Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Uh, good evening everybody. Welcome. Thanks for coming out tonight. Um, I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the city of the Highland Public Plan and Design Commission for January 6th, 2026. Um, first order of business, if you could call the role. Mr. Mr. Chairman, director Fontine. Commissioner Inch here. Commissioner Fentner. Commissioner Henry here. Commissioner Mantis here. Commissioner Moore. Vice Chair Nanis

here and Chair Kersh present. We have a quorum. Uh okay. Uh we have a short agenda tonight. One big u just to recognize I'm sorry I sorry want to recognize corporation council Martinez and council member Yumi Ross. Council Leah. Thank you Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. That's all right. I I jumped the gun. Um, so, uh, we just we have one main item on the agenda tonight, resubdivision. Uh, but first, let's get to the minutes from the December 16th meeting. I have a motion to accept those minutes.

Motion to approve. Seconded. Any discussion, additions, corrections? If not, then all those in favor?

I I Any opposed? and extensions. Okay, that passes. So, we'll move on to our main piece of business tonight. It is a public hearing PUD 202500 081 for a special use permit in the nature of a planned development with modifications from city code and a plat subdivision with variances from city code at 147 central avenue. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plann and Design Commission. My name is Steve Kirch. A quorum of the Plan and Design Commission being present, the members of the Plan and Design Commission will now introduce themselves for the record. Starting on my far right,

Kristen Enchek,

Danny Mantis, Josh Nannis, Ken Henry. The plan and design commission is charged with hearing applications for resonings, plan developments, and subdivisions under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations of the city of Highland Park. In all matters, we recommend to the city council based upon the testimony presented to us in the hearing. We are required to decide cases within 45 days after receipt of the transcript. All testimony is under oath. Both applicants and others who wish to speak on a particular case should present specific evidence as to why a proposal meets or fails to meet the standards for the relief requested for clarity of our record. Only one person at a time will speak and all questions will be directed through the chair. We ask that you make every effort to not be repetitive in your testimony. Finally, we will make every effort to adhere to the schedule prepared for tonight's hearing. If additional time is needed on a matter, it will be continued until the next available agenda. With that, I open the floor to the staff of the Plan and Design Commission to read into the record proof of publication and ownership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, proof of publication and ownership are available for viewing at the offices of Community Development, 1150 Half Day Road in Highland Park. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um, is it senior planner Hoffman? Is that correct? Or just planner?

Just planner two. Planner two. Hoffman. Are you presenting tonight? I am. Promotions. Uh, I I wonder when I should make my statement. That would make sense. I believe right now. Right. Right now. Um I'm sorry I needed to ask I'm sorry. Do you wish to make a statement council? [laughter]

Chair K. Thank you. Uh I am here obviously in my position as city council. uh uh not personally. Um uh but I w I wish to disclose um and be completely transparent here that I live across uh the street from this project and I know all the parties um on on I call it both sides. I mean the the owners I obviously know neighbors and I know all the parties. Uh I spoke with corporation council at length uh this uh afternoon and I believe I can be uh impartial and fair in this matter but I wished to disclose that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Uh so yes, I am Patrick Hoffman, planner two with the city of Highland Park and I will be discussing the plan development and plat of resubd 147 central avenue. Uh [laughter] the recommendation is for staff or staff recommends the commission consider the request for a first final plan development and a plat of resubdvision with variations and make a recommendation to city council. Uh if appropriate, the commission can direct findings of fact uh recommending approval, direct denial, or continue to a future date. Uh project summary, the subject property is 147 Central Avenue. Petitioner was Greg Moyer, property owner at Tide Associates LLC, and Gail Roth as trustee. The existing property is currently one buildable lot located within the R4 zoning district and the lakefront density and character overlay zone LFOZ for short. Uh the proposal is to resubdivide the lot to create two

separate and independent legal lots of record. Here's an area of the property and in yellow this dotted line here is a approximate location of where the uh new lot lines will be. This would be a proposed lot two and this would be proposed lot one with the existing property which is a locally landmarked property. Uh this is a plat of subdivision but because of the size of the property uh it triggered the PUD requirement. Uh since this property is larger than 3 acres in size it requires a full PUD review. Uh there is no structure development for this proposal. It is just the plat of subdivision. There's no demolition and review. Um it's just to review the flat of subdivision. Uh commission should if should they consider if approved whether the future construction if by right zoning compliant can proceed with a permit. Um so just if the on lot 2 if that new single family home were to be constructed uh it's up for your consideration whether that just go for a permit if it is by right if they do require variations they would have to come in for an amendment to the PUD. Uh and as I stated previously, this property is locally landmarked and since this is in for a PUD review, there is a historic review component of this property. Uh it hasn't gone before HBC yet. That is going uh January 8th, which is in 2 days. Um once that has been reviewed, uh I will provide comments from staff and from the commission uh for a future PDC meeting.

Yeah. Can I make one comment on that, Patrick? Yeah. So just to be clear, so that that's a finding that the commission would have to make. You know how you know there's findings of fact uh that's uh subc within the listed findings of fact. And so yeah, we just put that up there to acknowledge that the property is locally landmarked and then that this is going to the historic preservation commission on January 8th and possibly subsequent meeting thereafter. And so that uh it would be our goal to bring those comments and feedback back to the commission so the commission can be informed by that before making a finding on on this.

So similar to inclusionary housing where we get a housing commission recommendation back before you make your recommendation, Mr. Chair, the same thing would happen, but it's the historic preservation commission. And we also Oh, go ahead. Just want to recognize that um Commissioner Moore is present for the record.

Right. Well, and we also Yeah, we just also bring this up because again we acknowledge the the property uh has a local landmark designation. And so what is the plan and design commission scope related to that? Well, your scope is this uh finding right there from section 150.520 subc. Thanks. That's all I had to say. Uh since this is a PUD, uh I just wanted to talk about the public benefit portion of this. They're not asking for any section 150 zoning code variations. So, they are not required to provide any public benefit for this PUB. Uh, however, the applicant has stated that they will be making a $2,500 donation to the city for uh historic preservation purposes. [snorts] So, the proposal, this blue isn't showing up as well as I thought it was going to, um, is here are the two lots. Uh lot one here uh highlighted in blue is this L shape with the existing locally landmark property and lot two here will be the new property um off to the east. Uh currently it is one lot and they are proposing two lots. Uh both lots are compliant with the R4 zoning district. That's one of our single family zoning districts and with the LFO. [snorts] an important component of the LFO. Um, R4 zoning district requires 20,000 square ft minimum area for each lot. While within the LFO, you need double that. So, you need 40,000 square ft. These lots are close to 90,000 square ft. So, they're well above those minimums, but that's kind of one of the big components of the LFO. Uh, so these are just the design standards for section 151. uh plat subdivision. They're asking for three variations. Uh I did talk to Cal

Bernstein, the uh legal representation on this case earlier today and the creation of a non-conformity. There is it's hard to see on here, but there is a kind of a path that crosses over where the lot lines will be. Uh they have said that they will be removing that so that nonconformity will no longer be uh before you. But um it is currently uh shown here. So that's just something that we'll clean up for a future meeting. So the two variations that um we're really going to be focusing on are the lot shape and kind of the frontage on two streets. So first uh lot shape. There's the 151 standard is that uh you can only create lots with four sides. As you can see uh because of one just the existing conditions and two lot one being this L-shape uh both lots have more than four straight sides um partially just with the curve of uh park a here and also it being surrounded by the steep slope zone and the second is relations to street. So the through lots are prohibited prohibited uh for the subdivision code. This is an existing condition. They does if this property does have frontage along park and central a um lot one will be the only through lot in this subdivision. Lot two will be an interior lot but that is a variation to the subdivision code. And then looking at the tree survey. So the existing driveway how it is is you enter here on central a and then it loops towards the uh existing home. The proposal is to keep that existing driveway but that will now focus on lot two and then to create a new driveway uh for lot one to go to the existing house.

Uh this proposal will remove one street tree from central a as proposed uh by the applicant. Um the forestry department did [clears throat] uh post some comments. Uh we're working with the applicant on obtaining the kind of highlighting of which trees would be removed uh if lot two were to be de or uh developed and forestry also had comments on while the applicant has proposed one tree removal along central a trees adjacent to the driveway um are rather close and could be within the critical root structure of those trees. So, while they're only removing one tree, it is possible to lose up to three uh depending on the construction of that driveway and how much damage is sustained to the root structure of the neighboring trees. Uh engineering didn't really have comments on the subdivision. Their comments more focused on if lot 2 were to be developed um focusing on the steep slope zone and excavation of the site and historic preservation. again um will be reviewed on January 8th. So we'll be getting more comments on that aspect as well. Uh agency comments uh Lake County also focused on wetlands uh within the steep slope zone. Those wetlands were located at the bottom of the ravines. Uh again, I'm working with the applicant on uh hammering out all of those comments and you can see their full comments in the staff report, but it's mostly focused on identifying the wetlands and um permitting and those on those issues. Uh utilities didn't have any comments for this uh subdivision and the park district of Highland Park, which is a direct neighbor, also did not have any comments on this proposed subdivision. We received two public comments today.

Uh I have printed them out and provided them to all the board members. Additionally, I have copies here if anyone uh would like to see those comments as well. I'll be posting those comments in the next PDC packet uh for future meetings to look at as well. So just kind of to reiterate, uh staff recommends commission consider the request for a final plan development and plat of resubdision with variations and make a recommendation to city council if appropriate. Uh commission can direct direct staff to draft findings of fact for approval, denial or continue. Uh how the how the setup for the historic preservation is currently set up. Uh we're recommending continuing this to February 17th PDC meeting uh for the next future available date. Uh that's all I have. If you have any questions, I'd be go

uh questions from the commissioner. [snorts] All right, Mr. Chair. Yes. Just before we hear from the applicant, can I say something? for me.

So, couple things. So, that stretch of Central Avenue has quite an interesting and well done street tree line. Um, it isn't typical in my opinion, respectfully, in that it it's quite nice and they're quite close together. And so while I know that there's one street tree that would have to be removed to create that second driveway, I do think that that understanding more about the budding trees uh there would be important because it may turn into three as was presented here this evening. There is a way to avoid affecting that right away. Um and and this is a PUD as you know. Um, the commission could consider a common driveway setup where there's the existing drive that's there now that actually does serve what would be these two new lots and so one could have a just access easement requirement and you know cross easements and all that and spare the additional driveway apron and entrance and loss of at least one uh street tree and possibly two others. So, just wanted to be able to say that and I thank you for your indulgence. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, can we hear from the petitioner?

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kale Bernstein. I'm the attorney for the applicant, and I'm prepared to be sworn in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Um and let me begin by wishing you all a happy new year. And um so let me just dive into the the issue that um [clears throat] that director Fontaine just brought up, and that's with regard to the street tree that we're talking about. Um the tree that that's contemplating being removed is actually brand new. It's a 2-in um it's a 2-in tree that was just planted. And so what the plan is as we create the second driveway is to move that that that 2-in tree to another location. We believe that um that there's a sufficient width there that's that those other two trees will survive. Uh we will prepare a tree preservation plan to to promote the survival of those trees. But then again, if you drove by the property, you would notice that this the tree that's talking about being removed is something really different than the rest of the tree line. It's something that was just recently planted that could be easily moved. And so, um, we believe that the having two driveways, um, accomplishes much with safety. It, um, without having a shared driveway agreement, it it just basically makes this much more simple for the two owners of those properties to coexist. Um, the history, unfortunately, the um, the owner representative cannot be here today. He's traveling and his flight's delayed. uh but he has assured me he'll be at the next meeting February 17th. Uh the property in question has been marketed for an extensive period of time. It has a very large tax bill of almost $80,000. Um the property has been on the market for for for an extended period of time. And in order to to make it attainable for someone to purchase the historical landmarked home, we're seeking to create

two lots there, which would then make the um the landmark home easier to maintain and and to provide for to be purchased at a tainable house without a burden of having to maintain over 4 acres of property. Um it's a very large lot as I mentioned and we're still seeking to subdivide it into two lots. Um, as as planner Hoffman mentioned, this property is in the R4 zoning district, which allows for a minimum lot area of 20,000 square ft. It is also in the lakefront density, character, and overlay zone, and due to its proximity to the lake, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square ft. Um, these lots are, you know, double the size as proposed of what's the minimum required in this zoning district. The lakefront density and character overlay zone was created over 20 years ago. And reading directly from the ordinance, the purpose was to to preserve the density and character of lots in the R4 low to moderate density residential district located along the lake front lakefront. In addition to protecting the character and density of the area, the lakefront overlay zone is intended to protect protect and preserve the ravines, lake bluffs, and beaches as well as Lake Michigan itself. Um the lakefront overlay zone was um created um and is consistent with the lakefront district strategic plan and element of the master plan which was adopted by the city council some 20 years ago after numerous planning meetings and in which property owners and other city residents participated. Section 150.73.1D outlines the bulk regulations. There are special bulk regulations in the

lakefront overlay zone. I mentioned one of them earlier which is the minimum lot size of 40,000 square ft. As proposed each of these lots are over almost 90,000 ft double what the minimum required in the zoning district. The also the the lakefront overlay zone has a more ownorous average width of 100 feet than it's in that's in the that's already in the R4 zoning district. And both of these lots vastly exceed that that 100 foot width. One lot's 162 ft and another one's 180 ft. Again, more than 160% more than the minimum. So based upon meeting or actually in this situation exceeding the minimum requirements, the proposed lots are consistent with the goals and the purpose of the lakefront overlay zone. And um this is the type of development that was contemplated when the council decided 20 years ago to create this zone is to make sure that there's oversized lots in this R4 zoning district. Um, as planner Hoffer mentioned, there's there's two variances from the subdivision code that we're seeking tonight. Um, one is the third lot. Um, again, that's the existing condition. We're not asking something that's doesn't already exist and that only pertains to one lot and the other is the the fact that these lots will not have four sides. Um, actually, one of the lots will have four sides, but it's not completely right angles. It's not a rectangle. And the other one will have six. And um the um the I will note that the the topography of the lots of the property is is dictating that that that one lot has more than six sides. So as for the PUB um no modifications are being sought. We're just here as a technicality because this lot is oversized over 3 acres. Um, I will note that the proposed development preserves and intends to preserve a locally designated landmark and thus

incorporates to the greatest extent practical the property's historic resources. Um, with regard to the staff comment is the one that was director Fontaine mentioned with regarding one driveway. We believe that two separate driveways improves safety. Uh it it pro proves the neighbor character, avoids shared access maintenance conflicts and aligns with standards of a single family home with an island park uh would would want. Uh we have agreed to remove the existing sidewalk and utilities uh will be buried for the new lot, but the existing lot utilities will remain as as they exist. Um two items of public comment were received today. Um, one question re regarding the historical preservation concern that will be addressed Thursday night when we appear in front of the HPC. Uh, tree loss was the other aspect. Um, there are no heritage trees intended to be uh removed uh or lost as a result of this proposed development. And um as a matter of right, the current owner can remove any of the trees uh except for the heritage trees on the property. and the trees that are that that one tree that we're talking about removing along the parkway obviously at 2 in is not considered a protected or key tree in Highland Park. Another concern was raised about ravine stability. Um there there's no variations from the steep slope or being requested here. So the ravine will remain uh protected. Uh the being adjacent to a park there is a large ravine between this property and the park. So that creates a significant buffer. Uh there was a concern about inadequate public notice. Uh proof of compliance of the statutory requirements is provided to the city staff and the impact on the neighborhood character and I would say that this development actually preserves it is it's consistent with the master plan and consistent with the lakefront district strategic plan

because this exceeds what the minimum bulk requirements that the lakefront overlay zone requires. um we are including a public benefit although it's not required because we are seek doing this to try to seek to promote um historic historic preservation with regard to keeping the landmark home and also making a donation to the historic preservation fund. So in some um we believe that the newly subdivided lots can well with the neighborhood. the existing landmark home will remain and remain untouched and we believe by making it easier to be preserved uh for generations to come. The newly created lots will comply with the minimum lot size actually vastly exceed the minimum lot size depth area of the zoning district. And we believe the variation um uh the variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of the subdivision code and but for those two small variations that we're seeking uh we this could this could be except for the PD because of the large size this could be done as a matter of right. So we thank you for the consideration. Um we're available actually I'm actually I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. questions from the commission for the petitioner.

Thank you. Question. Yeah. Okay. We do.

So, in regards to the to the lot the being like an L shape and the other one being more regular shape, did you did the applicant consider having them just split down the middle, not having that odd L shape? Yeah. Yeah. We we we talked about that, but because of the ravine and that's all ravine property, um we decided there's also if you look along Park Avenue, there is actually a little I want to call it a coach house or something on the other side of the ravine and that's why we decided to do it. Actually, to be completely frank, we we actually explored doing three lots because it's lots big enough to do it. After consulting with staff, we thought that this was probably the best way to to do it. on this we did consider but because of that ravine and just because there's a there is some stream down there we thought it'd be best to keep that within one lot.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Mantis. Uh I actually have the same thought so I appreciate the question. What was the Since you looked at it, what was the square footage of the lot if you actually just drew that straight line? Well, the the the property is about if you [laughter] say it's roughly aboutund [snorts] it's about 185,000 square ft. So, it's roughly um I I I I don't have I I can't I mean I could come back and give you that the number.

Yeah, I was curious cuz it seems like if you would have drawn a straight line like it seems like by doing the Lshape, you're picking up a lot of like lot square footage. Um, I could probably say I could probably say with confidence that that there' be over the 40,000 that's that's a minimum required in the zoning district just because it has to go all the way through because you have that accessory structure along Park Avenue. So So I would so I would say I think it was you know it was just evening out that the lot size was also making it both very similar. Well, you couldn't build anything up on that upper portion cuz that's all steep slope. So yeah, sure. Um, I have a question for staff. Oh. Oh, yes, please.

So, when I was reading the the letters from the concerned neighbors, um, one neighbor seems concerned that many houses or many lots on the block will do this. Um, but are there any other bigger properties on this street that could afford to do this in the sense is that are they larger than 80,000 square ft

I'm pulling up the map. Okay. I mean, if I'm just eyeball, I mean, the largest property on this block is the park district property, obviously on the east. And then, you know, beyond that, obviously, I have to state the obvious caveat that these these are hypotheticals, but I'm just going to pull it up so you can at least have a gander at the sizes of the properties here. I hope that's visible.

Yeah. So the immediate property to the west is well actually they're yeah they're not big enough to subdivide actually because you got this is in the lakefront character and density overlay zone and so you have to be at least 40,000 square ft which means you need at least double that to subdivide. This property is only 45,000 so they are not that. So no these ones along the west no they're not going to be large enough to meet the LFO. Okay. [snorts] And really neither are the ones on the other side of the street. Oh, like to the south? Yeah.

I mean, just eyeballing it. I mean, what is this the biggest one? I mean, this one's No, I mean that's No, no, these are not big enough to meet the LFO. I don't know if the ones on the lake are or not. Um, but those are on the lake. Those are larger. Well, I mean, again, we're speaking hypothetically. This one's over 80,000 square ft. This one's just basically at 80,000 square ft. Of course, there's other considerations. I you also have to meet the 100 ft the 100 ft um width requirement as well. So, I also want to point that out on those large lanky lots.

Okay. Thanks. Um, one comment I had on uh the letter from Wendy Bintock Rush was in the first paragraph of impact on neighborhood character. It says, "Introducing two houses on a single lot would significantly alter the visual landscape and could lead to further requests for similar developments, ultimately changing the neighborhood's character. But it's not going to be a single lot. It's going to be two lots." Well, that's the request, right? It's currently a single zoning lot and the applicant wants to make it into two zoning lots. One to keep the original structures and one for new construction. I understand that. I just wanted to clarify. Okay.

The comment. Uh yeah. Oh, sorry. [laughter] Sorry. I'm used to that director. Um [laughter] Chairman Kosh. Okay. Um, Carl, can can you click on the the uh property in question, 147 central, just to give everyone a that just gives you a good visual relative to the other lots in the area of just the difference in size. This one is much larger. It's 191,000 ft. Much larger than the rest. Just wanted to have that visual there so that folks could understand substantially larger than the other. The only property that's larger, like I said, is the park district property. Yes, Commissioner Angel.

Um I have a question just about the um the building massing that could happen on that um eastern lot if development were to move forward for a single family home there. Like what would the zoning regulations allow to go up on that lot? So if I may respond. Yes, please. There uh was an exhibit in the packet. I will just scroll to that where the applicant laid out a buildable area which at least and Patrick if I'm wrong step up this at least meets or exceeds

the city requirements right it may even possibly exceed uh cuz they're showing 25 ft um from the steep slope zone uh this is a ravine you only need 10 feet so that is a little bit more restrictive and uh the change. Yeah, that work. So, there there's a couple inconsistencies from this exhibit from the platus subdivision. I'm working with the applicant to get those clarified, but as it's currently shown, it's still a little bit more restrictive than what is required for the R4 zoning district and the steep slope zone.

So, yeah, I would just add to that. So, uh, if if this is ultimately recommended for approval and if it is approved, staff would recommend uh and so the applicant the applicant should also be aware the staff will recommend that whatever final building envelope they propose be attached to the ordinance that there be a condition of approval that any building has to occur within that envelope. And so the applicant can get up and speak if the applicant wants or the chair wants. Uh because because evidently this exhibit may be slightly tweaked. Uh but that's that's the exhibit that's before you today, but this will have to come back to at least one more meeting. And so that large green area is approximately the billable area they're proposing. And so uh they would have to build the home and any other uh structures uh within there other than you know like you know driveway, sidewalk, etc. But the home and accessory buildings will have to go within that area. And that's bounded, you know, by the steep slope zone on the north and the east and then a um a considerable front setback of 123 ft if I'm reading that right. Hopefully that answers the question. Uh I don't have the F memorized. Uh but that's something that I can try and pull up really quick for you. Is that we can come back with that calculation if we we don't have it already um with the F um for next next time so that you can understand the envelope we're talking

that that the historic house is over 4,000 square ft or I mean more if they would build out that whole buildable area the there you go. So the 50,000 square foot house the max F for this property is about 15,000 square ft. Yeah. Yeah, as proposed, the maximum floor area for the new lot would be over just over 15,000 square feet, which is a bit it's a large property. It's a large building. Can we um uh constrain the new house to have that 125 ft um what was that? Um distance from the from the lot line to the house.

Set back. So like setback. Sorry. Can it so the front yard you're meaning? Yes. So can we stipulate that any new house built on it can't be built any closer to the street than the house that's already there?

Uh right. And I think that's what the applicant is is proposing by their uh their buildable plan because it actually states it's aligned with the existing historic home which is 123.34 ft. But to answer your question though, yes, the commission can certainly consider that type of condition. I just remember when I wanted to add on to my house, we had to run around the neighborhood and with a [laughter] tape measure and measure to the like front door to the sidewalk for all the houses and not exceed the average. Um, so the established building setback is what I believe you're referring to. Yes. Um, this exceeds that um requirement. [clears throat]

Does staff comment about the buildable area being made part of any final documents or decision? That would take care of that. Right. [clears throat] Thank you.

Uh, other questions? I I do have one for the petitioner. if I I it's a little cart before the horse because the Historic Preservation Commission obviously needs to weigh in on this, but I just wonder what uh one of the public comments talked about the historical significance including the open space of of the landscaping that the whole site would be landmark because it was that way to start with. I mean, what's your argument that obviously I don't want against the weeds tonight, but but but if you looked at the nomination of original nomination for 1985, it does not include the area to the east that where this lot 2 is going to be located. However, in a 1988 survey, um, it does sh it does mention the lot area, but we're going to maintain that it's the nomination and what was included in the nomination and what the city council actually voted on was the historic attributes of this of this property are all located on the western portion of the property. So, we're going to preserve all of that. Um, so we're going to focus on the nomination and not on the survey that was done that was not actually approved by historical preservation commission.

Thank you. Yes, director funding. So this this matter will be considered by HBC and they will make a recommendation. That report will come back to you along with the information that they've gotten. Also that information by the way is posted. There's a staff report out there. We don't have the staff member here this evening for you to deliver a presentation on that. But know that that will be considered by HBC and that will then travel back to you in its entirety. And I'm sure they will do wonderful work when they do get briefed. And again, they're just a recommending I obviously don't have detailed power, but but we're going to we're going to present our case through Thursday night. Thank you. Any other questions from the commissioner?

Do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on this issue? I I have a couple of questions. We could have councilwoman Ross comment. A couple of questions, but I don't know if I would it be more appropriate to wait after public comment or No, go ahead. I didn't see anybody rushing to

um and I want to be clear and corporation council Steve Lrod can confirm that I uh uh ran these two questions by him to ask if if it was appropriate and he said it was. Um so uh it's for the applicant. Um this was uh this property um this property was listed for 5.5 million uh but didn't sell and um as is that correct? I want to ask that. And did you get any offers and and what were they? Again I ran all of this by Steve Hillro. um had a long conversation uh and with him and in addition to that question I have want to ask uh why do you think why does the applicant think it will be more sellable uh uh at a price that obviously that you're the applicant's happy with as a divided lot and and I asked that because would we might we be seeing you again in a couple of years um asking to have that historic landmarking off of the house because you you weren't able to sell they they weren't able to sell that. Um so those are my three questions.

Okay. Um I don't know if you were able to keep track of that. I and I'll try to list one of them at a time each at a time. Uh with regard to the the the offer price and what offers have been received, I don't have that information so I can't respond to that. Um the second question was uh why does the applicant think it would be more sellable as a divided lot? Okay. Well, right now with the historic

Yeah. So with with regard to why we think it's more attainable uh with having a uh having it subdivided currently um the you first of all be able to get a less of purchase price but also the real estate taxes will be significantly less on the historical home because right now they're they're pushing $80,000 and there's also been um if you looked at the assessed valuation for 2025 it's increased about 8%. So, we're they're anticipating real estate taxes pushing up to $90,000. Logic has that if if you if the property was say cut in half that the real estate taxes will be reduced, which would make the carrying of the property much easier, which allow someone to come in and and embrace the home to try to get free of additional funds to to help preserve and and and and improve the existing uh landmark home. So, it makes it easier. It makes it easier to market it because it has lower real estate taxes.

Um I I one other followup question. Um the the uh there's a I'm pretty sure there's a property across the street that's an acre not not uh I'm not connected and not my property. Uh that is one acre that has about $70,000 in in taxes uh attached to that one acre. And um and then uh the and and then of course the existing house is going to I assume need extensive renovation. So

well there's a lot goes into a real estate tax bill. There's two aspects. It's the land and also the structure. I don't know nothing about the house street what the condition of the structure is and what the how much the improvements are. I can't I can't speculate on why that's a certain amount and this is a certain amount because look at you know no two houses are the same and and that's just the way the assessment

I'm just saying it's just the pure acreage it doesn't you know we have to look at the land how the land is being assessed um if you get to your last question with regard to um what's what stops us from coming back in the future to seek the removal of the landmark designation on the existing landmarked home and staff can correct me if I'm wrong but It's my understanding that you can only remove the landmark designation if the reason for the landmark does not exist anymore. So, for example, if this house burned down, the reason for the landmarking doesn't exist. So, therefore, the landmarking can be removed. The reason why we're seeking to remove the landmark designation from lot 2 is because all of the landmark designation, all the structures, everything that's landmarked is on the west lot. So if the lot is approved, if lot two is approved, none of the attributes of the landmarking exist on lot two, which then would allow the historical preservation commission to remove the landmark designation as to lot two. We cannot no future owner can go in front of the historical preservation commission and correct me if I'm wrong. If if they cannot go in front of the historical preservation commission unless again as I as I said earlier, the reason for the landmarking uh continues to exist. Thank you. Is that correct?

I can decision to be made. It doesn't mean that Yeah. The process is such that the um the request to remove the landmark designation would go before the historic preservation commission for their recommendation. Um and then it would go before the city council. One of the criteria for the city council to consider in order to remove that landmark designation is whether or not um uh the conditions upon which the historic designation were were granted are no longer present. Yes. Thank you. He said it much better than I could. [laughter]

Thank you. Okay. Uh once again, any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? If not, um I guess the what's the commission's pleasure? We have definitely are going to uh continue this to the 17th. Do you wish to direct findings of fact or not thoughts? Sir in raising my hand. So

if you'd like to speak, I need you to come up to the podium and be sworn in. well versed in uh in etiquette here. Uh so uh do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. And you have uh 3 minutes limit here. That's kind of a citywide uh way to keep things. Yes. Um we also need your name and spell your last name, please.

Okay. Uh Charles Gonzalez, spelled last name G O N Z A L E Z. We are one of the um uh parties that filed uh uh uh a public uh uh complaint, if you will. Uh we are uh we live live across the street from uh 147 central and um uh uh the uh reasons for our um our our concerns, I think, were laid out uh uh uh quite uh quite well in in the in the notice. Uh I had a question on the definition of heritage as it relates to uh tree lines. Um uh that was one of the concerns that we raised in terms of the uh um just the overall um um uh environmental and um natural uh setting of of of the property. And I think uh I think it was stated that none of the heritage trees would be affected. So I was just asking simply to define that uh for my benefit. Thank you.

Okay. Um without the forester here, I'm hoping that Mr. Bur Hopkins chair, would you share with us the definition?

Yes, please. And and first let me also point out the city forester reviews all of these in detail and the city forers's comments were included in both the the staff report and packet and also uh my colleague Mr. Hoffman also just paraphrase or summarize the forers findings in the um presentation. So the city forester did not identify any heritage tree concerns. Having said that here's the definition from chapter 94 of city code. Heritage tree any tree of the following genre I don't know how to say that word is it genre

or species all trees in the genus quirkus in parenthesis oaks [laughter] greater than or equal to 30 in diameter breast height uses DBH Americana in parenthesis American elm greater than or equal to 40 in DBH ultra trees in the genus karia parenthesis hickory greater than or equal to 20 in DBH or all trees in the genus juglans in parentheses walnut greater than or equal to 30 in DBH

that's it that's the definition they use those four species at those uh in inch diameter of breast height sorry for my Latin just reiterate the four nothing will happen on this site without the forester um having a say. Um can I make a comment on um Mr. Gonzalez's uh note that he has requests for action um at the bottom um restrictions on tree removal with mandatory replacement ratios. That doesn't come from us. That comes from the city and the forester. Correct. Correct.

Strict setback requirements to protect the ravine. Again, that comes from the city code, so that's already there. Um, the heightened mass limitations for any new construction. Again, we already have rules for that. Um, and extended public comment period given the inadequate initial notice. Um, I guess I can't comment to that cuz I don't know when the notices went out, but I feel that if we're not meeting again until the 17th of February, that that's a lot of time. That's like almost five or 6 weeks. Agreed. So, I just wanted to clarify those things.

Thank you. I also can confirm that the applicant did do the notice uh per the date and it was uh signs are up in front of the property and an ad in the newspaper as well. Great. Thank you. So your question, my question is do we merely continue this or do we direct findings of fact as well as continue? So we have not discussed any of the

we would have to I think agree as a commission on the variations before we direct findings of that. Correct. Well, I I think those would be included in the findings of fact. Findings of fact, we would have to agree that we approve. I would feel like it would be silly to direct findings of fact if we're not going to approve. Great. I guess I'm just asking a sense of how everybody feels without having a motion on the table. And then, yes, trying to get the temperature. [laughter] Um, so then my concern would be I almost feel like I want to hear from the historic preservation commission. Agree with that for sure

that maybe we just continue it till the 17th and think on all these other things. In the meantime, I guess I don't have a problem with the subdivision variations, just so you know. Thank you. Point order clarification. Yes. Uh, I mean, if we're going to continue to the 17th of February, but the Historic Preservation Commission is going to meet on Thursday, we're going to have we can still direct staff to draft findings of fact and just be ready to approve it theoretically or not or not on the 17th or you know, on the 17th of February, assuming it's a thumbs up from the Historic Preservation Commission, right? And again, the findings of fact do not obligate us to approve them. And if they needed to be amended, we could send them back.

Yep. Correct. Correct. So, yes. I I don't know if there if there was a hurry on this project or not, I defer to the It's not really I mean I I too think we need to hear from the historic commission first. Just

Yes. Yes. if you um this has actually been a a a unique process. We filed this application back in October. Um and and and and I'm not trying to um and this was this was this took a lot of consideration by the staff and trying to create [clears throat] what the process is going to be. It took a while for them to to pin it down because this has never been done before in Highland Park. Um and so um again we've been patient and you know we've worked with staff and and and this is not this is not an indictment of what staff has done to the state. It's just that this has taken a long time to get to this point. Um what we would request is that you request findings of fact to be drafted. This it could be amended on the 17th. I just hate to have to come this pushes basically back to to April to pro possibly get approvals which would be six or seven months after the initial application was filed. So, um I I I just hate to lose a whole month. And again, it does it's it's it's not going to be detrimental anything cuz obviously you're not voting on the findings of fact tonight. You're just directing staff to draft them. And I think that would just help speed up the process because because again, as an applicant, they've been very patient waiting for over two and a two months to get to this point where we can get get a hearing. Actually, two and a half months. Does that sway the commission at all? I mean, I agree. I think we can go ahead and ask for them to be drafted and then it'd be nice if we heard it would be nice if we could have the results from the historic preservation commission meeting on the 8th at our next meeting so that we can be thinking about it, but I don't know if that's possible.

Madam Chair, just okay. With respect to the applicant, yes, this is a complicated project and we did spend some considerable time with regard to the historic aspect of the project. However, there is, you know, how complete is an application upon submitt is also in question two. What I would say to you is staff does not oppose whatever action you take in terms of directing us to do or not to do it. We've done this before. You can, as the chair aptly pointed out, modify any of the draft findings that we provide. Um the information from the uh Historic Preservation Commission will be provided to you as part of that package on the 17th should their deliberations end. If they have not landed by that time, we'll be seeking another continuation. Those are all posted online and they're available for viewing. We will send the commission um you know a link to that uh that information and you can take a look at their packet as as you would as your own. Um so does that answer your question? So you'll have all that information.

Yes, it does. Okay. One could also attend the meeting on the 8th. [laughter] I would say that's not necessary for the commission to do that. [laughter] Watch from home. All right. Okay. Can I get a motion of some sort? Oh. Um, so I'll move that we ask staff to direct findings of [clears throat] fact. recommending recommending approval of all those things. You know the variations that had been requested for the subdivision

point of clarity the Mr. Chair. So are there any conditions with that? We had we had mentioned some considerations with regard to driveway or not and uh the area of the buildable area being shown on the plans things like that. Want to make sure that those conditions would be included if there's anything that do we need those in the findings of fact or can we add those? No, you can add those but I just wanted to clarity on that for the applicant. Okay. I I think that's probably more expeditious than Okay. discussing it. Okay. Is there a second? [clears throat]

We So we have the uh motion on the floor in the second. Um just as to directing findings of fact, did you also want to continue the case to February 17th? Can we do that together or you may Okay. So I'll make a friendly amendment that we continue this to February the February 17th meeting. Good with me. All right. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? No. Director Fontaine, could you call the role, please?

This can be a voice vote because it's just a continuence and direction to Oh, okay. [laughter] How did I get that one? Uh, all those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, the motion has passed and we will get findings of fact and this matter has been continued to our regular meeting on February 17th, 2026 and Mr. Director Fontaine will tell us about notice. So your notice is actual. There will be no new notice for this uh meeting's continuation to February 17th, 2026 in this room, city council chambers, 7:00 p.m. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Yes, we will provide those I should have said we'll provide those draft findings. In fact, that's correct. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Uh the next item on our agenda is information item administrative design review update. Is there any such update? There are none of those. Quiet on that front. That took care of that. Our next meeting January 20th, 2026, a regular meeting at city hall. That's right here. But I believe there's big item on the agenda. Am I right? Yes. So that's been noticed for. It will be the uh the final plan development, design, review, and final plat for the 1700 old Deerfield Road former solo cup site project. And that's that's there's nothing else then.

That's all for that agenda. Yes. That will be here in this this date. What date is that? Uh the 20th April. Can you if we still have one item of business or two to conduct? Uh is there any case briefing? No. And just to clarify, Council Member Ross asked it. It's January 20th. Um heard this room. Yeah. I I did have something I wanted to say before it's not about any of the projects. Before you adjourn, if you wanted to say something.

Okay. Well, is there any business from the public? Is there any business from our council liaison?

Uh just the business of um I I was not able uh I I did try to get a uh somebody to sub for me for the last meeting so I wasn't um able to attend it. Um but uh I I did want to say because I wasn't able to say it then um a a big thank you to chair uh the prior chair Moore for her service as as chair of the commission and uh through um some rather big material uh including the solo cup site uh and welcome to the new chair um Steve Kirch. Um thank you for your service. Thank you all for your service. Thank you. I I too wish to uh applaud Chairman Moore and actually applaud Revore for agreeing to stay on this commission and help me out. Um

stay kicked off or [laughter] uh but I believe your recognition and claiming all the great things that come along with you will probably come at the end of your full term, right? So that's correct. [laughter] Um, and I do want to recognize um, Vice Chair Nanis, welcome board as well. And former chair Moore, it was a pleasure working with you as chair as we've said to you. Thank you. That's very kind. I I [snorts] should add that welcome to the vice chair and chair, we talked to you the other day and thank you for taking that meeting. Congratulate the chair and look forward to working with you as well. Thank you very much. Uh, last item of business is a motion to adjourn. [clears throat]

So move. Second. All in favor? Any opposed? No. I