South Central Reporter

Village of Vernon Hills Planning and Zoning Commission met Oct. 28.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

I. Call to Order and Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 7:31PM.

Attendance: Chairman Morris, Commissioners Gorog, Ballowe, Hezner, Heidner, Cotton, and Mulcrone. A quorum was established.

Also in Attendance: Michael Atkinson, Director of Community Development

II. Public Hearing

1. Case #20-11 being an application filed by Michaela Walker, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road, Suite 600, Warrenville, IL 60555, representing the owner, Hawthorn, L.P., Hawthorn SP, LLC and Hawthorn CP. LLC, 8750 N Central Expressway, Suite 1740, Dallas, TX, 75231, requesting, pursuant to Ordinances 2013-013 and 2013-014 and Appendix C of the Village of Vernon Hills Code of Ordinances, Article 4, Section 4.12, Articles 13, 18 and 20; and Article 21, Section 21.5 and 21.6, and pursuant to Chapter 19, Signs, Section 19.3 and, the following:

1. Approval to amend Ordinance 2013-014 as amended, authorizing revisions to a Special Use Permit granting a P.U.D. to allow for mixed -use residential development, on the legally described property; and 

2. amendment to Ordinance 2013-014 as amended, granting certain variations related to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Code; and 

3. amendment to Ordinance 2013-013 as amended, granting preliminary and final site plan approval; and

4. amendment to Ordinance 2013-013 as amended, granting preliminary and final landscaping approval, and 

5. amendment of Ordinance 2013-013 as amended, granting preliminary and final architectural approval; and 

6. amendment of Ordinance 2013-014 as amended, granting preliminary and final approval of the plat of subdivision 

The revisions to the Special Use Permit granting a PUD will allow for a mixed-use residential development to be located on the legally described property located in the B-1, General Business District. The proposed location of the development is the former Sears building at Hawthorn Shopping Center and adjoining parking lot. The Property Index Number is 11-33-401-089, 11-33-401-033 and 11-33-401-006.

ALL PERSONS PROVIDING TESTIMONY WERE SWORN IN 

John Michele, Senior VP of Development Centennial Real Estate (owner of Hawthorn Mall) 

Sam Whitebread, VP of Tenant Coordination & Development, Centennial Real Estate 

Mike Rollison, Principal, Design Architect, Torti Gallas + Partners

Justin Pelej, Focus Development 

Vicky Lee, VP of Development, Focus Development 

Vic Howell, Focus Development 

Michi Walker, Project Manager, Civil Engineer, Kimley Horn & Associates 

Rory Fancler Splitt, Planner, Traffic Engineer, Kimley Horn & Associates 

Daniel Grove, Senior Project Manager, Landscape Architect, Kimley Horn & Associates 

Hal Francke, Zoning Attorney, MPS Law

John Michele discussed how Hawthorn 2.0 represents a major milestone development in the history of the Hawthorn Mall as they formally embark on the redevelopment of the campus since it was developed in the early 1970's. The retail industry is undergoing an unparallel paradigm shift in how consumers are shopping and spending. The combination of the economic forces associated with consumer shifts to online shopping with the reality of Covid 19 have created a challenging environment for both mall owners and their tenants. They would share how Hawthorn Mall plans to evolve towards its mixed-use future and retain its position as one of the Village's most important commercial assets and one of Lake County's dominate points of destination. Centennial would pursue a unified and newly refined project while continuing to operate the existing mall. The interior portions of the mall have been renovated and rejuvenated since last year. He introduced their partners, Focus Development and Atlantic Residential Partners, who recently developed Mellody Farms mixed use development.

Vicky Lee, Focus, introduced the consultant team.

Mike Rollison, Tori Gallas + Partners, walked the Commission through the design and master plan for the Sears property and exhibits that give reasons about the look of the framework, ground floor and outward facing retail for the mall. He reviewed the site plan vision and implementation to include: 

•  widen aperture of street and enhance mall visibility;

•  create drop off and thru street to enhance traffic flow;

•  encourage pedestrian activity with wider sidewalks, plazas, and café seating;

•  garage entrances less prominent;

•  residential outdoor amenities remain private, yet spacious;

• units eliminate blank wall

Mr. Rollison reviewed Phases I and II parking comparison. He discussed inspiration architecture and design for the contemporary design. He discussed the material palate, which is essentially a limited palate used across the buildings. Because the building's length is large, the focus was on building increment which is the amount of façade that you see before a façade change to break down the scale of the buildings. He discussed the color palate, consisting of white brick pavilions, red brick primarily on the end caps of the building, and a combination of dark, medium grey, light grey and off-white fibrous cement panels, and wood-like under side of the soffits. He talked about the inspirational public realm images and placemaking. The development overview showed the courtyard, architecture, large park space, residential terraces above the retail level, lobbies, bridge, the mall, amphitheater, entrance to AMC, building back designed as a front for Phase II, and outdoor café space. He continued his presentation with renderings of the Mall Events Plaza, Mall Storefront, Hawthorn Row, the Residential Entry, Retail Promenade and Phase II. He discussed the modification of the addition of more of the lighter color hardi panel made to Phase I per Village feedback,

Michi Walker, Kimley Horn, discussed the concerns regarding the Phase I and II trash pick up. She further addressed the concerns regarding the main entrance off Milwaukee Avenue as it connects to Ring Road. She reviewed the requests for approval.

Commissioner Mulcrone expressed he thought the project was fantastic but would like the bridge to be more integrated.

Commissioner Gorog asked about Phase II courtyard enclosure. Ms. Lee responded the intent would be to have a private gate. Commission Gorog stated this project was amazing and exciting. He wondered if there could be connectivity with Mellody Farm. DCD Atkinson stated the intersections were in the process of being reconfigured.

Further items discussed were: (responses italicized) 

Projected Timing of Phase I and II - Demo and site work beginning next year; Phase I out of the ground starting in spring of 2021 and complete by late summer/early fall of 2022; Phase II would be market driven (design elements of Phase I allows it to stand on its own).

The residential parking spaces would be assigned. First floor parking for retail. All residential tenant parking is in the garages.

The Fire Department is satisfied there is access to all sides of the building.

Retail separation from the residential would be a precast construction for the retail portion and wood for only the residential portion.

Lake County Public Works is satisfied there is adequate capacity for the project.

The mall events plaza is meant to be multi-purpose, flexible area for the community.

The variations justification: (responses italicized) 

Zoning

• Reduction in unit size - market based/desire for less space more amenities, efficient design;

• Reduction in parking ratio -- market based/parking study showed underutilization/1-2 person households/there would be a cross access for parking in mall lots;

• Reduced blended parking ratio for mall - market based/due to underutilization;

• Lot 1 (Phase 1 residential) and 2 (Phase II residential and parking field during Phase I) variations – increase in ratio to create a more urban environment/parking within the garage therefore greater building coverage;

• Setback reductions - placed landscape beds to extent possible to get desired density within the apartment buildings/includes sidewalk connectivity, amenity spaces especially along Main Street to allow for more congregation among residents;

• Relief from building height - 4-stories to create density 

Sign

• Retail tenant signage - comparable to Mellody Farm/corner tenant need for additional signage/variety of signage that would be building and awning/canopy/surface mounted/lead signs/internally illuminated signage for shop fronts/open channel letters/the more variety of signage the more authentic feel/flexibility in allowance of sign criteria

Commission questions: (responses italicized)

• Drop off area and covered canopies for shoppers

• Proposed rentals: smallest unit would be ~$1,700 and largest unit would be ~ $3,200;

• Target demographic – 50/50 split - young professionals/empty nesters; 

• Anticipated 3 children per property;

• Anticipated vacation of existing interior mall tenants to move into new space - they would continue to work on redevelopment of the mall. Phase I & II would activate campus and lead to additional occupancy inside the mall and additional redevelopment around the campus;

• Age restricted units - due to current proposed development of an age restricted property, research shows one age restricted project is what the market would bear in the short term;

• Will there be zones for 24 hour parking at grade associated with the residential units -- Ground level retail parking of the parking structure would not be policed for illegal parking after retail store hours and would be available for 24 hour visitor parking (no ticket or towing) along with shared across parking easements. Residential project would have lighting that would accommodate later night parking;

• Will there be a common maintenance agreement between owners – The maintenance and easement agreements are being negotiated;

• Suggestion of a water feature at AMC walkway at main mall entrance.

• Suggestion to give only preliminary site plan approval on Phase II in case adjustments are needed. Staff's perspective was Phase I and II need to relate to each other and would prefer that the design gets locked in tonight. Commissioner Heidner had concerns about parking and felt waiting on Phase II final approval would help solve that.

• The Commission generally felt this was a great and exciting project and a first of its type in Lake County.

Chairman Morris questioned whether should allowing substantial deviations come before code changes (dwelling unit size, parking etc.) or vice vera. DCD Atkinson stated preliminary thoughts were to engage with a consultant to help review the entire Zoning Code.

Straw poll of Commissioners determined Phase I & II should grant preliminary and final site plan approval.

THE HEARING WAS OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. BEING NO COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.

Chairperson Morris noted the required Public Hearing notices were sent with no responses to the letters received. He also noted the Commission received Section 18,3 standards and descriptions about this Special Use Permit.

There is a standing motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance 2013-014 as amended, authorizing revisions to a Special Use Permit granting a P.U.D. to allow for a mixed – use residential development, subject to the conditions of approval 1-15 referenced herein including the revision to condition 4 with the updated plat of subdivision.

Second by Commissioner Hezner

AYES: 7 - Hezner, Heidner, Mulcrone, Gorog, Ballowe, Morris, Cotton 

NAYS: 0 - None 

ABSENT: 0 - None 

Motion carried.

There is a standing motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance 2013-014 as amended, granting certain variations related to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Code listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and subject to the 15 conditions of approval including revised condition 4 and the revision to the request to allow one wall sign per tenant facade not more than one referenced herein.

Second by Commissioner Gorog

AYES: 7 - Hezner, Heidner, Mulcrone, Gorog, Ballowe, Morris, Cotton 

NAYS: 0 - None 

ABSENT: 0 - None 

Motion carried.

Page 4 of 8 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2020

There is a standing motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance 2013-013, as amended, granting preliminary and final site plan approval, subject to the 15 conditions of approval including condition 4 as revised referenced herein.

Second by Commissioner Cotton

AYES: 6 - Hezner, Mulcrone, Gorog, Ballowe, Morris, Cotton 

NAYS: 1 - Heidner 

ABSENT: 0 - None 

Motion carried

There is a standing motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance 2013-013 as amended, granting preliminary and final landscaping approval, subject to the 15 conditions of approval including condition 4 as revised referenced herein.

Second by Commissioner Cotton

AYES: 7 - Hezner, Heidner, Mulcrone, Gorog, Ballowe, Morris, Cotton 

NAYS: 0 - None 

ABSENT: 0 - None 

Motion carried.

There is a standing motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance 2013-013 as amended, granting preliminary and final architectural approval, subject to the 15 conditions of approval including revised condition 4 referenced herein.

Second by Commissioner Cotton

Commissioner Mulcrone restated he would like to see the bridge more articulated in how it is connected to the building. He asked they work with staff to make it special.

AYES: 7 - Hezner, Heidner, Mulcrone, Gorog, Ballowe, Morris, Cotton 

NAYS: 0 - None 

ABSENT: 0 - None 

Motion carried

There is a standing motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance 2013-014 as amended, granting preliminary and final approval of the plat of subdivision, subject to the 15 conditions of approval including condition 4 as revised referenced herein.

Second by Commissioner Cotton

AYES: 6 - Hezner, Mulcrone, Gorog, Ballowe, Morris, Cotton 

NAYS: 1 - Heidner 

ABSENT: 0 - None 

Motion carried.

Conditions of Approval

1. General compliance with the civil engineering plans, consisting of 20 pages, prepared by Kinley Horn, dated October 9, 2020; and

2. General Compliance with the Landscape Plan, consisting of 19 pages, prepared by Kimley Horn, dated October 9, 2020; and

3. General compliance with the lighting and photometric plan consisting of 6 pages, prepared by Kimley Horn, dated October 9, 2020; and

4. General compliance with the plat of subdivision, consisting of 3-pages, prepared by Compass Surveying, LTD, dated October 8, 2020 6 pages, prepared by Compass Surveying, Ltd, dated October 27, 2020; and

5. General compliance with the architectural elevations and color renderings of the Phase I and Phase II mixed-use buildings, consisting of 57 pages, prepared by Torti-Gallas + Partners, dated October 19, 2020; and

6. General compliance with the architectural elevations and color renderings of the Hawthorn Mall east façade titled, “City Submittal,” consisting of 16 pages, prepared by CallisonRTKL, dated September 10, 2020; and

7. General compliance with the Hawthorn Mall plaza and street scape plan, consisting of 15 pages, prepared by Kimley Horn, dated October 14, 2020; and

8. General compliance with the signage criteria plan, consisting of 35 pages, prepared by Torti Gallas+ Partners, dated September 9, 2020: and

9. General compliance with the tenant storefront design criteria plan, consisting of 16 pages, prepared by Torti-Gallas+ Partners, dated September 9, 2020; and

10. Final engineering is subject to review and approval by the Village Engineer prior to issuance of building permit; and

11. Final landscaping is subject to review and approval by the Village Landscape Technician prior to issuance of building permit; and

12. Building and site lighting is subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permit; and

13. The final design of the intersection at Ring Road and Main Street is subject to review and approval by the Village Engineer prior to issuance of building permit; and

14. The existing parking field south of Phase IB shall be temporarily painted and repaired until such time that Phase II construction begins. As condition of approval, the petitioner agrees to install permanent curbed islands, fully landscaped in accordance with Village requirements if Phase II does not begin construction within three years from issue date of the certificate of occupancy for Phase I. The petitioner further agrees to resurface and/repair the pavement as needed. As security, the petitioner agrees to execute a performance bond in the amount not to exceed 100% of the engineer's probable cost to perform the site and landscape work. Page 6 of 8 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2020

15. Compliance with all ordinances and standards of the Village.

Exhibit A 

Zoning and Sign Code Variations 

Pursuant to the Entitlement Package dated 10/28/2020

Zoning Code: 

1. Section 4.10.1: Allowing a 1-bedroom dwelling unit to be 739 square feet in lieu of the minimum size of 1,200 square feet, allowing a 2-bedroom dwelling unit to be 1,047 square feet in lieu of the minimum size of 1,400 square feet and allowing a 3-bedroom dwelling unit to be 1,311 square feet in lieu of the minimum size of 1,600; and

2. Section 19.7: Allowing the Phase I apartment building having 470 (1.5 ratio) parking spaces in lieu of of 720 (2.3 ratio) spaces, and to allow the Phase II apartment building having 374 (1.5 ratio) parking spaces in lieu of the minimum required number of 573 (2.3 ratio) spaces; and

3. Section 19.7 & Ordinance 2013-014: Allowing the Phase I blended parking ratio being 4.41/1000 sq. ft. for the overall mall, excluding the apartment buildings and out lots in lieu of the minimum required parking ratio of 5.0/1000 sq. ft. and allowing the Phase II blended parking ratio 4.16/1000 sq. ft. for the overall mall, excluding the apartment buildings and out lots in lieu of the minimum required ratio of 5.0/1000 sq. ft. The aforementioned approves a variation from 19.7 of the Zoning Code and approves an amendment to Ordinance 2013-013; and

4. Section 13.4.3: Allowing the ratio of building coverage being 52% of lot 1; and 51% on lot 2 in lieu of the maximum permitted building coverage ratio of 25%; and

5. Section 13.6.1: Allowing a front yard setback of 5.0' on lot 1; and 50.0' on lot 2 in lieu of the minimum required setback of 60.0'; and

6. Section 13.6.2: Allowing a side yard setback of 30.0' (North) - 0.0' (South) for lot 1; and 0.0' (North) for lot 2 in lieu of the minimum required setback of 35.0'; and

7. Section 13.6.1.3: Allowing a rear setback of 25.0' on lot 1 and 35' on lot 2 in lieu of the minimum required setback of 40.0'; and

8. Section 13.5.1: Allowing a building height to be 4-stories, 45' on lot 1 and 4-stories, 47' on lot 2 in lieu of the maximum permitted height of 2-stories, 35'.

Sign Code: 

1. Section 19-3(c)(6)a: Allowing perpendicular blade signs not exceeding 5 square feet that does count toward the total sign area for individual tenant facades; and

2. Section 19-3(c)(6)a: Allowing more than one wall sign per tenant façade; and

3. Section 19-3(c)(6): Allowing signage located on awnings; and

4. Section 19-4: Allowing temporary "Sandwich Board" or "A-Frame" signs not exceeding 10 square feet per face, which are otherwise not permitted; and

5. Section 19-3(c)(6)a: Allowing the maximum permitted size of tenant wall signs to be 2 square feet/linear foot of tenant frontage rather than the maximum permitted size of 1 square foot/linear foot of tenant frontage; and

6. Section 19-3(c)(6)b: Allowing the maximum permitted size of tenant wall signs located on the secondary façade to be 2 square feet/linear foot of tenant frontage rather than the maximum permitted size of 50% of the allowable size on the primary façade; and

7, Section 19-8(): Allowing open letter channel letter signs, which are otherwise not permitted; and

8. Section 19-3(a)(2): Allowing apartment residential development signs (3 total) to be 50 square feet rather than the maximum permitted size of 12 square feet; and

9. Section 19-4(4): Allowing the display of banners signs for 60 days; and

10. Section 19-8(h): Allow exposed neon signs.

III. Development Review

DCD Atkinson stated the last item this year on November 11 was a request for a zoning code amendment to put zoning in place for a proposed church at 870 West End Court. It received a positive review at the Board's concept presentation.

IV. Adjournment

With no further items on the agenda, Chairman Morris motioned to adjourn the meeting, second by Commissioner Cotton. All in favor vote, the motion was unanimously approved.

The meeting adjourned at 9:07PM https://www.vernonhills.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_10282020-748