Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome everybody. Thank you for coming out this evening uh in the cold. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting for the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission for Tuesday, January 20th. It's uh 7:02 p.m. and I'd like to ask Director Fontaine to call the role. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Inek here. Commissioner Fner here. Commissioner Henry, Commissioner Mantis here. Commissioner Moore here. Vice Chair Nanis here. Chair Kersh present.

We have a quorum. I'd like to recognize Corporation Council Marcus Martinez and city council liaison Yumi Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh I think we know which uh one major item of business we have today. Um but first up is the consideration of the minutes from our January 6th meeting. Uh Mr. Chairman, I'm going to abstain. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? Motion to approve. Seconded. Any discussion?

I had one quick item and um Oh, I think it was on the first page or two, but there was a discussion about the size of the properties uh along Central Avenue and the requirements and in one place we have 80 square feet and should probably be 80,000 square feet. It should indeed. Uh, is that amendment okay to the uh motioner and the second? Yep. Yes. All right. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?

I. Any opposed? We do have the one abstension from Commissioner Fedner. Okay. Um, we have we have a a kind of a split agenda here tonight with the project in front of us. We have two uh different methods of testimony coming tonight. One is a new public hearing solely regarding the parking lot on the northwest corner of the site and that part of the project. And then we have three other items that will all be part of a of a a public meeting rather than a public hearing. Um the difference here is that a public hearing the testimony must be under oath whereas the public meeting it is not that way. So what we're going to do if it's acceptable to everyone is have uh senior planner Burhop give his presentation which I believe is a complete presentation of everything that will be before us. We will then um move well actually first I'll open the public hearing then we'll let senior planner Burhop uh give his presentation then we will take comments uh from the petitioners and any u questions and everything regarding solely the public hearing piece regarding the uh the uh parking lot. Then we'll move into the public meeting parts where everything else will be open. I want to remind people that um the reasonzoning of this property um is not on the agenda tonight. So comments uh regarding the reasonzoning I'm I'm going to rule out of order. Um and I also want to remind people well

now I don't remember. I would just want to remind people that we're here to discuss the changes that have been made between the preliminary approval of this project and the final approval of this project. And so I want I want to try to keep people on topic to those changes. I know we're probably stray somewhat, but um if you could be uh cognizant of that fact so that everybody's time uh is is used to maximum benefit. Um so with that, the scheduled business includes tonight uh the PUD2050041 for the following. A public hearing for a special use permit for an off- streetet parking lot. freestanding. Two, a public meeting for a special use permit in the nature of a final plan development with modifications from city code. Three, a public meeting for final plat of re-ubdivision with variations and waiverss. And four, a public meeting for design review for a 227 residential unit town home development at 1660 and 1700 Old Deerfield Road. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission. Excuse me. My name is Steve Kirch. A quorum of the Plan and Design Commission being present. The members will now introduce themselves for the record. Uh starting from my far right,

Kristen Inchek, Danny Mantis, Karen Moore, Josh Nannis,

David Fedner. The Plan and Design Commission is charged with hearing applications for reszonings, plan developments, and subdivisions under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations of the city of Highland Park. In all matters, we recommend to the city council based upon the testimony presented to us in the hearing. We are required to decide cases within 45 days after receipt of the transcript. All testimony is under oath. Both applicants and others who wish to speak on a particular case should present specific evidence as to why a proposal meets or fails to meet the standards for the relief requested. For clarity of our record, only one person at a time will speak and all questions uh will be uh directed through the chair. We ask that you make every effort to not be repetitive in your testimony. Finally, we will make every effort to adhere to the schedule prepared for tonight's hearing. If additional time is needed on a matter, it will be continued until the next available agenda. And with that, I open the floor for the staff the plan and design commission to read into the record proof of publication and ownership. of publication and ownership are available for viewing at the offices of community development 1150 Halfday Road in Highland Park. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Senior Planner Brew. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Okay, good evening everybody. Uh thank you chair. Okay, so this is the item on the agenda. Uh it's it consists of several sub items and this is the staff presentation to kind of provide an update as to uh what's been submitted and where this is at right now. So this is for the final plan development, special use permit, a final plant and then design review. And then with the variation modifications associated with those for the 1700 old Deerfield Road site called formerly called the solo cup site and again my name is Carl Burhop. I'm a senior planner with the city of Highland Park in the community development department. So the the chair already laid this out. Thank you chair. So there there are four requests. uh at the end of this meeting if appropriate the commission can adopt findings of fact recommending approval can direct for denial can make amendments of those or change the conditions or continue to a future date for more information. Uh ultimately the uh commission is a recommendation body on all these items except for the design review. Uh the commission is technically the authority on design review though the council does adopt plans with the uh plan development if they choose if if if the council so does. The public hearing portion, as stated, is for a special use permit for an off- streetet parking lot freestanding. Do want to point out that was discussed uh in the six preliminary uh hearings, but this evening uh there's a public hearing for that component. Okay. So, uh the project is um it's broadly the same. There are some changes and updates. I'll go through those. Uh so uh where this was left off with the commission and then the council it was a

227 uh total residential units and town homes. Uh that's still the count with the clubhouse and pool. Uh still the proposed widing of old Deerfield Road with the turn lane and changes on the police property as well as the proposal to preserve landscaping and open space along the west and south periphery of the development. That's 12.9 acres of open space total for the whole site of which a subset 10.96 acres will be in the conservation easement. The conservation easement is largely along the west and the south. Then as well as additional off- streetet parking and landscaping are proposed including a tot lot and pathway for public use along ridge road and a 14 space parking lot at the northwest part of the property. So that there that that's that's the same that's where this was left off. That's the same to what the council considered back in October. This is the site. It's a 28.6 acre site. This is the aerial on the left. That's just an inset to show the access road that goes all the way to the north. Okay. So, commission and council considerations. So, the preliminary considerations, there were six commission meetings on six plan and design commission meetings on this uh culminating in a 52 recommendation to approve back on September 9th. That was a recommendation on the preliminary uh plan development, the preliminary plat design review and at that time it was also recommendation on the the request for reszoning. Uh the city council did have a 70 adoption of preliminary approval back on October 30th. There were two council meetings. Then there were also four housing commission meetings culminating in a 6 recommendation to approve on October 8th for 34 affordable units to be provided on site and 1.2 two units to be provided via payment in loo. So this is this is the 13th meeting on this project city meeting 13th city meeting changes what's changed or new. So this kind of comes from my report. So again

the SUP special use permit consideration. Uh so that was discussed in the preliminary but the public hearing uh needs to occur for that. uh certain technical documents. So uh final engineering plans and final storm water management report uh those have been fine-tuned from what was submitted in the preliminary phase. So those items were submitted during the preliminary phase but now those are final uh and are fine-tuned to an extent and those were included in the packet. Uh other exhibits that were already submitted during preliminary have been further detailed such as the landscaping plan, uh the improvements on the police station property, the final plat and the exterior lighting plans. And I have a few follow-up slides. I'll just try to go through some of the changes. This is just summarizing what we're going to look at here. Then there were also new exhibits for construction traffic sound mitigation as well as updated traffic impact statement addendums for the Devonshshire Courtridge Road crosswalk, pedestrian crosswalk, then the railroad old Deerfield Road intersection. So that's broadly what we're going to try to cover here quickly. I have a few slides on these. Uh what's the same? Uh there are no changes to the following. So October 30th was the city council date where that preliminary resolution was adopted. And so the site plan from that uh and the related plans in that site plan exhibit, the architectural layout, the unit matrix, the design materials, the clubhouse and town home elevations and renderings, the height exhibit, the reasonzoning exhibit, and the inclusionary housing plan. Those are all the same. Now, they are included in the packet for two reasons. uh one just for reference so the commission uh has an official record of what uh the city council reviewed and approved and also because uh those items that have not changed are still part of the overall final development plan. Uh there were items from October 30th though obviously that will be superseded such as the engineering plans, the new landscaping plan, the new improvements

on the police station, the new final plat, the uh new exterior lighting plans. Those things have been updated. Okay. So, the special use permit that is for the off- streetet parking lot, freestanding. So, that is that comes from our section 150.490 in the zoning code that has all the land uses that are allowed in the city. Those tables that go on quite a ways from A to I think maybe S. So, uh there are parking lots in the northwest part of this property. Um, part of that, a portion of that is for an easement holder. That's this portion right here. And then this portion on the west is proposed as part of the public benefit. And so these parking lots um they're they're not accessory. So in our review of this, these are not actually accessory to development. These are an independent principal land use. And so that's what and That's a conditional use in the proposed zoning district. Of course, it's proposed to be RM1. Technically, there will be a strip along the north that's I uh that the applicant has proposed to retain, but overwhelmingly these parking lots will be in the RM1 zoning district uh which is proposed by the applicant if if that is approved and that is a conditional use. So, it needs a special use permit for that. Um yes. Oh, that's pretty much goes bullet point by bullet point. So, what is the applicant proposing here? So, the applicant did clarify that there will be a 2.5 width landscaping with irrigation. The irrigation actually uh which is not installed right now. There is no irrigation system is my understanding. So, the AFL is proposing an irrigation system throughout there. That's splash blue. That was actually on the last sheet of the updated landscaping plan in the packet. Obviously, the irrigation uh will

provide for healthier plants. And so, the applicant proposes a 2.5 ft landscaping strip here right along the property line to buffer the parking lot from the restaurant land use on the north. I also want to point out, so this is a zoom in. So the applicant is proposing sidewalk along Old Deerfield Road and as you can see it is hugging the curb which was reviewed by our engineering division and that's that's acceptable but the purpose to do that the purpose for that sidewalk to hug the curb is there is landscaping right now in the rideway and the applicant specifically calls out that the existing landscaping within the rideway is to be preserved. Uh my other that may be all oh my other note from this is so that originally originally when this was in preliminary uh there was a request for landscaping relief for the number of islands and so I do want to point out that relief is still needed uh but there's more context to it and the context is this islands are provided so there are two here uh the applicant also calls out islands here uh the reason it's still needed is because technically there are more than 10 spaces in a row. I think there's 11. And so the islands are still needed. That was considered that was considered in preliminary. Uh but the applicant um has provided additional landscaping. It just doesn't meet the technical requirements of the uh landscaping code. Are there any changes about the parking lot? This is what needs the public hearing. I I'll move on to the other comp other parts of the project, but are there any questions about this? Okay. Moving on. Okay. Final engineering plans and final plat. So again, there were engineering plans submitted for preliminary. These are just the fine-tuned final version. And

so what I want to point out here, so these changes I want to point out here, I want to be careful on how I uh describe these. Uh these aren't these aren't changes from October. Uh these are changes from what I posted on January 9th. So the city did post uh the applicants materials on uh January 9th, a week early. So that way uh the commission and the public would have an extra week to try to review these things. Well, the downside of that is sometimes things are still being updated since things are still being worked on. And so then I posted updated items behind those that had already been posted a week earlier. And so, uh, what's different is, um, on the final engineering plans, the woodland path alignment was slightly altered, uh, to match landscape set. Uh, it was a minor alignment change. Uh, the offsite engineering engineering plans revised to add hardscape in front of the relocated monument sign at the police station. So, that was one of the requests with one of the changes they did on the police station. So, uh, as you may recall, the African is proposing to widen Old Deerfield Road so that way there's a dedicated lefthand turn lane. And part of that is is that's widening the rideway. And so, it's going further west onto the police department property. And that was already discussed. That was already discussed in the preliminary plan. That's not new. These are just the fine-tuned details of that. So, as part of that, uh, the police station's monument sign is having to be relocated further uh, north from where it is now. It's on the east side on the east side of the building. And so the applicant added additional uh uh plaza space in front of that. Uh and again that's a change from the what was posted on the 9th to what was posted last Friday. Uh public improvements again those were discussed in the preliminary but there

were just final engineering plans showed those the three crosswalks. uh the police department Deerfield Road access. That's on the west side of the police department property, giving them access right on a Deerfield Road. Uh that's not meant to be a um ingress or egress uh for public purposes. That's an emergency uh access that the police department or other emergency services can use if needed. Uh again, additional details on the city's 14 parking space lot, which we just discussed. Uh there were sheros identified on the final engineering plans. I think there were two on each side, so four total right right along all old Deerfield Road between the subject property and the police department as well as two closer to the Ridgefield intersection. Uh the final plat there was a municipal block that needed to be updated. They updated that. Uh there were certain easement descriptions provided. Uh if you looked in detail, there were a couple easements that still have yet to be provided and our corporation council is actually working to provide those. And when we get to the end of my presentation, I have a list of five or six uh uh details, minor but important, that still have to be met that we would recommend that the commission uh adopt uh if the commission does move forward with this this evening. And so that's one of them. Okay. As for landscaping, uh all article 22 and chapter 94 requirements are met. The applicant pro proposes additional plantings that are quote unquote extra beyond what's required. I want to point out that the install heights for the required plantings are all either 3-in caliper or 8 ft high at install and those are identified on the plan. The applicant does identify extra plantings that are beyond the code requirement that are either 2.5 in caliber or 6 ft in height. Uh overall 96 more trees than what was in the preliminary and overall 517 more shrubs than what was in the preliminary. And that's my breakout table. And that table uh was in the report as well. And I didn't make a new tweak to this table.

You guys are going to get a new tweak from here on out. I've decided I actually want to have a column for the chapter 94 replacements to make it more clear about what's going on. And so in the code, I won't make this a long segue, but article 22 is a zoning code requirement. That's what the commission knows about and always does. The commission does the article 22, chapter 150 zoning code. That gets to the foundation plannings around homes or buildings. That gets the vehicular use area like uh parking lots and uh drive aisles. The commission, you know, does that all the time. Chapter 94 is the city's tree code. That's what the city forester is responsible for. And when you remove trees, you have to plant new ones. And the replacement gets to that requirement. And there's like a multiplier. You know, the more uh uh the nicer the species and the older the tree, the larger the tree, the more you have to plant larger trees to replace them. There's a formula. It's all in code. Anyway, so I added that column so the commission could be more apprised as to what's going on. Uh exterior lighting. So there was lighting again. Again, a lot of these things, you know, these were discussed in preliminary. This is just really fine-tuning the details on it. So, the exterior lighting is code compliant with one note and the applicant did agree to revise. Uh, and so this is a condition that staff has. Uh, again, these things are minor, but they're important. You have to apply with code. So, uh, the, uh, lighting throughout the um um development. So, in the R seven area, you can only have seven and a half feet tall. That was discussed preliminary. Uh, complies. And then throughout the uh development, um there's actually several different heights you can go up to in the RM1. It kind of depends what it's for, but long story short, the dog parking uh the dog park lighting is 15 ft high. I guess it has to be 14 according to the code. So the applicant said they'll reduce that 1 foot.

Uh Devonshshire Court Ridge Road and then Old Deerfield Road and the railroad intersection updates. So for the Devonshire Court and Ridge Road pedestrian crosswalk. So the applicant submitted an updated traffic impact statement. Actually uh they submitted that I believe uh right in time for the council meeting in October but after the posting date. In any event that was in the packet now for everyone to see. And so the applicants consultant uh did a review and I do want to say there was one change on that. I just want to make that clear. I don't know if that was clear in the report. So there was a crosswalk proposed before that we're talking about at Devonshshire Court and Ridge Road and it was originally po uh proposed on the north side of that intersection. The applicant moved it to the south side. The reason being grade and ADA uh compliance uh the grade on the north was such that it wasn't ADA compliant and so they moved it to the south side. Now the applicant's uh traffic impact statement addendum you indicates that it meets the the safe sighteline distance. So, as you're coming from the uh south or the north for that matter, there's enough distance to safely see and and and use the c for pedestrians to use the crosswalk. Uh for the October 30th city council meeting, our engineering division agreed with that. You know, again, they they moved it to the south side and again, our engineering division and CivilTech, this was sent out to CivilTech for third party review, and their very short memo was included in the packet on this, and they they concur with the applicant that uh the the intersection is acceptable for codes and safety standards. And then the other uh uh applicant uh traffic impact statement addendum and civil tech comments has to do with the old Deerfield Road and the railroad intersection. Uh you know how that meets, right? Kind of where that uh access road runs into Old Deerfield Road. Then you have that railroad crossing right there. So uh the ICC

which is that Illinois commission believe it was it the interstate commer interstate commercial commission I can't remember the exact commerce commission

Illinois commerce commission. So basically they what they do is they um they they review for certain railroad uh issues or regulations. So they had minor comments. Uh over so overall overall uh they stated that the um uh so the applicant proposed certain signage uh signage uh there to make it so that uh cars heading east had to have to stop and if you're heading west uh you can go over the railroad track. So to limit stacking or queuing that can occur over the railroad track. So cars that are heading west can turn left south into the access road. And so the applicant had provided that. Our CivilTech did review it. Uh CivilTech had four comments. Those comments were in the packet, but those comments were responded to. So what you were looking at in the packet was the response to the city's review and CivilTech's review. Uh so there are no outstanding uh city comments on that. And IC they reviewed that as well. And again, they said it satisfied their safety concerns. they had comments. Again, we would just recommend this be a condition of approval. Uh uh the the applicant needs to dimension the distance uh from the stop sign to the RXR pavement markings, the marking that goes on the pavement to let you know there's a railroad crossing coming up. And it may be that the applicant does meet it. They just need to dimension that it wasn't dimensioned on the plan. And then uh remove the cross-hatching if deemed not necessary. And then uh there's a condition, oh there's already a condition related to a a future traffic uh study that'll have to be provided by the applicant. We just ask that that be amended to also include monitoring and review of the signage and performance at this at this uh railroad intersection. Again, these were comments based on uh IC. Um yes, moving on. Other items, these are just uh kind of quick hitting points here, but you know, they were new items, so I just want to bring them up.

So, uh, there was a condition of approval, uh, from the council's resolution going towards sound mitigation. So, the applicant did provide an acoustics letter, uh, providing their plan for measuring noise and providing mitigation for those units that are, uh, broadly along the northern commercial properties along the the east side of the property, along the railroad. I have nothing else on that. That's a condition of of approval that we recommend. That was also in the uh, resolution. Uh the applicant did provide a remediation schedule uh provi uh provided outlining uh the uh required report submissions and approxima for letters of no further remediation. So there's actually a condition of approval that was in the resolution the council adopted in October and we recommend that that that stay that the commission readopt that and that also uh if this moves forward that the council read that and I'll actually come back to that. Uh then there was a construction site logistics plan. And so that gets to concerns uh from staff as well as the neighborhood about uh the construction traffic uh with the p there were a couple things and there was a one-page exhibit in the uh packet on this uh but it gets to the stipulation that no construction traffic uh be allowed along ridge road except as necessary to construct those improvements that are along the west edge of the property that are on the police department and other required uh offsite utility improvements as appropriate And there is an exhibit on that and I can pull that up if if the commission wants to see that. Uh city agency city or agency comments. Um yeah I already said engineering division civil tech comments were addressed. So there were comments in the packet but they have been addressed. I want to be clear on that. Uh the same with forestry except for one outstanding issue. uh final engineering was provided for the woodland path in terms of uh the grading for it but there has to be a final determination as to materials and so we just recommend that that be something as

approved by the forester. Uh the forester had concerns in the preliminary phase about limestone being used because of the pH impact on the trees and so there was just an outstanding uh issue there to be sorted out. Uh Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, there were comments in there. I should clarify that those comments uh the numbered comments were actually old. Um I I just didn't remember if they had been to the commission before because I can't always remember when these came in September and October. So just to be fully transparent and I put them in there so the commission could see those. But the other main takeaway from the Lake County Storm Water Management Commission is just verification that the applicant did in fact submit uh for their whatever permit they need. They look at um wetlands as well as well storm water obviously. And so that uh that is being processed right now by the Lake County Storm Water Management Commission and that is under review. Utilities, no objections have been received. I I did send out a new round of review uh when final was submitted and then I already stated the ICC comments in the prior slide. Okay, we're going to run through see I got the modifications and then I think maybe a closing slide. So we're almost there. Um from the subdivision code. So these are the uh variations or waiverss that were included in the uh resolution. Uh they're actually uh reduced one and I actually don't believe this was in my report. Uh the applicant brought it to my attention that this was actually no longer needed and and they are correct. So there was a subcomponent there. uh um it's the requirement that sidewalks be installed whenever somebody resubdivides a property. And in fact, they still need that for three portion or for two of the three portions, but one of those portions is actually going to be compliant. So the the proposal uh complies more with the subdivision code for final than it did for preliminary because they are going to do be doing the sidewalk there along Old Deerfield Road.

uh modifications from zoning, no changes on this. The height relief, the loading space modification, the sign modifications, these are right from the resolution. There's no change on that. Again, the height modification, that's what triggered the discussion for public relief when this was at preliminary. No changes there. Everything's the same as uh what the council adopted in their resolution. Uh okay, this is additional slide on modifications for zoning. There is one change here for the uh foundation landscaping modifications. Uh the applicant indicated to me that they are meeting the five foot requirement so that this can be struck meaning that the final plan is more compliant to code than preliminary. I do have a condition for that. The applicant should dimension the uh landscaping plan on the specific foundation page just to make that clear that it does meet the 5-ft uh requirement. And I have that in another slide. Again, these other two are the same E and F. Uh here, so the inclusionary housing modification is the same. And then there there is one new one that I identified uh just when I was double-checking things today. Um so this wasn't in the report, but this is not a zoning relief. I do want to point that out. This is not a zoning code. That's an important distinction. This is from the fence code. The applicant does propose chain link fence for the dog parks. So I just want to point that out. And during the preliminary phase, I'm not sure if all those final details have been sorted out yet. Uh but I do want to point out that the applicant is doing ornamental uh pyro coat black finish opentight fence along the western periphery that will face Ridge Road. I believe they're doing board on board along the north and the east. Those are all code compliant. Uh they are asking only for the chain link fence 4 ft high at the dog parks and the commission may recall the dog parks are actually kind of in the corners of the development. uh the north one being abuing the commercial and the south one kind of uh being towards the railroad

track. Okay. Conditions. So if the commission does move this forward, staff would recommend I should have numbered these. Makes it easier to talk about when they're numbered because I can refer to them. But the first bullet point is just updating the modifications and the finding effect based on what we talked about today. That would be striking the sidewalk uh request, striking the foundation landscaping request, and then adding the chain link fence one for the dog parks. And then the condition related to final easement language be provided for the final plat by corp council is appropriate. Uh revise exterior lighting is already discussed. Uh the dog parks, you know, so it goes on for 15 to 14. Uh provide the revisions I discussed per the ICC's comments in the railroad. uh that um condition about the uh final materials to the city satisfaction for the woodland path. Uh the foundation landscaping that they uh revised that to include the 5-ft dimension to verify that. Then the EV charging stations which I believe are on the plan, but just to make it clear that there should be two at the city's uh public portion of of the parking lot and then two at the clubhouse. And then that's that's my presentation. The only thing I will say the public benefits all the same. That's the same. So there's nothing for me to say there that would be new or different. I just I had made a comment about the no further remediation. And I just that's a that's again that's just a we recommend you read all the conditions that were in the resolution. But I just wanted to point that out that uh that was a condition that the city council adopted. Again, staff, I just wanted to staff just wanted to draw your attention to that that the applicant will have to obtain and submit to the city a determination of no further remediation for the property issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and so on as as that's uh defined in there. I can take questions if there are any. I can also pull up exhibits if you want me

to pull up any of the exhibits. Okay. Well, let's if if we could just focus on the public hearing portion for a moment. Uh, and I believe there were no questions from the commission on that. Does the petitioner wish to speak specifically to the northwest parking lot?

For the record, uh, Katie Jenkeale from DA Piper. Um, I mean, the attorney for the applicant. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Um, we didn't staff did a great job and we feel like we covered it during the six other public hearings. So, um, if there are questions, we're here for those, but we don't have our own presentation. Any questions from the commissioner for the petitioner? One quick clarification question. The parking lot will still remain your property. It's not being transferred to the city, correct? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any members of the public who would wish to speak to the issue of the northwest parking lot? Seeing none, then I believe that pretty much concludes the public hearing portion of our meeting now from the commission. Are there any questions for staff on the rest of the report? I have a question. Can you pull up the exhibit for the construction traffic, please? Yes, sir. adopt.

So this plan here, so this was in the packet as attachment seven. You did say the uh construction uh traffic management, correct? So my my question is I see where it's highlighted that the the primary construction entrance is that access drive. Um does that mean that any other access is completely prohibited? So yeah. So it talks about how because it says primary, but does that mean that they can have a secondary entrance entrance?

Well, they they can do secondary, but that's only if it's related to the So it says down here, construction trade parking on site and it says no construction traffic on Ridge Road except as necessary to construct improvements along west edge of property and on police department property and other required off-site utility improvements. So all the construction traffic for the majority of the subdivision is just allowed to enter through that access road. That's right. And that'll be verified when if this moves towards a development agreement. That language will be verified. That's correct.

Okay. Um Okay, I'm good. Anyone else? And can we hear from the petitioner now on the rest of the proposal if they wish to speak? Sorry, did you have a question? Sorry.

I had a quick question. I wasn't able to find the attachment. Um, but I was looking at the wetland conservation easement uh part of the application and wondering if u maintenance had been identified for that area. I know it says that it's been um it's been uh I don't know what the right term is like deed. It's not deed to the city, but like does the city have maintenance responsibility or is it the responsibility of the property owner or an HOA or how does that work? Would you like me to respond?

Sure. Go ahead. So there there was a condition in the um city council's preliminary resolution related to the open space along the west and the south and this correct me if I'm wrong. Is that the space you're referring to?

Uh there and I don't want to I I never want to say the wrong word. I don't want to misquote it and I don't have it in front of me. But it it talks something about how um the uh hold on one second here. Yeah, there. So that Yeah. So there was a condition here on that. So this talks about how so the applicant must provide and restrict within the property 12.9 acres of open space. And then in addition, it goes on to talk about the specific 10.96 acres that shall be uh designated as a conservation easement. And so it says here in the sole determination of the city be dedicated or donated by the applicant to an entity designated by the city and the city sole discretion. And it goes on to talk about how the conservation easement will be subject to and incorporate all comments made by the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission and allow for encroachments of the city deems necessary. And so the development agreement uh will also address this. Uh but my understanding is that the applicant will be responsible for the maintenance of this property. And if the applicant can comment if they'd like to comment.

Yeah, that's confirmed. As long as we own it, we would be maintaining it either through the entity that you know rental the entity that owns the rest of the and manages the whole the remainder of the property. um if we were directed to convey it to whoever the city told us to um we would probably work with them because they may if they're taking ownership want to have some of those um control over that but currently the plan is that we would continue to privately own it. We received the language from Lake County um and are working on incorporating that and the other easement language with corporation council. Okay. Thank you. And then um we also don't have a presentation for the uh the public meeting, but we're here for questions and think we meet and maybe even have improved a little bit um over the preliminary plan, but certainly substantially informed with it, but I'm happy to answer any questions from the commissioner public. Thank you. Any

any other questions? If not, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this issue? Please come up to the podium, state your name, and spell your name for the last name for the notetaker and your first name, too, if it happens to be unusual in any way. Lori Boutman, L A U R I E B as in boy, R O U, T as in Tom, Ma.

And uh you have three minutes. Uh, that's kind of a citywide rule to keep things moving and to give everybody a chance to speak. I thought it was 5 minutes. It's it's in the plan and design commission's rules and procedures. It's in our rules of procedure

and that's what it's been throughout this entire application. I know that the applicant hasn't done an environmental site assessment yet, but I was wondering if if you know of any of the previous applicants have done any, and if so, what those showed. Um, I'm trying to find out if there's any environmental leans or activity or and use limitations in connection with the property. I'm trying to find out what remediation or cleanup was done by Solo Cup or any other owners of the of the property after the facility was demolished? Um what was the remediation or cleanup sufficiently done? Um was the cleanup of plastic sufficiently done? Are the contents of underground storage unit uh storage tanks um getting into the drinking water or any other water of nearby homes? What will be the impact of the redevelopment plan by habitat company on the health, safety and quality of life risks associated with air, soil, water, noise and light pollution of people living in nearby homes? What will be the environmental impact of the development? If the redevelopment will have any impact on the water quality of nearby homes, what will that impact be? What will the impact of the redevelopment be on environmentally sensitive areas? Um what is the impact including harm to wetland habitat of all the trees that have been removed? Is there any part of the de redevelopment that will harm wetland hab

habitat? What harm will it cause and uh what will be that the impact of that harm? And I wasn't clear why the commission wasn't following the city's master plan. That's the end of my questions and comments. Okay. Um, chair, may I make a brief statement? Yes, please.

I just want to direct this commission's um attention to the statements uh the chair made earlier. What's before this commission um aside from the public hearing and those standards as we get into the public meeting portion are the changes from the preliminary plan to the plans as we see uh now. And so to the extent that there are uh things that do not fall within the changes as provided by Mr. Burhop's report or as stated in the packet, those are not before this commission.

I have um asked some of these questions at previous meetings and I've gotten answers. Right. And I um emailed Mr. Burhop and I appreciate what he was able to get back to me, but he wasn't. We understand again we've talked about how many public meetings we have had on these issues. These questions have been asked

and I mean there are answers to most of them. I believe if you go back and read some of the stuff that we have we just senior planner Burhop just went through the remediation question. All of that is in going to be in the development agreements and also in the resolutions that the city council has already passed um and will likely pass again when we get when they get uh this recommendation from us. So again, it's not I'm just it's not before us tonight because as corporation council points out, these are not part of the changes that were made. I understand that these questions are important and people want them answered and hopefully we can, you know, either through staff or through the petitioner, we'll get get you the information you need. But I'd like to move on.

How am I going to get the answers?

Chair, if I may.

Yeah. Okay. uh in in terms of the environmental, one of our conditions is that a no further remediation be issued from the Illinois EPA. Um and that no further uh remediation letter comes in at some point during the construction schedule um at an appropriate time. Um my understanding is that no phase one, no phase two has been done for this project in in relation to this development um yet. And so there is no answer from the IEP as to these uh a lot of the environmental details. That's not to say that there isn't answers to the question. The IEP hasn't looked into it.

Yeah. One more thing, the IEPA is the state's um expert essentially on environmental issues. Um it wouldn't be I I I certainly wouldn't put on my environmental expert hat and try to answer any of these questions. They are good questions, but this is not the commission and this is not the meeting um that we would be able to provide those answers. There will be an NFR letter issued by the IEPA and that would be uh foyable uh once it's received by the city.

Right. chair just to further uh state um similar to what um corporation council stated again throughout the preliminary hearing uh there were multiple residents that spoke of environmental concerns and so staff listened to that and staff's response was to craft with corporation council a condition of approval that this development will have to get a a letter of no further remediation and and what that is that's a letter um that the IEPA will issue if the applicant meet certain things. The applicant had a one-page, actually it was slightly more than onepage uh document in the packet that laid out three or four reports that they'll have to submit to obtain that letter. Um yes, that's staff's response to the the environmental concerns that that there's going to be a condition of approval that the APA will have to issue that no further remediation letter or letters as appropriate.

Thank you for getting that um condition. How will get I get the answers to the other questions? Well, someone will get you as many answers as we can if you can't if they are readily gotten some other I mean this has been reviewed by the storm water management commission. It's been reviewed by our own city engineers. Um, you know, I think we have to rely on the IEPA to sort out the materials that are in the soil. We can't do all those things individually as a plan and design commission.

No, I'm not asking. So, we rely on what comes to us from the state experts. Yeah. Can I also make one more comment? And I know that uh uh Lori Broman also had concerns about the wetlands. Again, from a staff perspective, we took those concerns and I verified with Lake County Storm Stormwater Management Commission, Julie Crane's my contact, that they do in fact have an application in from uh the applicant and the they the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission looks at wetland issues. Okay. Reviewing that. Yeah.

Yeah, that's under review, right? and and all of these things will be addressed throughout this process as as it goes forward through permitting and everything else. So, you know, we it will become clear and unfortunately, I'm sorry, it's not relevant to tonight's discussion. That's just the limits we operate under with the city code. Carl, I appreciate um your answers to my email. Will I be hearing anything further from you? Why? Because you you didn't address all the questions I sent.

Do you want me to respond to if you'd like? First of all, anyone any member of the public can always speak to me. Either call me or email me or come to the office to meet with me. But um and to be clear, Lori Broutman's email is included in the packet as public comment. Um you know, I can I can certainly meet with uh Lori Broman to to go through your email if you'd like to go through them or speak on the phone about it. Great.

Uh again, some some of my responses uh to those, you know, there's responses that because there were numerous environmental and wetland questions. There are other questions as well, but for some of those questions, the response is, you know, gets to that condition about no further remediation or the response is the Lake County Storm Water Management Commission is reviewing the wetland issues and so on and so forth. Okay. You know, the the questions have been put to the applicant with regard to past and other things and they've been answered and so we don't have something we don't have. More than one meeting last year as I recall. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Anyone else who would like to speak on this matter? I'm Martin Carp. I've been sworn in previously. Um and and I and I apologize in advance if this isn't directly or maybe it is uh under the realm of what this meeting is about. Um, I attended five of the six special meetings and a big topic of discussion was traffic impact and I don't want to beat a dead horse again. I guess my single question then is if if the traffic impact is underestimated, who bears where does the financial responsibility lie for immediation at a later time? Well, there are uh traffic provisions in the agree and they will be in the development agreement. They're in the resolution. The petitioner will have to fund additional traffic studies should those become necessary.

But and I understand that and I heard that pre in previous meetings. Um but then the who again the financial responsibility of the remediation and once that happens may I comment chair? Yes you may.

So as uh condition R that was in the preliminary resolution adopted by the city council and again staff is recommending that the commission also readopt and recommend those same conditions. So condition R gets to a requirement and I'll just read it. Forgive me, I can't I hope people can see it. I can zoom in. So, this is a condition uh that we're that the city council already adopt adopted in the preliminary and we're asking the commission to also read it. So, the development agreement must contain a provision obligating the applicant to conduct at its expense an updated professional traffic study consisting of the same scope as the existing traffic study and obligating the applicant to construct or perform any traffic improvements recommended by the updated traffic study. The updated traffic study must be conducted while schools are in session. The updated traffic study must be performed at the time that the pro proposed development achieves 90% occupancy or at such earlier time during the construction of the proposed development that the city manager and its sole discretion may determine is necessary and warranted. So, well, right. I don't know if I need to explain that. That's Yeah, it is.

Does that answer your question? I think so. Okay. And since there were trait changes to the traffic studies, that that's an appropriate question to ask. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Please come up.

Okay. Um I'm I'm assuming Can you give us your name and spell your last name?

Sandy Lurri. L U R A E or Sandra. Um I think this is this has to do with one of the changes. So I would imagine it's right in there. Um so we've been dealing with this since May when the crosswalk was put in by Devon Shire. I live on Devon Shire almost right off the corner. We still believe it's unnecessary. Habitat didn't ask for it. The city asked for it. They're calling it a public benefit. We think it's not. But irrespective of that, one of the reasons I wanted to ask and Carol answered the question as to why they changed uh where the crosswalk is. So, I read the KO8 report. I talked to Alex Jakowski who because he hasn't been on this um he hasn't really been up to speed on this because Sam Hurdle and and Manny Gomez were really dealing with the project and um I read Ka Koa's report. CivilTech didn't have a comment. The city is kind of just throwing it back to what Koa says. K L O they are making a um measurement. The measurement has nothing to do with the behavior of Ridge Road. I'm here to tell you, my neighbors here to tell you, I've sent many letters, neighbors have sent many letters, the crosswalk at Devon Sharon Ridge is dangerous and it that's being ignored because they say that there's enough sight. Now, in your packet, I don't know if it's in your packet, but I sent it. You have pictures I took traveling north on Devonshshire and how you see and when

you see that point. So if someone's standing on the west side or on the east side of Ridge at Devonshshire, um when you are fully in view and more importantly every day as I approach Devon Shire, cars pass me by. They just whoo past. They're going 35 miles an hour. is a dangerous point and we don't want you cutting down trees for the sake of this crosswalk. Secondly, since um I forgot, Carl, who did you say changed the side? It's something to do with uh with the with water something with grading. Okay. They changed it from this north side to the south side. The problem with doing that is you then have less time if because you're I don't know how wide Devon Sher is 30 feet. I I don't know how wide is a regular street. Um so now you're 30t closer coming traveling north. I'm not so concerned about people traveling south because that's a straight shot. But traveling north they are coming around a corner. It it it reminds me of when they used to have the stoplight at Clay until there were so many accidents, terrible accidents, because nobody expected to see a light of Clavy. And this is the same thing. No one expects there to be a crosswalk in the middle of Ridge Road. There's no sidewalk on that side of of the street. At least there should have been a sidewalk from the last house on the east side of Ridge through the development to where the

what do you call that? Trail where the trail ends. You know the trail tail comes out onto ridge. Woodland trail.

Woodland trail. Okay. At least there should have been a sidewalk push from that last house to the woodland trail and then you don't have to cross there. You know, our feeling, the neighborhood's feeling, the community's feeling is that there's two tot lots in there. This is totally unnecessary to invite 400 people down my block to get to Devon Shire Park. Moody Park is the same distance. It's a bigger park. It's a better park. But having said all this, you're setting the community up for danger. And I don't know whose head that's going to be on. I hope nobody gets hurt, but this isn't being addressed. At every meeting since May, when this first came up, that's when the city first asked them to put it on. We've addressed it and there's there's no there's no feedback. It just keeps getting pushed on to that same point. Excuse me. That easement that was put in, there's an easement. folks, a possible future emergency uh street at Devonshshire that was asked for by one city council member. The city didn't ask for it. The fire department didn't ask for it. On the basis of one city council member that was included and an entire community is asking you not to put in this crosswalk. You think it's a public benefit. We think it's a public danger. So, you know, but but to be honest, I've been to all these meetings, you know, I've spoken before. I live across the street from this development. I looked at your list of public benefits. This is not a public benefit. And so, um, I would urge you to look at it again. If nothing else, move it back to the north side.

I'm not sure the problem with the grading. I did have it I did have a discussion with Alex Turkowski today about the grading on Devonshshire and since there is going to be so much more traffic because cars turn down my street all the time and they cut down from, you know, Deerfield Road. they take that the fork so you don't have to go down Deerfield and um that's another issue for another time but thank you okay

I I I believe you know we obviously share the concerns it was listened to that's why we have the extra study that's why it was that's why our traffic engineers reviewed their traffic engineers study but they don't know the behavior Right. Again, I get it. You know, the test that that's part of the testimony and part of the record. We're listening to your testimony as well here. Um I just I assume that parents who are worried about it will not send their kids over to the public lot and that will make it much less of a benefit. But okay, you know that's, you know,

respectfully, Commissioner, it's all been taken into consideration. Everybody in the neighborhood wants to know why none of their concerns, not the zoning, none of it has factored into Well, again, I you're talking you're talking to the wrong person in me because I know I know you're I think I've made my positions clear on this last year and I'm not going to be ready. you can go. Okay. You know, I I would have my issues with the city council over this as well, but that's the forum now pretty much where this is going to be decided. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I ask a question relating to that? Yes, you may. Um, Commissioner Feder,

is it just a a standard crosswalk or is there a light attached to it? You know, like at West Ridge, when you're crossing Ridge to get to West Ridge from the uh east side of the street, it's a crosswalk, but there's a button to hit a light. So, if anybody's there, it it alerts any cars coming. Or is this just a regular drawn in crosswalk with a sign? I I would recommend that the applicant respond to that. I'm just aware that for sure it's the it's the crosswalk marking on the pavement. I don't I can't immediately recall. I would have the applicant respond. I didn't see anything regarding any signaling. Question. Um, sure.

You have to come to the podium. The podium, please. Yeah. You know what? Just that I thought of. Not that anybody's going to be happy about it. Is um why not put a stop sign on either side? That's that's a whole okay that's a whole other category if you want to address right if if we want to address the safety issue not that I want cars stopping you know near my house but that would address the safety issue and I'm not sure who to address that with us we don't deal with stop signs all right well point me in the right direction who would that be

good point if you email Gita uh the city manager that uh your traffic concerns. There's a traffic working group with the police department. It's it's the police department. It's public works. Um it's the city staff. I've had the pleasure of attending one of these calls because I have issue of Green Bay Road and and and Hillside by where we both respectively live. But um and and they do listen. I don't know if they'll take anything into account, but they do listen. Um, so email gita and she'll happily Okay. Um, yeah, I think that's the traffic commission. Yeah. Yeah, there's a it's like a monthly meeting. Okay. That they have. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

If respond just about the type of crosswalk. Just to be clear though, the traffic management commission, the people that review these things already reviewed this. So I don't I would hazard to say their opinion on the matter would not change. Whether or not there's a stop sign ordered to be placed, whether it's warranted or not is another matter. But so I just want to make that clear. Yeah. Any further comment from the public? If not, uh, the commission has before it findings of fact that it may vote on tonight if that's what it wishes. Um, feelings, thoughts.

So, the findings of fact include those changes, Carl, that you listed at the beginning. Uh, one second here. The the one second here. I'll put that slide up. Are you referring to the staff recommended conditions or changes? Right. I mean, right. We have there are a number of conditions, but are all of those reflected in the findings of fact currently? I I don't recall. Uh so the findings of fact that are in the packet uh do not have these what is that seven or eight bullet points and so that's why

okay

that's why I uh made a point to have a slide on this so that if the commission did want to adopt the findings of fact um staff would recommend that you also include these with that and and the findings of fact so to be clear the findings of fact are the findings of fact and they also reference all the conditions from the resolution that the council pass in October and then in addition to that staff would recommend that these conditions be included. So, I guess I'd move that we adopt the findings of fact with these two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, um um updates and modifications um as stated here on this sheet listed conditions and those are in the staff report,

Carl. Uh uh that's correct. Those can. Okay. The the Oh, these right here. No, these are not these are on these are just on this slide here. Those are new for today. Well, in part in part, forgive me. In part, in part, these are distributed throughout the staff report here. They are condensed for just one read all on one slide for the purposes of making a motion. Corporation council. Would we have to enumerate those? Well, I mean, they're listed. You can say the conditions as they are presented by by staff. I think that's clear enough. Thank you. Second. There are additional conditions.

Okay. I have a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion on the motion? This doesn't include any sign packages. Correct. Uh, no, it does include design. Yes, it does include design review. Don't believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Carl. um findings of fact do not touch upon the design review aspect of this.

Well, no, I don't believe so. Normally, so I don't know. So, the the commission can make a recommendation on the uh the final PUD, the final plat uh and the SUP for the freestand the off- streetet parking lot freestanding. Uh I think they can make a recommendation those three in one vote. and then the design review as an authority body. Would that just be a separate vote?

It you can do it that way and that's customarily how we do it by adopting the findings of fact. You do um recommend for approval all of the relief sought except for the design review aspect because the findings of fact don't mention the design review. You would make a separate motion seconded to approve the design review. And so right now you have a motion on the floor uh adopting the findings of fact that goes towards the plat of resubdivision development uh the final development plan and the conditional use permit that northwest lot.

Um however that works the next motion would be a motion to approve design review. Okay. Okay. Um on the on the motion without the design review, can you call the role please? Director Fonte on the motion with the additional conditions. Um Commissioner Inchek I. Commissioner Fetner I. Commissioner Mantis I. Commissioner Moore I. Vice Chair Nanis I. And Chair Kersh.

The eyes have it. This motion carries. Uh vote of 5 to one that is recommended to city council with the additional conditions as stated in the presentations. Okay. And then we'll be looking for a motion on design review. I motion that we accept the design review as previously presented to us. Um because I don't think we have any new changes here tonight. And so that would just be a motion to approve design review. Motion to approve design review. Second. Any discussion on the motion. Then if you please could you call the role again? Director Fonte. Absolutely. Commissioner Inchek.

I. Commissioner Fentner. I. Commissioner Mannis. I. Commissioner Moore. I. Vice Chair Nannis. Hi. And Cher Kers. Nay. The eyes have it. Motion carries. 5 to one. And the design review is approved. And the rest has been recommended to the city council. That's correct. For action. Okay. Um I believe that's our seventh and final look at this. Yeah. Okay. Thank you all very much. Now you have to move on. I know. But if people are going to leave, I Yeah, that's fine.

The first one. the first sentence.

Yes, sir. You sent me an email, but I can't respond to We still have a meeting. We still have a meeting though. We still have a meeting, folks. Yeah. Sorry, folks. If you could, we still have a few small items at business. You'll have to follow tomorrow, but sir, I will. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Burhop say hello. Any information items related to administrative design review? No, none for that. Chair,

next meeting February 3rd, 2026. A regular meeting here in city hall. I believe we continued something to that meeting. I don't believe so, but there will be the 17th. Oh, that's right. To the 17th. Um 147 central was continued to February 17th, but there are I believe there will be two sign package amendments on February 3rd. Uh there's signs posted on the property. One's for the Renaissance Place and one is for I believe it's 172 Skooki Valley Road. So, two sign packages. Okay. and any case briefing.

Um, Mr. Chair, um, the city council um voted to direct staff to sh draft approval documents related to 734 central. That's all I have. Okay. Is there any business from the public regarding issues that were not on the agenda this evening? Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Seconded. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? And that meeting adjourned?