Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Highland Park Planning Design Commission for Tuesday, February 17th, 2026. I appreciate you giving up your fat Tuesday evening for us. Um, it's not over yet. It's not over yet. Although maybe you still have plans this evening. Uh, Director Fontaine, could you call the role? Sure. Commissioner Inchek here. Commissioner Fentner here. Commissioner Henry here. Commissioner Mantis here. Uh, Commissioner Moore. Vice Chair Nannis here. Chair Kersh present.

We have a quorum. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recognize city council leazison Yi Ross and Corporation council Marcus Martinez as well as student rep Khloe Pilot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Our first uh item on the agenda as usual is the approval of the minutes from our regular meeting of February 3rd. Motion to approve. Second. Motion by Commissioner Inet. Second by was it Commissioner Fentner? Yeah, I will take commission.

Hi. Any discussion on the minutes, corrections, additions? See none. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Uh, we have two main items uh on the agenda this evening. I'm going to take them out of order. Um, so that we first uh hear public hearing PUB 2025000081 for a special use permit in the nature of plan development with modifications from city code and a plat of resubdiances from city code at room 47 central avenue. This public hearing has been previously open and I understand from staff that the petitioners requesting the continuence. Is that correct? That is correct. Chair the petitioner requested continuence specifically to the April 7th plan and design commission meeting and then that also aligns. So that's after the historic preservation commission in March. Okay. So I'd be looking for a motion to continue this matter.

Move to continue. Second move by Commissioner Fentner, second by Vice Chair Manis. Um, any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. And notice is actual.

That's correct. This this so notice is actual. This item has been continued to April 7th, 700 p.m. at city hall in this city council chambers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And then our second no second item on the agenda now dees 202600086 design review and sign package with variations at 1849 Green Bay Road uh planed. Are you presenting tonight? Yes. Please go ahead.

Well, good evening commission. Uh my name is Anthony Mrea. uh planner with the planning division in community development. Uh here for the continuence of 1849 Green Bay Road at Renaissance Place, the tenants uh Twinkle, Twinkle, Little One. So for the existing property, um just as a recap from the last meeting, um Renaissance Place does have a sign package that was approved in 1998. Uh the applicant has applied for a sign permit and proposes uh an an awning a new awning extension to the uh existing awning that is on the north facade. Um this does trigger chapter 176 for design review and um in addition to that the uh applicant will be um occupying two tenant spaces um and then the tenant space currently has two awnings. There's one on the western facade uh or the western pedestrian frontage and then there is another existing one that is on the northern uh facade facing the northern pedestrian frontage. Uh this is the existing site map or the area view. Um the red square indicates the tenant space that they will be at. Uh for the existing sign package uh the unit number in question is 112. It has two pedestrian frontages as mentioned. So, it's allowed two identification signs, one for on the uh two identification signs and one for each frontage. Uh as as for the design requirements set forth by the sign package, they have to be pin set letters. They must only show the company and tenant name. Uh non- internally illuminated signage only and the letters must be between a height of 10 and 20 in. Um tenants may also have awning signage in lie of wall signage but not both simultaneously. So the proposed amendments uh this is the the change and the revision from the uh applicant and there will be um there

will be renderings following this but there are now the two affformentioned wall signs that are 31.6 Six are now only two awning graphic signs, one on each awning. The uh new extended awning and then the one on the western facade. These are each going to be 6.9 square ft. Um, and those are situated on the veilance, so kind of the lip of the awning if you're unfamiliar with the term. And um, one will be of course on the new awning and then the other one will be on the existing awning that is on the western facade. The awning will be 17 uh, the extension of the awning will be 179 square ft. Um, there is about as stated 13.8 8 square foot of signage proposed as um so that is where take that's how it takes up the space on the awning and uh for the total number of signs allowed this will allow for four um two wall signs and two awning signs. Um the two wall signs will use the existing gooseeneck lighting that is on the facade currently for illumination and of course there will be no illumination for the awning signs. Um 63.2 two square ft in total for the wall signs um per section 150 2025 um subsection B's uh section 2 um the maximum allowed in this particular instance would be 100 ft as it is the uh lesser amount than that and 15% of the horizontal area of the facade. The awning total sign area as mentioned before is 13.8 8 ft. Uh, bringing the grand total sign area proposed to 77 square ft. Um, that should say four

total signs, not six total. I apologize for that. For new awning, uh, as stated, it's an extension of the awning that is on the um, northern facade pedestrian walkway. Uh, it's about 50 ft long and it's um, three just over 3 and 1/2 ft tall. um which measures out to the 179 ft that was mentioned earlier. Um one note here, uh Renaissance Place does have existing light fixtures that are on the stone masonry columns and I'll show a picture on the next slide. Um one of those will be removed to accommodate for this awning. Um and the landlord has approved that for the applicant. The applicant has has given staff that landlord approval. Um, and then as you can see here, it's circled the fixture that will be removed. Um, and then the awning will just continue on from there. This is the new rendering for the awning. Um, as stated, there were graphic logos on the awning before. Those have been removed from the proposal. Um, they have really just opted for a valance sign graphic on there. it says familyowned and then um their slogan so just in cogent with each other uh the same is going to go for the western facade as well. So um these are some pre-existing photos that staff have provided um kind of showing the current conditions. Um these were not these two pictures in particular were not included in the previous design. We just wanted to provide a wider view of the western facade and kind of compare it to what's next to it and show the lights a little bit better in the facade. These pictures were included in the previous. Uh this is just local leaf across the way. This is intended to kind of show they do have awnings. There's no

signage on them. This is just to provide sort of a look at what's directly next to them. And um they have awnings stretching all the way down that pedestrian frontage as well. This was

um these are blue staff photos kind of showing a look down the northern facade towards Junucci's um and uh that you can see there are some awnings there um in the very beginning but as you go down there are no awnings um down that way. So uh this would be sort of a a new look um for that particular area of the facade. And then this is just a new I shown earlier. Obviously they have a very you know different look from the rest of the the awnings but they do not have signage on the awnings just kind of show that area. Um so uh our standards for sign uh standard for sign packages obviously won't go too deep into these but um just to put them up for reference and obviously the PDC has authority to over design review and the sign package. Uh you can discuss the proposal per the design review and sign package standards. PDC can approve the plans, deny them, recommend changes or continue the discussion to a future meeting. Uh staff recommend that we open this proposal for discussion and deliberate on the elements um shown before you today. Any questions for staff? Uh before we get to questions, just note that Commissioner Moore has joined the meeting. questions for staff. No questions. Uh would the petitioner care to speak? Uh sure.

Good evening everybody. Uh again, my name is Cory Glass. My wife Rachel and I own Twinkle Little One. Uh this is our 19th year in business and our seventh year in Highland Park and this is our our next extension of our growth of our business. Um after our last meeting, you know, we certainly got the sense of uh you know, the feedback that it wasn't going to work the way that it was. And based on uh some redesigning and whatnot, we just felt like uh let's make this as simple as possible. Uh remove the logo because it just was too small for the entire length of it. Just swallowed it up and just let's make it as simple and just have a little bit on the lip. uh where uh hopefully everybody agrees it's pretty uh classical, not offending anybody in any way, shape or form, but at the same time sort of accomplishing some of our goals of uh of bringing two spaces together. Um other than that, I have I have nothing else to comment, but hopefully you guys would agree with what we've done and certainly here to take any questions if you have them.

Questions for the petitioner? Okay. Do we have anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I would then be open. We do have a draft COA um so I would be open to a motion either to approve or deny or to continue this matter or anything else you guys want to. I would move to accept the COA. I'll second. And just to Mr. Chair clarify that would be a motion to adopt. To adopt.

Yes. Okay. Chair, just recognizing that Commissioner Moore is now present and has been present uh during this presentation. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor? Oh, this one's a roll call. This is a roll call. Oh, this is a roll call. Final decision. The final decision is very, could you please call the role? I Commissioner Inek, I. Commissioner Fner, I. Commissioner Henry, I. Commissioner Mantis, I. Commissioner Moore, I. Vice Chair Nannis, I and Chair Kersh. Hi.

The eyes have it. The motion carries. This item has been approved. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. I almost feel bad calling it out tonight cuz we're okay. That brings us to other business administrative design review. Senior planner Bhop. Anything along those lines?

There are no there's no update. Thank you. Okay. Our next meeting is March 3rd, 2026. Do we have a preview of that? That meeting may possibly be cancelled and I will confirm with the commission as soon as possible. I don't like to wait till the last minute. If it's going to be free, I want you to know so you can make plans as appropriate. So, I will follow up. That meeting may be cancelled. And if it is canceled, there won't be a meeting until April 7th because there's no March 17th because of the primary.

That's correct. So you may be looking at some welldeserved time. I know I I feel bad because you know Commissioner Moore got so swamped in her term. I hope I didn't scare anybody away. Uh case briefing Director Fontaine. Um Mr. chair and commission, the um city council did approve um the 1700 old Deerfield Road uh townhouse development. Um the habitat development at Solo Cup. That's all. Do we have any business from the public? Seeing the public, I see no business. And that leaves the last item on the agenda is adjournment.

So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Sufficiency of