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 26, 2014 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Shapiro called the meeting to order. Present were: Dan Shapiro, Chairman Larry Berg Alan Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Mary Oppenheim 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 on (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 February 12, 2015 Mr. Calvin Bernstein, Attorney, Samuels & Bernstein, representing the petitioner, introduced the petition and noted that their team is available for questions. Joe Mascheck, architect, BSB Designs, commented that they have made additional changes based on the comments received from the February 12th meeting. Mr. Mascheck recapped that previous revisions for the February 12th meeting which included improving the setbacks on the north, south and west sides of the building, relocated balconies and changing the balcony design for increased privacy. He also noted that air conditioning unit screening was also added. Based on comments and observations from the February 12th meeting, additional changes were made to the plan. In this most recent revised plan, the balconies on the north and south elevations have been removed and located them on the interior, facing the auto court. Less obtrusive at-grade patios were added to the rear of the units. Air conditioning units on the north property line were reduced from two units to one unit and reduced from four to Public Hearing February 26, 2015 Page 2 two units on the south property line. At-grade patios were also added to the east and west units. The landscape plan remains the same. Mr. Mascheck went through the rationale of relocating the air conditioning units and adding the patios. He noted one 6’ privacy screen on both the north and south elevations will separate two at-grade patios. Mr. Mascheck went through changes on the different elevations drawings. He also noted the building structure being stepped back from the property line as shown on the elevation drawings. Mr. Mascheck commented that the from the beginning they wanted to reduce the amount of driveways on the site plan. He added that over the last few iterations of the plan they have increased the sideyard setback on the north and south property lines and created an undulation of the building line. He also noted that views at the building from the auto court, the building steps down to 25’ toward Chestnut Street and toward the west property line. Mr. Mascheck noted that this has been a fast moving process and the changes that have been made have made for a better design. Chairman Shapiro commented that he appreciated the changes that have been made. Commissioner Shayman asked about the height from the ground to the eave in the tallest section, and if they have considered fencing the property. Mr. Mascheck noted that the eave height is 25’ and they have not proposed to fence the property. There is an existing fence on the south property line. He did comment that the perimeter landscape screening has been increased from the original plan and they would like to preserve the existing trees on the property line. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if the landscaper had any comments. The landscaper noted that the landscaping was increased around the perimeter for screening to the north and south. Public Comment Karen Johnson, 814B Chestnut Street, commented that the changes to the balconies and addition of the patios are responsive to the issues that were raised and a plus to the building’s amenities and the desirableness of the units that are being proposed. However, the changes do not do anything for the required 30’ setbacks. The current building setbacks are 25%-30% under what is required. She feels this is still high and requires careful consideration before this type of variance is approved. Ms. Johnson is aware of two residential PUDs (Woodview and AMLI) with approved setback variations that have occurred in the last few years and does not think this was comparable to what is being proposed. She believes that approving the variations will set a bad precedent for the future. Sarah Kelly, 846 Walnut Street, representing her husband and nine children, acknowledged the changes that have been made but still does not address required setbacks and the fact that this development does not fit in the neighborhood. The zoning for this development should not be changed. She commented that she is an existing tax payer and not a potential tax payer. Her taxes go toward the streets, safe parks and Village oversight that protect her family. The burden of proof is on Jacobs Homes to show every neighbor that opposes this development is wrong and Jacobs Public Hearing February 26, 2015 Page 3 Homes has not done this. This plan will negatively affect every neighbor. She trusts that the Plan Commission will uphold the appropriate zoning, to withhold a recommendation for Taylor Junction and to seek out a development that is properly scaled to the available land. Zachary Gass, 949 Forest Avenue, lives around the corner from this development and is in support of his neighbors that are opposed to the development. He feels that this development will be injurious to the enjoyment of others. The ordinance requires a minimum size of the site and setbacks and the developer’s claims that he can build this project as a matter of right. Mr. Gass feels that the adjoining neighbor’s have a right to the enjoyment of their property and this should be taken into consideration. Alex Epstein, 935 Walnut Street, commented that this property should be developed appropriately and acknowledged that the changes that have been made does not get to the root of the issues. Mr. Epstein wished to report and testify that there is still unanimous opposition to the development with the issues that still remain. The new plans do not reduce the overall size and density of the proposed development which will result in increases in noise and traffic and a decrease in the sunlight to the neighbors. He commented that if this project proceeds it will result in a reduction of the quality of life and property values of the neighbors. Mr. Epstein noted that there was a comment made at the last public hearing that both sides need to compromise. In the spirit of potential compromise, Mr. Epstein called Mr. Bernstein to suggest a 25’ perimeter setback and reduce the building height to 30’. He also suggested to Mr. Bernstein that there be 3 units on the north property (as it is currenly zoned R-4, One & Two Family Residential). Mr. Epstein noted that there was no compromise in each of the major issues and believes that the developer is trying to squeeze a large development into a small space. Mr. Epstein cannot find a rationale for approving this development. He believes it will impair the enjoyment of the neighbor’s property and decrease their property value. Does the Village staff and Plan Commission want to set a precedent of approving a project that is unanimously opposed by the neighborhood? Mr. Epstein submitted a copy of his testimony to be entered into the record. Ruth Spiro, 1048 Hazel Avenue, commented that one of the things that she likes about Deerfield is the small town feel. Deerfield residents come together to help each other and that is the reason she is compelled to speak in opposition of the development. She feels the development is too large of a structure for the property especially next to single family homes. She cannot understand how this can be contemplated when there is clear opposition to the development. Leslie Heffez, 822 Forest Avenue, commented that in the future each variation should be listed with how the developer plans to address the variation. A large development will negatively change the character of Deerfield and there should be more attention to the entire community and not just the adjacent neighbors. Accepting a variance will set a dangerous precedent for changing the character of the community. Public Hearing February 26, 2015 Page 4 Dorothy Andries, 926 Wilmot Road, commented that traffic is terrible by the train station and there will be increased traffic from this development. Donna Hicks, 933 Hemlock, commented that this change will affect all of Deerfield. This area is one of Deerfield’s historic neighborhoods with the train station across the street. The train station is the only building in Deerfield on the National Registry of Historical Places. This area is the first impression of people using the train station. She supports the neighbors, but believes that the past and the future has to be taken into consideration. She noted that the Historical Society’s feels that that a community that doesn’t respect its history does not respect itself. Liz Reiche, 808A Chestnut Street, supports her neighbors in opposition of the proposed development. Marie Kelly, 846 Chestnut Street, thanked the developer for the changes made to the plans and their compromise but it does not change that fact there are too many units being proposed. She feels the current zoning is in place for a reason and hopes the Commission will not change the zoning. She expects their property values to decrease. She is concerned about her younger siblings being near the proposed detention basin. She feels like this development will make them feel closed in. She hopes that the Commission is more concerned about the welfare and happiness of the neighbors rather than making money on a development that will be out of place. Bob Luth, 1015 Deerfield Road, commented that he cannot believe how the units will be cooled by window air conditioning units. Chairman Shapiro corrected Mr. Luth that the units will not be cooled by window air conditioning units. Mr. Luth does not want to see the home on 824 Chestnut Street demolished and believes that the home can be rehabbed. He wonders if another home can be squeezed in between the existing homes on the subject property. Mr. Luth commented on the resubdivision in Deep Dene Cove and the use of union labor. Neil Blachford, 920 Forest Avenue, commented that open space is good for the mind and body and this development will take away open space. Mr. Blachford referenced a large home on Woodward Avenue in comparison to what he feels the current neighbors will view if this development is built. He does not feel the current neighbors should be subjected to a 35’ wall in their backyard. (2) Public Hearing on the Request for a Resubdivision of the property at 1555 Wilmot Road into three lots (Michael Stone Group and Terry Franke) Ryan Johnstone, principal, Michael Stone Group, is proposing to resubdivide two lots of record at 1555 Wilmot Road. The existing lot is at the southeast corner of Wilmot Road and North Avenue. The proposal will raze an existing structure located in the middle of the property and resubdivide the lots into two 75’X150’ interior lots and a 100’X150’ corner lot. Public Hearing February 26, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Johnstone commented that he met with neighbor Bryan Segal to address his concerns about his proposed resubdivision. Doug White, engineer, Greengard Engineering, commented that they will be providing a 12” storm water sewer line along the south property line. The storm water sewer line will be maintained by the Village. The petitioner is also proposing individual storm sewers that will be sized appropriately for each lot. Mr. White feels that constructing the storm water sewer line and swaling the south property line to direct runoff into the storm water sewer line will help the issues that some of the neighbors currently face with water drainage. He noted that this will also help to prevent some of the runoff that goes offsite as it makes its way to Wilmot Road. Mr. White commented that the proposed engineering plan will meet the needs of the resubdivision and handle any of the current issues that exist with this piece of property. Terry Franke, 1555 Wilmot Road, commented that his family moved to Deerfield in 1948. Mr. Franke commented that when his father purchased the property 32 years ago, his father envisioned the property being subdivided. Mr. Franke noted that they are not asking for any variances with this resubdivision and commented that he realizes that there are neighbors who have issues with proposal. He also noted that he spoke to a neighbor that does not oppose the petition. Mr. Franke confirmed that they are not asking for any variances or rezoning and that the resubdivision meets all the requirements of the current R-3 Zoning District and the subdivision code. Public Comment Bryan Segal, 1560 Oakwood Place, lives in an adjoining lot east of the subject property. He noted other neighbors greatly impacted and adjacent to this proposed development (Mr. Katz-1568 Oakwood and Mr. Hoffler 1549 Wilmot Road) were also present. Mr. Segal referenced a letter submitted to the Plan Commission on his opposition to the resubdivision. Mr. Segal recognizes that the resubdivided lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, but a better analysis of this should be to look at the entire area. Mr. Segal noted that this the most northern part of Deerfield and this subdivision was designed and intended to preserve as much open space as possible and to serve as a sanctuary. He noted that the northern part of the subdivision was intended to have lower density than any other part of the Woodland Park subdivision. He commented that this particular corner is the gateway to Deerfield and noted that the typical lots in Woodland Park are 75’X200’ but in northern Woodland Park (north of Woodland Lane) the lots are 75’X250’ with the exception of 3-4 lots that back up to Woodland Park. Mr. Segal noted that there are no lots of the same size that are being proposed in the Woodland Park subdivision. Mr. Segal and his neighbors are not anti- development. He commented that they are shocked at the density that is being requested and shocked that the developer is shoe horning three lots in where one or two lots belong by nature of the property and nature of the area. Mr. Segal believes that this resubdivision will negatively impact the neighborhood and the community. He Public Hearing February 26, 2015 Page 6 commented that Mr. Katz will have a wall of a house at the rear of his property and he will have 1/3 of a wall of a house at his rear property line. Mr. Segal noted that this resubdivision will shift a rear sideyard setback to a sideyard setback which will make the adjacent property closer to their rear yards. Mr. Segal doesn’t believe that the drainage will be better with three lots being proposed. He added that no one in the neighborhood supports this resubdivision and they could not find anyone who supports the proposal. Mr. Segal noted this will set a negative precedent going forward and this development goes against the comprehensive plan. Gary Hoefler, 1549 Wilmot Road, 37 year residents, noted that he was not contacted about this proposal. He commented that there is a lot of open space between his property and the subject property and this petition will take away his view to North Avenue. The proposal will have many negative impacts on his family. Mr. Hoefler noted that there are drainage issues now and it will be worse with more homes abutting to his home. He commented that there are no homes that face North Avenue in the immediate area and the homes will be 12’ feet apart. He feels that the developer is squeezing 3 homes into two lots. He commented that he has heard a lot about “minimums” (requirements) and Deerfield is not a minimum community. Mr. Hoefler can’t believe this is a possibility and hopes the Plan Commission will look at all the ramifications of this proposed resubdivision. David Katz, 1568 Oakwood, is concerned with what this development will do to the future of this neighborhood. Mr. Katz used a Google Maps image to orient the Plan Commission with the subject property and the immediate area. Mr. Katz noted that the Village spent a lot of money to fix drainage issues in this area and it is still not fixed. Instead of fixing the drainage he has a portion of his property that has been turned into marsh land. He does not understand how increasing density will help this problem. He added that this corner is a beautiful front door to the Village and there should not be three homes built there. He reiterated that this will only add to the drainage issue that the Village has not been able to fix. He also noted that no one in the neighborhood is in favor of the development. Marc Brown, 1557 Oakwood Place, noted that Mr. Franke’s father was well respected in his profession. Mr. Brown wanted to implore the Commission and the builder to figure out a way to maintain the beauty of the area. A failure to do so will make both responsible for the degradation of the land. He realizes that everyone is entitled to the financial goals that are necessary. Mr. Brown noted that he will personally procure two buyers that will equal the amount that Mr. Franke is selling the property for. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. 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 26, 2014 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Shapiro called the meeting to order. Present were: Dan Shapiro, Chairman Larry Berg Alan Bromberg Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Mary Oppenheim 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 Homes)This item was continued from February 12, 2015. Commissioner Shayman appreciated the neighbor’s concerns. He noted that part of the reason for the PUD was to distribute the units over two lots knowing that the development would not conform to a normal PUD due to the smaller size of this property. Under the current zoning the south lot could have an 8’ sideyard setback on the south property line versus the proposed 20‘ and have 6 or 7 units. The north lot would have a little different sideyard setback because of daylight plane setback, but a duplex structure could conceivably be as high as 34’ high even though there could only be 2 units. Overall Commissioner Shayman thinks this development is appropriate for the two properties. Commissioner Bromberg agrees with Commissioner Shayman. He is influenced by the fact that the petitioner was encouraged to develop the property as a PUD knowing the there would be a change in the side yard setbacks. Commissioner Bromberg struggles to understand why this development would be injurious to the enjoyment of the neighbors. He noted that everyone would rather have open space or a park next to their property, but this is not what it is. There are existing homes there now. He sees that there are two main issues that he heard: the setbacks and how the development would be injurious to the enjoyment of the neighbors. He feels that the setbacks are better as a PUD rather than what they would be under current zoning. He reiterated that he struggles to see why this development would be injurious to the neighbors. Commissioner Bromberg supports this new plan and commends the developer for making the changes and being responsive to the neighbors concerns. Workshop Meeting February 26, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Oppenheim is very pleased with the developer for addressing the concerns of the Commission and the neighbors. She feels the architecture is very appealing. When she hears that this will be a benefit for the community everyone has to keep in mind that this is a housing stock that people really do want and is currently in short supply in the community. She feels that this development could revitalize this spot. The current homes are not appealing. This is a development where people can walk to the train station and downtown which are positives for the community. Commissioner Oppenheim feels that the landscaping and architecture together make this a sensitive package and is appropriate for this site because it is not in the center of single family homes, but contiguous to another townhome development. The current zoning is for multi-family use so the text amendments and variances that may be granted are only a slight change to the current zoning. Commissioner Oppenheim supports the petitioner and appreciates the changes that have been made. She realizes that change is hard but does not think that it will be terrible for the neighborhood or be an imposition for the neighbors. Commissioner Moyer agrees with the Commissioners. He struggled with the privacy and noise issues and feels that the developer got it right with the changes that were made. Commissioner Moyer thinks that this development will be good for the area. Commissioner Jacoby noted that the current zoning allows for multi-unit development. She thinks it will be a nice upscale development and thinks it will be great for the neighborhood. She has heard the issues of size, density, noise, sunlight and privacy and feels that the developer has tried to make the neighbors happy. Commissioner Jacoby feels this development is a great fit and realizes this will meet the need of residents who want to downsize and stay in Deerfield. Commissioner Berg commended the neighbors and the builder. He respects the comments of the neighbors and realizes the builder made changes based solely on the comments of the neighbors. He feels the builder made significant compromises. It will fit beautifully in the neighborhood. Commissioner Berg noted that the Plan Commission is charged with not just looking to what benefits just this neighborhood but the community as a whole. He feels this development will benefit the community as a whole and feels that it will improve the aesthetics of the area. Commissioner Berg supports this petition. Chairman Shapiro commended the developer with a wonderful presentation and materials. It was useful to see how this development compared to the current zoning and see the changes that have evolved through the process. Chairman Shapiro commended all of the residents. He noted that change is not an easy thing for development. He noted that there was respect for each other’s positions. Chairman Shapiro agrees with his fellow Commissioners and noted the following. The PUD offers benefits in the setbacks, landscaping, etc. that otherwise would not be offered under the current zoning. He noted that the proposed setbacks are an improvement to what is currently allowed. He understands the neighbors’ concerns. He added that this Workshop Meeting February 26, 2015 Page 3 development is across the street from a train station and if there is going to be any element of greater density, this is where it belongs. He added that the proposed development is next to a condo building that has been around for 30 years. In his opinion, Chairman Shapiro feels that this development fits in with the other uses. He does not see any evidence that this development will be injurious to the adjoining properties or that property values will suffer. Chairman Shapiro feels that this property will be a benefit to the entire Village and supports the petition. Chairman Shapiro believes the text amendment for a PUD should be a restricted to a geographical area bounded by Deerfield Road, Forest Avenue, Walnut Street, and Chestnut Street. Commissioner Bromberg motioned to authorize a Text Amendment for a minimum lot size of 0.9 acres within the area bounded by Deerfield Road, Forest Avenue, Walnut Street, and Chestnut Street. Commissioner Oppenheim seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None Commissioner Oppenheim motioned for the rezoning of 836 Chestnut Street from R-4, Single & Two Family Residential District to R-5, General Residence District. Commissioner Berg seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None Commissioner Oppenheim motioned to approve a Residential Planned Unit Development at 824 and 836 Chestnut Street with the changes presented and the necessary variations. Commissioner Berg seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None Commissioner Bromberg motioned to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow the redevelopment of 824 and 836 Chestnut Street properties with nine townhomes. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None This petition will be on the agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting on Monday, March 16, 2015. Workshop Meeting February 26, 2015 Page 4 (2a) Discussion of the Request for a Resbudivision of the property at 1555 Wilmot Road. Chairman Shapiro stated that this is a resubdivision that the developer and owner are entitled to receive. The request for three lots is fully compliant with zoning regulations and subdivision requirements for the land. He realizes this will disturb some of the neighbors in this room and the fact that they do not like it does not mean it is not compliant. Chairman Shapiro is in favor of the petition. Commissioner Berg agreed with the Chairman Shapiro and added that this is not an emotional decision but as a Plan Commision they must adhere to the zoning regulations for a subdivision of land. Based on the fact that this proposal is fully compliant with regulations he is in favor of the resubdivision. Commissioner Jacoby empathized with the neighbors but the proposal is compliant with the subdivision regulations. Commissioner Moyer agrees with what has been said up to this point. He acknowledged that the project is compliant with Village laws. Commissioner Shayman believes there are flaws in the zoning ordinance especially when there are neighborhoods like this with oversized lots that can be subdivided into smaller lots. He noted that the resubdivision creates a corner side yard where a front yard existed. He believes there could be fix to this issue where a new corner side yard would have to equal a front yard when a resubdivsion occurs. Fortunately in this case there is a 40’ building line along the proposed corner side yard. Commissioner Shayman stated that this proposed resubdivision does comply with zoning regulations. Chairman Shapiro asked Mr. Ryckaert that Commissioner Shayman’s concerns should be considered and addressed for future a meeting. Commissioner Oppenheim noted that this resubdivision does meet code requirements. She is not convinced that a 75’X150’ lot is high density and commented that there are lots in that subdivision along Woodland Drive that are close to that size. She doesn’t believe there will be storm water issues especially after reviewing topographic maps. She feels that the engineering plans will help the area and noted that the Village requires of new developments that all water collected on a property cannot drain onto another property. She does not believe this will be a hardship and feels nice homes can be developed and the area can remain a beautiful gateway into the community. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that this is private property and they are entitled to develop this property in this way. She is in favor of this petition. Commissioner Bromberg had nothing more to add. Workshop Meeting February 26, 2015 Page 5 Commissioner Oppenheim motioned to approve the request for a Resubdivision of the property at 1555 Wilmot Road into three lots. Commissioner Berg seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None This petition will be on the agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting on Monday, March 16, 2015. (3) Request for Approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision for Elysian Way at 45 Deerfield Road Jeff Rothbart commented that Village Engineer Bob Phillips suggested that they revise the plan to remove the pump station because of concerns of a homeowners association maintaining this facility over time, and they complied with the request and came up with a revised plan. Commissioner Berg motioned to approve the Final Plat of Subdivision for Elysian Way at 45 Deerfield Road and find it in substantial conformance. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None Document Approval The February 12, 2015 meeting minutes were approved. Items from the Commission Mr. Ryckaert noted two changes to the proposed 2015 Zoning map. The changes are for a rezoning of 45 Deerfield Road and a land swap zoning of 1038 Deerfield Road and Maplewood Park. Commissioner Oppenheim motioned to approve the two changes to the proposed 2015 Zoning Map. The motion was seconded. The vote was as follows: Ayes (7): Berg, Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Oppenheim, Shayman, Shapiro Nays (0): None Workshop Meeting February 26, 2015 Page 6 Designation of Representative for the next Board of Trustees Meeting Chairman Shaprio and Commissioners Bromberg, Berg and Oppenheim, might be available to attend. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Nakahara