Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. on February 12, 2015 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Shapiro called the meeting to order. Present were: Dan Shapiro, Chairman Alan Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Mary Oppenheim Absent: Larry Berg Stuart Shayman Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item There was no public comment. (1) Public Hearing on the Request for Approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Necessary Variations; a Rezoning of 836 Chestnut Street from R-4, Single & Two Family Residential District to R-5, General Residence District; a Text Amendment to Allow a Residential PUD of less than one (1) acre; and an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Allow the Redevelopment of 824 and 836 Chestnut Street properties with Nine Townhomes (Jacobs Homes) This item was continued from January 22, 2015. The petitioner submitted proof of notification, and legal notice was published in the Deerfield Review on January 1, 2015. Mr. Calvin Bernstein, Attorney, Samuels & Bernstein, introduced Keith Jacobs, President and CEO, the Jacobs Companies, LLC, Rob Waserman, Jacobs Companies, LLC and Joe Mascheck, architect, BSB Designs and Ron Adams, Principall, Pearson Brown & Associates, LLC. The petitioner is proposing to raze the existing properties at 824 and 836 Chestnut to construct a 9-unit town home development. 824 Chestnut is zoned R-5 General Residence District (mulitiple-famiy) and 836 Chestnut is zoned R-4 Single and Two Family District (duplex). The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the 836 Chestnut Street property to an R-5 zoning. Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 2 The property is surrounded by the Deerfield Metra Station to the east, single family homes to the north and west and a townhome development to the south. The townhome development is zoned R-5. Mr. Bernstein noted that under the current zoning, the 824 Chestnut Street property can have minimum side yard setback of 8’ with a total sideyard setback of 20’ and 25’ front and rearyard setback. Also under the current R-4 Zoning, the 836 Chestnut Street property is allowed a 2-unit dwelling with a minimum side yard setback of 8’ with a total sideyard setback of 20’ and 25’ front and rearyard setbacks. Mr. Bernstein also noted that developing the properties under the current zoning would allow three curb cuts to serve the properties and a total of 9 units on the properties. The petitioner is proposing to consolidate both lots and create one buildable lot to improve the property with a 9 unit townhome development which would be the same density allowed under the current zoning. The density the petitioner is seeking is 10 units per acre. Mr. Bernstein noted that input from the October 23, 2014 prefiling conference indicated that staff and the Plan Commission recommended that the development be created as a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) to give the Village more control of the residential development even though the subject property is less than an acre in size. Mr. Bernstein commented that a development can be created with the same density with less restrictive perimeter setbacks under the current zoning as a “matter of right”. Mr. Bernstein noted that differences in the setbacks under current zoning and under the PUD. He also commented that residential PUDs in Deerfield are much larger than their proposal and noted that it is hard to meet all of the requirements for a smaller property. Mr. Bernstein noted that the Plan Commission waived the traffic study, market analysis and the fiscal impact study and believed these were waived because it was the same density that is allowed in the current zoning. He also noted that they are proposing one curb cut which is better for traffic congestion than the two curb cuts currently existing. Mr. Bernstein noted that they held a neighbors meeting to introduce the development and hear neighbor concerns. He noted the neighbor’s concerns that came from that meeting.  Rezoning the north lot from R-4 to R-5  Storm water management – concerns regarding the details of the detention  Removing 18 trees is too much  Question whether Chestnut Station development is 35 feet tall  9 units at 35’ building height is too big  10’ setbacks along the north and south property lines are too small. The PUD standard is 30’  Losing access to the sunlight for 846 Chestnut Street  Placement of AC units and associated noise  Balconies and windows along the north and south lines will be intrusive  Traffic issues along Chestnut Street will be made worse. Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 3 Due to the concerns, the petitioner continued the Public Hearing scheduled for January 22, 2015 in order to address these concerns. Joe Mascheck noted that this development is integral to the downtown area because of its close proximity to the Village Center and Deerfield Metra Station. Mr. Maescheck noted their original plan and outlined the changes to their revised plan after taking the neighbors’s concerns into consideration. He noted that the major concerns from the neighbors are the sideyard and rearyard setbacks, balconies and air conditioning units. Mr. Mascheck explained that they increased the side and rearyard setbacks and reduced the number of balconies on the north and south property lines. The first major change was shifting the building to the east. Mr. Mascheck also noted that they are going to use a closed panel design for the balconies to reduce the visual impact for the neighbors. The closed panel design was also integrated into the screening for the air conditioning units. Mr. Mascheck also noted the increase in the landscaping around the periphery. Mr. Mascheck noted that the original design concept for the development remained intact with those changes. Mr. Mascheck went over the details of the changes in his presentation. Chairman Shapiro asked why the balconies were moved to the west side of the building. Mr. Mascheck commented that they wanted to lessen the impact of balconies to the neighbors to the north and the south. Mr. Mascheck noted that there were 70-1/2 caliper inches of trees that is to be removed and they will be replaced with 93 caliper inches. Mr. Mascheck commented on the increased landscaping to the north and south property lines. Chairman Shapiro asked if there was room for berming. Mr. Mascheck commented that there was room for berming but it would have to be worked out with the engineering issues because stormwater. Mr. Mascheck confirmed that the balcony’s are on the second floor. Mr. Bernstein went over the zoning and PUD findings as stated in their submitted materials. Mr. Bernstein contended that the “by right” development that is allowed under the current zoning would be a worse development than what is being proposed. He believes that what is being proposed is better for the neighbors especially since the setbacks under the current zoning would be closer than what is being proposed. Mr. Bernstein noted that they have listened to the Plan Commission and staff in going through the PUD process so that the Village would have more control with the planning process, architecture, landscaping, homeowner’s association declaration and everything that goes on in building a multi-family development. He noted that they have listened to the neighbors and have tried to mitigate any concerns and issues and they are willing to work with the neighbors. Ron Adams showed the connections that will be used for utilities. He noted that there is a substantial amount of impervious surface and to his knowledge there are no conveyance facilities on the properties. Mr. Adams noted that they will be putting in stormwater systems along the north and the south property lines which will collect the Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 4 drainage from the roof and other areas, discharging the water into a detention storm water facility on the property. The water will be restricted and will released at a slower rate. Mr. Adams noted that they will follow and comply with Lake County and Village of Deerfield Storm Water Management Ordinances. Mr. Adams noted that the detention area will have native landscaping similar to a raingarden and this is the preferred method of detention. A discussion ensued on the management of the detention area. The homeowner’s association will manage the detention area. Chairman Shapiro asked how long the water would be stored in the detention area. Mr. Adams commented that this would depend on the water event and it could range from a few hours to a few days. The detention facility will have a gradual slope and be approximately 4’ at its deepest point. A discussion ensued on this preferred method of water detention. Commissioner Moyer asked if there would be any type of security around the detention facility. Mr. Adams commented that it has been found that fencing off a detention facility is an attractive nuisance and children will get into the area no matter what is done. He commented that there are probably numerous wetponds in the Village of Deerfield that are not secured, including the river. Public Comment Debbie Hellman, 1222 Laurel Avenue, a resident since 2000 and an empty nester. Ms. Hellman loves Deerfield and wants to stay in Deefield but wants to downsize. She believes the Taylor Junction townhomes is just what she needs with its location being in walking distance to downtown Deerfield. She supports the development. Ms. Hellman has put a deposit down on a unit in hopes that the development will be approved. Bob Kelly, 846 Chestnut Street, lives with his wife and 9 children in the home to the north of 836 Chestnut Street. Mr. Kelly would appreciate that the Village honor the current zoning laws of 836 Chestnut Street and believes the proposed development will be to0 dense, to0 tall and will shadow his backyard. He does not want to live next door to a pond with standing water and mosquitos. Mr. Kelly is concerned with the air conditioning units and the noise it will give off. Sarah Kelly, 846 Chestnut Street, urged the Plan Commission to vote against this proposal. She finds the presentation misleading that 7 units can be built on the 824 Chestnut Street property and if that were the case the height of the building would be much higher and have increased setbacks. Mrs. Kelly acknowledged that the development is attractive and it seems like the developer tried to make changes but it is not enough especially in what they are asking for in sideyard setbacks. Mrs. Kelly reiterated that the proposed development’s side yard will face the rear yards of the properties to the north and the properties to the south. She also commented that its appearance will not be fully integrated with the neighborhood. Alex Epstein, 935 Walnut Street, lives in the second home west of Chestnut Street and directly north of the 836 Chestnut Street. Mr. Epstein thanked the Plan Commission for their volunteer service. An 18 year resident, Mr. Epstein commented that they have Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 5 been accustomed to a living next to a single family residence with a large yard, large trees and a lot of open space. He noted that the 836 Chestnut Street property was a well cared for property until it was put on the market in the middle of last year. Mr. Epstein commented that he and his wife purchased their property fully aware that 836 Chestnut Street was zoned R-4 Two Family Residential and that zoning has limits as to what could be developed next to their backyard. He referenced a two family dwelling with a similar sized lot at 932 and 936 Chestnut Street that would be appropriate for the 836 Chestnut Street property. Mr. Epstein is not opposed to development. Mr. Epstein is opposed to a 35’ building wall in his backyard with balconies 13.5’ away from his backyard. Mr. Epstein commented that the developer is not accurately portraying the number of units that can be put on the 836 Chestnut Street lot under the current zoning. He does like that the development is going through the Planned Unit Development process because it gives the Village more oversight on the development. Mr. Epstein feels that the developer is attempting to put more units on the property than is actually allowed. Mr. Epstein noted that there is unanimous opposition to this development because they feel that it will deteriorate their quality of life and their property values. Mr. Epstein questioned the 8’ minimum sideyard setback that would be allowed under the R-4 zoning and questioned how the Chestnut Station townhomes are able to have a 25’ perimeter setback on their property with 20 townhomes. Mr. Epstein believes that the current R-4 zoning allows a bridge from multi-family homes to single family. He commented that what is the value of zoning laws if it can be changed on a whim and what was the public good if there were a zoning change. April Epstein, 935 Walnut Street, voiced her opposition to the proposed development. Dan India, 941 Walnut Street, 32 year resident, is concerned with privacy and noise issues that will come about from the setbacks and does not feel that this development is appropriate for the Deerfield community. Mr. India noted that his realtor was present because if this development is approved he will start looking for a new home. He does feel that this will negatively affect the general welfare especially if he walks out his back door and has to look at a 35’ building wall. Mr. India indicated that there are water ponding when there are large rains because his property is lower than the surrounding properties. He assumes the subject property will be raised when it is developed and this will increase the ponding issues and disturb the natural flow of storm water. Dan Katz, 875 King Richards Court, supported the development and commented that the existing structures on the subject property are dilapidated and the new development will enhance the area. Keith Londo, 1362 Arbor Vitae, 10 year resident and Metra commuter, supports the development and feels that this is exactly what the community needs. Mr. Londo believes the developer has worked with the neighbors on their issues. Gregg Gaffen, 325 Birchwood Avenue, 17 year resident, was in favor of the development. The existing homes on the subject property are unsightly. He Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 6 understands the neighbor’s concerns and feels that the developer has gone above and beyond to try to cooperate and accommodate the neighbors. He sees this as pros and cons and feels the pros outweigh the issues that the neighbors have. Laura Ferendo, 818B Chestnut Street, has no objection to the redevelopment of the subject properties but would like to see a thoughtful and appropriate sized development that will not ruin her quality of life. She finds the development with its setbacks and overhanging balconies to be intrusive and eliminates any sense of privacy. She feels that there will be an increase in the noise (both people and mechanical) that will be created from this development. The 35’ high development will make her home more of a cave from the lack of sunlight that will reach her home. She feels that there are traffic issues that will result from this development. She would like to clarify that the existing trees are fully mature and the only barrier between her property and the proposed development will not be a tree canopy but a tree trunk. Ms. Ferendo commented that the zoning laws are in place to protect residents and their (property) investments and there is no question that it will reduce the value of her home (which she purchased five months ago.) She is asking the Plan Commission to do the right thing. C.W. David Anderson, 835 Forest Ave, is not opposed to development but after looking closer to the plans there is a long list of concerns and issues. Mr. Anderson referenced the zoning ordinance which states that the proposed PUD will not be recommended for approval if the plan will be injurious to the use and enjoyment to the surrounding property already permitted or diminish or impair property values in the immediate area. Mr. Anderson feels that this cannot be defended by approving this development. He feels that this “matter of right” is a threat from the developer. Leonard Solof, 927 Forest Avenue, supports his neighbors in opposition of the proposed development and after hearing the issues raised, he does not know how this development can be approved. He is not opposed to development just not this development. He appreciates the comments from the residents that do not live in the immediate area but they do not live in the immediate area. He noted that this property is not a part of downtown but a neighborhood where they have raised their children. Ruth Conterio, 845 Forest Avenue, commented that the units that are being proposed are larger than the units to the south in Chestnut Station. The Chestnut Station townhomes have 25’ perimeter setbacks and why can’t this development do the same. She feels either the property is too small or the proposed development is too large. She noted that water on the property runs from east to west and runs into her property. She feels that this development will make this worse. She suggests putting the balconies on the inside of the property. Ron Adams speculated that this portion of Deerfield was constructed many years ago and the storm sewer design was not built with storm water management in mind. He commented that there are no storm water management on the subject properties. He explained that storm water management means controlling the storm water to run into a Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 7 facility, hold it and release it at a slower rate so it does not affect other properties. Mr. Adams explained the storm water management process and the effect of having a detention facility like the one that they are proposing. In todays standards, storm water management is designed to handle water on a property as if the storm sewers are at full capacity, clogged or blocked. In this case, any storm water would be directed to the pond and released slowly into the storm sewer system. Commissioner Oppenheim clarified that the idea behind this type of storm water management system is to keep the water on the property and into a facility so that storm water will not run off the property and onto adjacent properties. Mr. Adams confirmed that the water from the subject property will not runoff on to the neighbor’s properties. Commissioner Jacoby asked it would help if the detention facility were placed at the northwest corner instead of its current location in the northeast corner of the subject property. Mr. Adams noted that the detention facility is put in the area closest to the pipes on Chestnut Street. He commented that they are putting in a storm sewer on the north and south property lines to drain into the detention facility. In reference to the subject of possibly putting in berms as mentioned in an earlier discussion, Mr. Adams would prefer to have swales put in versus a berm on the property lines because a swale would collect the water and put it into the storm sewer. A berm would run water off into adjacent properties. He commented that the grading plan does show swales in the back yards with catch basins at various points as part of the storm water management plan. Mr. Adams commented that storm water management has become a science rather than an art and everyone has to follow the same rules. Commissioner Oppenheim clarified that the earlier discussion about berming was about landscape screening rather than storm water management. Mr. Adams realized that discussion and was just pointing out that a swale would have a greater positive effect rather than a berm. Ron Worth, 846 Forest Avenue, commented that 2-3 times a year there is flooding on his property and it’s a real issue. He commented that it is not just the water above ground, but the water below the ground that is an issue noting that his sump pump pumps a lot of water out of the ground. He feels that the development will exasperate this issue. Mr. Worth thinks the building is attractive but it is too big and not appropriate for this area. He pointed out that all of the surrounding neighbors are opposed to the proposed development. Zoning is made to act as guidelines for a builder and also an assurance for the people who invested their life savings to live in this neighborhood. By changing the zoning it is changing something the neighbors did not bargin for when they moved to Deerfield. Liz Reische, 808A Chestnut Street, is thrilled to see the property improved but is adamantly opposed to the setbacks that are being requested by the developer. She has concerns with the air conditioning units being so close to the adjacent properties due to the noise that units will put out. She suggested putting the air conditioning units on the inside of the development. Ms. Reische noted that Chestnut Station does have some of the air conditioning unit on the inside of their building to reduce the noise. Ms. Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 8 Reische pointed out that there are no sidewalks on the east side of Chestnut Street and it is heavily traveled especially being so close to a train station. It is a dangerous intersection (Deerfield Road and Chestnut Street) and a sidewalk should be considered for this area. Susan Schloss, 804A Chestnut Street, president of the Chestnut Station HOA and representing the 20 homeowners in the townhome complex is not opposed to redevelopment of the area, but is adamantly opposed to the proposed development due to the requested setbacks variation being 13.5’ from their property line. She agrees with the neighbors in opposition of the development and commented that this setback will be an intrusion on the privacy of their units. Karen Johnson, Chestnut Station homeowner, (lives in the north building) is opposed to the development due to the setbacks. She appreciates the fact that some of the balconies were relocated and the balconies will have a solid panel design but the Chestnut Station development was required a 25’ perimeter setback and that should be required of the proposed development. She anticipates the balconies will be heavily used being off a great room. She noted that they have tried to improve their landscaped area but the 35’ proposed development and additional landscaping will block the amount of sunlight and negatively impact any improvements that they have made. She also pointed out that the largest unit in Chestnut Station is 1,600 square feet and the proposed units are much larger and the development is too large for the lot. Tom Kelly, 846 Chestnut Street, acknowledged that every single neighbor surrounding this development is extremely opposed to this project. Mr. Kelly is the oldest son in a family of nine children and is speaking on behalf of his two older sisters and his 6 younger siblings. He noted that they are home schooled and active around their property. The south part of their property has their sandbox and swingset which will be just north of the proposed development’s detention pond. He is concerned with the dangers that the detention pond will pose to his younger siblings. He feels that the balconies will be an intrusion to their privacy and noted that traffic will be an increased issue. Mr. Kelly urged the Plan Commission to disapprove of the proposed development. Bob Luth, 1015 Deerfield Road, longtime resident of Deerfield, does not have a problem with the homes on the subject property. He feels that these homes could be rehabbed. He referenced a long time Deerfield family moving away from Deerfield because of the redevelopment of the downtown area citing not enough open space. Neil Blachford, 920 Forest Avenue, longtime resident referenced his desire to keep Deerfield simple without congestion and a lot of buildings. He is opposed to the development. Joe Farley, 925 Forest Avenue, complimented the Plan Commission on their attentiveness to the proceedings. He reiterated what Mr. Worth said that zoning laws Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 9 were put into effect and that residents assume those laws will remain intact in the future. Mr. Farley believes the zoning in this instance should remain intact and not be changed. Mr. Bernstein thanked those in attendance for their comments and noted that this is how the process should work. He commented that this was the reason why they decided to go through the PUD process so that residents could provide input in a very important location in the Deerfield community. Mr. Bernstein reiterated the following points:  Under the current zoning, the minimum sideyard setbacks can be a minimum of 8’ which is lot closer than what is required in a residential PUD.  The balconies will be 9’ high and not 20’ as someone previously stated.  In regards to the comment that the development is too large or the property is too small, Mr. Bernstein noted that they meet the height requirements in both the R-4 and R-5 zoning and the density requirements for the R-5 zoning.  Under the current R-4 zoning for 836 Chestnut Street a two unit development can be more intrusive that what is being proposed.  The comprehensive plan contemplated multi-family residential for both lots and which is more than a single family home.  The landscape plan is intended to mitigate any intrusion to the neighbors. Mr. Bernstein closed his comments by thanking the neighbors for their comments both positive and negative. Commissioner Jacoby asked staff how tall is the Chestnut Station development to the south. Mr. Ryckaert stated that according to the approved documents, the building was 30’ tall and has a 25’ perimeter setback. There are privacy walls and at-grade patios in the perimeter setbacks. Chairman Shapiro asked what the price points were for this development. Mr. Bernstein commented $599,000 to $649,000. Commissioner Bromberg asked if there was any consideration to reduce the number of units for the development. Mr. Bernstein noted that they did not take this into consideration because there was a potential for 9 units under the current zoning. Commissioner Oppenheim asked the petitioner if they considered not having balconies. Mr. Mascheck commented that they have looked at a lot of combinations and are still exploring options after hearing the comments made this evening. He commented that there are creative solutions based on what they have heard. Mr. Mascheck noted that they think they will be able to move some of the balconies to the interior side of the building which would alleviate two balconies facing south and the most intrusive balcony to the north. A discussion ensued on how they are working on design changes. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if balconies are a desirable amenity. Mr. Jacobs noted that there are no patios so there is no private outside space for the residents of the development. Chairman Shapiro asked if the air conditioning units could be located Public Hearing February 12, 2015 Page 10 on the interior side of the building as well. Mr. Mascheck commented that they would look into that suggestion. A discussion ensued on location options for the air conditioning units. Mr. Mascheck commented that this building was designed so that it would be stepped back and not be one solid building wall. C.W. Anderson asked if there was an option to have a ground floor patio instead of a balcony on the south elevation facing Chestnut Station. Mr. Epstein asked if the petitioner considered reducing the number of units on the 836 Chestnut Street property. Chairman Shapiro clarified that this was asked of the petitioner for both lots and they are seeking nine units. A comment was asked if the balconies to the south were being considered to be relocated. Chairman Shapiro commented that the petitioner is looking at possibly redesigning the location of the balconies and the petitioner confirmed. There was no further public comment. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara  APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on February 12, 2015 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Shapiro called the meeting to order. Present were: Dan Shapiro, Chairman Alan Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Mary Oppenheim Absent: Larry Berg Stuart Shayman Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner (1a) Discussion of Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow Redevelopment of 824 and 836 Chestnut Street properties with Townhomes (Jacobs Development) This item was continued from January 22, 2015. Commissioner Moyer would like to see the changes sketched out that the petitioner is considering especially relocating the balconies. Commissioner Jacoby reiterated the resident’s concerns especially the building height, balconies and the perimeter setbacks. A discussion ensued about the at-grade patios being in the Chestnut Station 25’ perimeter setbacks. A resident commented that it is different when you have a patio at-grade and a balcony looking down and overlooking another property. Another resident stated that they want fewer units in the development and do not want to look at a 35’ building wall. Commissioner Oppenheim noted that the issue at hand is a Text Amendment to allow this development to be a PUD which is something that the Village staff has suggested. The second issue is changing the zoning of the north property from R-4 to R-5 zoning. She noted that the petitioner has met all of the requirements of the PUD except the perimeter setback. She is empathetic to the residents but the Plan Commission is being asked to consider this proposal and how it relates to the zoning ordinance. She appreciates that the petitioner has been extremely flexible in listening to the neighbors and making creative changes to their plans. Commissioner Oppenheim does not have a problem with the development and is in favor or approving the petition. Workshop Meeting February 12, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Bromberg commended the petitioner on their presentation and commended the neighbors for keeping their calm. He does not see the building height, air conditioning units or detention pond as an issue. He does see the potential changes that the developer is considering to be a good thing. Commissioner Bromberg views the detention pond as something that will help everyone and not make matters worse. He does see the setbacks as an issue in approving this development as a PUD. The overwhelming testimony illustrates this issue but he is encouraged that the petitioner is willing to consider changes to their plan. Commissioner Bromberg is not in favor of this petition as it currently stands. Chairman Shapiro commented that one of the recurring issues that the neighbors have voiced is the intrusiveness from the setbacks and the balconies. The fact that all the neighbors surrounding the property have come out is very meaningful. Chairman Shapiro noted that these parcels will be redeveloped whether it is this proposal or not. Being developed as a PUD has many benefits that seem to have gotten lost in this discussion. The PUD offers more control by the Village, better design, better appearance, better architecture and better overall development. He is encouraged that there are areas that can be tweaked and realizes it will not be a perfect situation for everyone but there can be a reasonable solution. Chairman Shapiro discussed the balconies and air conditioning units possibly being located to the building interior which would alleviate the setback and balcony concerns. He is less concerned about the air conditioning units. Chairman Shapiro asked the petitioner if they would like to come back with revisions to their plan taking into consideration the concerns of the neighbors. The petitioner requested to continue the public hearing to February 26, to revise their plans. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the petitioner has demonstrated remarkable spirit of compromise and she asks the same of the neighbors. Commissioner Jacoby motioned the reopen the public hearing and continue the public hearing to February 26, 2015. Commissioner Oppenheim seconded the motion. The public hearing will consider the new revisions to the plan, the rezoning of 836 Chestnut Street from R-4 to R-5, a text amendment for a PUD under one acre and an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The Commissioners stated that they were still open to consider the rezoning of the R-4 property. Document Approval The minutes from the January 22, 2015 Plan Commission meeting were approved. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara