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