Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2011/09/14 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the September 14, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 14, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Jack Reisenberg, Commissioners Mark Shaw, Tim Newman, James Carris, Lloyd Culbertson and Jeff Kuchman. Commission members absent: None (one position vacant) Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Reisenberg opened the meeting and introduced members of the Commission and City staff. 2. Approval of the minutes of the April 13, 2011 meeting. The minutes of the June 8, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Information and Input: Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Preliminary information on the Hospital Campus Revitalization Master Planning process will be provided. • The project team will be introduced. • Campus planning considerations identified to date will be listed. • The project timeline will be presented. A master plan for the revitalization of the campus has not yet been developed. Input on the list of campus planning considerations is requested from the Commission and the public. No action by the Commission is requested at this time. Presented by: Thomas J. McAfee, President Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital and Senior Vice President Northwestern Memorial HealthCare Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item noting that agenda item is presented for information only at this time as an introduction to the master planning process that is just getting underway for the hospital campus. He stated that no action is requested from the Commission. He asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this item and invited introductory comments from staff. Ms. Czerniak stated that this presentation is the start of the planning process noting that this matter will be back before the Commission in the coming months. She provided an overview of the Special Use Permit process noting that Lake Forest is for the most part zoned for residential uses. She explained that traditionally, the City has used the Special Use Permit process to authorize institutional uses on properties zoned for residential uses. She noted examples of authorized special uses in the community including churches, Lake Forest College, public and Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 2 of 18 private schools, private clubs and the hospital. She explained that the community has relied on the special use process, instead of simply allowing these types of uses “by right” through zoning, to ensure that there is an opportunity for public hearings and discussion as institutions change and grow over time. She noted that in the cases of many of the institutions, an overall master plan, or a campus master plan, is adopted through the special use process to provide some certainty for the long term for residents living nearby, for the overall community and for the institution as well. She explained that the City has encouraged the development of master plans by the various institutions to encourage longer term thinking, as opposed to incremental thinking, as campuses change over time. She explained that master plans vary, some are highly detailed, others broader in nature. She stated that at this point, early in the process, it is not clear whether the hospital master plan will be a single, comprehensive document, or one that provides a higher level plan for the campus with some areas identified as needing further refinement through an amendment to the Special Use Permit at a later date. She explained that so long as future buildout and modification of the campus is consistent with the approved Special Use Permit and master plan, development can proceed without further amendment to the Special Use Permit. She noted that historically, the City has been very supportive of local institutions recognizing that in order to remain competitive, they need to grow and change while at the same time, being respectful of the character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the overall community. She reiterated that this is the start of the planning process and that no action is requested from the Commission at this time, noting however that comments, questions and direction are requested. She commended the hospital for coming forward at the start of the process informing and soliciting input from the Commission, City staff and neighboring property owners as this project gets underway. She noted that often these types of projects are quite far along in the planning process before they are brought forward for public comment and discussion. Tom McAfee, President of Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital for 5-1/2 years and also a Senior Vice President at Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, introduced the agenda item and key members of the project team. Tim Zoff, Senior Vice President of Administration at Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, introduced himself stating his commitment to delivering on this exciting project noting that it will allow the hospital to continue to deliver exceptional health care to Lake Forest and the surrounding region. He stated that in his 18 years with Northwestern Hospital, he has worked on many major design and construction projects. Carol Chiles, project manager for Northwestern Memorial Healthcare and a registered architect, introduced herself noting that she is with Northwestern’s planning and construction group and has 30 years of experience in project, design and construction. Mr. McAfee continued noting that this is an exciting and historic period for the hospital but also for the entire community noting that this is an opportunity to enhance healthcare in this region by doing this project right. He stated his commitment to engaging the community and stated his appreciation to the Plan Commission for hearing this informational presentation at this early point in the process. He explained that the project team is eager to hear initial feedback and confirmed that at this point, plans have not yet been developed for revitalization of the hospital campus. He stated that the master plan will be developed over the next several months based on study and feedback. He provided an overview of the strategic initiatives being discussed with Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 3 of 18 Northwestern Memorial Healthcare in relation to the Lake Forest Campus and provided background on both the local campus and on Northwestern Healthcare overall. He pointed out that both institutions are over 100 years old. He provided photos of Northwestern Memorial Healthcare facilities at other locations pointing out the sensitivity to the neighborhood context in which they are located, to the history of the hospital and noted that develop was guided by feedback from the surrounding community. He noted that Lake Forest Hospital was established in 1899 as the Alice Home and operated in a small house on the campus of what was then the Lake Forest University with support from Ms. Durand, a benefactor and from the 1st Presbyterian Church Pastor who at the time was also the President of the University. He noted that in 1940’s, the A. B. Dick family donated property to the hospital from their estate, Westmoreland, which was located on the north side of Deerpath, just west of where the hospital sits today. The hospital was relocated to the 23 acres of donated land and was constructed just north of Deerpath. He pointed out that today, John Dick, a descendent of the family, is active on the Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Board and is a Trustee on the Northwestern Healthcare Board as well. He stated that Mr. Dick is involved in planning for the future of the campus. He presented a brochure from the 1940’s which was part of a fund raising effort to support the relocated hospital. He noted that it is interesting that the explanation of the inadequacy of the hospital facilities at that time, including the need to accommodate new technology, the expanding need for outpatient care and the continuing need to better meet the needs of patients, is similar to the reasons change is needed today. He noted that today, Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital in Lake County is ranked as the #1 consumer choice hospital and provides exceptional care and service. He stated that the hospital is licensed for 205 beds, has 10,000 admissions, 2,500 births, 33,000 emergency room visits and 375,000 outpatient visits annually. He stated that the hospital has 1700 employees and that with the 700 physicians and their office staff, the hospital is a major economic driver and the second largest not for profit employer in the County. He stated that the hospital provides 21 million dollars in unreimbursed care and is the number one charity health care provider in the County. He stated that as a result of the affiliation with Northwestern Healthcare, the hospital now has an AA+ bond rating which is important for the ability to access capital. He provided information on Northwestern Memorial Healthcare and acknowledged that the facilities that exist as part of that downtown campus are not intended in Lake Forest. He noted however that the downtown campus is a primary teaching facility for the Northwestern School of Medicine and is a world class facility. He stated that the relationship between Lake Forest Hospital and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare has been in place for about 18 months now and has resulted in significant advancements in medical care, noting in particular the cardiac care enhancements now available at the Lake Forest campus. He explained that what is now available is a quality of care that is not typical to a community hospital and as a result, it is no longer necessary to leave the community to receive care in many sub-specialties. He explained that over time, the Lake Forest Hospital may become more a part of the teaching and research components of the system explaining that the interaction offered by those operations help to keep established physicians on the cutting edge of their fields. He reviewed the guiding principles shared by all those in the Northwestern Memorial Healthcare system noting the intent to provide world class facilities with one standard of care for all of the Northwestern affiliated campuses. He noted for example the move to an electronic medical records system which will occur early in the New Year. He stated the intent to make sure that health care is available to all that need care regardless of the ability to pay and reminded the Commission that Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital supports the entire County. He stated the intent to design a facility that provides the flexibility to support changing needs and shifting demographics with more people entering the Medicare system every year. He stated the intent to Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 4 of 18 collaborate with the community, respect the traditions and history, use sustainable practices and be responsible stewards of the campus. He reviewed some of the planning considerations that will guide the planning efforts based on the input received to date including: environmental impacts, light, traffic, stormwater management and appropriate buffers to adjacent uses. He reviewed the anticipated time schedule stated that the master planning process is expected to be completed by spring, 2012. He explained that it will likely take about two years after approval of the master plan to develop the architectural plans and then three years to complete construction of the buildings. He stated that there will be many opportunities to engage in discussions about the plan with the community and other key stake holders including physicians, donors and neighbors before coming back before Plan Commission. He invited comments, questions and direction from the Commission. Ms. Czerniak pointed out that included in the Commission’s packet is a list of planning considerations identified to date. She encouraged the Commission to identify any additional considerations that should be factored into the early planning process and to raise any areas of concern, ask questions and provide direction on any related issues. In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Mr. McAfee explained that the current facilities on the Lake Forest campus have been assessed through two different studies. He stated that both studies concluded that the current facilities are not capable of supporting contemporary health care needs. He explained that once the new hospital is designed, consideration will be given to how the existing facilities will be re-purposed. He confirmed that today, the hospital is licensed for 205 beds and that a growth rate of about 1 to 2 percent a year has been used historically but stated that the anticipated growth rate going forward will need to be validated for the year going forward. He added that the size of the new hospital will also depend on distinctive clinical programs that are brought to the campus. He added that the number of beds will also need to go through an approval process with the Illinois Health Facility Planning Board noting that the Board has strict criteria on how the allowable number of beds is calculated. He confirmed that the Board’s process will be parallel to the City’s process. He stated that Northwestern Healthcare is committed to replacing what exists today and that the question is how much expansion is needed to meet changing demographics and looming health care reform. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Mr. McAfee explained that the Illinois Health Facility Planning Board is strictly a regulatory body, not a funding body. He explained that additional beds require authorization from the Board. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Chiles confirmed that the hospital is 160 acres today with approximately 730,000 square feet in multiple buildings including the main hospital, later additions to the hospital, a small apartment building, a long term care facility, childcare center, health and fitness center and support services buildings. She stated that she did not know the current overall lot coverage but could provide that number in the future. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Mr. McAfee confirmed that a capacity and a demand analysis are being completed to determine what the overall campus needs to be in the future. He added that site circulation and building and site infrastructure are being evaluated as part of the analysis. Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 5 of 18 Commissioner Culbertson commented that he looks forward to watching the project unfold and interested to see any community interests raised are addressed. In response to comments and questions from Commissioner Newman, Mr. McAfee confirmed that the existing hospital is not configured to deliver modern health care. He stated that the original hospital facility is nearly 75 years old and not able to meet the technology needs or the infrastructure needs necessitated by today’s health care system. He pointed out that discussions tend to focus on the number of beds when in fact the outpatient activity is a key driver in shaping hospital facilities. He noted that the delivery of outpatient care is very different from the delivery of in-patient care. He noted that even with in patient care, the length of stay is much shorter than in the past. He pointed out that there are steps at the main entrance to the hospital, something that would not be permitted today due to the Americans with Disabilities requirements. He confirmed that he has been involved in expansion and modernization of other hospitals including a 100 bed expansion at one of the Cleveland Clinic Hospitals. He noted that his team collectively has had significant experience in hospital projects. He pointed out that many members of the Board continue to live in the Lake Forest community which provides a good way for the larger Board of Trustees to receive feedback on what is proposed and whether it is appropriate for the community as well as consistent with the mission of the larger health care system. In response to questions from Chairman Reisenberg, Mr. McAfee confirmed that recent investments have been made in enhancing specialized services at the Lake Forest Campus particularly in the fields of cardiac care and orthopedics. He stated his expectation that further investments in sub-specialty areas will be made as well. He added that as part of these investments, state of the art equipment is needed to support and deliver the specialized care noting the recent addition of a linear accelerator at the campus. Chairman Reisenberg invited public comment. Mr. Hanlon, 830 Lane Lorraine, stated that he lives in the second house west of the hospital and stated that a number of other neighbors were not able to attend the meeting but that a letter was sent on behalf of the King Muir subdivision to President McAfee. He reviewed the areas of concern identified in the letter: building height and concerns that tall buildings will look down on the neighboring homes, impact of lights, property values, location and type of parking, access and egress and noise such as that which may result from snow plowing. He discussed the most recently constructed parking lot on the 40 acre parcel noting the neighbors’ concerns about that project. He stated that the neighborhood has experienced severe drainage problems especially in the area that ties into the same sewer lines as the hospital. He questioned what would be done as part of construction of the new campus to avoid drainage problems. He stated that he understands that it is premature to expect answers to these questions, but asked that the concerns be factored into the planning process. Margaret Davidson, 875 Lane Lorraine, noted that when Mr. Carroll owned the 40 acre parcel now owned by the hospital, he wanted to build townhouses but the Commission determined that type of development would be too dense for the area. She noted that the comparison to the Streeterville hospital facility is way out of line and commented that such development is inappropriate for this community. She agreed with the comments about drainage made by Mr. Hanlon and she stated that the community has suffered because of the hospital. Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 6 of 18 Ms. Czerniak stated that all of the comments offered by the Commission and members of the public will be incorporated into the planning considerations for the project. She stated that there may be some opportunities, as the new campus plan is developed, to examine infrastructure and plan for improvements to address existing issues. She stated confidence that the hospital team is prepared to address all of the issues raised. Mr. McAfee clarified that the graphic representing the Streeterville campus was intended only to provide information on the hospital’s partner. He recognized that the Lake Forest campus is a community hospital and stated the intent to advance the mission of Northwestern Healthcare in a manner that is respectful of the community. Chairman Reisenberg applauded the approach the hospital is taking to the planned expansion and stressed the importance of keeping the community and neighbors involved in the process. Ms. Czerniak announced that an interested parties’ sign up list is available at the back of the room and encouraged members of the audience to sign up if they would like to receive notices of upcoming meetings on this project. She stated an expectation that this project will be back before the Commission in the next couple months. 4. Public Hearing and Action: A request for approval of a 6 unit rental duplex development and approval of the associated tentative and final plat of the proposed Mendino Subdivision. Located on the east side of McKinley Road, north of Lake Forest High School and addressed as 1411 - 1421 N. McKinley Road. Property Owner: Joseph Mendino Presented by: Nick Patera, Teska and Associates (land planner) Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item. He asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this item. Mr. Patera introduced the petition and the project team and provided an overview of the existing site conditions. He described the proposed plan noting that a compact cluster development of duplex buildings is proposed. He noted that under the proposed plan, the existing duplex building will have three identical companion buildings on the site. He noted that Mr. Mendino owns two adjacent properties. He explained that the existing building was constructed in 1997 and 1998 with the intention of adding a building to the east and buildings to the south. He stated the intention to create a central courtyard and driveway to serve all four duplex buildings. He stated that the narrow portion of the buildings will front on McKinley Road minimizing the visibility. He described the surrounding area noting the high school fields to the east, the Winthrop Lane duplex development to the south and a single family home to the north. He stated that the plan does not require any variances and stated that the plan as proposed is in conformance with the GR-3 zoning. He reviewed the mechanics of the site plan noting that one covered parking space and one open parking space are provided for each unit and eight visitor parking spaces are proposed for the overall site. He noted that the drainage and landscaping on the property have been considered. He reviewed sections of the proposed development noting that the plan is designed to allow the buildings to be located closer to existing grade than originally planned. He stated that the building heights are planned to be no taller than those on Winthrop Lane. He pointed out the swale that will be located along the south property line and discussed the landscaping proposed to break up the south façade of the building. He stated that Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 7 of 18 the existing fence along the south property line will remain. He reviewed plantings proposed throughout the plan and noted that all of the garages will be internally loaded rather than fronting on the street. He discussed the buildings noting that the design elements and the exterior materials will mirror those on the existing building. He stated that the buildings are 28 feet in height noting that the interior dimensions are compact to keep the buildings low. He confirmed that the required 40’ front yard setback requirement is met and pointed out that the existing single family home is closer to McKinley Road than allowed by the required setback. He noted that the homes to the south are also slightly closer to the street than currently permitted. He noted that the side yard setbacks will be about 8 feet on both sides, exceeding the 6 foot setback requirement. He discussed the outdoor patio proposed for each unit and the nearby landscaping. He noted that an evergreen hedge will extend along the east property line serving as an end point for the courtyard. He noted that the initial grading proposed was a concern to the neighbors and as a result was modified. He reviewed the drainage patterns for each watershed area. He stated that stormwater will be collected on the site and directed into existing storm sewers, some toward McKinley Road, and the rest out to the high school field. He stated that information on utilities is included in the packet. He stated no action from the Commission is requested at this time. He stated that the staff recommends review of the buildings by the Building Review Board as a next step. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the zoning and provided some history on the site and commented on the proposed site plan. She stated that a duplex development on the site is consistent with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. She continued noting that the site is designated for a mix of single family homes and duplexes. She noted that the area is comprised of small lots and is located close to the core of the City and near transportation and as a result, is appropriate for moderate density development. She noted that the Winthrop Court development is also a duplex development. She explained that the permitted density in the GR-3 district is determined by the square footage of the property. She stated that based on the total size of the land, 5.3 “dwellings” are permitted on the site. She stated that based on the Code, a “dwelling is defined as a building that houses a single family unit or two duplex units. She confirmed that the proposed density of a total of four, duplex building, is consistent with the zoning. She noted however that the GR-3 zoning district in combination with the building scale requirements for duplexes requires that each duplex unit be smaller than a stand-alone single family home. A duplex development in the GR-3 zoning district is not permitted to be twice the size of a single family home development. She clarified that a subdivision of the property is not proposed but instead, the existing two lots will be consolidated into a single lot. She stated that the entire property will remain in the ownership of Mr. Mendino and all of the units will be rental units. She stated that as the property owner, Mr. Mendino will be responsible for all of the common areas, driveways, lawns and for all private infrastructure. She stated that there will not be a Homeowners’ Association since there will be only one owner. She explained that if in the future sale of any of the units is proposed, City approval will be required to establish a plat of condominium and a Homeowners’ Association to handle maintenance of the common areas. She provided a history of development activity on the site stating that in June, 1997, Mr. Mendino presented a plan for development of only the north lot with two duplex buildings. She explained that the project was presented as a subdivision with a request for a variance because the property was not of sufficient size to be subdivided in accordance with the Code. She acknowledged that there was discussion at that time about the opportunity to plan a comprehensive duplex development if the lot to the south is combined with the north lot. She stated that Mr. Mendino decided to proceed with the project incrementally and constructed one building on the north Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 8 of 18 property that was in full compliance with the Code which was approved through a building permit process as a single building on the property. She noted that in the minutes of the early meetings, consideration of purchase of the south lot was encouraged to allow an overall development to be planned at the outset rather than beginning development of the property on an incremental basis. She noted however that since the initial building was constructed, the site plan is now being worked around the existing building. She reviewed the proposed site plan. She stated that the preliminary engineering plans have been reviewed and modified and that in their present form, from a technical perspective, the sanitary and storm sewer work as proposed. She noted that the stormwater from the site is directed in two different directions, some to the west, toward a storm sewer in McKinley Road, and the rest to the east through the high school property. She noted that a letter was received from the High School District and was provided to the Commission. She stated that the letter asked that the proposed project be considered carefully to assure that the storm sewer system has the capacity to handle the proposed additional water while still reserving some capacity for future improvements on the high school property. She stated that the challenge of the project comes down to the site plan and building mass. She noted that at this point, architectural plans and a building scale calculation have not been provided to staff however, the three additional buildings proposed, along with the existing building; appear to result in a significant building scale overage on the site based on the current ordinance. She stated that a request for a building scale variance would need to be considered by the Building Review Board. She suggested that in order to bring the project into compliance with the building scale requirements, changes will need to be made to the size and design of the buildings. She noted that as presented, the number of visitor parking spaces on the site appear to exceed the parking requirements in the Code. She cautioned that parking spaces should not be constructed to meet peak demand when open space is limited on the site. She suggested that there may be an opportunity for off-site parking for specific events given the proximity of the high school. She stated that with a reduction in the overall size of the buildings and a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces, the open space gained could improve the project and provide space for trees which over time, could provide a tree canopy in some areas to help soften the development. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Mr. Patera pointed out the trees that were added to break up the south elevations of buildings three and fourth. He noted that given the limited space, upright, columnar trees are proposed to address the neighbors’ concern about the tall, unbroken building elevations along the south side. He stated that the south facing visitor parking near building three is not shielded by berming, but instead, by the grade change on that part of the property and the existing fence. He noted that shrubs could be added in the area to further mitigate any impacts from headlights on the neighboring homes. He added that the parking area for the Winthrop Lane residences is located adjacent to this area. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Building Review Board would need to grant a variance from the building scale requirements but added that it is appropriate for the Commission to discuss and comment on the overall massing and open space as it relates to the overall site plan and if the Commission desires, to provide input to the Building Review Board. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Mr. Patera stated the intention to maintain the aesthetics of the original buildings to allow the buildings to appear as a matched set. Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 9 of 18 In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that in 1997, the building was approved by the Building Review Board but noted that some standards have changed since that time. She discussed the traffic that would be generated from the development noting that McKinley Road is designed for significant traffic volumes. She noted however that the location of the curb cut and sight lines will need to be considered for safety. She confirmed that no acceleration or deceleration lanes would be required based on the proposed development. In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Mr. Patera said that at this point, there is no specific construction schedule. He confirmed that the proposal is to retain the single family house on the site through the first part of the construction. He discussed the amount of impervious surface proposed on the site noting that the visitor parking spaces and patios could be constructed of pervious materials. He noted that the roof tops of the buildings are impervious surfaces and cover approximately 30 percent of the site. Commissioner Carris commented that leaving the house on the site during construction may result in congestion on the site and more of an impact on the neighboring property owners. He pointed out the narrow width of the driveway as proposed. He added that he would be concerned about a construction schedule that extends construction on the site for a long period of time. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Ms. Czerniak stated that “to scale” drawings for the buildings have not yet been submitted to staff to allow a building scale calculation to be completed for the existing or the proposed buildings. She stated that the numbers provided by the petitioner represent the livable square footage. She explained that the building scale methodology takes into account the volume and appearance of mass of a structure. She explained that based on the information available, staff expects the proposed four structures to exceed the allowable square footage for the property. She confirmed that the development approvals would specify a time frame for completion of the infrastructure and common areas similar to requirements for a subdivision. She confirmed that for single family home subdivisions, there is no requirement that the individual homes be constructed within a certain time frame, just the infrastructure and common areas. She stated that based on the information available, staff is uncertain whether the common area improvements and the infrastructure can be completed if the existing single family house remains on the site. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that this development does not involve approval of a subdivision plat but instead, approval of a plat of consolidation of several existing lots and the designation of common areas, building foot prints and utility locations, both public and private. She confirmed that it is within the Plan Commission’s purview to consider the design and functionality of the overall site plan and request modifications if determined to be appropriate. She noted that the development proposed is a multi-building development, with common areas and shared infrastructure. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Patera explained that the utility easement along the north property line is on the adjacent property, not Mr. Mendino’s property. He stated that a sanitary sewer is located in the easement and that the sanitary sewer from this development will connect into this existing sewer main. . Commissioner Culbertson stated that the project appears to be too much for the site. He compared the Winthrop Lane development to the proposed development noting that the driveway Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 10 of 18 width in the Winthrop Lane development is wider and the buildings set further apart offering more light, air and open space in the development. He stated that in the Winthrop Lane development the buildings appear to range from 50’ to 60’ apart, but the distance across the driveway between buildings in the new plan appears to be only about 41 feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Patera explained that the illustration of the proposed plan is intended to illustrate just the buildings and paving so the landscaping and open space is not shown on the plan. He stated that the petitioner intends to take the comments presented constructively and for instance reconsider the amount of parking proposed on the site. He acknowledged that the site may be over parked as presented. He suggested that some areas could be “landbanked” and identified for future parking if it is determined that additional parking is needed on site after the project is developed. He noted that it is important that the various buildings have consistent architectural elements and materials to allow the buildings to read as a group. He acknowledged that to meet the permitted square footage, the scale and proportions of the buildings will need to be considered. Commissioner Culbertson stated that more substantial buffers are needed between the proposed development and the adjacent properties to the north and south. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Mr. Patera discussed the relationship between the proposed buildings and the existing structures on the neighboring lots. He noted that at a meeting with the neighbors, there was particular concern over the height of the proposed buildings in relation to the east end of the Winthrop Lane homes. He explained that in response, the amount of fill originally proposed in this area was reduced and as a result, the elevation of the first floor of the building proposed for the southeast corner was reduced to the same height as the neighboring homes. He stated that this adjustment protects the views, light and air to the existing homes. He confirmed that consideration was given to providing more vegetation as screening between the developments, but he pointed out that planting evergreens such as arborvitae will reduce the light into the existing homes. He pointed out that the Winthrop Lane homes will still get light from the south and east exposures. He pointed out that the removal of the existing single family home on the Mendino property will improve the light to the homes at the west edge of the Winthrop Lane development. He acknowledged that if the scale and mass of the buildings need to be reduced to meet the building scale requirements, there may be an opportunity to increase the setbacks. He agreed that the site is compact, but noted concern about squeezing the building toward the center to provide for additional setbacks along the north and south sides. He pointed out that as proposed, the project has about the same or less lot coverage with buildings than the Winthrop Lane development. He reiterated that looking at the building size may offer the opportunity for more openness on the site. He stated that although the building massing, proportions and height may need to be re-examined, the project deserves to have some continuity among the buildings. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak explained that City regulations limit the amount of building coverage on a lot, but not the total amount of impervious surface. She stated that buildings may not cover more than 30% of the lot. She stated that based on calculations provided by the petitioner, the project as proposed is in conformance with the lot coverage limitation. She confirmed that the proposed density, the number of units, is also in conformance with the Code requirements. She stated however, that due to the size of the proposed units and buildings, the building scale requirements are not met. She stated that the Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 11 of 18 Code anticipates that a duplex development will be comprised of individual units that are smaller than single family homes and therefore the Code allows the density, the number of units, to increase when a duplex development is proposed. She confirmed that the buildings could be redesigned to be smaller but still be constructed of the same materials as the existing duplex building to allow for some consistency in the project. In response to questions from Chairman Reisenberg Mr. Patera reviewed the number of parking spaces proposed noting that 24 spaces are identified on the plan including parking on the driveway aprons. He stated that consideration was not given to angling the buildings. He questioned whether the same density could be achieved with an angled configuration. He noted that with that configuration, a building may need to be eliminated and noted that would hurt the efficiency of the plan. Chairman Reisenberg stated that angling the buildings may create a plan that is more acceptable to the neighbors and one with would not change the impact on the high school campus to the east. In response to a question from Commissioner Newman, Mr. Patera confirmed that the units are designed with three bedrooms. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Reisenberg invited public comment and swore in all those planning to speak. Lindy Trigg, 183 Winthrop Lane, stated that she is 22 year resident of Winthrop Lane and is the President of the Winthrop Lane Homeowners’ Association. She stated that her home is on the south side of the lane and as a result, she is not directly impacted by the proposed project but is concerned about impacts on her neighbors. She noted that she, along with some of the other neighbors, had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Mendino and City staff to review the plans. She stated appreciation for the comments and questions from the Commissioners acknowledging that the questions asked are the same as many of those the neighbors are asking. She noted particular concern about the aesthetics of the proposed project noting the tall brick wall proposed along the south property line stating that it will completely block out the light and air to homes on Winthrop Lane. She suggested that maybe one of the buildings could be eliminated to improve the project. She stated that she also has concerns about parking, drainage and landscaping. Jenny Chandler, 185 Winthrop Lane, stated that she is a retired realtor and is currently doing some real estate consulting. She stated that she is very concerned about the impact the mass of the proposed buildings will have on her property value and on the values of the neighboring homes to the south and to the north. She stated that everyone should be concerned about what the project as proposed says about the City. She commented that Lake Forest is a City of trees but as proposed, there is no room for trees on the site of the proposed development site. She stated concern about what would be developed on other GR-3 properties if this project is approved. She noted that past concerns about very large structures led to the establishment of the Building Scale Ordinance. She stated that it is her understanding that the units are each 2,000 square feet and have a garage. She noted that with 8 units proposed on the site, there will be a lot of development on the site. She compared the proposed units in size, scale and design to those in her development on Winthrop Lane. She questioned the size of the garages and whether the large number of visitor parking spaces proposed is appropriate. She stated that the parked Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 12 of 18 cars on the site will be viewed from passersby on McKinley Road. She stated that construction of buildings as proposed will down grade the image of Lake Forest. She stated that the residences on Winthrop Lane are more subdued and have variety in rooflines and in setbacks. She stated that as a realtor, she knows that people move to Lake Forest not only for the quality of the schools, but also for the quality of the City services and character of the neighborhoods. She stated her hope that a cookie cutter development will not be approved. Chris Bacon, representing William Bacon owner of 186 Winthrop Lane, asked that the City reconsider allowing this property to be redeveloped with three additional buildings. He noted that the sump pump in Mr. Bacon’s unit runs frequently and expressed concern that additional water runoff from this site could be a threat to his property. He stated that there is currently significant standing water on the property after rain storms. He noted that the buildings as proposed will tower over the nearby structures. He expressed concern that due to the proximity of the proposed construction so close by, the foundations of existing homes might crack. He noted that three windows would be overlooking Mr. Bacon’s building from a distance of 12’ away creating a high rise, tenement feel to what is now a spacious environment. He stated that the development will affect the groundwater, privacy views, light, openness and property values. He questioned why this development would be approved given the negative impacts on the rights of adjoining property owners. A neighboring resident stated that he has lived in Lake Forest for 5 years since moving here from London. He stated that he shares the concerns of his neighbors. He stated that the project will change the character of the neighborhood. He noted concern that the four buildings will look exactly the same. He pointed out that the recent expansion of the high school was done with thoughtful architecture and as a result, there was no negative impact on the neighbors. He stated concern about constructing the development in phases. He questioned how long buildout of the property would take. He questioned the density proposed for the site and cautioned the Commission about simply looking at the number of units permitted without considering the size. He said that the project as proposed will have a personal impact on his property and home. Steve Buchanan, 182 E. Winthrop Lane, reviewed photos of the Winthrop Lane development noting the varying roof lines, trees, shrubs and the welcoming and healthy environment. He reviewed photos of the existing duplex building on Mr. Mendino’s property noting the impact it has on the existing house to the north and stating that this is the view that he and his neighbors can expect along the south property line. He stated that a 6 foot fence will not shield the impact of the proposed buildings. He provided a photo of the backyard of the Mendino property noting the existing minimal vegetation and noting that there is frequently standing water in this area. He noted that on the plus side, the existing backyard is open and provides the opportunity for light and air to reach the Winthrop Lane homes. He stated that this view will be replaced by a brick wall. He noted that the proposed columnar trees will do little to mask the two story brick wall. He asked whether the trees in the middle of the lot will need to come out and asked for clarification on the overall tree removal planned. He invited the Commissioners to view the proposed development site from his home and the rest of the Winthrop Lane development. Kathy Buchanan, 182 E. Winthrop Lane, stated that her home will be north of the brick wall. She stated that there is a large window in her living room facing this development noting that currently the window provides natural light into her home. She stated that she will lose much of the natural light due to the proximity and height of the proposed building. She stated concern Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 13 of 18 about air flow and expressed concern that the brick wall will reflect heat in the summer limiting her ability to open her windows. She stated that her privacy will be impacted noting that currently as a result of the design of her development, she cannot see into her neighbors’ homes or patios. She asked that the proposal be reconsidered. Chairman Reisenberg invited staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak commented that as with all development proposals, this project will require a balancing of various interests, the rights of the property owner to develop the property consistent with the Code and the neighboring property owners. She stated that to meet the Code requirements, the buildings will need to be reduced in size and as a result, setbacks, increased open space and more area for plantings could result. She reiterated that the plan is consistent with the permitted density, but does not appear to be consistent with the allowable building square footage. She recommended that the Commission continue consideration of the petition and provide direction to the petitioner to consider the issues raised and return with a revised plan. Mr. Patera thanked the Commission, neighbors and staff and stated that the project team will take the comments into consideration. Commissioner Culbertson stated support for the staff recommendation agreeing that the buildings should be reduced in mass and stated that further consideration should be given to the site plan and building locations in an effort to increase the amount of open space. He added that further consideration should be given to the architectural design and articulation of the buildings as well. Commissioner Newman stated that there is not much he can support about the project as proposed. He stated agreement with most of the points made by others. He stated concern about the limited distance between buildings three and four noting that only an 18 foot separation is proposed. He stated that unless a neighboring home is right in between the two buildings, there will be a continuous brick wall extending 70’ in length for each building for a total of 140’ along the south property line. He noted that the units as proposed are larger than his house and suggested that the units be scaled down. He noted that creating some architectural variety could improve the project rather than constructing three identical boxes. He stated that currently the sight lines are dominated by the existing duplex building. He stated that adding three more identical buildings will create a significant mass on the site. He urged the petitioner to reconsider the scale and design of the entire project. He recognized the property owner’s right to develop the property and stated support for development of quality rental units. Commissioner Kuchman acknowledged Mr. Patera’s commitment to work with the project team will work to reduce the massing and consider site plan changes to make the proposed development less impacting on the neighboring properties. He suggested that the project could benefit from an effort to emulate the Winthrop Lane development. Commissioner Shaw thanked the petitioner for acknowledging the concerns of the neighbors and expressing a willingness to reconsider the project. He assured those who testified that their voices have been heard. Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 14 of 18 Chairman Reisenberg summarized the comments of the Commission noting that less building, increased setbacks, more open space, improved quality of design and variety in roof lines and heights should all be considered. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to continue the petition with direction to the petitioner to consider the impact of the project on the adjacent properties and to consider increases in setbacks, modifications to architectural design, increased open space, reduction in the number of units and reduction in the amount of impervious surface in order to fully comply with the Code requirements. He also requested information on the time frame for buildout of the project. He encouraged review of the proposed structures by the Building Review Board to assure that applicable requirements are met before the matter is returned to the Plan Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Newman and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to allow a real estate office to be located in the Central Business District at 280 Deerpath. Property Owner: Todd Altounian Proposed Tenant: Koenig & Strey Real Estate Office Presented by: Molly Ryan, Vice President, General Counsel Mona Hellinga, Vice President, Branch Manager Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item. He asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Shaw recused himself from hearing this matter due to a business conflict. Ms. Ryan, General Counsel for Koenig and Strey, introduced local representatives of Koenig and Strey and the building owner, Todd Altounian. She provided a history of Koenig and Strey noting that the company was recently purchased by Home Services. She stated that Koenig and Strey has a long time presence in the community and that many of the agents have local connections. She stated that relocation of the business to the space on Deerpath will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area since the business is already located in this general area and is moving from a larger space just around the corner. She stated that the move places Koenig and Strey at the core of the business district, instead of at the edge. She stated that the new space is a better location and the cost of rent is lower. She stated that with this move, the office space and technology will be improved. She stated that the proposed use of this space, for a real estate office, is consistent with the Special Use Permit criteria. She stated that Koenig and Strey has been a good citizen in the community in the past. She explained that the office will have three full time employees and 35 sales associates who visit the office during the day. She stated that the agents have been made informed of parking restrictions and the need to use the remote employee parking lots. She stated that all agents have been instructed not to park on the street to preserve street parking spaces for customers of all businesses in the core area. She stated that based on the reasons noted, the Special Use Permit is justified and requested Commission support of the request. Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 15 of 18 Ms. Czerniak stated that given the late hour, her comments will cover both this petition and the following petition. She confirmed that real estate offices require review and approval through the Special Use Permit process in order to locate in first floor space in the business districts. She noted that other non-retail uses, including banks, also require this type of review. She explained that the intent of the Special Use Permit requirement is to assure that non-retail businesses are not occupying prime retail spaces and are not negatively affecting retail businesses for example, by using customer parking spaces. She noted that since the requirement for a Special Use Permit for certain non-retail businesses was enacted, two other real estate offices and banks have been granted approval subject to conditions of approval. She stated staff support for approval of the requests of both Koenig and Strey and @ Properties subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. She noted in particular the condition related to on street parking commenting that the condition is written to allow the Special Use Permit to be revoked if agents are found to be using on street spaces intended for customers of retail businesses. She added that signage for the two businesses will require review and approval through the normal City process. She commended @ Properties for the photos used to cover the windows during construction in their new space. She stated that staff has received favorable comments on the window treatment. Chairman Reisenberg invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final questions and comments from the Commissioners In response to questions from Commissioner Newman, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the five conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report and confirmed that the signage requires separate approval. Commissioner Newman made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for Koenig and Strey subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carris and it was unanimously approved by the Commission with Commissioner Shaw abstaining. 6. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to allow a real estate office to be located at 600 N. Western. Property Owner: Tom Koenig Proposed Tenant: @ Properties Real Estate Office Presented by: Michael Rourke, Vice President – Commercial Commercial Development, Mike Golden and Thad Wang, Owners Chairman Reisenberg introduced the agenda item. He asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he swore in all those intending to speak on this item. Mr. Wang provided some background on @ Properties noting that the business is locally owned and operated and not under the ownership of a larger corporation. He stated that @ Property agents are already involved in many sales in Lake Forest and stated that the company is excited about opening an office in the community. He stated the intention to have the office open eight weeks after approval. Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 16 of 18 Chairman Reisenberg welcomed @ Properties to the community and invited public comment. Hearing none, he noted that the staff comments for the previous agenda item were intended to cover this item as well, hearing no further comments or questions from the Commission, he invited a motion. Commissioner Shaw made a motion to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit for @ Properties subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kuchman and was unanimously approved by the Commission. 7. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 20A of the Lake Forest Code, Inclusionary Housing, to incorporate definitions of “moderate income” and “moderately priced housing” into the Code as Recommended by the Housing Trust Fund Board. Presented by: City staff Chairman Reisenberg asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Commissioner Shaw stated for the record that he represents the DeBruhler Company on some land use related matters not associated with Lake Forest. He noted that he previously recused himself from discussion of the Settler’s Green development that came before the Commission and involved the DeBruhler Company. He stated that he was advised that it is not a conflict for him to participate in discussions in general on the City’s affordable housing policies and regulations and as a result, he will be participating in this discussion. Ms. Czerniak introduced the agenda item noting that the proposed amendment is a scaled back version of the amendment forwarded to the Commission several months ago and presented by Michael Burns, Chairman of the Housing Trust Fund Board. She explained that based on the comments from the Commission at that time, the Housing Trust Fund Board is recommending only the addition of definitions of “moderate income” and “moderate housing” and one clarification change with respect to the calculation of the required number of units. She clarified that the proposed amendments are not related to any specific project but are intended to make the City’s Inclusionary Housing Code provisions more directly applicable to those in Lake Forest who may need housing assistance. She noted that the addition of moderate income to the Code increases the income levels in response to comments heard from the Commission, Council and the public that the “affordable” definition may set the income levels too low to reach the identified target groups in Lake Forest. She noted that the amendments will allow future units to be targeted to households with 60% to 120% of the Area Median Income, rather than to only households with 60% to 80% limit. She explained that the other change proposed clarifies that in calculating the required number of units, the calculation cannot be less than 1 unit. She stated that the amendments as currently proposed were unanimously recommended by the Housing Trust Fund Board. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Code language does not dictate what type of unit; single family, multi-family, rental or home ownership, but instead, simply expands the income limits for individuals and families who may be eligible. She stated that the Code is intended to provide the framework for affordable and Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 17 of 18 moderate units, but does not contemplate any particular development as part of the amendment. She confirmed that notice of this public hearing was provided consistent with standard practices. Commissioner Shaw questioned what market the moderate housing level is intended to meet noting that seniors may not want to sell their homes to move into other single family homes. In response to questions from Commissioner Shaw, Ms. Czerniak noted that the current pilot project authorized by the City Council directs Community Partners for Affordable Housing to purchase two existing homes in the community; improve them and then sell them to households who meet the target income ranges while retaining ownership of the land. She acknowledged that at this point, it is not known whether the purchased homes will be of interest to seniors or other family types. She stated that 120% of the Area Median Income for a family of four is about $90,000. She stated that amending the Code in general, rather than amending the Code in response to a particular development is a good approach explaining that if the idea of broadening the range of incomes is of interest to better fit the community, the Code amendment as proposed is appropriate. Chairman Reisenberg confirmed that from the minutes of the April meeting, the Area Median Income for a family of four is $74,000. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the previous amendments presented to the Commission were withdrawn by the Housing Trust Fund Board after the Commission rejected them and were not presented to the City Council. She noted that her recollection was that the provision applying the inclusionary housing requirements to single family subdivisions was an area of significant concern for the Commission. She clarified that that provision is no longer part of the proposed amendments. In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the inclusionary housing requirements apply to duplex and multi-family developments and confirmed that the applicability of the provisions would be documented in the City approval of the projects. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that she will review the wording with the City Attorney to assure that the affordable and moderate provisions apply throughout the Inclusionary Housing Chapter. Commissioner Reisenberg invited public comment, hearing none, he asked for final questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Shaw questioned the motivation to rush this amendment forward and questioned whether this amendment will give the Housing Trust Fund Board greater powers in these difficult economic times. He acknowledged that there was discussion about expanding the income range when this was last discussed, but no clear consensus to do so. He stated that the Housing Trust Fund Board has given different explanations of its motivations over time and stated that he is not clear on the goal of the Board. Chairman Reisenberg noted that in the minutes from the April Plan Commission, then Commissioner Waldeck commented that the addition of “moderate income” appears to be in response to recent public comments and commended the inclusion of the “moderate” definition Plan Commission Minutes – September 14, 2011 Page 18 of 18 noting that it might allow the program to directly target Lake Forest residents. He stated his agreement with her comments and added that although it is not entirely clear how this matter will progress, he is supportive of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Newman noted that Codes can be over written and be crafted to be too specific causing problems down the road. In response to concerns raised, Ms. Czerniak clarified that the Housing Trust Fund Board is only a recommending body to the City council. Commissioner Newman made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments as proposed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carris and it was approved by the Commission in a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Shaw voting nay for reasons previously stated. 8. Public testimony on non-agenda items. There was no public testimony on non-agenda items. 9. Additional information from staff. She noted that next Tuesday night, September 20th, Woodlands Academy will hold a community meeting to announce developments related to their campus. She added that the next night, September 21st, the Park and Recreation Board and the Historic Preservation Commission will hold a joint informational meeting on Forest Park. The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development