paul Hamann, resident of Beverly Place, stated that it is his understanding that Lake Forest Open Lands Association is devoted to the acquisition and preservation of land and is not a development company. He stated that supporters of Open Lands did not intend for their donations to be used to support development. He stated that he believes that Open Lands is being disingenuous by using this land for development. He stated that Lake Forest Open Land’s mission statement does not allow development of this land. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road, stated that he is speaking on behalf of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation and stated that the Foundation can support demolition of the house but stated that he will not go as far as to say that the house is not significant. He noted that the house is very unassuming and serves as a counter to the very formal house across the street. He stated that the landscaping near the house and the driveway alignment is characteristic of Simonds, West and Blair; a successor firm to O.C. Simonds, which created naturalistic designs. He stated that in his opinion, the development is in the right place. He stated that it is important to protect the wetlands and the post glacial pond and questioned how many features like it remain. He noted that it is rare to have an area like that with no houses around it and stated his hope that Lake Forest Open Lands could work with the owners of the Reilly property to assure sensitive development on the north side of the pond too. He stated that the proposed plan makes good sense to the Foundation, including demolition of the house. He stated that the plan honors the original landscape plan and protects the significant portions of the property to the north. He stated that he is aware that there is a long history of Open Lands acquiring property and partnering with a developer to assure that significant portions of the property are preserved. He stated that the community accepts and has supported this approach as a good strategy for preserving open space. Dan Sebald, 560 Ivy Court, stated opposition to the development and the proposed rezoning. He stated that the proposed development will change the character of Westleigh Road. He noted that the proposed entry to the development is wide and decorative, rather than natural in character. He agreed that preservation of the wetlands is important to slow the rate of water going into the river. He stated however that the site plan as proposed does not look very natural. He stated that detention ponds are not natural to this area. He stated that because lots of less than 60,000 square feet are proposed, the petitioner should be requesting R-3 zoning. He stated that the surrounding area is developed more consistent with the R-5 zoning. He questioned whether there is a demand in Lake Forest for smaller lots noting that lots in the Willow Lake and Amberley Woods development remain available after several years on the market. He noted that there are other properties in the immediate area that are on the market. He cautioned that new homes may drive down the value of homes in the area impacting transfer tax revenues received by Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 17 of 19 the City. He stated that he would like to know more about the history of the site, why it was sold to Lake Forest Open Lands and why Open Lands wants to sell it. Lloyd Culbertson, 145 Suffolk Lane, said that he takes issue with the location of the curb cut into the proposed subdivision. He noted that Stable Lane is already built and serves only two homes. He stated that it makes sense to him to use Stable Lane as an entrance to the new subdivision. He stated than rather extending a road from the end of the cul-de-sac, a road could be extended west from the southern portion of Stable Lane, avoiding an additional curb cut on Westleigh Road. He stated that this approach makes good planning sense. Hearing no further requests to speak from the public, Chairman Ley invited final questions from the Commission. Commissioner Berg questioned why the development cannot be moved further away from Westleigh Road. He stated overall support for the development, but noted that the streetscape along Westleigh Road is very unique. He stated concern that the new homes will be too close to the street and too visible. He questioned whether given the wetlands , too many homes are proposed. He noted that the house across the street is very formal and an example of the old estate era in stark contrast to the type of development proposed. He noted that the plan has a number of negatives and cautioned that the planned preservation mechanism should be used carefully so that it does not get a bad reputation. He questioned whether the development could be shifted to the north or split apart to avoid a cul- de-sac. He stated that in his opinion, the site plan could be better. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Sentell explained that the site was looked at holistically with the goal of preserving as much of the site as possible. He stated that the pond is a tremendous feature. He stated that many plans were considered and the plan presented to the Commission makes the most sense based on all of the factors considered including preserving the maximum amount of open space, managing the water on the site and preserving the character of the streetscape. Chairman Ley stated that he had concerns about the setback but stated that he is satisfied after the description of the greater than required setback in combination with a requirement for a conservation easement along Westleigh Road to preserve the character of the streetscape. He stated that the project is well thought out. Commissioner Ruggles stated that the setback is consistent with some of the neighboring properties. She added that in her opinion, a conservation subdivision approach is a benefit to the community for the long term. She stated that she is pleased that the Code provides the opportunity to compact the lots into a smaller area. She stated that she is generally in favor of the project and stated that it appears that the developer considered various alternative land plans. She stated Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 18 of 19 that in her opinion, the single curb cut from Westleigh Road does not seem excessive. Commissioner Freeman stated that he is generally supportive of the access from Westleigh Road and the proposed buffer from Westleigh Road. He stated however that he is struggling with the fact that the site is unbuildable; at least it appears to be at the proposed density. He stated that as much as he believes in the concept, he does not believe that it was meant to create density where it otherwise could not be achieved. He stated that all of the other issues he was able to work through. He stated that he could likely support the project at a slightly lower density but he is struggling with the nine lots as proposed. Commissioner Berg stated concern that the proposed density, so close to Westleigh Road, will impact the streetscape. Ms. Czerniak offered that based on the Commission’s comments, some further explanation of the Code provision and some further consideration of density and setbacks may be helpful to the Commission prior to taking action. In response to questions from Commissioner Freeman, Ms. Czerniak recommended that action on the zone change request and the tentative plat of subdivision be considered concurrently. Commissioner Freeman stated that he is supportive of the R-4 zoning and requested additional information on the density calculation. Chairman Ley and Commissioner Ruggles stated support for the R-4 zoning. Commissioner Freeman made a motion to continue both the zone change and consideration of the tentative plat of subdivision to the next meeting with direction to provide the Commission with further explanation of the density calculation and application of the planned preservation subdivision provisions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ruggles. Commissioner Berg stated that he is not struggling with the density as much as with the physical layout of the land plan. He noted that the pond, open land and the wetlands will not be seen from the road. He stated concern that the proposed development will create an inconsistent environment. Commissioner Freeman noted that the motion to continue consideration of the petition includes keeping the public hearing open. The motion was approved by a vote of 4- 0. Plan Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2016 Page 19 of 19 4. Additional public comment on non-agenda items No additional testimony was presented on non-agenda items. 5. Additional information from staff. No additional information was presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development