Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2013/11/13 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the November 13, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, November 13, 2013, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Michael Ley and Commissioners Augie Ziccarelli, Lloyd Culbertson, Jeff Kuchman, Guy Berg Commissioners absent: Commissioners Jim Carris and John Anderson 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. Public Hearing and Action: Request for Approval of the Tentative and Final Plat for the Green Briar Re-subdivision. The property proposed for resubdivision is addressed as 700 Green Briar Lane. Property Owner: 700 Green Briar LLC (Peter Witmer, Frank Mariani) Representative: Peter Witmer, Witmer Architects Chairman Ley asked the Commission to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. Mr. Witmer introduced the project noting that the property is currently two lots, one 100 feet wide, the other 50 feet wide. He noted that there is an existing residence on the west side of the property that would be demolished. He stated that the subdivision is straight forward and acknowledged that the main issue is stormwater. He stated that Pat Bleck, an engineer who is familiar with this area was hired to develop a plan for improvements to the stormwater flows as part of the redevelopment of the property. He reviewed the proposed subdivision noting that two lots of equal width are proposed. He stated that the lots conform to the zoning requirements and stated that a drainage easement is proposed and would be recorded on the deed to each property to address drainage concerns. Pat Bleck, project engineer, reviewed the existing conditions on the property noting that today, stormwater flows across the property. He reviewed the pattern of drainage from upstream properties, across the subject property, and on to downstream properties. He explained that in addition to water flowing across the northern part of the property, during heavy storms, water overtops the storm sewers in Green Briar Lane and flows back on to this property. He stated that the proposed Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 2 of 20 plan will accept the overland flow and the stormwater that results from the overtopping of the sewers on Green Briar Lane and put the water back to where it flows now, in an enlarged depressional area, near the north property line. He stated that the historic flow patterns will be maintained, but the re-grading of the property will protect the houses. Mr. Witmer stated that during the preliminary planning stages for the project, his team met with City engineering staff to review drainage issues in the neighborhood. He stated that he also met with the neighbor to the east to understand past flooding problems on that property. He stated that the proposed redevelopment of the property will allow the property to be put to good use and will improve the situation. Mr. Czerniak stated that the proposed two lot resubdivision is straight forward from a zoning perspective. She stated that the property proposed for resubdivision is located on the north side of Green Briar Lane. She explained that this area was originally subdivided in the 1920’s and was built out over several decades. She stated that the house on the property was constructed in the 1950’s noting that at one time, this parcel was configured as three 50 foot wide parcels. She explained that over time, various property line shifts occurred in this neighborhood. She stated that the property was recently acquired by the developer as part of the settling of the estate of the longtime owner of the property who resided in the house. She stated that the proposed subdivision will create two 75 foot parcels each of which will exceed the minimum lot size for the applicable zoning district. She noted that like the other parcels on the north side of Green Briar Lane, these parcels will be very deep due to the depressional area running along the rear of the lots. She noted that historically, a ravine ran through the area that is now the rear yards of the properties along the north side of Green Briar Lane. She confirmed that water currently flows west to east in this area and must be allowed to continue to do so. She noted that prior to development of the two parcels; the City will require that a drainage easement over a portion of the rear yard is recorded on the property deed. She stated that the easement will prohibit any filling of the area or the construction of any structures or anything that will impede the flow of water. She confirmed that with the re-grading of the properties as proposed, the flow of water will be better contained. She stated agreement with Mr. Witmer that the key concern raised about the resubdivision is drainage. She stated that the City is aware of past flooding problems in this area including problems on the neighboring property to the east. She noted that although the proposed subdivision will provide some improvement, some actions will also need to be taken on other properties to further improve the situation. She noted that the proposed work will set the stage for improvements that can be carried through to other properties at the same time, or, at the time other properties in the neighborhood redevelop. She added that as part of the redevelopment of the property, the developer proposes to replace the existing private storm sewer on the property. She acknowledged that during very heavy storm events, the City storm sewers surcharge in this area, she noted that the plan takes that fact into account and provides for an overland flow route that will direct any surcharge away from Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 3 of 20 homes and into the depressional area. She stated that the subdivision meets the applicable Code requirements. She stated that future houses proposed for the parcels will be reviewed through the standard process. She confirmed that detailed grading and drainage plans will be required early in that process for both lots. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Witmer confirmed that the area of water flow across the property will be moved to the rear of the properties, to the north, at the time they are redeveloped. He noted that moving water away from the buildable area and creating a depression to hold more water on these lots, will improve upon the current conditions experienced by the house to the east. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the existing lot, without subdivision, could be developed with a larger home than exists on the property today. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Witmer confirmed that in order to relocate the overland flow routes away from the houses, some tree removal will be required on the rear of the properties. He stated that for the most part, the trees that will need to be removed to improve the drainage situation are lower quality trees. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that removal of the trees would be considered at the time a site plan is presented. She stated that inch for inch replacement would be required consistent with the Code noting that exceptions are made for trees of certain species and in poor condition. She noted that if the required replacement trees cannot be planted on the site, a fee in lieu of plantings may be accepted by the City to support street tree plantings in the surrounding neighborhood. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Witmer explained that the outflow point for stormwater to the neighboring property cannot be changed without the consent of the neighboring property owner. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Bleck confirmed the current location of the flow route on to the neighboring property and acknowledged that it is close to the house. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak commented that if there is agreement or interest from the neighboring property owner, the redevelopment of the properties created by this subdivision provides an opportunity to do some re- grading on the neighboring property, in coordination with this project, to push the overland flow route to the rear of that property as well. She stated that if there is no interest from the neighbor at this time, the re-grading on that property would be done at the time that property is redeveloped. Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 4 of 20 In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Bleck confirmed that the proposed development will not exacerbate the existing drainage conditions on the property to the east. Chairman Ley invited public comments. Ms. Russell, 720 Green Briar, stated that she has lived in the neighboring home for 30 years and there has always been flooding in this area. She stated that the proposed development needs to be able to take care of any additional drainage to avoid hurting her property next door. She noted that the sewers in the area surcharge during periods of heavy rain. She stated that she believes that her property will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. She stated no objection to the construction of new houses, but stated that she does not want the drainage problems on her property to be exacerbated by new development. She asked for additional time to have an engineer review her situation. Mr. Am idei, 680 Green Briar Lane, stated that during heavy rains, there is a flooding problem in the backyard. He noted that he has to pump out his window wells and his back yard is wet. He stated that when properties are developed, consideration must be given to impacts on neighboring properties. Hearing no further requests to speak, Chairman Ley noted that one request to cross examine was submitted and offered Ms. Russell the opportunity to cross examine. Ms. Russell stated that she did not wish to cross examine. Chairman Ley asked for a staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that drainage and flooding are concerns in this neighborhood. She explained that the current condition was created many decades ago and as lots in this area are redeveloped, there is an opportunity to shift the area of water flow away from the houses. She acknowledged that the yards will continue to be wet. She also acknowledged that during heavy storm events, the City storm sewers have surcharged in this area adding to the overland water flows. She stated that the proposed resubdivision modifies the size of the two existing lots. She noted that a condition of approval is recommended that requires that a drainage easement be recorded on the deed to each property at the time of development to establish an area that will need to remain unobstructed for water flows. She stated that the easement will better control where the water flows. She confirmed that City engineering staff reviewed the subdivision as well as conceptual grading and drainage plans for redevelopment of the parcels and confirmed that the proposed plans meet applicable standards. She added that staff and the developer’s engineer met with Ms. Russell to review the plans, explain that there would be no greater impact on her property and to talk about modifications that could be made on her property to improve the situation. She stated that the Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 5 of 20 problems on neighboring properties cannot be solved solely through this development however, the plans as proposed provide the opportunity for related improvements. Mr. Bleck provided response to public testimony explaining that several years ago, he was hired to look at Ms. Russell’s property and at that time, he prepared plans for improvements that could be made to solve the problem on her property. He noted that to date, the plans have not been implemented. He stated that the resolution is to push the route of the stormwater flow further back on her property, away from the house. He stated that the improvements planned for the properties in the resubdivision will not exacerbate the water flows on Ms. Russell’s property. He stated that now, or in the future when her property is redeveloped, there is an opportunity to make improvements that will correspond with those proposed on the new lots that will enhance her property by elevating the buildable area up to a flood plain protection elevation. Ms. Russell expressed continued concern about her property. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Bleck commented that the previous advice for improvements to Ms. Russell’s property may not have been implemented due to economics. He reviewed the proposed plan noting how water would be directed and confirmed that the plan directs water on to the neighbor’s property at the same place where that flow occurs today consistent with the law. He confirmed that the plan provides the opportunity to shift that point to the north if the neighboring property owner agrees, to move the water away from the neighboring house and provide an improved building pad. In response to questions from Commissioner Berg, Mr. Bleck confirmed that legally, downstream properties must accept water from upstream properties. He stated that some re-grading on Ms. Russell’s property would improve her situation but could not be done without her agreement. Commissioner Berg noted that currently, the diagonal flow of water across the property proposed for redevelopment is directed toward the corner of Ms. Russell’s house. He noted that in the proposed plan, the water would be funneled down the center of the property being subdivided and there would be a new house constructed further protecting Ms. Russell’s house from a direct flow of stormwater noting that now, during a surcharge of the sewer, the water heads toward her house. He stated that the proposed development should do a good job of blocking and redirecting the flow of water. He stated that this seems to be a good opportunity for some type of agreement between the neighbor and the developer which would allow the point of overflow on to Ms. Russell’s property to be pulled away from her house, toward the rear of the lot. He stated that in his view, the subdivision will benefit the neighboring property. Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 6 of 20 Commissioner Ziccarelli commented that with the proposed re-grading, it appears that there may be a greater opportunity for absorption of stormwater as it travels over land. In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Mr. Bleck confirmed that the length of travel for the storm water will increase but noted that he cannot put a percentage on how much water would be absorbed over what occurs now. He clarified that the size of the storage area for the stormwater is not decreasing and the rate of runoff is not accelerating. In response to a question from Chairman Ley, Mr. Witmer stated that he is hesitant to see the petition continued noting that the final determination of what improvements will be made on the site will be determined at the time that plans are submitted for development of the lots. He stated that coordination with the neighbor at that time makes sense. He stated that his team has spent a lot of time, money and energy on the project to date going beyond what would normally be required at this point in the process to verify that the drainage can be addressed. He stated that a final grading plan cannot be prepared until a house is designed. He stated a willingness to work with the neighbor once a house is designed and offer the opportunity to coordinate improvements on her property along with development of the new lots. He pointed out that the issue does not stop with the neighboring property noting that the point at which stormwater exits her property will need to match up with the property to her east. He stated that the details of the drainage plan cannot be resolved now. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak clarified that once the subdivision is approved, the Plan Commission’s involvement with the project is complete. She stated that the grading plans submitted at the time applications for new houses on the lots are filed will not come back to the Plan Commission but will be reviewed administratively consistent with all applicable regulations and following any conditions of approval for the subdivision. She suggested that the Commission could add a condition of approval requiring coordination with the neighboring property owner at the time the plans are submitted for the new houses and before a building permit is issued. She stated that the City cannot force the neighbor to make improvements on her property in coordination with this development, however the grading plans could be offered for review by her independent engineer if desired and improvements could be made on her property at the same time the properties to the west are being developed. Commissioner Culbertson stated support for the additional conditions as recommended by staff. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans, met with the petitioners and Ms. Russell and agree that re-grading of the lots will be required at the time redevelopment occurs Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 7 of 20 and that the stormwater can be managed in a way that assures no increase in the volume or rate of runoff. She confirmed that re-platting of the lots itself does not in any way cause a re-direction of storm water either to the east or west. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that City engineering staff will visit the site again prior to approval of final drainage plans to observe the existing conditions first hand. Chairman Ley stated support for an additional condition requiring communication with the neighboring property owner once a final drainage plan is submitted to the City and prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Berg made a motion to recommend tentative and final approval of the Green Briar Resubdivision plat to the City Council. He noted that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval which includes the new condition as summarized by the Chairman. 1. The final plat of subdivision shall be determined to meet all applicable requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Community Development. In addition to all standard notes, the following notes shall be placed on the plat of resubdivision: At the time of redevelopment of Lots 1 and 2, a new private stormsewer shall be installed to direct stormwater to the existing City stormsewer in Green Briar Lane subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of any permits for site work or construction on Lot 1 or on Lot 2, Drainage Easements shall be recorded on the deeds of the properties and evidence of such recording shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The location and configuration of the area covered by the Drainage Easement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. In considering the location and configuration of the Drainage Easement, overland flows shall be directed to minimize impacts on the buildable areas of downstream properties. No structures or obstructions, including fences, are permitted in the drainage easement. Vegetation within the easement area shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and shall be authorized only if water flows are not obstructed. 2. Prior to the issuance of permits for site work or construction on Lot 1 and Lot 2, the owner of the adjacent downstream property, addressed as 720 Green Briar Lane, shall be notified by the City and copies of drainage and grading plans submitted for the proposed new development shall be made available for review. (The intent of this condition is to provide the opportunity to coordinate grading and drainage improvements with the new construction if so desired by the adjacent property owner.) Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 8 of 20 3. All applicable fees must be paid including impact fees for one lot. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Culbertson and was approved by a vote of 5 to 0. The resident of 810 Green Briar Lane stated that she was not notified of this petition and that other neighbors in the area may not have been notified. She agreed with the comments of other speakers that there is a serious drainage problem in the area. At the request of Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the public notice that was mailed for this petition exceeded the notice area requirements. She stated however that notice was not mailed to the entire neighborhood. 4. Informational Presentation: Introduction of proposed revisions to a previously approved plan for a portion of the Amberley Woods development located on the southeast corner of Route 60 and Saunders Road. The plan proposes a retail, restaurant and service development. A Whole Foods Market is proposed as part of the commercial development. No Commission action on this item is requested at this time. Property Owner: Supera Asset Management Contract Developer: Shiner Group, LLC on behalf of SCP Amberley, LLC, William Shiner, Chairman & CEO, Same Ankin, Partner Consultants: Michael Bleck, P.E. Bleck Engineering, Peter Theodore of Camburas & Theodore, Tim Sjogren, Traffic Engineer, TADI Potential Tenant: Scott Saulsberty, Regional Vice President, Whole Foods Chairman Ley introduced the agenda item noting that at this time this matter is presented for information only. He stated that no Commission action will be taken on this item at this meeting. He asked members of the Commission to declare any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Commissioner Culbertson recused himself from participating in the consideration of this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Berg recused himself from participating in the consideration of this matter due to his involvement with the development project adjacent to this property to the south. Commissioners Culbertson and Berg left the Council Chambers. Chairman Ley noted that the Commissioners that are absent will have the opportunity to view a video of this presentation. He invited a presentation from the petitioner. Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 9 of 20 Mr. Shiner introduced the petition noting that he is working with the owners of the property in a joint partnership with the intention of developing a shopping center on a portion of the Amberley Woods property. He said that his team has been working on the project for close to a year and has been coordinating with City staff. He stated that it is not often that developers get the opportunity to come to the City of Lake Forest or a similar community and stated that he is proud to be here and to introduce the project which is anchored by Whole Foods. He stated that in his opinion, Whole Foods is the type of tenant that Lake Forest would like to have and Lake Forest is the type of community that meets Whole Foods’ goals. He stated that his group has been in business for 30 years developing primarily food and drug anchored shopping centers. He stated that his group has close to 80 projects and 8 million square feet in retail. He stated that the projects are primarily in Illinois, but also in Indiana, North Carolina, Minnesota, California and Ohio. He commented that there is not a lot of opportunity to do this type of project in this area. He introduced his project team noting that this type of project is l ike a puzzle, starting with a blank slate and putting all of the pieces together to create a project that the City is excited about. He acknowledged that as with any project, there are various interests including those of the City, Whole Foods and the neighbors. He acknowledged that there are various issues that need to be addressed including traffic and the visual appearance of the development. He stated that his team has tried very hard and feels like the project meets most of the interests. He stated that the intent is to design the project to tie in with Conway Farms and to create an attractive gateway to the community. He stated that the building materials and landscaping will be consistent with Conway Farms noting that the design includes berming, areas of interest and landscaping to give this development an extraordinary feel. He reviewed that the property is currently zoned for office use with three story buildings permitted along with a restaurant totaling about 95,000 square feet. He stated that the development now proposed will be single story buildings with a total of about 71,000 square feet, less square footage than would have resulted from development of the site with office buildings. He stated that this development would not be proposed without Whole Foods which is a premier grocery store in the Country. He stated that it is a privilege to work with Whole Foods and to bring them to Lake Forest. He stated that Whole Foods is a perfect match for the community. He stated that in addition to meeting with staff to identify issues, his team met with some, but not all, of the surrounding neighborhood groups to hear concerns. He stated that he met with Ann Danner, the developer of the condominium site. He noted that a second condominium building is proposed and will block views from the existing condominium building into the proposed development. He stated that the roof top equipment will be screened from view and light will not spillover the property lines. He stated the intent to make sure that the neighbors to the south and east are protected as new development occurs. He stated awareness of the importance of the sightlines coming into the City and also the need to make the center functional for neighbors coming to shop. He stated that the project needs to make it easy for people to park and get in and out of the development site. He stated that he understands that traffic needs to be considered and that there are concerns about Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 10 of 20 the use of Amberley Court as a cut through to the shopping center. He noted however that no project can be considered without looking at the economics. He stated that he has to make sure that he can raise capital and financing and return money to investors. He stated that the project will provide annual revenues to the City of between $650,000 and $700,000. He stated that the project presents a great design and a great tenant. He invited the members of his team to make presentations. Mr. Saulsberty stated that Whole Foods is excited to be part of the community noting that the stores make great neighbors. He noted that Whole Foods strongly supports local suppliers and vendors and that the stores are community gathering places because they offer a coffee bar, prepared foods, a wine bar and a pub. He noted that the amenities make people want to stay and linger in the store. He stated that the hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. He stated that deliveries are taken from 7 a.m. until noon. He explained that the store will receive a couple big semi-truck deliveries a day. He acknowledged that a press release implied the approval of this store was a done deal and explained that was not the intent of that release. He stated Whole Foods’ commitment to doing whatever it takes to work with the make this store a reality. Mike Bleck stated that he was the engineer for the Amberley Woods project when it was originally approved. He reviewed the drainage on the site noting that drainage flows from west to east across the site. He pointed out that a storm sewer extends along Amberley Court to the south edge of this site noting that this storm sewer will pick up the drainage from the proposed development. He noted that presently, drainage from the site is sheet flowing to the east to the condominium property. He stated that much of that flow will be captured with the new development and taken to the detention basin. He noted that a portion of the parking lot will be permeable pavers to help manage the stormwater from the development. Tim Sjogren, Illinois Manager of TADI, stated that his firm was asked to perform traffic studies for this project. He stated that his team worked closely with IDOT and the City’s traffic engineer to determine what should be looked at and evaluated. He stated that the study is being reviewed by IDOT and the City’s engineer now. He noted that initial feedback from IDOT on the proposed new right in, right out access from the development on to Route 60 was well received. He stated that he anticipates getting comments back from IDOT soon and continuing the process of developing the plan. He stated that the intersection of Route 60 and Saunders Road was carefully studied and it was determined that the proposed development will have only a minor impact on the development, increasing traffic at the intersection by about ten percent. He stated that a second left turn lane on eastbound Route 60 is proposed to facilitate egress to the development site from the east. He added that the study also carefully looked at the potential for cut through traffic from the south, from Amberley Court. He stated that members of his firm drove the various routes people may take to get to the development site many times and stated that in his Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 11 of 20 professional opinion, Conway Farms Drive is not a viable route for people going to the new development with the exception of residents of Conway Farms. He stated that any increased use of Conway Farms Drive would be negligible. He concluded stating that the traffic impacts associated with the project will be manageable. Mr. Aiken, Shiner Group, reviewed the site plan noting that five buildings are proposed, dispersed on the site; one building for Whole Foods, three multi-tenant buildings for various retail and restaurant businesses, and one building for a full service bank with a drive thru. He stated that the primary access to the development will be a new access point to the site aligned with the entrance to the office development to the west. He stated that the other access point will be a new right in, right out access to Route 60. He stated that dual left turn lanes on eastbound Route 60 are planned to alleviate traffic concerns at the intersection. He mentioned the conflicting interests of trying to pull the development away from the neighboring residential properties and trying to preserve the streetscape and the setback. He noted that an earlier plan showed the commercial buildings closer to the east property line but the plan was adjusted to increase the setback distance in that area to 86 feet. He noted that the second condominium building is approved for construction 50 feet to the east of the property line. He noted that various locations were considered for the loading dock for Whole Foods and the location selected is presented because it is furthest away from the neighboring residential uses. He stated that the loading dock will be fully screened from views from the residential properties by a wall that will be constructed to the rear of the dock. He stated that his group worked with the developer of the single family homes to the south to maintain the residential feel of that neighborhood. He stated that access from the south will be a secondary access into the commercial development. He stated that no signage will be located at the connection to the residential development. He stated that there will be a clear separation between the commercial and residential uses. He noted that as the development was pushed away from the east property line, it moved closer to Saunders Road and as a result, the landscaping on the west side is proposed on the City’s right-of-way. He stated that the owner of the commercial development will take full responsibility for maintaining landscaping on the City’s right-of-way. He confirmed that no utilities are located in that area. He stated that the plan was designed to avoid placing buildings at the corner and to create an open feature on the streetscape. He stated that no signage is proposed at the corner, only at the entrances. He stated that the minimal signage will be consistent with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Peter Theodore stated that he is a licensed architect and has served as an expert witness for the State of Illinois, as a guest speaker at DePaul University, and on the architectural Commission for the City of Des Plaines. He stated that he has been involved in over 1,000 shopping centers nationwide. He noted that the proposed shopping center is a major departure from what developers normally do from a massing and density perspective. He pointed out that the buildings are pulled off the street and separated and emphasis is placed on berming and landscaping. He Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 12 of 20 stated that there is a sincere effort to create a gateway feature to enhance the entrance to Lake Forest. He noted that the proposed landscaping exceeds the requirements of the Code noting that landscaping is proposed along with berms at the periphery of the site and in the parking lot. He noted that landscaping is also proposed near the buildings with the use of trellises and vines to create an organic feel and embrace the architecture. He provided renderings stating that they reflect what the site will look like after construction. He noted that normally, in a shopping center, the building mass would be located at the corner but this plan locates the buildings away from the corner to leave an open feature. He stated that lannon stone, stepped terraces are proposed on the corner with various plantings. He stated that the landscaper for the project was selected because of his experience in Conway Farms. He noted that Conway Farms, Christ Church and Market Square were looked at as inspiration for the architecture. He noted those project have aged well. He stated that the design draws off the character of those projects and stated that the design of Whole Foods will be unique to Lake Forest. He stated that he has worked with Mr. Shiner for 30 years and knows him to be a developer who stakes his reputation on doing the right thing and building quality projects. David McCallum, landscape architect, stated that the proposed landscape treatments will provide an attractive setting for the development, an effective transition to the neighboring properties and will create an attractive gateway feature into the City. He stated that 270 new shade, evergreen and ornamental trees are proposed as part of the project. He noted that the parking lot will be landscaped with shade trees, flowering shrubs and ornamental grasses. He stated that 10’ tall evergreen trees will be planted along the east property line and in clusters between some existing trees along the south property line which will remain. He showed photos of various types of vegetation proposed for the site. He stated that an extensive amount of landscaping is proposed along Route 60 and Saunders Road including evergreens, ornamental trees, grasses and perennials. He noted that the corner treatment proposes terraces, walls, waves of grasses, flowering shrubs and ornamental trees. Mr. Shiner concluded stating that a much more detailed presentation will be brought to the Plan Commission in the future. He stated that it is a privilege to be presenting to the City and that it is fortunate that Whole Foods is part of the project. Ms. Czerniak stated that she will review three topics: some background on the Amberley Woods development, the process and the purpose of this meeting. She stated that the Amberley Woods mixed use development was approved in 2006 on the 38 acre site. She stated that the property is in the Transitional Zoning District and the approved development was comprised of 24 single family homes, two 45-unit condominium buildings, two 42,000 square foot office buildings, adaptive reuse of the Locally Landmarked existing residence, a wetland area and preserved wooded areas. She noted that the office buildings were generally approved for location framing the corner with one along Route 60 and the other along Saunders Road. She Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 13 of 20 reviewed that as part of the original approval of Amberley Woods, there was considerable discussion about preservation of the Route 60 corridor and a prominent entrance to the City. She noted that on the north side of Route 60, Conway Office Park’s entrance presents understated pillars and significant setbacks from the street. She noted that as approved, the required setback on the parcel proposed for development is 150 feet. She noted that tree preservation was also a topic of considerable discussion during the original approvals noting that the approvals acknowledged that significant tree removal would occur and designated some portions of the site for tree preservation. She stated that the approved plans recognize the northwest quadrant of the Amberley Woods as appropriate for non- residential development. She reviewed the request before the Commission noting that it is a request for an amendment to the Special Use Permit for the Amberley Woods development, approval of alternative uses for the northwest portion of the site, approval of drive thru facilities as part of the development and approval of revised plans. She confirmed that staff has had discussions with the developer and noted that staff only recently received technical information on the project and reviews of that information are not yet complete. She explained that this project is brought forward at this time for an early introduction to the Commission and community and early input because it is a significant project at a prominent location and is a different type of project from what the Commission routinely sees. She clarified that to date; City staff has not been involved in any discussions with Whole Foods, only with the Shiner Group and their consultants. She stated that this meeting is an opportunity for the developer and City staff to listen; take good notes and bring back a project that appropriately balances all interests. She reviewed the process noting that in addition to review by the Plan Commission, the project requires review by the Building Review Board with respect to the architectural design, building massing and height, hardscape, lighting, landscaping and signage. She noted that the Historic Preservation Commission will also be involved later in the process to review the proposed demolition of the historic residence. She stated that recommendations from all three bodies will be presented to the Council for final action. Chairman Ley invited initial questions from the Commission to developer. Commissioner Ziccarelli stated that his initial concerns have to do with traffic. He reviewed various ways to approach the area from the south, southeast and southwest. He noted that Conway Farms Drive provides an alternative that avoids numerous traffic lights and stop signs. He stated that he finds it hard to believe that Conway Farms Drive will not be used as a cut through to reach the proposed development. He asked for an explanation of the basis for the traffic engineer’s opinion that Conway Farms will not be used noting that as a resident, his observation tells him that it will be used as a route to the development. Mr. Sjogren acknowledged that he thought the same in his initial look at the area. He explained that on three different occasions, during rush hours, his team drove the Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 14 of 20 various routes and found that from the southeast, Waukegan Road and Route 60 provide the shortest route in terms of distance and in terms of travel time. He stated that using Everett Road and Conway Farms Drive proved to be a disadvantage. He stated that the degree to which the cut through route was a disadvantage with respect to time and distance surprised him. He stated that the data for the study could be provided to the City and stated that those driving studies are the basis for his opinion. He stated that traffic from the southwest was not considered. Commissioner Kuchman asked for review by City staff of the comparison of expected revenues from commercial versus office development at this site. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Mr. Shiner stated that he has talked with the developers of the adjoining properties to the east and south and believes that they are supportive of the project. He added that he met with the board of the condominium and stated that he does not have a poll of the residents there, but believes that the response was positive. He acknowledged that there may not be unanimous support for the project among all of the condominium residents. He stated that the two closest neighbors are Ms. Danner, the developer of the second condominium building, and K. Hovnanian, the developer of the courtyard homes. Chairman Ley invited public comments. Dr. Somberg, 210 Saunders Road, stated that he has always been opposed to development of the land south of Route 60 with business uses. He stated however, that in comparison to another large office building, the proposed development appears favorable. He stated however that he has several concerns including traffic noting that Conway Farms Drive has tremendous limitations and pointed out that it was built for use by a limited community. He stated that even 10% more traffic on Conway Farms Drive will be a disaster. He suggested that thought be given to disconnecting Amberley Court from the development to avoid use of that street as a cut through from Conway Farms Drive. He noted that the scarce landscaping shown in the plan is also a concern noting that sparse landscaping is also a problem with the office development to the west. He noted that site was previously heavily wooded similar to this one. He stated that emphasis should be given to maintaining as many trees on the site and as much landscaping as possible. He noted that the area is an important gateway into Lake Forest. He noted that neighbors in the area bought into a country area, a secluded area. He asked that the proposed development be screened as much as possible from the residential area. He noted that he was impacted by the office development and a loading dock and expressed concern for similar impacts on other residents from the loading dock for the proposed development. He stated that the plans presented appear to be a good start and reiterated his request for tree and landscape screening. Mr. Seiler, 130 S. Bradford Court, stated that he is a resident of the Stonebridge subdivision and is on the Homeowners’ Association Board. He stated however that Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 15 of 20 he is not speaking on behalf of the Association because the Board has not yet had a chance to discuss the proposal. He asked the Commission to look beyond the gloss of the presentation. He stated that the proposal presents some issues for Stonebridge and for the greater community. He questioned the traffic report suggesting that the experts were asked to evaluate traffic impacts only in certain areas. He stated that no one has talked to the Stonebridge residents about the current use of Old Bridge Road as a cut through for traffic from Route 60. He noted that by using Old Bridge Road, drivers miss one stoplight and this causes problems in Stonebridge due to the curving roads and the speed of the cars. He questioned whether the drainage plan has considered the impact of the development on the ponds to the east of the condominium building which drains into the pond in the Stonebridge subdivision and then through the subdivision to the north branch of the Chicago River. He noted that additional water will run into the Stonebridge pond and pointed out that over the years, the ponds fill up and need to be dredged to continue to work effectively. He stated that the developer has not talked about the effect the additional water will have on the Stonebridge subdivision. He noted that the information presented casts some doubt on the expertise of the developer’s team. He noted the document recently put out by the City describing what matters most to Lake Forest residents noting that this project is proposed at the gateway to the City. He noted that Stonebridge residents and others worked with the City to beautify Route 60 and stated that this project will not enhance the streetscape. He expressed concern that the signs and parking lot lights will be an impact at night. He questioned what the secondary use would be of the large building if Whole Foods leaves noting that other grocery stores and restaurants have gone out of business. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be heard. Ann Danner, 485 Hunter Lane, stated that she is the owner and president of Residential Homes of America, the developer of the condominium building to the east and the developer who installed the infrastructure for the Amberley Woods development. She stated that she also represents the ownership group of the second, not yet built condominium. She stated that the second condominium pad is the closest and most impacted neighbor. She noted the location of the second condominium building. She thanked the owner and developer of the parcel now proposed for development for offering an excellent opportunity to a development that has been stalled since 2008. She stated full support for the project noting that it is fiscally responsible commenting that office developments do not produce the same tax revenues as retail developments. She stated that the project is proposed by reputable developers and proposed to include the gold standard in retail, Whole Foods. She stated that the layout of the plan is superior and provides buffers that are not easy to see. She stated that she has looked into the buffer area due to the proximity of the second condominium building to the development. She stated that the proposed 1-1/2 story development will be preferable for the condominium residents as opposed to three-story, glass office buildings. She stated that as a resident, a developer, developer’s representative and a contractor and one of the largest stakeholders, she supports the project noting the reduction of the square Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 16 of 20 footage from the current approvals by 20,000 square feet. She thanked the developers and asked the Commission to seriously consider approving the project. She stated that the project will be a great boon to the neighborhood and Lake Forest. Richard Ernest, 1800 Amberley Court, stated that he is a resident of the Amberley Woods condominium building and serves on the homeowners’ board. He stated that he is a 31 year resident of Lake Forest and thanked the Commissioners for their service noting his previous service on the City Council. He acknowledged that the Commission has a difficult job because of the residential nature of the area and the changing character of the area. He noted that it is hard to see the rural character of the area change and see the area grow. He stated that the Commission has heard enough presentations to know that this is a first class developer and that all proposals are not of this caliber. He stated that the Amberley Woods Homeowners’ Association will try to take a position on the proposed development but acknowledged that with 45 owners, the position will likely not be unanimous. He stated some concerns noting that the issue of security has not yet been mentioned. He noted that the residents of the condominium would like walkway access to the development but would also like to prevent walkway access from the site to the condominium building. He stated that Amberley Court is a private road and the residents, after the developer completes the road, will have the obligation to maintain it and resurface it in the future. He suggested that consideration be given to reopening Saunders Road to Conway Farms Drive to disperse the traffic. He acknowledged that it will take the Plan Commission some time to review this petition. John Isherwood, resident of Naperville, stated that he is representing K. Hovnanian Homes, the developer of the Amberley Courtyard parcel directly to the south of this development. He noted that the courtyard development is comprised of 22 lots which will be developed with new single family homes. He complimented the Shiner Group in reaching out to K. Hovnanian and for making sure the development is compatible with the neighboring residential development. He noted that significant buffers are proposed and stated full support of the project. He commented on the entrance to Amberley Court which is the entrance to the residential area noting that the proposal to relocate the median from Saunders Road to the entrance to the residential area will screen the residential area from the commercial building. He stated that another accommodation made by the developer is providing a direct residential walkway from the courtyard homes to Whole Foods rather than requiring residents in that area to walk out to Saunders Road and back into the site. He stated that the proposed retail nature of the site is a benefit to future residents of Amberley Woods and to the larger community noting that currently not many retail or restaurant uses are located nearby. He stated that the proposed plan will benefit future home buyers noting that three story office buildings are currently approved for the site but all of the buildings now proposed are one story or a story and a half in height. He stated that the proposed development will provide better sightlines from the residential portions of Amberley Woods than office development. He stated that Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 17 of 20 as the builder of the courtyard homes, knowing what will happen on this site is better than uncertainty. He stated that he has heard from office developers that this site will not likely be developed for office uses in the current economic conditions. Mary Lou Reed, 1715 Broadland Lane, stated that over the course of development of the Amberley Woods property this is the most egregious and offensive development proposal presented. She stated that the Route 60 Corridor plan did not support commercial development along Route 60 noting that this development is diametrically opposed to that position. She noted that over the course of development of the Route 60 Corridor, one parcel was developed as a community park, another was donated to open lands and another was developed as the Stonebridge residential subdivision. She stated that Amberley Woods is a residential community, not a shopping mall. She stated that the area is a quiet residential neighborhood. She stated that the proposed clear cutting of the woods and destruction of the historic residence is awful. She stated that construction of a grocery store on the site will bring a significant amount of asphalt, bricks and mortar. She noted that a drainage problem exists today noting that water from the development will drain into the ponds along Conway Farms Drive and stated that the ponds overflow now questioning how they will take more water. She stated that the traffic increase on Conway Farms Drive that would result is untenable. She stated that closing off Amberley Court will be necessary if the development moves forward and stated that Saunders Road should not be opened. She stated that Conway Farms Drive was never intended to be a cut through street noting that Conway Farms is a small community. Cissy Cappola, 1800 Amberley Court, stated that she is the owner of one of the 45 condominium units noting that her unit is on the top floor in the southwest corner of the building, directly east of the site proposed for development. She stated objection to the proposed development noting that removal of the existing berm along Route 60 will remove a noise and site buffer that benefits the condominium building. She stated that views from her unit are of mature trees and the historic mansion which will all be destroyed. She stated that the buffer originally planned between the condominium buildings and this parcel will be removed and 360 parking spaces will be constructed. She stated that the proposed development will increase the noise and security risks for existing residents. She noted that there will be increased traffic on Amberley Court and stated that the store hours are unacceptable in a residential neighborhood. She stated that she relied on the approved development plan for Amberley Woods and stated that if she had known that the neighboring property was going to be developed with a big box store, she never would have purchased her home. Mr. Kreb, 1815 Amberley Court, stated that his house is on Amberley Court. He stated that the representative from K. Hovnanian may not be considering what future residents of the courtyard homes will think about the development and stated that representatives from K. Hovnanian have not talked with the current residents of the Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 18 of 20 courtyard homes. He stated that traffic is his main concern. He acknowledged that if the site was developed for office use as currently approved there would be some traffic on Amberley Court, but noted that development of the site with a grocery store will generate more traffic. He stated that cut through traffic will use Amberley Court, a private road, because it will be faster. He stated that his front window is 45 feet from Amberley Court. He stated that the private road will be used both to go to the store and when leaving the store. He noted that along Route 60 the traffic lights only allow limited time for left turns. He stated that the traffic impacts need to be considered. He stated that he also has concerns about drainage noting that during a couple storms this spring, his house was almost on an island. He stated that the existing detention ponds cannot take any more water and have been close to overflowing. He stated that drainage needs to be improved in the area. Mr. Donovan, a Stonebridge resident, stated agreement with other speakers regarding impacts to the area. He noted that Stonebridge is east of Conway Farms Road and people use Old Bridge Road now to cut through Stonebridge and avoid the stoplights on Route 60. He agreed that the lights on Route 60 are timed to allow only a short time for left turn movements at Conway Farms Drive. He noted that Old Bridge Road is a curvy street with limited lighting and commented that cars travel through the neighborhood at high speeds. Mr. Ewert, 225 Saunders Road, stated that he lives just south of the barricade on Saunders Road on a five acre property. He stated concern about the suggestion that Saunders Road be opened to traffic noting that the road was closed to prevent cut through traffic in a rural neighborhood and it was never intended to be reopened. He stated that he is very surprised that something like this development is proposed for this area. He noted that he lived on Saunders Road before Conway Farms was developed and stated he has always been concerned about traffic in the area. He noted his initial concern when Amberley Woods was proposed for residential development and recalled the Court decisions to determine how the property should be developed. He noted traffic concerns were part of those decisions. He noted that the plan presented does not identify the intended uses for the various outlots noting that they could be fast food businesses and generate significant traffic. He expressed concern about the hours of operation of businesses on the site. He noted that today, some cars park at the end of Saunders Road at night and expressed concern that with more cars in area, this type of situation will increase. He noted concern about the loss of a significant number of old, huge trees and the canopy they provide for the area. He noted that the landscaping proposed at the corner includes tiny trees. He acknowledged that the development would result in less square footage than the proposed office development, but noted that the buildings would cover a much larger part of the property causing the removal of trees. He stated that this is the gateway to Lake Forest and questioned whether this was what was envisioned by the previous Commissioners who planned for the development of the Route 60 Corridor. He expressed his hope that people will see this development for what it is and consider maintaining the character of west Lake Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 19 of 20 Forest noting that it is changing very fast. He noted that once this is developed, the community will be stuck with it forever. Dara Azari, 1800 Amberley Court, stated that he is a resident of the Amberley Woods condominium building and noted that many of his points have been touched on by other speakers. He stated that he is a long time shopper at Whole Foods but stated that he has been gathering information to determine whether he wants to live adjacent to one. He noted that during the construction of the existing condominium building, the site now proposed for development was used for the staging of construction materials and vehicles. He questioned where the staging would occur when the second condominium building is being built. He questioned whether the impact of the proposed development on the values of the surrounding residential properties has been quantified. He commented that the runoff from the ponds is a problem today. He asked about the contingency plan if Whole Foods does not remain on the site. He stated that he is concerned about the environmental integrity of the area noting the significant difference between the mature trees and the proposed landscaping. He asked for a clearer understanding of the trees that will be lost and those that will be spared. He asked how the buffer between the condominium buildings and the development will be enhanced after the existing trees are removed. He asked whether Whole Foods is considering alternative sites in the community if this site is not approved. He asked for additional information on what will be done to provide ingress and egress to the site and how that will impact the residents. Joseph McLaughlin, 830 Lane Lorraine, commented that the plan does not appear to be consistent with the 150 setback on the property. He suggested that the development be measured against other developments in the community and how they appear from the street, rather than to shopping centers in other communities. He asked for additional information on how the other tenant spaces will likely be used. He stated that Whole Foods is a relatively attractive use in comparison to office buildings. Chairman Ley invited a response to public testimony by staff. Ms. Czerniak clarified that Saunders Road is no longer a public road noting that it was vacated at the time the Opus office site was developed. She stated that the portion of the road beyond the connection to Amberley Court is in private ownership. She invited all in attendance to sign the sheet at the back of the room to receive notice of future meetings on this petition. Chairman Ley invited final comments from the petitioner. Mr. Shiner stated that he has listened to the comments and will respond appropriately. He stated that his team will continue to work on the project and return Plan Commission Minutes – November 13, 2013 Page 20 of 20 to the Commission at a future meeting to address the concerns raised. He thanked the Commission and those who spoke. Commissioner Kuchman commended the petitioner on the quality of the presentation. He agreed that the plan as presented is a much different plan and very much an accommodation in an effort to create a shopping center for this area. He acknowledged that a big box store is proposed but noted that there is only a limited amount of speculative shop space which will limit the potential for vacant spaces in the project. He added that the limited number of other spaces also helps to preserve and protect the tenants in Market Square. He added that he hears that residents leave Lake Forest to shop noting that shopping habits are a reflection of the demand for a superior grocery asset in the community. He stated that Whole Foods will be a good addition. He noted however that there are many questions that deserve answers. He asked for information on traffic and routing and what can happen on Conway Farms Drive and Amberley Court. He suggested that the landscape plan could reflect the potential preservation of some of the mature trees that exist on the property, integrating them into the project. He suggested that everyone remember that the proposed development should be compared to the approved development for the site and not to the existing condition. He asked for comparisons of the plan from technical, financial, sightline and visibility perspectives. Commissioner Ziccarelli stated continued concern about traffic and stormwater management. He questioned whether water should be retained in the parking lot temporarily. Mr. Shiner stated that the technical issues will be addressed prior to the next Plan Commission meeting. Chairman Ley reviewed information that should be provided to the Commission in the future. He asked for information on what kind of barriers could be provided to discourage traffic on Amberley Court and Conway Farms Road. He asked for information on how the second condominium building and the future courtyard homes will be impacted by the development and questioned whether the proposed development will discourage these projects from being completed or occupied. He questioned whether those areas will become undesirable places to build despite the convenience of the stores nearby. He asked for information on whether the development will affect the marketability of those properties. The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development