Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Public Hearing Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on May 11th, 2017 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Larry Berg, Chairperson Pro Tem Al Bromberg Sean Forrest Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Stuart Shayman Absent were: None Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item No public comment on a non-agenda item. (1) Public Hearing on the Request of the Removal of the Restaurant Prohibition at Cadwell’s Corners Shopping Center for the Portion of the Shopping Center South of Pet Supply Plus to the End Units Facing Lake Cook Road and an Amendment to the Sign Plan for the Pylon Signs David Meek, attorney, Newcastle Properties, explained that their requests include a sign variance to the pylon signs to add additional panels for tenant signage and, to amend the Cadwell’s Corners commercial planned unit development to remove the restaurant use restriction that has been in place since the center was established in 1981. The Petitioners recognize that the center is adjacent to neighboring residential properties, therefore, their request is that the use restriction only be lifted for a legally defined portion of the property south of the Pets Supplies Plus (the area not adjacent the neighboring residential properties). The areas consists of 12,900 sq. ft. of vacant tenant space. The center currently has a lively variety of uses; however, there have been many challenges in leasing that vacant area to the south. The greenhouse space to the far south portion of the center recently underwent renovations to create tenant spaces facing Lake Cook Road, which are currently available to lease. Sean Devine, New Castle Properties, commented that the space has been vacant since the Deerfield Public Library used the space a few years ago. He added that there have not been much interest to lease the space, however, recently, most of the inquiries have been from restaurants (such as Fire House Subs and Brunch Café), but due to the restaurant prohibition, it has been difficult to secure restaurant uses as tenants. He explained that Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 2 it is difficult to find a shopping center of Cadwell’s Corners size that does not have a restaurant component. He noted that it is very difficult to lease 75,000 sq. ft. in today’s retail environment without some type of restaurant component. Almost 50% of the leasing activity in the Chicagoland area today is from restaurant users and there has been a rise in fast casual restaurants over the last few year with the bulk of the leasing coming from this type of user. Mr. Devine reiterated that their request is only to remove the restaurant prohibition for the portion of the center that has been difficult to lease (the south portion). He explained that a lot of the tenants in the market today will look at the space, but ultimately move on because of the prohibition and the time and effort it takes to apply for a Special Use. This is the reason why they are here before the Plan Commission without a tenant. Mr. Meek commented that if the restaurant prohibition is lifted, the C-2 zoning district restrictions would apply to the restaurant uses in the center. This means that any restaurant over 3,000 sq. ft. in size would be subject to Special Use review and approval and a restaurant under 3,000 sq. ft. (not including drive-thru) would be a permitted use. He asked Mr. Devine the kind and size of restaurants he anticipated for this location based on inquiries of interest. Mr. Devine commented that Fire House Subs was interested in a 1,500 sq. ft. space and Brunch Café was interested in a 4,000 sq. ft. space. Mr. Devine explained that, based on the types of restaurant users in similar shopping centers around the area, smaller, fast casual dining restaurants (between 1500 and 5000 sq. ft.) will most likely be interested in the space. Mr. Devine does not anticipate an individual restaurant user to have a space over 6,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Bromberg asked if there was a chance that Fire House Subs and Brunch Café would come back as potential users. Mr. Devine verified that there is a chance that they will come and it is their hope that they do. Mr. Meek asked Mr. Devine to explain the types of restraints that would prohibit all 12,900 sq. ft. of the southernmost tenant space from being leased to restaurant users. Mr. Devine explained that the parking would not allow for all restaurant users in that area and that it is very unlikely for all restaurant users to rent in the same area due to the competitive market that exists today. He further explained that the reason that they are asking for the prohibition to be lifted for the entire southernmost portion of the center was because they do not know where a tenant may want to go within that vacant square footage. Mr. Meek asked Mr. Devine to explain how a restaurant use would utilize the space in terms of the operation, since part of the concern is the way that a restaurant is differentiated from other retail users in terms of its customers, hours of operations, delivery times, etc. Rob Costello, Principal, Torch Architecture, Inc., (basing his testimony on observations of other clients in the restaurant industry who have done similar types of projects in similar locations) commented that generally the larger tenant of 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. would take the entire end cap and have the ability to either service off of the Waukegan Road side or the Lake Cook Road side. He commented that smaller inline tenants would be more interested in facing Lake Cook Road because of exposure. Smaller users tend to operate and service deliveries through the front door; Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 3 and larger (5,000 sq. ft.) users would have the flexibility to service either through the front door or the back door depending on their location. The ideal location is the end cap, which is why it is essential to be able to provide location flexibility, so that if there are two potential tenants interested in that area they aren’t restricted to locating in one position. Mr. Meek asked Mr. Costello if it was correct that the facility was not setup to receive any drive thru type of service. Mr. Costello confirmed and explained that the orientation was not correct for providing a drive thru at the rear of the building. Commissioner Bromberg asked Mr. Costello if he thought the delivery restrictions would be an issue for any of their potential tenants. Mr. Costello responded that he does not anticipate the delivery restrictions being an issue for their tenants, since their tenants would be told about the delivery times up front. He added that most of their anticipated users are national and regional chains that have to deal with these types of restrictions at their other locations. Mr. Meek commented that part of their application includes a request that if they are permitted to lift the restaurant restriction that they would affirmatively subject themselves and the tenants to the same time limitations for deliveries and activities at that rear of the building. He also noted that restaurants on the west side (front) be able to take deliveries through the front and would be allowed to receive deliveries earlier only through the front entry. The delivery trucks for front door delivery would not be allowed to drive through the back of the shopping center. Mr. Meek recognized that the neighbors may still have concerns about deliveries regardless of the hours, and asked Mr. Castello to speak about the types of delivery vehicles that service these types of restaurant users and the duration of their trips. Mr. Castello explained that both the smaller and larger users tend to have smaller trucks and typically receive a series of smaller deliveries two to three times a week. Most of the delivery trucks deliver to multiple locations in a single run and usually enter through the front and are in and out within fifteen minutes. Generally speaking, there are one to two deliveries; one delivery is a fresh, daily delivery for produce and the other is a normal stock delivery once or twice a week. Mr. Meek asked Mr. Devine to expand on whether prospective restaurant tenants were anticipated to be able to abide by the delivery time restrictions. Mr. Devine commented that for the most part he anticipates that prospective restaurant tenants will be able to abide by those hours; referring to Fire House Subs and Brunch Café as two prospective tenants that were both willing to abide by the delivery restrictions. He commented that it is not ideal for tenants, but he is confident that they can make the delivery times work. Mr. Meek commented that they are here to ask for this request without a specific user in place, but he wanted to point out that there is a host of Village regulations that would be applicable to any tenant that came in as a restaurant use. For example, with respect to exhaust, if there is any food processing that requires specific ventilation there are Village regulations that apply to that and that would be subject to an inspector review for the particular tenant’s compliance with Village regulations and there are other nuisance regulations that would be applicable. Individual tenants will have to go through the Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 4 required building permit process or Special Use process if necessary per Village regulations. The delivery restriction would only allow deliveries between 8:00AM to 500PM, Monday through Saturday; any other deliveries time utilizing the north and west drive isles for deliveries would be prohibited. Mr. Meek presented a site plan that showed the shopping center, the adjacent residential area and the church to the east; highlighting the subject area of the southernmost portion of the center. He noted that although there is only one door to the rear of the existing space, other doors could be cut in per the tenants’ requirements. Commissioner Bromberg asked where the garbage area would be located. Mr. Meek commented that garbage would be located at the existing trash enclosure that is currently utilized by the southern tenants in the shopping center. He explained that the trash enclosure has to be in that location because of the overall design of the facility in order to maintain adequate fire lane clearance. Mr. Meek presented a floor plan of the vacant space that showed how the tenant spaces could be devised in a variety of different ways. Mr. Meek commented that their application includes a request to increase their tenant signage. Currently, Fresh Thyme occupies the top portion of the pylon sign and then there are smaller half and quarter section tenant sign panels for the various tenants. Their request is for four additional quarter sections (an additional 23 ½ sq. ft. of area) within the existing bulk of the structure. Their request was already presented to the ARC this past Monday (May 8th, 2017), and from a design perspective (in terms of materials and appearance), the ARC has approved their request. Their request for an area extension increase will allow additional tenants signage to be displayed on the pylon sign. Although it is not an increase in bulk, there are sight line concerns as a result of the grade change at the Lake Cook Road and Waukegan Road corner. Mr. Meek commented that with respect to the Special Use standards and the compatibility with the existing development, the standard is that the nature and intensity of the activities involved and the size, placement and design of any proposed structures will be so planned that the Special Use will be compatible with the existing development and will not impede the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The petitioners are confident that their evidence proves that restaurants will maintain the appearance and retail reliability of the existing shopping center and the proposed use is compatible within the existing retail uses as this is consists with the overall mix of uses that are authorized under the existing C-2 zoning. The site and surrounding property uses are established and the proposed use will not impede the development or improvement of surrounding properties. They maintain that the lot is sufficient for restaurant uses and restaurants will only occupy the designated portion of the existing building. Mr. Meek commented that a parking and traffic study was performed for their prior perspective tenants, Fire House Subs and Brunch Café, which is not a part of their application; however, he wanted to note that the study that was performed in January, Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 5 2017 over a Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday in the middle of the month. He concluded that the traffic generated from the combined square footage of the two prospective restaurant uses (a total of 6600 sq. ft.) would result in about 60 car movements into the site at peak hours. He also noted that although their request is to lift the prohibition for an area that is about twice the total square footage, the maximum area that is anticipated to be occupied by restaurant users would be approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. The traffic study is relevant to the approximate square footage of restaurant space anticipated to be occupied on the property. With respect to parking, even at peak hours of demand the entire parking field was only occupied at a maximum of 49% and there was a balance of 174 parking spaces not utilized. Fire House Subs and Brunch Café would have required 94 parking spaces (taking into account the 15% reduction that the PUD allows); and the parking study concluded that at peak times there was adequate and sufficient parking available under those existing conditions for a proposed two restaurants with a combined 6,600 sq. ft. of utilization. The traffic standard is that the location of the Special Use in the Village will be such that adverse effects on surrounding properties will be minimal, particularly regarding the traffic generated by this Special Use. He explained that the traffic study concluded that it can support the traffic generated by the restaurant uses. The parking and access standard is that parking areas will be of adequate size for the particular use and properly located, and the entrance and exit drives will be laid out so as to prevent traffic hazards and nuisances. The parking and accesses already exist so the parking flow and options as well as the traffic flow are established. There are no new modifications to the parking field that are proposed or would be necessitated by a restaurant use at this site. He also commented so there won’t be a creation of unique traffic hazards or incompatibilities with the utilization of a shopping center like this. Mr. Meek explained that in regards to the effect on the neighborhood, the standard is in all respects the Special Use will not be significantly or materially detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public or injurious to the other property or improvements to the neighborhood, nor will it diminish or impair property values in the surrounding area. He commented that in regards to the potential impacts that a retail use vs. restaurant use has on a property, their petition maintains that a restaurant use is not substantially different in terms of operations or other external impacts than the various and numerous retail service related uses that exist or are permitted by the PUD. There may be differences relating to hours of operation; restaurants may request to be open into the evening hours. Restaurants produce organic waste. There are specific regulations and standards with respect to the type of waste containers that are used; the trash hauler for this facility, Lake Shore, maintains their own types of containerized trash compartments. The odors from cooking that restaurant uses produce are addressed by the specific types of ventilation required per code. Screening and buffering already exist to shield the neighbors from the center and were enhanced especially to minimize the impacts of the Fresh Thyme. The subject area is as far away from the established neighborhood as possible; it is about 85 feet from the northeast corner of the subject area to the southwest corner of the nearest lot, and about 190 feet from the northeast corner to the back of the nearest house. There are three houses that Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 6 are in the closest proximity to the subject area of the entirety of the neighborhood, but the petitioners believe those houses are already adequately screened and the nature of what’s being proposed isn’t going to have a significant impact on their enjoyment or utilization of their properties. Mr. Meek commented that there is no proposed change in the essential character or nature of the shopping center; and therefore, there’s not a justification to assume some special injury arising from restaurant use or to assume an impairment of interest property values. Mr. Meek commented that the Special Use standard for adequate facilities requires that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other necessary facilities have been/or are being provided; these are already existing for the subject property and are sufficient for the proposed use. The Special Use standards also requires that adequate buffering and/or screening should be provided to ensure the enjoyment of surrounding properties to provide for public safety or to screen certain areas from visual incompatible uses. The buffering exists and has been in place for a number of years. Ownership had discussion with Village staff as to whether there have been complaints with respect to adjacent uses since they’ve been established (particularly Fresh Thyme) and there have been very few reported complaints and has not been regarded as problematic. Mr. Meek commented that buffering may be helping to keep down complaints from the Fresh Thyme use, and they think that it would be the same with a restaurant use. Mr. Meek explained that in regards to the proposed signage modifications, the signage modification standards require that the application of the requirements in case of the subject property have been shown to be either unnecessary or undesirable. The petitioners feel that the existing sign was not sufficiently sized to accommodate individual panels for each tenant, so the strict application of sign area limitation are detrimental to viability of the shopping center due to the visual screening resulting from site topography and the impacts of the corner service buildings. The second standard is that the modification will not produce adverse effects on the surrounding properties nor adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The petitioners are confident that since the expansion proposal to the sign area does not increase the exterior dimensions of the sign structure it has minimal impact on visual appearance and the proposed additional identification panels will blend in with the existing panels. The third standard is that the modification will be based on the unique character of the subject property. This modification allows for additional tenants to have identification signage, and therefore, enhancing their visibility at the center and the visibility to north bound and east bound traffic constrained by sight topography and screening due to adjacent buildings. Lastly, the modification shall not be granted merely because of the absence of objection from adjacent property owners. The petitioners feel that the modification is reasonable, justifiable and warranted by all the foregoing reasons and they have not received any objections to their signage request. Commissioner Shayman asked if the 12,900 sq. ft. were all to be restaurant if required parking standards would be met. Mr. Meek responded that he doesn’t think that parking Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 7 standards would be met in that case, which would be an inherent restraint on their ability to lease out the entire area to restaurant users. Based on consideration of parking requirements and market demand, the thought is that a maximum of three restaurants is a reasonable maximum number of restaurants for the center. The petitioners like the flexibility for restaurant users to locate within the proposed area, but they don’t think that it’s reasonable to assume that the entire space would be occupied by restaurants users. Every use has a different parking requirement under code, and the available parking in the center depends on the other types of tenants occupying the other portions of the shopping center (there are a lot of variables). Commissioner Shayman asked if the parking would be reviewed for a restaurant use under 1,500 square feet if it was a Permitted Use. Mr. Ryckaert responded that typically for a Permitted Use the parking is not reviewed by the Village, since PUDs are based on the shared parking concept. Commissioner Shayman asked if the Village would be depending on ownership to self-regulate. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed and explained that if it was a Permitted Use and there was not enough parking to meet code, the Village would not require ownership to go through a variation process. The Cadwell’s Corners PUD has been granted a parking variation; and his recollection of the first prefiling conference with Cadwell’s Corners was that there was sufficient parking for both Fire House Subs and Brunch Café per the sit-down restaurant parking requirements. Commissioner Shayman asked if it would be reasonable to require a review of the parking if 8,500 sq. ft. of space became occupied by restaurant uses. Commissioner Bromberg commented that no other PUDs in the C-2 zoning district have to follow that restriction, and that a Permitted Use does not require review by the Village. Commissioner Shayman asked if there are any limitations to hours of operation. Mr. Meek responded that his understanding is that there are no Village regulations with respect to hours of operation. He asked Mr. Devine if the center has any hours of operation that it imposes on its tenants. Mr. Devine responded not currently; and explained that ownership has the ability to impose rules and regulations, but it hasn’t come up with current tenants. Mr. Meek asked what the extremes of hours of operations tend to be for tenants who locate in shopping centers of this type with this mix of other users. Mr. Devine responded that their only current tenant that has a somewhat unusual schedule is the fitness facility, Wheel Power, which has early morning classes. Mr. Meek asked what business hours Brunch Café was proposing. Mr. Devine responded that it was about 6:00/6:30AM to 1:00/2:00PM. Commissioner Bromberg asked if a 24- hour operation would have to receive special approval from the Village. Mr. Ryckaert responded that the Village would review the request if it was a Special Use, but not if it was a Permitted Use; there are a few 24-hour businesses in the Village, but not many. Mr. Bromberg asked if Dunkin Donuts had to receive special approval from the Village for their drive thru operation. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed explained that it was a Special Use. Less than 3,000 square feet for a restaurant is a Permitted Use in the C-2 district. Commissioner Moyer commented that he recalled a restaurant being in the center at one time, and asked where it was located. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed that there was a restaurant in the center that opened in 1995 and it was located at the north end where Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 8 the mattress store is now; it was a Special Use that lifted the use restriction at that time. He added that there were some operations issues including employees parking outside of their designated area and delivery times not being followed. Public Comment Linda Paul, resident, 90 Evergreen Court, presented an aerial shot of Cadwell’s Corners and pointed out her house, which backs up to the back of Fresh Thyme. She commented that when this development was put together clearly the homes were there first and the prohibition against restaurants was created to protect the home owners which is important to keep in mind. She is concerned about the amount and type of garbage that restaurants will produce, such as large amount of grease and food on a daily basis, and the odor it will produce. She is also concerned about the noise that additional delivery truck deliveries as well as garbage truck pickups behind the center will create. Ms. Paul played a video of the noise that the trucks make in the early hours of the morning. She commented that today when she was leaving the Briarwood Vista neighborhood at 6:00AM it took about five minutes to get out of the development, which needs to be considered. She commented that the buffering is not well taken care of or maintained and presented a series of pictures of trash and debris collected by the buffering. There is a manmade pathway that goes from Briarwood Vista to the back of the area, there are plastic bags in the trees in her backyard, trees that have been cut down and left lying there and a metal fence. She also finds remnants of food on her windowsills in the back of her house. She also presented a picture of the garbage container for Fresh Thyme which was left open; and pointed out where there are places for animals to get under and over into the trash receptacles. Lastly, she presented photos of her backyard that show a bench on the other side of the berm with garbage around it. She commented that there have been 2 break-ins in Briarwood Vista since Fresh Thyme came in and although it may not necessarily be related to Fresh Thyme, she can’t say that the area has not been affected by the opening of Fresh Thyme. She concluded that she felt that there was inadequate notice (of the Public Hearing). She commented that she received a letter about the Public Hearing on May 1st, but these discussions have been happening since January. She was very disappointed by that and hopes the Village will do right by the homeowners. Craig Baldacci, Senior Pastor, North Suburban Church, expressed on behalf of his congregation they are interested in what is happening and knowing more, but don’t know enough to know what kind of questions to ask at this point. They can say that their neighbors have been very good and they certainly want to support their concerns, but the shopping center has also been a very good neighbor to them and they support them. They believe it is in the interest of everyone in the community to have the center leased out. They would certainly be concerned about the type of establishment that might come in there, as it might not be appropriate for a Hooters restaurant or a bar to go next door to a church or a temple. They think that this can all be addressed and handled by the Plan Commission and thanked the Plan Commission. He concluded that they are interested in hearing more and will continue to follow. Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 9 Marty Shaffer, resident, 99 Evergreen Court, commented that he wanted to be clear about the legal standard that the Plan Commission will be considering in deciding whether to abolish the prohibition against restaurants that’s currently in place and has been since 1981. He asked if the standards that the Plan Commission used would be to consider granting the request for a Special Use Permit in Article 13.11. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed that it would be an amendment to a Special Use/PUD. Mr. Shaffer commented that in 1981 the original developers of this shopping center came to the Plan Commission and asked for a Special Use, Planned Use Development for this shopping center that they proposed to put in immediately adjacent to residential areas. He noted that the Plan Commission took all the information, went through a detailed process and granted those original applicants permission to build the shopping center right next to homes, but there was a condition that no restaurants would be allowed in the shopping center. That was done because restaurants have a unique spillover effect on the neighbors, including the production of smells and waste that attracts vermin, traffic issues and long operating hours; only a few of which have been alluded to tonight. The petitioners presented information on how land uses related to restaurants might be different from retail establishments and pointed out that there was not a lot of information offered on the kinds of differences. However, realistically, he said there are a lot of differences. He feels that ownership needs to present a lot more evidence that restaurants are like other retail establishments as that evidence has not been presented at this time. If the restaurant prohibition is lifted, any restaurant that is less than 3,000 sq. ft. becomes a Permitted Use under the C-2 zoning. Therefore, a small restaurant user can occupy a tenant space in the center without Village review, and there will not be any restrictions on hours of operation. Restaurant users will produce smoke all day affecting the houses that are just 80 feet away from the center. It’s completely unacceptable that there won’t be any further review of that decision to allow restaurants in if it’s small enough. He pointed out that no one has addressed that certain restaurants may serve alcohol, which would be an enormous concern to the neighbors. He said the standards for a Special Use permit on deciding whether to abolish this prohibition requires traffic issues to be addressed. The petitioners openly acknowledged that traffic issues have not been addressed in their proposal. He commented that for that reason alone, as this proposal now stands, there is no way this Plan Commission can abolish that restaurant prohibition consistent with Deerfield’s Zoning Ordinance. In the initial proposal, traffic was regarded in the earlier proposals, but nothing specific enough has been presented that would allow this Commission to find the Special Use criteria satisfied. He feels that the proposal is so vague that there’s no way the Special Use criteria could be satisfied at this time. He commented that it was here a few years ago that Fresh Thyme came before this Commission and asked for a Special Use Permit for a grocery store because of its close proximity to the neighborhood. He thanked the Commission for their actions in that case, as the Commission was very careful in analyzing the information. During Fresh Thyme’s Public Hearing a detailed testimony of how the waste would be disposed, when the trucks would be making deliveries and when the store would be open was presented to the Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 10 Commission. However, none of those details have been addressed satisfactorily tonight. In particular, the trash enclosure area is not adequately covered, as there is a rickety wooden fence around an open dumpster. As it stands now, restaurants would be dumping food waste into that dumpster, just a few feet from his neighbors’ backyards. He commented that there is just not enough information to reliably decide that the petitioners have satisfied the criteria for a Special Use. He pointed out that this prohibition has been in place for thirty-six years for really good reasons. In the mid- nineties a Special Use was granted for a restaurant on the north end of the center (just as close to houses as the subject area on the south end) and it was a failure. He commented that employees were gathering outside of the restaurant in the back alley after hours, which is not acceptable when a residential neighborhood is directly behind it. Jamie Haddad, resident, 88 Evergreen Court, commented that her house is the closest house to the subject area. She pointed out that her children’s bedrooms are directly across from the trash enclosure area. The back of her house does not have the type of buffering that was described by the petitioners earlier in the meeting. One side of her backyard borders the back of this complex and the trash is easily seen through the brush (buffer) in her backyard. She presented a picture to the Plan Commission taken from the patio in her backyard that showed the light from the Fresh Thyme building coming into her backyard. She explained that in the winter the plants aren’t as filled in, and cars can be seen driving by and anyone could easily pull over and essentially come into her backyard without obstruction, right where she’s planning on having her kids playground. The trash trucks come at 6:00AM before her kids wake up. And since she works from home she can also hear the delivery trucks come at 10AM. She can accept that delivery truck deliveries and garbage truck pickups create noise. Her concern is that when you add potentially up to three restaurants (or more if the parking is sufficient) and the entire 12,900 sq. ft. is occupied by various users and a number of restaurant users then that much more trash is created, and the trash is not as far removed from the homes as the actual structure. The trash is the problem as it attracts rodents that carry diseases. She pointed out that she doesn’t have a fence or any real privacy trees, and the trash enclosure area is essentially a part of her backyard. She worries about her family and the threat of their health and safety. She asked if her kids are really safe if their playing in their backyard in such close proximity to people hanging out behind a restaurant on their cigarette break. She thinks that the noise could be an issue and commented that she identified with the video that Ms. Paul played as she can relate to the nuisance that the noise from the delivery trucks and trash trucks create in her life on a daily basis. Ms. Haddad concluded that she has personal concerns for her personal property and whether or not she can enjoy living in this place that she moved to eight months ago. She was very excited to be a part of a wonderful community and she fears for what may change. Jeff Bizar, resident, 145 Doral Court, commented that there really isn’t buffering and that the reason the Village hasn’t had many complaints is that the CEO of Fresh Thyme gave neighbors his cell phone number and he personally calls him with any issues that Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 11 arise with Fresh Thyme. Mr. Bizar told Pastor Baldacci that although he agrees with him, his sons would love to have a Hooters restaurant in the center; and if restaurants are granted as a Permitted Use and Hooters wants to go into the center, they’re going to allow it. He stated that he came here today knowing that the Commission has probably already made up their minds and he’s okay with that. He knows that restaurants are coming into Cadwell’s Corners and told Ms. Haddad that she should keep crying. He pointed out that the mall has already changed the whole side of the space and it’s ready to go. He commented that this is supposed to be a fair process where you don’t make up your minds until you hear all of the evidence; however, when the grocery store came in just a couple of years ago, he claimed that Board members as well as the Mayor were telling people that the deal was already done, and everyone knew it. He stated that this Board has made it clear that business and appearance are more important than the individual homeowners of Deerfield; even though past Boards purposely disallowed businesses that would be detrimental to Deerfield residents and their homes. Mr. Bizar commented that even though he is already conceding the loss, he feels that now more than ever it’s his American right to let the Village know that he is very unhappy with them; and even though he has lost the fight, he knows that the Village is going to feel the repercussions. He commented that he knew the Village had to hire lawyers and pay forty thousand dollars and everyone got insurance so that they couldn’t get sued during the Fresh Thyme fight; and stated that every time he sees Mayor Rosenthal out in public she looks like she saw the Grim Reaper. He commented that he has to admit that even though most people that see him in Deerfield know him as a motivational speaker, author and creator of a television show for PBS and hug him and love him, he gets happy when he sees the Mayor’s scowl when she sees him. He commented that he’ll take this fight and take this loss, but the Village will hear and feel his words because they’re the truth. He commented that the Board believes that homeowners knew they were moving next to a mall and what did they expect. He pointed out that the original planners didn’t allow restaurants because it was bad for the homeowners; and asked what has changed since then. He commented that there are a lot more dissatisfied homeowners, but people are selfish, and it takes time to come up here. He stated that nothing has changed; and asked how the Commission as planners could think that it’s okay to approve this. Mr. Bizar stated that the answer is that if the Commissioners are honest and ethical they can’t. He commented that the real truth is that the petitioners bought a mall knowing that restaurants were prohibited. Mr. Bizar commented that another issue is that Mayor Rosenthal says that the Village can’t choose businesses that come into Deerfield, and he claimed that this is a lie. He wanted to open up a teen center so that kids in our community had a place to go other than their basements to drink and smoke. Mr. Bizar commented that when he met with the Mayor she told him that the Village doesn’t want that (teen center) business in Deerfield. Regardless of the reasons that the Mayor gave him as to why, his point is that she did have reasons as to why it didn’t belong (whether they were right or wrong) and she was choosing what businesses opened in Deerfield. He commented that as Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 12 planners, the Commission can choose the longstanding rule that restaurants aren’t allowed in Cadwell’s Corners, and the reason is simple, there is already a rule prohibiting it for a very good reason, it’s detrimental to Deerfield homeowners. He asked if Deerfield as a community could please hire a business person or if they could just say no to no more cleaners, no more mattress stores and no more grocery stores. Mr. Bizar asked what the Village thought was going to happen to the prized Fresh Thyme when the new Jewel and Mariano’s opens; and stated that he knows the Village doesn’t care but they should. Mr. Bizar concluded that during the grocery store approval the homeowners put together a simple list for a buffering of trees and a giant fence to replace the fence that was already broken, but instead this Board pathetically accepted the absurd plans of Cadwell’s Corners vendors. When the CEO of Fresh Thyme came to his house and met him in his backyard and saw the fence and the trees he called it a fricken joke and said there is not buffering. He stated that he has zero faith in this Board to do the right thing in any capacity, but asked the Commission to suddenly care about his house or care about his fellow homeowners, because he knows they (the Board) don’t. He stated that he’s not even going to ask them to vote against the restaurants, because he knows they’re going to approve the petition; and told the Village to prepare to fight and said shame on the Village in advance. Scott Paul, resident, 90 Evergreen Court, commented that the backyard of his house was shown earlier in the meeting (by Ms. Paul), and agrees with his fellow neighbors on behalf of what could happen if restaurants are allowed in Cadwell’s Corners. He commented that this is like déjà vu. He commented that during the Public Hearing for Fresh Thyme, the Village performed the best representation of active listening from a Board that he’s ever seen. He walked out of Village Hall feeling like everyone cared and that Fresh Thyme was not going to be approved. He agreed with Jeff Bizar that the Village was going to approve the petitioners request to allow restaurants into the center. As a teacher and principal he thought to himself how education would tie into the situation. He explained that bullying is a big deal in schools today and felt that the Board did not care about him, his kids or his neighbors when Fresh Thyme went in; nor did some of his neighbors care about him because Fresh Thyme wasn’t going into their backyards and if it was they would care and they would be here right now. For Fresh Thyme, Mr. & Ms. Paul went around the neighborhood for two hours collecting signatures from their neighbors, but they didn’t do that this time, because of the late notice (of the public hearing), but it doesn’t matter because he wouldn’t do it again. At the very end of the Fresh Thyme approval process, Mr. Paul stated that he felt bullied by the Board. He explained that sometimes when you feel bullied you don’t say things. Even though he feels like they (petitioners) are going to get their restaurants, he doesn’t want the petitioners to be able to say that no one said anything about Fresh Thyme or that it’s going well with Fresh Thyme. He explained that the reason there haven’t been a lot of neighbor complaints is because they felt like it happened, they took their beating and why should they say anything. He said they hear the noise and have garbage in their backyards, but it doesn’t matter and he came in thinking that the Village is going to approve restaurants anyways. He commented that he knows a couple of the Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 13 Commissioners personally, but not really well; and personally he has nothing against them; and collectively he doesn’t know what they’re going to do. He feels that the petition is going to be approved, but that’s an assumption and he tries not to assume. He commented that he cares about his kids and that he has a son with severe special needs, but the Commission has to do what they have to do; but like Mr. Bizar said, at least he got up here. He wasn’t planning on speaking, but he did, and that’s his right; and thanked the Board for letting him speak without signing in. Mr. Meek commented that there have been allegations that legal notice was not sufficient, and clarified that they did provide the mailed certification within the statutory required time. He noted that certified mail does take some time even when it’s coming from Highland Park to Deerfield. He did not just include the legally required information, but took the effort to include a site plan that illustrated exactly where restaurants are being proposed to be located on the property. The site plan highlighted the restriction areas so that it was more comprehensible to the people receiving the notice as to the scope of the project was and the area in relationship to the neighborhood so that neighbors had, at least, an initial understanding. He commented that he probably could have provided his contact information, but people were able to reach the Plan Commission. He noted that this site was actually subject to a court proceeding in 1979 to establish the ability to develop this site as commercial and the adjacent property as residential, so they were done in tandem. In 1981, there was a Special Use for the shopping center, but that was separate from the subdivision, so they were effectively established at the same time pursuant to court order that allowed for single family, and commercial to be located next to it. The plan initially had proposed a restaurant at the south end, granted there was a restaurant restriction that was imposed but, there is no evidence as to specifically why that prohibition was enacted. He noted that there could have been other reasons, but it’s unknown. Mr. Meek acknowledged that there has been a lot of talk about Fresh Thyme and how their operations have impacted the neighborhood the petitioners appreciate that feedback. Ownership has not been hearing about these types of complaints, since the complaints have apparently been taken directly to Fresh Thyme’s CEO. Ownership wants to make sure that they are also notified of these complaints (as well as their property manager). He commented that it was worth revisiting the issue that the landscaping and fencing requirements that were imposed on Fresh Thyme may not have been established. Whether it was a compliance matter with Fresh Thyme or the property owner, they want to ensure that the center is meeting the agreed upon requirements. He commented that they can make sure that there is an effort made to clean up the buffering on their property. He explained that there will be impacts for any use with respect to employee parking, traffic, garbage collection and the like. He acknowledged that restaurant garbage is of a different nature and would necessitate either an additional container or pickup frequency, but that Lake Shore Waste Management (who the Village has a franchise agreement with for both commercial and residential) will be responsible for providing sufficient and adequate trash containers for the type of waste that is being discarded. The containers would need to be made of Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 14 heavy metals and have heavy lids to discourage any kind of invasion by rodents. He commented that there is not necessarily going to be more garbage trucks in the earlier morning hours. There are standards and restrictions that would require any use serving alcohol to acquire a liquor license. Mr. Meek noted that they have not politicked their petition. He noted that they have only spoken to staff and have not attempted to have the Board and Mayor prejudge their request. The Village has established processes that they have followed, including two workshop meetings that did not require legal notice. He acknowledged that they did not have a meeting with the neighborhood, but reiterated that they provided the required legal notice. The petitioners did choose not to have a neighbor meeting because they did not have a specific tenant, but they are having a dialogue now. He reiterated that many of the observations and concerns that were expressed would be true for any use; it is an incremental difference between a restaurant and a retail use; and those differences have been acknowledged. He offered that their traffic consultant could revisit the traffic study and submit it as is, with the knowledge that it’s representative of two tenants that aren’t secured, but it would be a basis for the Village to review it. He suggested that one way to handle the traffic study would be to continue the Public Hearing and allow them to submit the traffic study. Mr. Meek left it up to the Commission to determine whether it was necessary. (2) Public Hearing on the Request for a Special Use for an Art Van Furniture Retail Store Over 30,000 Square Feet in the Deerbrook Shopping Center Darron Green, Senior Project Manager, AIA, commented that their request for a Special Use is a result of their proposed store being over 30,000 square feet. The proposed Art Van Furniture Retail Store would be located in the former Sports Authority, and no more square footage is being added to the building (it will remain 42,000 square feet, as it currently exists). Commissioner Bromberg asked if their plans have changed since their prefiling conference. Mr. Green commented that the night lighting for the site has changed. Marc Chamberlin, Architect, Ehresman Associates, Inc., presented a rendering that depicted the night lighting on the site after dusk . The wall lighting and the signage would turn off one hour after closing (closing is at 9PM); therefore the signage and the exterior wall washing would turn off at approximately 10PM. There is no interior night lighting, so no lighting would be on inside the store at night. The landlord has approved the lighting for the site; subject to any provisions or restrictions per the Village. The exterior lighting would turn on via photocell during nightfall. Chairman Pro Tem Berg asked if there were changes to the lighting on the wall. Mr. Ryckaert commented that the petitioners had originally proposed to light up the east wall from dusk to dawn but now it is restricted to one hour after closing. Mr. Green commented that the ARC requested that the red material used on the building was toned down. He presented a materials board, and explained that the aluminum composite metal was actually more of a burgundy (not a bright red). Chairman Pro Tem Berg asked if there were any more changes since their prefiling Public Hearing Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 15 conference. Mr. Green confirmed that there were no more changes. He asked for clarification on the night lighting ordinance for the zoning district as the ordinance reads that night lighting is not allowed after the close of business or 11:00PM (whichever is later). Mr. Ryckaert explained that the night lighting restriction is only for signs and only applies to businesses located within 120 feet of a residential area. Mr. Green reiterated that Art Van is not going to have the store’s exterior lighting on all night. Chairman Pro Tem Berg asked if there is parking lot lighting that stays illuminated all night for safety purposes. Mr. Green responded that he would have to refer to Mid-America Asset Management, the center’s management company, for any site development questions. Ms. Patty Mahony explained safety lighting is provided in the parking lot. There being no further business to discuss a motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz  APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on May 11th, 2017 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Larry Berg, Chairperson Pro Tem Al Bromberg Sean Forrest Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Stuart Shayman Absent were: None Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Planner (1a) Discussion of the Cadwell’s Corners Restaurant Prohibition and Pylon Sign Renovations Commissioner Jacoby asked if restrictions could be placed on the garbage pickup times. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed that since this is a Special Use that could be added as a special condition. She asked if the garbage pickup could follow the same time restrictions as deliveries from 8AM to 5PM. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed that could be done. Commissioner Forrest asked what the requirement for the buffer and fence that is in the center right now. Mr. Ryckaert responded that the buffer has to be maintained; the buffer was approved as a part of the PUD. If a use comes through where the Plan Commission and the Board thinks that additional buffering is needed, the center could be required to provide that additional buffer. Additional trees were required to be planted at the buffering for the center as a conditional of the Fresh Thyme approval; the fence was also required to be replaced due to its poor condition. The center is currently required to maintain the buffer as is, but one of the Special Use requirements is adequate buffering, so if the Commission was of the opinion that additional buffering needs to be made that can be added as a condition of the Special Use. Commissioner Forrest commented that in his opinion if the petition was approved, additional and better maintained buffering and fencing would ease some of the burden on the homeowners, as would trash times being enforced like the delivery times. Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 2 Commissioner Bromberg commented that the south end of the mall has been empty, so currently there’s no traffic or noise coming from that area. He agrees with the petitioners that there will be an impact from any type of use and thinks that many of the concerns are not unique to a restaurant. He commented that the concerns the neighbors raised would relate to any use that would go into the center and pointed out that the videos of the trash being picked up is for existing tenants in the center and is an existing condition of the center itself. Commissioner Bromberg stated that in his opinion removing the restaurant prohibition does not have a significant impact over the existing conditions. He agreed with Commissioner Forrest that additional buffering and restricted trash pickup times should be a condition of the Special Use, but otherwise supports removing the restaurant prohibition. Commissioner Bromberg commented that Mr. Bizar implied that this is not a fair process. He takes great exception to Mr. Bizar’s claims, and thinks that his claims are blatantly not true. Mr. Bizar questioned the Commissioners honesty and ethics, and he said they (Plan Commission) do not care, but then strangely enough said they are good people. Commissioner Bromberg commented that all of the Plan Commissioners are volunteers and are not a part of the Plan Commission for fame and glory. Commissioner Bromberg thinks that Mr. Bizar’s comments were disrespectful and completely untrue. Commissioner Jacoby agreed that she found Mr. Bizar’s comments very offensive. Commissioner Jacoby commented that the petitioner is asking for removal of the restaurant prohibition at the end of the shopping center that is not adjacent to the residential. She stated that if garbage pickup and delivery restrictions were implemented as a part of the Special Use then she is in favor of approving the petition. Commissioner Moyer commented that based on the residents’ testimony tonight, it seems like the property manager’s upkeep of the property is lacking. He thinks that it would be beneficial for ownership to have a meeting with the neighbors to gain input on the issues at the center and that it would be beneficial to upgrade the berm and fencing. He suggested that investing in the right garbage receptacle for food waste would also be beneficial just as Fresh Thymes made an extra effort to have a high tech, high-end garbage receptacle that is encased so that rodents could not get into the trash. Commissioner Moyer advised the petitioners that if they listen to the neighbors’ concerns, there is an opportunity to get this right for them, because right now the neighbors feel that some of the promises that were made in prior proceedings were not followed through on. He stated that if the petitioners can address and take to heart the concerns that the neighbors have voiced, then he would personally be comfortable voting to approve the petition. Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 3 Commissioner Shayman commented that he is in agreement with his fellow Commissioners. His concern is mainly with the trash. He commented that it would be useful to know the type of receptacle that could be accommodated in the back of the center and suggested that it may be better to have a separate trash area for the restaurant uses behind the southernmost portion of the center. He commented that restricting the garbage pickup times and reinforcing the buffering would certainly be helpful. He thinks that the idea of having restaurant uses at the south end where it’s not adjacent to homes helps mitigate a lot of the previous issues. Chairman Pro Tem Berg thanked everyone who participated (the petitioners, neighbors and concerned residents), and commented that their participation is what makes this process what it is. He reiterated that all of the Plan Commissioners are volunteers and none of them predetermine cases. He is an attorney and he does not predetermine cases; he speaks, he listens, and then he makes a decision based on what he hears and what he sees; and that goes for every Commissioner. He commented that despite Mr. Bizar’s disparaging and untrue remarks, the Commissioners hear the publics concerns and thanked all of the speakers for participating. He stated that in his opinion the petitioner has come a long way. He noted the originally discussion was about removing the restaurant prohibition for the entire center, but there was push back from the Plan Commission. Now the petitioners have come before the Plan Commission once again with, in his opinion, a much more reasonable request to lift the prohibition on a smaller portion of the center that is not adjacent to any residential lots. He finds it heartwarming that a reverend from the church (that the center backs up to) spoke complimentary of all of his neighbors. He thinks that no matter what the decision that is made, it comes down to being good neighbors. Chairman Pro Tem Berg commented that we all live in a community and there is going to be commercial properties and residential communities coexisting, this is not a situation unique to Deerfield. He reminded the audience that if there are concerns about liquor being served at the restaurants in this center, the Village has a Liquor Commission and there are restrictions that control the sale of alcoholic beverages. Chairman Pro Tem Berg commented that most of the Commissioners that are here tonight were on the Commission when Fresh Thyme came for their Special Use request. There were a lot of concessions made by the property management and Fresh Thyme. He thinks that the representatives from Fresh Thyme went over and above the necessary means to appease the community and the neighbors. He has been back and forth through the back alley many times in the last few weeks and in his opinion, it is the cleanest alley in town. There is going to be some noise, there is going to be a bag flying through the air on a windy day, and this happens no matter where you live in an Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 4 urban/suburban setting. Deerfield as a community needs to deal with those factors created by the environment we live in. With the proper restrictions, he thinks that this center can and will be a good neighbor. He thinks their request is reasonable. If the Board approves removing the restriction, a legal description of the parcel will be provided to better define that portion of the building, so that if the stores change names or change hands, the portion of the building affected by the restriction will be defined and will not change. Commissioner Bromberg asked the petitioners if they thought there would be an issue with restriction trash pickup times to the same times that deliveries will be limited to. Mr. Devine responded that currently each individual tenant contracts directly for the trash pickups, so he would have to look at their current leases to see who controls trash pickup for the property. Mr. Meek asked if most of their leases have a requirement that the tenant be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Mr. Devine confirmed. Mr. Meek asked if a Special Use was established that restricted trash pickup times, if the tenant would have to comply with that term. Mr. Devine responded that that would likely be the case, but he would have to look into the legal terms of their leases. Mr. Meek commented that in the future that would have to be built in as compliance a restaurant user’s lease. Mr. Meek asked if the Village has the ability to impose that regulation additionally on Lake Shore, since the Village holds a franchise agreement with them. Mr. Nakahara responded that staff will have to look at the franchise agreement and what was agreed upon. Mr. Meek commented that there is not currently a fence at the buffering, and the only landscape requirement for Fresh Thyme was for the north and west of the property. There was not actually any requirement to enhance this east property line. Commissioner Jacoby clarified that she is asking that it be a requirement for this Special Use. Commissioner Moyer asked if the property owners were prepared to meet with the neighbors and establish a plan for better buffering. Mr. Devine confirmed. Commissioner Moyer asked if a special trash receptacle could also be a requirement of the Special Use. Mr. Ryckaert read the ordinance’s site performance agreement for Fresh Thyme, which could be added to this Special Use as well. Commissioner Bromberg pointed out that residential trash times are in the early hours of the morning, and questioned the restricted times for trash pickup for commercial. Mr. Ryckaert responded that if the garbage pickup times were restricted to the same hours as delivery times, it would be from 8:00AM to 5:00PM, Monday – Saturday. Chairman Pro Tem Berg asked if it would make sense to have garbage pickup for a Commercial establishment under the petitioners request consistent with other garbage pickup throughout the municipality. Commissioner Bromberg reiterated that residential garbage is picked up earlier than 8AM and that’s an everyday noise that is heard throughout the Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 5 Village. Mr. Ryckaert commented that the Village would have to check into trash pickup times for commercial properties. He does not have the answer right now as to if those hours can be restricted. Commissioner Forrest commented that commercial trash pickup is much different from residential pick up and pointed out that the amount of noise created by a dumpster being lifted is much louder. Commissioner Shayman asked how often the trash pickups were for commercial properties. Mr. Ryckaert read an email response from the Village Manager’s Office, when Planning staff inquired about this, which read “Each commercial property is different. Lake Shore Recycling Systems is in town seven days a week servicing someone. This is the only waste hauler allowed to service commercial properties in Deerfield. [His] guess is that they are at Cadwell’s Corners three to four times a week. For instance, at Fresh Thyme, their recycling container is serviced one time a week on Tuesday and the garbage compactor is serviced on call. However, the fabric store receives service three times a week”. Commissioner Jacoby thinks that the recommendation should require the garbage pickups times to be the same as the restricted delivery times. Commissioner Jacoby motioned to approve the request of the Removal of the Restaurant Prohibition at Cadwell’s Corners Shopping Center for the Portion of the Shopping Center South of Pet Supply Plus to the End Units Facing Lake Cook Road, with the restrictions that garbage pickups times match delivery hours and additional fencing and buffering is added to screen neighboring properties from the center, and approve an Amendment to the Sign Plan for the Pylon Signs. Commissioner Bromberg seconded the motion. Mr. Meek asked for clarification that the garbage and delivery restrictions are for restaurant uses in the restaurant use area. Commissioner Jacoby confirmed. Mr. Meek asked for confirmation that the restrictions defined in the motion are not regulating garbage collection for a retail use in the shopping center, which is otherwise not regulated now at the center, even though the retail use may be located in the subject southernmost area. Commissioner Jacoby confirmed and commented that it seems as though residents are worried about restaurant use. Commissioner Forrest commented that he thinks the trash pickup times should be for the entire center, since the trash pickup video was from today, and it’s an existing issue in the center that needs to be rectified and enforced for all tenants. Commissioner Bromberg agreed. Commissioner Jacoby responded that the motion was for the restaurant uses. There was a discussion amongst the Commissioners and there were conflicting opinions on defining the restrictions for trash pickups times. Mr. Meek pointed out that if the petitioners were not before them for the restaurant use, there would be a retail use in that location and there would not be an additional regulation of a retail user and hours of operation. The petition before the Commission tonight is specific to the subject area, and the justification of a Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 6 garbage pickup restriction is an acknowledgment that there might be some differences in terms of frequency of collection arising from trash pickup for a restaurant use. There was a continued discussion amongst the Commissioners about whether or not it makes sense to have restricted trash pickup times just for restaurants, but not the other tenants in the center. Chairman Pro Tem Berg commented that he didn’t think further restrictions were before the Board at this time. Mr. Ryckaert commented that the petition was to lift the restaurant prohibition for a specific area in the southernmost portion of the center, but it may be possible to place further trash pick-up restrictions on the entire center. He explained that Fresh Thyme’s deliveries are strictly a restriction just for Fresh Thyme. There was a discussion among the Commissioners about the restricted delivery times for Fresh Thyme. Chairperson Pro Tem Berg commented that the delivery restrictions for Fresh Thyme are for the entire alleyway, so if a delivery truck arrives at the site early it can’t enter the alley way. The Plan Commission wanted clarification on the wording of the motion. Mr. Nakahara repeated Commissioner Jacoby’s motion as: Motion to approve the request of the removal of the restaurant prohibition at Cadwell’s Corners Shopping Center for the portion of the shopping center south of Pet Supply Plus to the end units facing Lake Cook Road, with the restriction that restaurant uses will have garbage pickups and delivery hours of 8:00AM-5:00PM, Monday – Saturday, that fencing and landscaping buffering is added to screen neighboring properties from the shopping center; and approval of an amendment to the sign plan for the pylon signs. Commissioner Bromberg seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: (5) Bromberg, Jacoby, Moyer, Shayman, Berg Nays: (1) Forrest (2a) Discussion of the Art Van Furniture Retail Store Special Use Commissioner Jacoby commented that the proposed Special Use is a great fit for the shopping center and was impressed by their Oakbrook store. Commissioner Shayman agreed that it was a nice improvement to the mall. Commissioner Bromberg motioned to approve the Request for a Special Use for an Art Van Furniture Retail Store over 30,000 Square Feet in the Deerbrook Shopping Center. Commissioner Jacoby seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 7 Ayes: (6) Bromberg, Forrest, Jacoby, Moyer, Shayman, Berg Nays: (0) None The motions passed and will be on the June 5, 2017 Village Board of Trustees Meeting agenda. (3) Prefiling Conference for an Amendment to the Weinberg Community Planned Unit Development to Allow the Development of an Independent Senior Apartment Community Consisting of 240 Apartments at 1627 Lake Cook Road Barry Nekritz, attorney, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, introduced the development team. He commented that the proposed building will complete the Lake Cook Road corridor, but the Weinberg campus itself still has one more facility to add to complete the site. Richard Mann, principal architect, NORR, commented that his firm specializes in senior housing and this proposed development will complete the site from Walgreens west to I- 94. The proposed JUF senior development is specifically designed for independent seniors to live in a residential environment. The apartment development will provide two to three meals a day and includes the following amenities; activity rooms, pool, walking paths and the like creating a hospitality environment for independent seniors. There are 240 apartments proposed, the building will be six stories tall and the amenities, security and concierge areas will be located on the ground floor; creating a warm and secure environment. The ground floor also contains enclosed parking for 177 vehicles (113 self-park spaces and 62 valet-parking spaces). There will also be 113 exterior parking spaces for a total parking space count of 290 spaces. The new development will be located at the center of Wilmot Road (south of Lake Cook Road), with AMLI (a 240 unit residential development designed by NORR) to the right, the Walgreens buildings to the east, the Embassy Suites building (a seven story building) towards the south, the Weinberg Center (consisting of the Gidwitz assisted living facility and the Friend memory care facility) along the north side of the spur and the Arbor Lakes Development to the west. The proposed building and the other uses on the property all fit within the exiting roadways. The existing traffic and curb cuts along Lake Cook Road, as well as the Wilmot extended south roadway, will be used by the proposed development. There will be no changes to the existing roadway system. The middle road on the south side of the proposed development will remain, and continue to compliment the Weinberg Center. Mr. Mann presented a rendering of the building superimposed on the site to show how the site is going to continue to utilize the existing traffic patterns of the roads, with no change. Currently, AMLI has an easement across the subject property, and that easement has been adjusted to go right through the existing roadways of the proposed Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 8 development and into the AMLI parking garage. There will be no additional traffic stacking as a result of the proposed JUF Senior Residence. Mr. Mann presented a site plan with building and site data. The building is an H-shaped structure that faces Wilmot Road to the north and the Weinberg Center to the south. The building takes advantage of two courtyards: one to the north that sits over the enclosed garage and the other to the south facing the Weinberg Center. The exterior parking surrounds the site. The entrance to the building will be to the west. The project site is 5.2 acres and the residential building is approximately 290,000 square feet. The enclosed parking area is approximately 50,000 square feet. The 240 apartments are going to be a mix of predominantly one bedroom and a den and two bedrooms and a den, with a few studios and a few very large apartments. The unit mix is a result of their market study. Mr. Mann presented a rendering of the ground floor; explaining that the amenities are located toward the south portion of the floor plan. The amenities are comparable to a high quality senior residential development and capabilities of serving two to three meals a day for the residents. The ground floor has a full commercial kitchen, gathering spaces for communal events, smaller, private rooms (that can all open up to each other), card rooms, a swimming pool opening up to the deck, an exercise facility. Commissioner Jacoby asked if the residents all eat together. Mr. Mann responded that typically in an independent senior living development each apartment includes a full kitchen, but two to three meals a day are provided, since it is a part of the program. He commented that the proposed land use will be very compatible with the adjacent land uses, because it will become part of the Weinberg Campus. There will be 48 units per floor; a one bedroom will range from 700 to 800 square feet; a two bedroom will be approximately 1000 to 1300 square feet; and larger units will be up to 1600 square feet of space. Mr. Mann presented an image of the site; explaining that their goal was to make the site as green as possible, incorporating green walkpaths, as well as passive, landscaped recreation areas. Commissioner Jacoby asked for confirmation that the proposed height of the building is 70 feet tall and asked for the height of the AMLI building. Mr. Mann confirmed that the proposed building is 70 feet tall and commented that the AMLI building is about 15 feet shorter as it only has four floors. He added that the Embassy Suites building is seven stories while the Gidwitz building is slightly taller than the proposed building and the Arbor Lakes development is six stories. He noted that as far as heights are concerned all of the buildings on the property will be of similar height. Chairman Pro Tem Berg asked if Gidwitz was 6 stories. Mr. Mann confirmed that the building would be six stories. Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 9 Mark Weiner, president & CEO, CJE Senior Life, commented that their three principal objectives include: 1.) providing high quality programming, services and facilities, 2.) furthering their continuing of care services on the Weinberg campus, and 3.) the advancement and success of their organization. CJE finds a program of this type (independent living) very important in terms of their brand and promotion of their larger organization and to the larger community. The new building will architecturally integrate with the entire Weinberg campus. The buildings will also connect systematically by the programs offered at each facility, with an independent living, assisted living and memory care facility all on the same campus. Mr. Weiner commented that he takes great pride in their reputation for providing quality care, which is reflected in the full occupancy of their assisted living and memory care facility. Many individuals have reached out to CJE with interest in an independent living facility. CJE is confident that independent seniors in the area would be interested in being a part of this type of community. The operations of the new building would be cohesive with the other facilities on the campus with the same administrative team overseeing all of their facilities, as well as sharing technology provisions and kosher food. Mr. Weiner concluded that he really enjoyed working with his development team, as they have a very significant amount of experience and have contributed greatly in developing a facility that they believe will be truly exceptional. He hopes that the Village has found CJE to be a good neighbor in Deerfield, as they have been privileged to live and work in Deerfield for many years and have served many residents in this community. He commented that they are committed to continuing to be a good neighbor and bring continued value to the Deerfield community. Nicholas Patera, Principal Landscape Architect, Teska Associates, Inc., commented that this development is an exciting opportunity. Mr. Patera was a part of the Gidwitz and the Weinberg Center’s landscape design team 21 years ago and he is excited to be a part of the continued development of the property. He noted that the the landscape design is very complimentary to the entire property. Specifically for this proposed building, the foot of Wilmot looks directly into a courtyard, which creates a lot of interest to the property. The south courtyard (facing Gidwitz) gets great south exposure and offers visual relief for vehicular traffic viewing the property from Lake Cook Road. Mr. Patera commented that he was the landscape architect and site planner for AMLI and they are proud of their work there. He noted that the proposed building exhibits a different character, so they are not simply duplicating the same landscape design, but being true to its unique character. The landscape design is going to create a very interesting streetscape. The landscape architecture for this site is very compatible with its surroundings. There are a lot of existing trees along the south side as well as the newly planted trees along the east (by AMLI) and the existing trees along the west side by the Arbor Lakes site. Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 10 The Arbor Lakes entrance will also be their entrance for residents, guests and visitors to the property where they will be greeted by the pond and a more relaxed, residential environment. The parking lots will all be screened. The courtyards are the featured landscaped areas. The north courtyard is above the roof of the garage and is a one- story building with an indoor pool. There are terraces and walkways for people to enjoy the outdoor area with opportunities to gather together and grill or sit and relax. The south terrace has more amenities, as it is adjacent to more of their social rooms and the dining rooms. There will be tables and chairs outside at the south exposure, with shade elements, so there’s still an opportunity to go outside and enjoy nature on a sunny day. The proposed development walkway system integrates together with the surrounding walkways. The development will have walkways that connect directly to Gidwitz, the Arbor Lake pond and AMLI, so that residents can visit the adjacent properties with a short walk. Mei Zhu, Senior Engineer, Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc., commented that the existing site is already developed and the majority of the site is already impervious, hard surface (about 60%). The frontage road will be maintained, as well as the shared access with the AMLI building. The exit only access at the northeast corner will also remain. At the northeast corner of the site, there is an existing detention basin that was providing detention for the current site and will remain. Ms. Zhu presented an image of the proposed site. A full access on the northwest corner of the site connecting to the frontage road will be added. This full access is positioned further away from the Lake Cook Road and Wilmot Road intersection to provide better stacking of their outbound traffic. On the west side there are two access points to Arbor Lake Drive; the south access is a full access and the north one is an exit only access. There will be a new access on the southeast corner in order to help larger vehicles such as fire engines and delivery trucks move more efficiently through the whole site. The Northbrook Fire Department has approved the site design for fire truck movement through the property. The existing detention basin was a part of AMLI’s approval and included up to 77% of impervious area for the proposed site. The proposed plan includes 73% impervious surface for their site, so their detention requirements are satisfied in the existing detention basin (for storm water detention). Since AMLI was permitted, there is a new regulation for stormwater by MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District), which is a volume control requirement. Volume control requires the first inch of storm water runoff throughout the whole impervious area to be captured and retained. In order to fulfill this requirement, the site will have permeable pavers throughout most of the parking areas; the pavers have open grates so that the water will infiltrate down under the pavers where the volume will be retained, as well as filter the water, which provides a water quality benefit. Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 11 There will be 113 exterior parking spaces, which includes four ADA spaces. Ms. Zhu presented an image of the proposed drainage and utilities for the property; explaining that the proposed storm sewer system will collect the roof drainage, as well as the drainage from the other surface areas. The stormwater will drain north towards the existing detention pond. There is an existing sanitary sewer along the north side of AMLI; it was lined when AMLI was constructed; it heads east and crosses a driveway by AMLI going north and connects to a public sewer on Lake Cook Road. The existing sanitary sewer can support the proposed building. The new buildings connection into the existing public sewer will be at the northeast corner. There are two water service systems in this area: one is an 8” water service on the north side and the other is a 12” water service on the south side. The new building will be connecting to both water services to the north and south. There will be seven fire hydrants surrounding the building. Ms. Zhu noted that the spacing of the fire hydrants along with the fire truck maneuver movement has been approved by the Northbrook Fire Department. She also commented that the engineering design of the site complies with the Village’s design criteria. The Village’s Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary engineering plans and do not have any comments at this time. Daniel Brinkman, senior transportation engineer, Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc., noted that he has conducted traffic studies for a number of parcels along the frontage road and is very well versed in the vehicular limitations and situations that occur in this area. He conducted a complete comprehensive traffic study for the proposed development, which includes morning and evening peak hour counts from the intersection of Birchwood to Wilmot (which includes the majority of the major intersections all along the frontage road of the development). He commented that the active adult concept for this facility is an extension of the continuing care center at CJE. In terms of traffic calculations, the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately half of the peak hour traffic that would be generated from a similar sized traditional residential apartment building with the same number of units (such as AMLI). Although the residents residing in the independent living facility don’t have jobs, they are still active and still get out; however, they tend to go out during lower traffic times (off-peak times). The facility is anticipated to generate about 1/3 of the peak hour traffic of the roughly 85,000 square foot office building that currently exists in that location. The traffic study determined that the proposed development would be a good complimentary use for the center and will have a minimal impact in terms of traffic. There is cross access that was established when the AMLI property was constructed and that cross access will be maintained. The residents will have access to the entire frontage road network, as well as the signal at Birchwood and the signal at Wilmot. The majority of the residents are anticipated to leave the development and exit onto Lake Cook Road from Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 12 one of the signalized intersections. The traffic study focused on those signalized intersections in order to understand the impact that the proposed development will have on traffic, since that is where congestion tends to occur. There will be a private bus that will be available to the senior residents, which will take the residents to the shopping center, doctors’ appointments and the like. The traffic study calculated existing counts of all the surface lots for the Weinberg Community, the AMLI building and Arbor Lakes to determine what areas are primarily utilized for parking. Deerfield’s parking code does not specifically address this type of use. The required amount of parking (per Village Ordinance) for the proposed facility is based on the count for a traditional multi-family use of this size. Based on code, the proposed facility is required to have approximately 400 spaces calculated as 1.5 spaces for studio and one bedroom units and 2 spaces for 2 bedroom or larger units. Mr. Brinkman noted that the reality of how an independent living facility really functions is considerably different than that of a traditional multi-family use. The parking study considered the parking demand for the various user groups, including: the staff (which will be a greater number than most residential apartment buildings), the residents (who tend to have fewer cars and need less parking) and the visitors. There will be approximately 40 employees at the facility during peak operations times. Parking studies conducted for similar independent living facilities determined that the parking demand for residents was approximately 0.59 to 0.67 spaces per unit (for all types of units). The parking study used the higher 0.67 spaces per unit demand for their parking study, and added 10% more parking to account for the parking demand for the visitor component. In conclusion, the parking study determined that the actual estimated parking demand for the facility is approximately 221 spaces. Based on the type of use and the residents demographic, many of the residents are anticipated to have only one car or no car at all. Mr. Brinkman commented that the older demographic that resides in these types of independent living facilities tend to drive very minimally (if at all), and residents tend to get rid of their vehicles after moving into an independent living facility. The residents tend to downsize. There are a lot of single residents and couples who only have one car. The estimated demand of 221 spaces is aggressive in terms of the calculation. The total number of proposed spaces to be provided on site is 228. In addition, there is an allowance during day time hours for 35 spaces along the west side of the AMLI building, which will be signed as shared spaces when this parcel develops. The shared spaces will help free up spaces for overlap functions that they were designed and approved for when AMLI was built. The shared spaces are anticipated to be primarily employee daytime parking for that peak operations hours shift. Mr. Brinkman commented that there is the flexibility within the garage to provide parking for another 62 vehicles Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 13 through a continuous valet system bringing the total up to 290 spaces available for all the users. The calculated demand of 221 spaces is about 80% of the total number of available space (290) that will be provided for the facility allowing for flexibility within that supply. Commissioner Bromberg asked if the valet was anticipated to be used by guests or residents. Mr. Brinkman confirmed that valet operations will be available to both guests and residents and the service will be available 24 hours a day. Commissioner Bromberg asked for confirmation that the peak demand of 221 spaces included the employee parking demand. Mr. Brinkman confirmed. Commissioner Bromberg commented that the 221 space demand calculation is significantly less than one car per apartment; agreeing that the code requirement of 400 spaces is not needed, but concerned that 221 spaces will not provide enough parking. Mr. Brinkman responded that the reality is that less than half of those units are anticipated to have a car. He explained that residents entering this type of facility tend to be in their mid-to-late 70s and many no longer drive. Residents are offered shuttle services to the store, doctor’s office and the like, as well as the options to participate in group meals two to three times a day, so the need for them to drive is greatly minimized. The petitioners are confident that their parking supply meets their needs. Mr. Brinkman commented that there will not be any significant changes made to the roadway. The frontage road intersection was eliminated during AMLI’s construction and the elimination of additional legs to that short intersection and the extension of Wilmot allow vehicles to better queue without blocking traffic. There are cross access easements currently in place and currently in a temporarily state for AMLI to move across the subject site. The geometry of that access will be greatly improved once this development is constructed. Commissioner Shayman asked how AMLI residents would exit the property to go west after the new development is constructed. Commissioner Shayman is concerned that traffic leaving from AMLI will cut through the parking lot. Mr. Brinkman explained that the cross access will still exist and that there is an ingress/egress easement to the benefit of the AMLI parcel. He acknowledged that vehicles cut across the parking lot as it exists today and explained that the office development (to the west) is connected through the frontage road and is the bigger offender of cut-thru traffic on the subject property. Traffic gravitates to the Wilmot signal because it is much more efficient due to its distance from the first internal intersection (causing less internal backup). Vehicles tend to cut through the parking lot during peak traffic in the evening, however the proposed development is not anticipated to add to this traffic. The office uses will have outbound traffic and the proposed use will have primarily inbound traffic in the evening (counter flow traffic). Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 14 Commissioner Shayman asked if more people are currently cutting through the parking lot than taking the east/west frontage road. Mr. Brinkman responded that traffic will always find the path of least resistance. Through his observations, the parking lot traffic cut through does not send an undue burden on the signalized operations at Wilmot extended; cleaning up the geometry of that temporary roadway across the north end of this site and aligning it so that there’s a better turning geometry at the intersection will help reduce the vehicle cut through traffic. Commissioner Bromberg asked if there was any chance that the facility would be opened up to assisted living seniors along with the independent living seniors if the facility had difficulty reaching full occupancy. Mr. Weiner responded that an assisted living facility is designed differently than an independent living facility. He explained that they actually have the largest freestanding assisted living facility in the state of Illinois and do not have a desire to add more assisted living units onto this campus. Their goal is to develop a very distinctive product that is different from assisted living. Individuals looking to join the CJE family of activities will look at their options programmatically and aesthetically, as well as consider the amenities and services offered. Residents of the independent living facility will be able to age in place and will be allowed to bring in their own private care givers so that they can continue to live in that setting if they so choose. Mr. Weiner commented that that CJE is committed to make a differentiation in terms of price point, services and programming to make it advantageous to the person who is aging at the independent living building and who are really in need for assisted living services. Commissioner Bromberg commented that he is a little concerned about parking, and cautioned the petitioners that their residents won’t be happy if there is not enough parking. Overall the parking is not going to greatly affect his opinion on the project. He also asked for verification that the AMLI building is 108,000 square feet and the proposed building is 310,000 square feet numbers were correct (as documented in their written material). He added that there is a significant difference in size, considering both buildings have the same amount of units (240). The petitioners responded that the 108,000 square foot number was an error and that the proposed building would be 310,000 square feet (a revision with accurate information will be submitted to the Commission). Mr. Mann explained that the proposed building had approximately 30,000 square feet of program space whereas a traditional apartment building would only have about 1000 square feet. Chairman Pro Tem Berg reiterated that as far as the parking is concerned the petitioners will be affected if there is not enough parking for their residents. He Workshop Meeting May 11, 2017 Page 15 advised the petitioners to provide additional supporting data for their parking variance request, (such as other parking studies that have been performed for similar facilities), at the Public Hearing to help make their case. The petitioner added that the name of the proposed facility (JUF Senior Residences) is a place holder and ownership wants the ability to change the name when it comes for approval of the signage. Mr. Weiner explained that CJE has a number of facilities throughout the Metropolitan area and none of their buildings have the name CJE. They will share the name of the facility with the Village as soon as they agree upon what that might be. Commissioner Forrest asked where CJE has done similar projects. Mr. Weiner commented that CJE has not done a similar independent living project; however, Banner Development (development firm for this project) has very extensive national experience in senior living development, which brings great value to this facility and program. Mr. Nekritz commented that there is a breath of experience with the individuals on their development team. The Petitioners are going to appear before the Plan Commission for a Public Hearing on Thursday, June 22nd, 2017. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz