Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Hold on. Good evening. Can you guys do the roll? Yes.

Commissioner Inchek here. Commissioner Fentner here. Commissioner Henry here. Commissioner Mantis here. Commissioner Moore. Uh, Chair Nanis here. Um, V, uh, Chair Aersh. We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman. Great. Thank you. Um, the first item of on our agenda for this evening is the approval of the minutes from our regular meeting from April 21st, 2026. Could I get a motion? Um, before I take a motion, I did review the minutes and I watched the video from last week, so I'll be voting on it. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may,

just recognize that um, student rep Khloe Pilot's here. Um, city council leazison Yumi Ross is here as well as corporation council Marcus Martinez. Thank you. Thank you. I'd move to accept the minutes as presented. Second. Any comments, edits? All in favor? I. All opposed?

Great. Thank you. Um, the next item on the agenda is a continuation of public hearing number PUD-2025-000081 for a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final plan development with modifications from the city code and a re subdivision with variances from the city code at 147 central. staff.

Um, Maddiey's going to go first. She's just going to do a reiteration of the historic portions and then I'll come in and talk about the variations and uh just your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick. So, for those of you uh that haven't met me before, um I'm Maddie Markle. I'm a planner with the city and I'm the staff leazison for the historic preservation commission. Um, and I'm just going to be reviewing uh the commission's findings and recommendation uh that they developed over the course of multiple meetings. Uh, this will be a quicker presentation uh than last time uh since um all of the commissioners here have had the opportunity uh to either attend in person or see the video. So the reason that the HPC has to give a written recommendation uh is because of this section of code uh 150.530e2 uh historic preservation commission review. Um so uh the historic preservation commission uh if in the determination of the director uh the plan development might affect historically significant uh property, structures, area, objects or landscapes. Uh then they have to review the potential impact of the proposal on the historic historically significant properties, structures, areas, objects and landscapes. Uh and then submit a written report uh of their findings to the plan and design commission um and eventually to the city council. Um, another part of code that's important to consider tonight is section 150520C. Uh, this is from, uh, the Planet Design Commission's uh, design standards. Uh it says the planned development shall preserve all locally designated landmarks and properties, structures, areas, objects and landscapes determined to be historically significant by the historic preservation commission um in accordance with chapter 24 or 170 of code. Uh so for reference, chapter 24 is the city's historic preservation ordinance and 170 is our uh demolition

section of code. And in that section, the commission can review uh residential properties that are covered by that section of code uh before a demolition occurs. Uh 147 Central Avenue um is a local landmark. Uh that is the reason why uh that earlier code section was triggered. Um and an important note um is that even though 147 Central Avenue is a local landmark, um it's not a national landmark. It's not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Uh I don't say this in any way uh to detract from the historic value of the property. It most certainly uh has historic value locally. Uh however, uh during um a very extensive review that was done um by the state um and the federal government um it was not found to ultimately um be included in a national district. Uh that does exist. The boundary comes right up next to 147 central. Uh it was nominated for the National Register in 1982 and in the first draft um it actually was included um in the National Register nomination. Uh so you'll see um as part of the staff determination related to the landmark status, uh the National Register nomination is included. Uh we still think that's important because it was written by uh former HPC chair Susan Benjamin who was chair in 1985 when the property was landmarked locally. So it still has uh relevance to uh the local landmark designation in that sense in that it was um completed by the same person. Um however uh this is not a national uh register property. uh in the final draft of the National Register District, it was not included. Um but a

couple years later in 1985, it was designated a local landmark. Um and it was found to meet landmark criteria 1, 3, 4, and six. Uh and we discussed in detail uh what those criteria mean at the last meeting. Um, so to summarize, the entire property at 147 Central was designated a local landmark in 1985. Um, staff has reviewed the historic record to determine the scope of the 1985 designation. Um, individual buildings can be designated as local landmarks, but you can also designate entire properties as local landmarks in order uh to determine uh what the HPC and city council intended to do in 1985 uh its staff's procedure to review uh the record. Uh and through that um lengthy review of the historic record, uh we have determined that the entire property was landmarked as a result of the 1985 ordinance. Um this was always the case. Um it is not our position that the landmark designation uh was extended. The HPC uh considered uh the subdivision and plan development um at four prior meetings. Uh they made a motion at the January 8th meeting. Um the item was continued at the February 12th meeting. Um at the March 12th meeting. Um the HPC requested further information about zoning uh for the plan development consideration uh and they moved to uh continue the item until the April meeting and on April 15th they adopted their written recommendation which is available in the agenda packet. Um and in that recommendation they specified conditions of approval if the plan development was to be approved. Uh but to reiterate uh they still unanimously recommend uh denial of the plan

development. At the January 8th meeting, they moved to find that the subdivision of the lot would significantly impact the historical significance of the property at 147 Central Avenue based on the historic fence, the columns that make up the gate, uh relocation of the new driveway and its impact on the curb appeal and the growing density of the lot. Uh the HPC unanimously recommended denial. Um and the HPC has since adopted a written report uh that summarizes their findings and recommendations. So in that report, the HPC further elaborates that uh they unanimously recommend complete denial of the proposed plan development on the basis that the proposed plan will irreversibly alter the property's historic site setting. Uh they further emphasized that open space on the property contributes to the estate setting of the Cornelius Field property and it's an integral part of the historic resource and allowing any construction on lot 2 will create more density and detract from the property's historic significance. However, uh in a split vote, the HPC uh decided to add conditions of approval if the plan and design commission uh did decide to approve the plan development. Um but again uh the HBC does unanimously recommend denial and um a majority of the HPC uh recommends uh these conditions if it got approved. Uh so the first condition being that the plan and design commission require an 80oot sideyard setback on the west side of proposed lot 2. That any new structure on the proposed lot 2 not exceed the height of the Cornelius Fieldhouse. Um, and that the plan and design commission require the preservation of the gate posts that are in the rightway. Uh, the rot iron fence uh that's uh continuous uh along the front yard uh the heritage trees uh and the use of the driveway in its existing location with no additional driveway as conditions of approval. And

they also recommend uh prohibition of additional zoning relief related to lot two. Can I make a comment on that slide? Yeah.

Can you go back? I just I just wanted to comment real quick. So eventually Patrick Hoffman, planner two, will give his presentation. I just want to remind the commission uh you know there's essentially four things you can do. You can recommend approval. You can recommend approval with conditions. Uh you can recommend denial or you can continue to request more information. And so when you get to your deliberation, you know, if you'd like, I can certainly put this slide back up if the commission is at that time talking about conditions if that's appropriate. Of course, like I said, you have four options before you. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks, Maddie.

Thanks, Carl. Uh, so this is an approximate uh diagram uh just to show that 80 foot side setback that the historic preservation commission uh is in favor of. Um, so in the top left corner, uh, you'll see, uh, a little drawing that shows the relationship between the Cornelius Fieldhouse and the house at 175 Central Avenue. The HPC's logic for this 80oot side setback was that the setback would mirror the spacing between the Cornelius Fieldhouse and the structure at 175 uh, Central Avenue. Um, and that's all that I have for the Historic Preservation Commission's uh written recommendation. Um, I can answer questions. Um, or if there's no questions, uh, we can turn it over uh to Patrick to talk more.

Thank you, Maddie. Go ahead. You have a question? Yeah, I I do have a question. Hold on one second. Um, Councilwoman Ross, would you like to speak now or later? Um, sure. Is there's more to the presentation though? Patrick has some Patrick has a short Yeah, Patrick Hoffet has a brief update on on the zoning and subdivision changes.

I mean, I guess it I might as well say it now since you invited me to uh it I'll try to read quickly. Um, today I double check with the city manager and corporation council Steve Lrod in particular who says uh that what I'm about to state is appropriate and it's fine to do right after the staff's presentation uh which I just asked Steve moments ago uh as uh city council liaison to the PDC. My role is to report to the council and represent the council to the PDC and in light of an application that was made last year where after votes several members of PDC expressed the desire to have uh known more history at the time of their meeting to the extent that it is relevant. It seems important to update PDC on what uh council discusses. So, it is important to share that the city and city council itself greatly values historic properties and um as I said, I double checked with the city manager uh and corporation council uh about what I'm about to state uh as city council leison on to the PD uh I'm sorry um uh in in uh hold on one second the um

Oh, I'm so Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Um as that it the city council so it feels important to share that the city and city council itself greatly values historic properties and certainly landmarked ones as evidence of this high value placed on historic preservation. At the last city council committee of the whole meeting uh a week ago. The agenda included a presentation by staff on landmark incentives to make it more financially appealing to landmark as well as disincentives uh to changing landmarks um uh including but not limited to demolition. A discussion followed the presentation and now staff will be providing more uh information to council soon. Uh I'm not sure when but uh soon. Uh this presentation on how to prot the presentation last week on how to protect landmarks was well received by city council uh and uh and if corporation council doesn't mind my saying so uh that was a comment he made to me uh but I shared that uh assessment to be clear uh I only repeat and report this because commissioners and anyone who tunes into our meetings might have missed this council discussion reflecting the high value the city and council places on historic landmarks. Um, according to the city manager, the issue of uh promoting and incentivizing historic preservation landed on uh last week's council agenda uh as part of the city's work plan. Uh I didn't create or contribute to that agenda or its timing. Neither did um my colleagues to the best of my knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Thank you, sir. Manny, let me ask you a question. If I'm the owner of this property and I decide I want to build on the area that's referred to as lot two, just I want to build a house or something. What is the difference between that and if these lots are split into two legal lots of record, each of which would be covered by the historic preservation uh ordinance and any building on that lot too would require a certificate of appropriateness. Anyway,

I hope I made that clear. The same from the historic preservation standpoint. I can feel that question. Um, so to build a new house, uh, if so if this were just to be one lot still, if they were to build another house, if I own it and I say I want my kids, why would I want that? But I want my kids living on on the record listed as lot two or purportedly lot two. Um,

yeah. So that would be an additional dwelling unit that would be considered two dwelling units on site. So this is a single family zoning district. Um, that would not be allowed. However, you I mean people have pool houses, detached garages, other accessory structures on their lot. That is something that they could do uh in that area. So, there are structures they could place on the lot or on that in that area. Uh but an additional dwelling in it would not be allowed. Okay, Patrick, let me follow up if I may. Chair, you may.

Is there an avenue for relief under the city ordinances for that? If let's say I wanted to build a second residence on what might be lot two, is there an avenue for relief that I can pursue before this commission or the zoning board or the city council or I don't know who else is out there? Is there an avenue for relief to something like that if that's what I wanted to do? Yeah. Yeah. So, since this is a single family zoning district, um the way that you would do that is you would subdivide the lot um in order to get that density.

Okay. So, you'd have to sub there's no way to do it without subdividing it into two lots of record. No, you can you can do a planned development and you can create building pads and have multiple units on one part. Okay. So, plan development. This is a plan development. So there is an avenue for relief without necessarily subdividing that the sense of two legal lots of record. Yes. And it would be um a situation where there would be common area and then there would be you know maybe building pads if you will or the the homes that currently exist would be on their own pad so they could be sold off individually and then you have your common area and then you have your individual ownership

and it still require a certificate of appropriateness. Yes. If we subdivide it or not right now, frankly, or correct. Okay. That's right. So, there's two two residents on the the the property now and this would be I mean, they'd have to go through this, you know, dog and pony show again, and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion. Uh, please don't misunderstand, but um they'd have to go through a process similar to this uh at that time. If if that were hypothetically to happen, you mean to to have uh three lot three welling in this case three. There's two already existing and then there'd be a third. Yeah.

Yeah. You could do that by plan development if you wanted to. Yep. Thank you. Thanks, D. Thank you both. B both. Anyone else have a question for Maddie?

Yeah, I think so. Um, so we talked a little bit last time about the estate setting and as you went through your presentation again today, the the word that jumped out in terms of considerations was was landscape, right? And it seems like landscape could be a portion of the property that gets a historical landmark to it. In reading through the attachments that were provided in this week's um package, I I didn't see anything that talked about the property or the landscape or the estate like setting or just the entire visual. So, I'm wondering if there's anything in there that you can call to my attention other cuz I saw like there was reference to well it was the pin and so because the pin was included it's the entire property but I don't know that that is compelling. So, I'm just wondering if there's anything else in any of the text that was provided that gets to kind of the entire property.

Right. So, the reason that we believe that the entire property um is a landmark um is because it's not just the pin number. Uh we have to consider uh who was on the HPC during this time um and what they considered important about the property. Um, so the HPC chair at the time, uh, Susan Benjamin, uh, she was chair both in 1982 and in 1985 and in 1986, uh, which are important dates in this, uh, timeline, uh, in the historic record. Um, so in 1982, um, the HPC chair, uh, nominates 147 central, uh, to the National Register. Um the property name is the Cornelius Fieldhouse. Um but there's a nomination boundary uh that you have to include in order uh to to nominate something to the National Register. Uh she lists the nomination boundary uh as the entire lot. She names the lot specifically. Uh there is the pin number um and the acreage is also listed the entire 3.8 acres. Um the nomination also mentions the 1875 coach house. uh the Circa uh 1930 bridge, uh the potting shed and greenhouse foundation. Uh these are uh structures that um expand beyond just the Cornelius Fieldhouse. These are other structures on the property. Um we don't mean to say that every square inch of this property uh has historic significance. Um but clearly uh this former chair thought that more than just the main house has historic significance. Um, in 1985, uh, the owner nominates their property for a local landmark designation. Uh, they nominate the field property. The nomination, um, form doesn't single out the house.

It doesn't say Cornelius Field House. Um, it also uses a pin um, as a legal description. Um, and in 1985, uh, the HPC, uh, adopts a resolution recommending landmark designation. This does ref refer to the Cornelius Fieldhouse at 147 Central Avenue. Um it also includes the pin. Um and it's signed uh by Susan Benjamin uh who again uh wrote the 82 National Register nomination. Um in 1985 again during this time there's a request for council action. Uh this refers to the Cornelius Fieldhouse and calls out the building. Um so definitely some inconsistencies there. Um, and the landmark designation ordinance refers to the Cornelius Field House. Uh, it refers to subject properties multiple times. Um, not subject buildings or subject structures. Again, it has the pin. Um, and in 1986, uh, there's a certificate of appropriateness review for the coach house. Um, so the HPC chair, uh, again is the same person. Uh the property owner is the same property owner who consented to the local designation in 85. Um and none of the parties involved uh objected to a review of an outbuilding on the property uh that is separate from the main Cornelius Fieldhouse. Um, and in 2011, you see this pattern repeat itself uh where there's a COA uh for uh the gardener/ potter's cottage, uh some fencing in the backyard, uh exterior stairways. Um, and this was issued uh to the the current owner of the property. Um, and again, there weren't any objections to uh uh HPC review that extended beyond the main house. Um, typically what we'd see if this uh landmark designation was only for the main house, you would see property owners taking issue with a review that

extended uh to something that's clearly beyond uh the main house. Um, and there definitely are inconsistencies in um the the RFCA. Uh, and uh, as it's been noted, uh, the landmark designation ordinance does say Cornelius Fieldhouse. Uh however, that's a very common way of referring to historic properties and we don't believe it indicates an intent uh to only designate that building uh within the broader context uh of what has happened uh surrounding this designation. Um staff truly believes that uh the the chair and the council did intend to landmark uh the property and the use of the term Cornelius Fieldhouse is a colloquial way of referring to a historic property. That's a common way of referring to historic properties. Um, and we would prefer to look at um the the intent of the people who were involved in the situation since there are discrepancies since the the the words that are used to refer to this property are not consistent throughout the record. Uh, so the intent of the people involved is very important. Um, so you had a question about the historic estate setting. the historic estate setting that doesn't come from the landmark ordinance per se or this review of the record. Uh that's the historic preservation commission finding. Um and they can have uh findings that aren't necessarily relating to uh specific wording that's in the landmark ordinance. Their their job is to give you a non-binding recommendation. Uh and this is the way that they've decided to do it. uh the historic estate estate setting uh in those terms is very important to them. Um staff doesn't necessarily think as I said before that every single square inch of the the parcel uh is important. Um but clearly

uh structures that were beyond the Cornelius Fieldhouse have been reviewed in the past uh are referenced um in documents and in various ways and so we do feel uh that that's important. So, can I ask a followup just to put a finer point on what you just touched on? So, the estate setting then is an interpretation of what you just went through, right? It it's the Historic Preservation Commission's interpretation of these data points, right, in their totality that they're kind of concluding. Um it's also important to remember that concurrently with their uh review of the plan development, they were also discussing um a landmark removal request for lot 2 should lot 2 come to be. And during that discussion, they did apply uh landmark criteria uh to lot 2 that informed their decision to not recommend uh landmark removal for that lot. Um so the estate setting was also a very large part of that conversation. Um but the specific term is state setting. Uh you're correct. Uh that doesn't come from uh staff's review of the historic record. Uh that comes from HPC discussion.

Got it. Thank you. I had one question and just bear with me because I wasn't here at the last meeting. I did watch the video, but there was I some clarifications. Um if the subdivision is granted, um does that doesn't remove landmark status, does it from lot one or lot two?

Uh no it does not. Uh since the HPC used landmark criteria in code to determine uh that lot two if on its own would still meet multiple landmark criteria and retain integrity of design. Uh if the subdivision were to go through uh that lot would retain its local landmark status. Uh and the applicant would be uh required uh to get a certificate of appropriateness from the commission and the commission would review any new construction on the lot uh using 14 standards for new construction that are found in chapter 24 the preservation ordinance. Great. Thank you. Chair go

Manny. Let me ask you a question. Um, does the property owner have to concur with the HPC's uh desire to landmark a property? Uh, so if I'm if I'm a property if I own this desk and the HPC comes to me and says we want to oh I make that give that landmark status and I own it and I don't want it to have landmark status. What role do I have in that process? No involuntary landmark. Oh, it's not involuntary. It there there is no provision in our code at this time for involuntary landmarking. Okay. So then the property owner has to concur.

Uh you do need property owner consent for a new landmark designation. Uh in 1985 uh the property owner consented. So the city already has that consent from the property owner uh in 1985. Um and has the property owner changed from 1985 to the present? the property owner has changed but once something is designated a local landmark uh that status runs with the property owner that part I understand so that status is in perpetuity yeah that that I get I just wanted to know if the property owner uh who at least concurred uh with the designation process at the time was still a property owner uh it's a different property owner

any other questions for for Maddie. Thank you. Welcome. Perfect. Okay. Hello. Um, so I'll go through this uh pretty quickly just as a a refresher of uh why we're here. So, uh, staff recommends the commission continue the consideration uh to for request of final PUD uh final plan development and plat of resubdvision with variation uh at the January 6th uh 2026 commission meeting. Uh, commission uh directed staff to uh draft findings of fact for recommending approval. Those have been provided and were provided at the previous meeting. This item was then said continued to from the April 21st, 2026 commission meeting. Uh the subject property again is 147 central. Petitioner is Greg Moyer on behalf of the owner and existing property is currently one buildable lot and the request is to subdivide the property into two separate independent legal lots of record. uh an aerial of the property here. Dotted line is just an approximation of what the lot two will look like. We'll just go straight to it. Um lot one highlighted here in blue. Lot two highlighted here in red. Approximately same size around 90,000 square ft. The applicant has proposed a slight change in the section here that is adjacent to the existing property. Uh here it is a 20 foot building line. Um previously it was 12 feet. Uh when it first came in it was 20 feet. So there's been some kind

of back and forth with what has been submitted and changed on this portion of the lot. Uh but the applicant has gone forward with 20 ft here where it is adjacent to the existing home and then it does this shift down to 12 ft when it's in the rear um not adjacent to the existing home. So that was the change from uh the previous uh meeting. Um per section 150545A1C uh any increase more than 1% of the floor area or building square footage would require a PUD amendment. The applicant has not provided any information on said building that will be located on lot 2. So as it stands uh without any conditions on that the this would have to come back for a PUD amendment for the construction of that single family home. Uh but there are conditions that to consider. HBC did provide some comments with their recommendation or some recommendations with the recommendation um as Maddie has highlighted previously. So kind of what is the acceptable buildable area, floor area, um the 80 foot setback from the west that HBC considered. These are recommendations from HBC. Those are things that you can consider. Uh you do not have to adopt them, but you can consider them for your recommendation. Um HBC also recommended the preservation of the gate post, rod iron fence, existing driveway cons um configuration. The EPAN has considered separating that driveway. So lot one has its own driveway. Lot two has would be using kind of the existing driveway up to a certain point. HBC is not in favor of that. Um so that's another consideration for um for you to look at. Um other just conditions is if the home were to be

constructed following any conditions that you do place on it, would it still need to do a PUD amendment? Um, if it just follows your recommendations and city council does adopt those recommendations, uh, would it need to come back for PD amendment if said recommendations and conditions were followed? Oh, and also this was noted already. Uh, but HPC would be doing a certificate of appropriateness on that single family home um, in the future. Uh again, they're offering a $2,500 donation um as a public benefit. They're not asking for any section 150 variation. So, no public benefit is required, but this is something the applicant is offering. And we did receive seven public comments uh received after the packet posting. Uh you shall you should have all of those. We also have hard copies here if anyone uh in the public would need them.

Can I make a comment on that? Yeah, and those are the same ones I uh emailed out. Uh granted, they were only emailed sometime around 5:00 p.m., but just so you know, the hard copies you have are the same as the ones that were on the email. Great. And so yeah, staff recommends commission consider the request for final plan development and plat subdivision with variation and make the recommendation make a recommendation to city council. Commission may consider recommending approval uh approval with conditions denial or continue if more information is needed. And that's all I got.

Thank you Hoffman. Um does anyone have any questions for Mr. Hoffman? I have a question about the findings of fact um pertaining to historic resources specifically. Um the the packet says that the plan development shall preserve all locally designated landmarks and property structures, areas, objects and landscapes determined to be historically significant by the HPC in accordance with the code. And the finding there is that the commission finds the proposed plat of subdivision preserves the primary residential structure and outbuildings on the landmarked property. What Maddie just covered was sounded like the property structures, areas, objects, and landscapes piece of that. It's kind of missing in the findings of fact that it's not negatively affecting the rest of the property. So that is just a a a draft for you to go off of. Uh staff re put forward a recommendation of approval. Uh in order to have a recommendation of approval, you need to find that all of these standards are met. So they are drafted in the positive. Uh if you do not believe it does not meet that standard, that is something that we can change and would change through your recommendation. Uh but that's kind of why it's written that way.

Okay. Right. And if I may comment real quick also on the commissioner's question. Uh you know I'm taking notes as you speak. So depending on the deliberation depending on the motion those findings that are in there which are just draft right now uh can be amended as appropriate either on the floor tonight or can come back to a later meeting uh uh and we would have them amended as well.

Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. I've listened to Yi Ross's comments uh reporting back on the council and and let me follow that in what I think is a logical uh discussion. Um, if I think I see where she and and her colleagues on the council may be going, is there any current benefit to a property being designated as a landmark with landmark status under the city code? Is there is there an abatement of taxes? Do they get

snow removal? Who knows? Is there any benefit that that is associated with landmark status financially? They they can avail themselves to estate program for property tax freeze um not property tax property assessment freeze um if they meet the requirements which is a significant um improvement needs to be made that qualifies for that. It's not just an automatic. You have to actually do work to the home. I don't have all the details on the program beyond that but that that would be one aspect that you know this certainly would aid them in doing that although you do not need to be a local landmark to benefit from that program.

Um uh otherwise in terms of its benefit I mean for for there are people who are interested in purchasing homes that are historic and so this does add to that. And is there any tangible like I'm going to give you a tax break because we know that property of this size uh is is significant and Lake County uh taxes significantly. Um not at this time but you know there are there are considerations um committee the whole we did do a presentation on various incentives and distance. Well, that's what I was reading into, right? Council person Ross'

We did. We had a lengthy discussion on two occasions about that and um council did direct staff to look into such matters in more detail and report back with recommendations on how one might do that. The specifics of which were not not defined at this time. No, I I still in the discussion stage. I get that. Okay. Thank you. So, that would come back at a later date for formal consideration by council at committee. The whole is only an informal consideration. So they're interested in knowing more and seeing what what the options are and how that might be done. Sure. Yeah. Sure.

Uh chair, if I could add one one other comment. Uh Director Fontaine says that a property does not need to be a local landmark uh to be eligible for the state program. Uh that is technically true, but just for further context, uh you do have to either be a local landmark or a national landmark. So, this program isn't uh open to all homes in Highland Park. Um, and the way that uh most people go through this program is that they do have a local landmark status because that opens the door for eligibility uh to the program.

Thank you. So theoretically, if if if this commission approved and sent on to the council a recommendation that this application be approved in some way, shape or form that would divide it into two legal lots of record. Each legal lot would be eligible for that argument. Not necessarily they get it, but they'd be eligible for that program. Uh the Cornelius Fieldhouse uh might be eligible for the program based on what type of restoration was proposed. It does have to meet state standards. Uh new construction on uh the the lot 2 uh most likely would would not be eligible. I don't see the state approving that because they're interested in restoration of currently existing historic houses uh not new construction on historic lots.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Mandy. Yeah. the standards for new construction on on landmark properties, it's really about making sure that that new construction is appropriate relative to the context in the setting, right? So it it it doesn't create a historic structure and that's what Maddie is alluding to that state would be focused on actual Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out what what the impact of if if we were to recommend that the single lot be divided into two legal lots of record. Both of which have local landmark status as I understand it.

Mr. Fedner asked that tonight. I asked that last time we were here on that. I was just wondering how that might be impacted. Beyond that, there are criteria that the state looks at like Mattiey's talking about. So that that alone doesn't necessarily mean what's necessary to get that. Got it. I'm just strict criteria.

Ask a follow-up question to that. I'm curious if the new construction is regulated by the landmark status then are is it does it have the same stringency in terms of site improvements moving forward as a historic property would have? Is it like it comes back every time it needs a facade improvement or they want to make any type of grounds modifications?

Uh that's correct. Um, but not every alteration to the exterior of uh local landmarks uh is sent to the Historic Preservation Commission. Basic maintenance and repairs wouldn't be sent back to the the HPC and typically the commission is more uh lenient uh with properties uh that are um modern. So, for example, we do have local historic districts. Uh there's a few uh we call them non-contributing properties in our local historic districts uh that are uh contemporary uh buildings and uh the commission is much more lenient uh for those properties because they they understand that they're not historic. They're not going to try to uh have them completely recreate uh some type of faux history that never existed, for instance. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other additional questions for the staff? Would the applicants like to uh come up and present? I believe you're already sworn in on this matter. Mr.

I've already been sworn. Again, for the record, my name is Cal Bernstein. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Um I really didn't intend on doing a long presentation tonight. Um it was my impression that we were just going to talk about proposed findings of fact. I didn't realize we were going to hear another presentation from the um staff liaison from the historical preservation commission. But I do want to note two things that are important that I felt was omitted in her presentation tonight. Uh number one is the report that was issued by the historical preservation commission was issued on a 4 to3 vote. It was not unanimous obviously and she mentioned it was a majority but it was a 4 to3 vote with regard to the petition and to you to respond to your question with regard to the the estate setting and the historical structures around the property I will note that in Mattie's original staff report to the historical preservation commission back in January of this year January 8th she noted as stated before proposed LAP which is the new lot uh will consist of unimproved wooded area and will not include any of 147 Central Avenue's historical significantly significant structures. So staff took the position back in January that the new proposed lot had no uh historical structures on it. Now, where this estate setting came in, there's nothing in the record back in 1985 when the property was landmarked that that was even discussed or that was an issue. It's the current historical preservation commission who noted that they felt that that was an important element based on what the current situation and that's their opinion. I will note is included I'll go a little bit more detail later but in the new letters that you received you know there was the standard letters oppositions they're pretty much the same

letter that you received a couple times over you've seen that in the past I've drafted those in the past too so you see you know you those but there was a letter there from Danny Khan and I hope you had an opportunity to read it Danny Khan is a former chairman of the historical preservation commission so now we have a former chairman sitting here Jim Ferman who's going to be the architect if the new home is approved. And now we have a we have a letter from Danny Khan, unsolicited. I had never talked to Danny. No one on our team talked to him. He sent the letter in support of the subdivision. And so you can there's there's so again the historical preservation community is is not all against the proposed subdivision. Danny points out points out several good reasons why this subdivision should be approved and obviously be monitored through what's called the certificate of appropriateness process that's going forward and to to address your question um commissioner uh Henry with regard to other things I brought this up at the last meeting this is such a large piece of property again that's the reason why we're here dealing with the historical preservation commission because to redevelop this property you have to do it as a plan unit development because it's over 3 acres in size. If it was smaller, we wouldn't have this issue. We would never we would not have a report from the Historical Preservation Commission. But based on the size of the property and the amount of table land that's available, when we originally looked at this several months ago, uh we considered coming with a three lot subdivision because there's enough property in there to build three houses and still satisfy the minimum requirements in the lakefront overlay zone of 40 acre 40 40,000 foot lots, 8 acre uh excuse me, 1acre zoning. We decided basically to reduce the to make the request only one additional lot. We took it upon ourselves to downzone this property because once this property subdivided into two lots, you can only

get two principal structures on those two properties. You can't come in and seek to subdivide one of those lots into a third lot. If you just did as a PUB in pads, another developer come back and come back with pads and and multiple pads on this property because this property could support that. So, we thought this was the most, as Danny Khan mentioned in his letter, the most reasonable request that could be made for such a large piece of property. I will also note that since I appeared in in front of you a couple weeks ago, and as I'm sure you all are aware, tax bills came out and the real estate tax bill on this property increased uh by by over $6,000. So, this property now has an $81,000 tax bill to it. And and again, this is something that Danny Khan mentioned in his letter is that in order to preserve the historical structures, which was noted by staff to only be on lot A, which is the current lot where the current house is in order with Danny's position and we we concur with it that in order to make the price of that property attainable for someone to do it and come in and actually love that house and make the improvements that are necessary to keep to make that continue to have that house be relevant. You have to make it easier for someone, not just the purchase price because as Danny mentioned in his letter, what's being the purchase price that's being requested is a is not an unreasonable request. It's not like they're asking for the moon here. It's the fact that the carrying cost of this property, I've noted over and over again, it's it between the $81,000 tax bill, the landscaping, the upkeep, everything needs to be done. it it's it's it's makes it prohibitive for someone to try to own this property as a unified piece of property. Um, we talked about Jim who's who's very familiar again, former chairman of the HPC who's going to be designing the

home. He's going to be working the process with the with the HPC assuming this is approved for to achieve and hopefully achieve obtain a certificate of appropriateness. Um, contrary to some of those for letters you received, um, there is no request to demolish any historical structures on this property. Um, I don't know where they got that from. Again, we're trying part of this process is to trying to preserve it and find someone who's going to actually love this property. Um, there's other there was other comments regarding setting precedences. Well, we've been down this road before in the past meetings. There's no other piece of property in Highland Park like this. is so large um that is landmarked like this except for one which is which is not going to be subdivided. Um and um the new lots would be twice the new two lots the the two new lots would be twice the size of any other lot that's on this block. So they are going to be extremely large lots and it's not going to alter the character of that neighborhood anyway any anyway by creating two large lots on this property. The only the only variation we're requesting is is that these um lots will have more than four sides. You've heard that request in the past. Um because again, this is not just a rectangular lot that that's easy to be subdivided. It's a very complicated piece of property with a lot of um ravine property that's involved here. Also, um, as I mentioned, Danny Khan is in support and that, um, his his focus is the survival of the house and some of the contextual landscaping and he believed that the request, um, that we are making tonight uh, would succeed in in those goals. um he feels that this would be and I'm paraphrasing his letter, this would be a reasonable compromise and allow the existing man landmark home to attract um attract a buyer at a reasonable price

level that would would would hopefully then at that point invest and preserve that home. Um we could talk about if you want to talk about the proposed conditions. Um I think we talked about it the last time you we were in agreement um of all of them except for the driveway which we talked about if you recall um because of the inherent issues with having a shared driveway and trying to avoid those issues. And let me see if there's anything else here. Um that's pretty much it. In summary, what we're proposing tonight is what we believe is inconsistent with the lakefront district neighborhood strategic plan, which is a part of the master plan, creating two large lots in the lakefront overlay zone. And so, what we're requesting tonight is that you consider the findings of fact. If you want to leave our input, we're prepared. If you want to talk about possible conditions, we're prepared to talk about that. Um and um we're so we're seeking for you to approve hopefully these proposed findings and facts so we can move on to the city council and they can consider it. I do want to mention aside I was going to try to avoid talking about this tonight but it was mentioned by uh board member uh Henry talking about you know possible benefits. Those are policy issues that's really not before you tonight. That's what the council is wrestling with. But as someone who's watched these discussions over the years, one of the things they've talked about is trying to provide some tax property tax relief if you if you landmark your homes. And the issue you have with that, as you know, um twothirds of your tax bill goes to the school districts. and and I don't want to speak for them, but it's my understanding is that um their consistent position is they're going to opt out of any type of tax benefit that they would receive for landmark because they want to maximize the revenue for the school district. So, until the school district buys in does that type

of policy, it's going to be difficult to provide that type of benefit. But that's a conversation that the council is going to have that's really not before you tonight. So, we're available for any questions you may have. A question, Cal. the um explain to me why you can't keep the existing driveway. Um I I saw that in in the video last week that that's a condition that you guys um really can't agree to. Explain to me why the shared driveway like that wouldn't work for both properties.

As we Thank you. Thank you. Um member Fentner, as we noted in the last time we were here is that having a shared driveway, especially a long shared driveway, has a lot of complications. You have maintenance, you have um uh you have usage, you have uh cars parked on there. How wide is that driveway right now? Do you know?

It's it's it's it's a it's an older driveway. As was mentioned last time, we believe that driveway service the house. Actually, the the I'm butchering it, so I apologize. The port cashier, is that correct? The porter is on the west side of the property. We're trying to match up the driveway with that port. Um, but having such a long driveway looping in there, you have parking issues, you have shared usage issues, you have maintenance issues. There's there's a lot of issues that come with having a shared driveway, which you avoid if you have each have your own driveway. And that's what we're trying to avoid there.

And and did I hear correctly that the plan was to modify the existing driveway a little bit for the uh fieldhouse? The plan is to the lot one which is the existing house is to is to um create a driveway that that kind of matches up where the port shares on the west side so it goes a straight line so it's less impervious surface on that respect and and it doesn't have that long swooping ride into the property that go to the west side of the property. So hopefully Okay, I see. Because it it goes on to both uh Yes. If um I see. So, so that would be that that's one of the conditions that the HPC really wanted to see stay, right? Was that driveway?

Um, that's one of the things that they mentioned at the HPC with the with a ro iron gate. I have the list here if you want. Right. It's the the the the gate post.

Yeah, we're fine with that. The sideyard stuff. We talked about the height is a little more difficult as you know heights measured by and I understand and and the no heritage trees. We would agree not to remove any heritage trees. Um, we're not going to seek any zoning relief. So really the only the only um concern we have was with having that one driveway and by separating it as you know it's kind of been the you know that's one of the things why you don't have um when you know cuz right now when you have estates that have been split up and you have multiple houses using one driveway it creates complic complications and we're trying to avoid that. It's just it makes the houses more usable by having one each having their own driveway. You mentioned the setback too and I saw that there was a recommendation for an 80 foot setback and and you're at a 20 foot sideard setback. Um is there a reason why you need the 20 foot as opposed to something a little bit 30 or 40 or is there is is there like a steep slope issue there or is there

Well, there is a steep slope and and the lot kind of what we did is is that we in trying to preserve the existing streetscape, we lined up the building line with the existing home. It's far in excess of the minimum required. It's my understanding it's far next of the established front yard set back on that also. So what we were focusing is lining up the two houses. We felt that I believe it's 30 feet from the lot line to the existing home and then it's another 20 ft. So we felt that 50 ft was sufficient to provide breathing room between the two homes when the when the minimum the zoning district is 12 ft. That's why we kind of we kind of try to make it a little larger. Um what we're trying to do is if you can see we have steep slope issues on the east side of the property. That's what I was trying to figure out off of the

and and and as since the house has not been designed yet, we're trying to provide some flexibility with the footprint of the home. Um but we feel that that that it's still it's sufficiently far enough. We thought that 80 ft was not a ser one one member wanted 100 ft which basically make a lot of them buildable. It was just it it was it was a thinly veiled attempt to try to make it so this property couldn't be developed. Do you know based off the steep slope really where your setback would start from the east side there? Yeah, it's it's on the plat. We we created a if you zoom in Carl, we created a like a building line along the steep slope uh 12 ft. So it's so that's where the building line would start. Yes. Yeah.

So we're setting obviously we don't want to deal with we want to provide um we want to be as far away from the bluff as possible because we want to preserve it. It's a pretty it's a ravine right there and it's a pretty it's a pretty far drop. It's a property slopes from west to east. So, we're trying to make it so that we could stay as far away from that ravine as possible, but still have a house that that obviously on a on a on an 80,000 almost a 90,000t lot that matches the lot.

I have a quick question for staff. when if if approved and they have to go back to HBC for um you know for um consideration for the type of house and and all the building uh modifications. Do they also take into account where the footprint of the house would be or that's nothing to do with it on the HPC or is it just on the aesthetic? You basically might get the question is the jurisdiction of the HPC with regards to I know they'll have they'll have input on the on this but will they also have input on where the footprint of the house will be placed on the lot.

Just to note though just to note that the HPC isn't considering modifications. It's considering a new home developed in accordance with their standards. This body considers modifications from zoning. I just want when I say modifications I mean improvement the house. Okay. Okay. I just want to be just Commissioner Fentner was just asking about what standards the HPC would consider if it if or if or when a new home would come to be built on the proposed lot too, including the location. Location. Yeah. Footprint.

Uh the only standard that the HPC deals with uh that could be uh construed to deal with uh location uh is spacing of structures on the street. So there is uh one criteria uh that says that the commission uh should aim to have uh all new construction uh have a consistent rhythm uh with the visually related structures uh that are historically significant. Um so that could be interpreted uh to mean that there would need to be uh some sort of appropriate spacing uh between new construction uh and the uh Cornelius Fieldhouse. Uh however, the commission typically doesn't uh they don't discuss setbacks. Um they really haven't discussed uh building footprint uh before uh in great detail. Their standards largely have to do uh with uh design review uh more with architectural details. I I would also know maybe Manny would know this more than I, but um I don't know the last house in Highland Park built new construction based on a certificate of appropriateness. Maybe you know it. I I'm unaware of any.

Uh yes, I do. It's 2012 uh Graange Avenue uh which was uh a new house that was added on to uh the Sparkling Springs Wellhouse. So that was an entirely new house. uh the HPC uh reviewed it and it did get a COA and from what I understand, I didn't work with the city uh during uh this time, but what I've heard from others uh and from the record um is that the HPC was mainly dealing uh with architectural details and not the placement of the structure.

And it's my recollection um cuz I watched a couple of those meetings. It's my recollection that there the there was a structure on the property and they were trying to comport the Carl remembers this they were trying to comport the new house with the structure and how the driveway and how the garage was going to be. So they were trying so it wasn't so much about um the property in this situation was how the new house was going to interact with the existing historical structure that was on the property that was going to remain. And I think that's that's what they that was a lot of the interaction and the dialogue with regards to that. But it wasn't a blank slate. There wasn't just a vacant piece of property that was being dealt with.

Yeah. I just remind this commission that you are the zoning jurisdiction here. That the HPC isn't a zoning authority and that part of a plan development is about where things are located. It's a site plan. You you consider site plans all the time. Um, the site plan doesn't indicate where the building's going to be located. It could, but it doesn't. So, it's up to the commissioners whether or not that's information you need to know to render a decision and make a recommendation to council. Um, you can talk about setbacks and other things and the location of of buildings and and and driveways and things like that as part of your plan development review. We do it all the time. And I would note as um corporation council noted at the last meeting that if a structure is going to be built on this property, we would have to return to the PDC to receive an amendment under the PUD in order to address those issues that you're bringing up right now. Um again, I I don't want to put words in your mouth, Marcus, but I think that was what you said at the last meeting,

right? That's what we both said. We Yeah. Essentially, we have a plan development if you want to make specific uh changes that are set forth in the code that count as substantial changes that would require the process um that you've seen before. An amendment to the plan development, recommendation to council from yourselves, and then approval by council. Right now, what's before you is a vacant lot.

Yeah. I'm I'm just curious in the current PUD that shows the setback lines, is that what is currently proposed for the PUD? So, if that's approved by city council ultimately when if they do come back to amend the PUD with the structure, those are the that's the starting point for negotiation for them, right? They're not we don't get another crack at what those setbacks are because we've already approved it within the PUD that's in our packet. Is that correct? It's my it's my understanding that those setback lines are for the subdivision um the platus subdivision and those are on for the PUB is a separate application separate correct me if I'm wrong

it is those are two separate applications that are here before you tonight together um but that would be a line that could not be um that would be a building line correct line that if it's shown on the uh subdivision then that's what that would be um you do have still zoning at already there. But again, um you know, uh I don't want to get into semantics on whether or not the council approved this being at this location or not because those lines are there. So you need to be very clear about what your intent is and your recommendation to council with regard to that.

So that you wouldn't run into that problem when they came back if this were to be approved and then they needed to do a a substantial amendment because they now wanted to build a house. so that you wouldn't hear, well, the council approved this line, so therefore I could go to that line. So, you need to be very clear about that.

I mean, we we discussed with staff before this meeting after uh corporation council um mentioned the last meeting about and this was brought up in one of the slides about possible conditions to try to avoid um um to avoid coming back for a amendment to the plan unit development. That's something we've discussed as a team. Um, so what we suggested, you know, it's a large footprint that there's a large buildable area, excuse me, building envelope on this. And it's something that we we talked as a team that we would commit to is that the building envelope even the the not the building the u the building footprint would not exceed 9600 ft². You could build a house over 15,000 square ft on this property. It's such a it's a 2acre piece of property, but it's something that we kind of talked about as a group. Um there's nothing formal about that, but it's something we we could have a conversation with the PDC or if if you want to discuss it now or you just want to wait and if this is approved um to come back on on a on a an amendment to the the underlying PD under the uh PUD um that's something we kind of talked about and I didn't talk to director Fontaine. I talked to ST other staff about that. Um so I I do think it's important for the commission to understand what can be the developability of that that parcel and understanding the relative size to the existing uh structures out there. So staff have some information on that if that's where the plan commission chooses to to have its line of discussion and questioning. We we're happy to to talk about that because the applicant mentioned 9600 ft. um if that's a footprint or is that the total area of the home? That's two different things. You know, you have two story homes, right? So 96 times two, you know, right? But we could do that anyways because

I I understand, but it's still that's the distinction that we need to make those types of things. And so the limitation on this lot we can talk about. I thought it was 15 and change, but you know, I would have to defer to certainly 15 that's how big of a house you could build. No one's gonna build a 15,000 square foot bus, but that's how that's that's based on the FA current F. That's what you could build. Chair, if I may, you may.

So, let me let me understand something. I may have a question for you too, Kale. The H the historic preservation division has recommended that if we approve this that we have 80 foot setbacks. The applicant has said essentially what I'm hearing is 80 foot setbacks is not workable. Maybe yes, maybe no. Number one, what what does that zoning district require for setbacks? And number two, regardless of what it the zone the the specific ordinance states, what is the applicant willing to accept or what would they propose as being a setback some somewhere between let's say a 20 or 30 foot setback and and an 80 foot setback which is what the commission has recommended. And to Commissioner Inchuk's question, do we get another crack at this apple or another bite of this apple if if we don't make even a recommendation on that?

Can I can I answer that question? Uh um I'm I'm open.

Okay. I I can't with and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding the based on the the zoning district, the minimum sideyard setback is 12 feet. and and um so what we're what we've suggested when we believe um you know the the 80 again they were throwing crazy numbers at the HPC that one guy put out 100 ft um it was as I said I mean I'm not I don't want to put I have my own feelings of what they were trying to do there um and I'm not I'm not imputing their their their um I don't want to say I'm not I'm not going to What I'm just saying is that we've thought about it and what in order to what we felt was a fair amount that would provide flexibility to where to put the footprint of the new home to try to be sensitive to the to the to the steep slope area to the east and that providing enough breathing room between this house and the other one in order to to support as what Danny Khan mentions to to to preserve some of the contextual landscaping. We thought that 50 feet between the two homes was sufficient and that's why we came up with the 20 feet. Um we didn't think that over 100 feet that what they were requesting. I think it's is it 20 or 30 ft to the house?

20. Okay. So yes, 40 ft between the homes. I misspoke. 40 ft between the two homes. Um we thought that 100 ft was just um was inex in excess. And so we thought that and and and by the way we got the input from the former chairman of the HPC in coming up with that number. I didn't come up with that number. We did it in consult consultation with the architect of where he thought and this is what was recommended by again one of the former chairmans of the HBC. So my my just to follow it up before I jump in Joel if we don't address that and the new buyer of lot two whoever might buy a lot two comes and says I want to build a house will they have to come to this group on that topic? I mean, if if they're not proposing any development and you choose to say, "Okay, this is just an open lot, just make clear in your your recommendation." But yeah, I mean, if they're proposing uh a house, then that's a change in the PUB because the PUD right now doesn't have a house on it. So then that's a trigger of a substantial amendment as corporation

count for us as as I see it. That's right. That's not being, you know, there's an idea that a house could go there. That's certainly an intent, but it's not actually on the site plan to be judged in in that detail. So, I would just advocate that the commission be very clear about that what the expectation is upon that materializing and that that would be a substantial amendment because it's not being shown here. So, it's it triggers one of the substantial amendment uh triggers in our code because it would be what is it 1% more floor area. Is that what it is? That's right. Yeah. So, it's certainly 1% more than was out there. Mhm.

Right. Um and so that that yeah, so there's there's that uh um uh trigger if you will. So yes, that that could be an approach. Carl, can we go back to that that picture because I just want to there is a question that folks kind of want to understand and this is useful. N right there. So Patrick, I believe was was pulling this up to illustrate the buildable area. Okay. Okay, we don't have a we don't have a box on a page right now. We don't know where how big it is, but that's the buildable area. And you can see the homes on the left there. Those are actual footprints on the left on the yellow part. Yep. And Yep. So, okay. So, it's a it's a large developable area. It does have limitations as B was saying about 15,000 ft and I would verify with staff on the exact,

you know, uh Florida area. um and your your FIR ability there. Um how a house materializes is important. You know, you have a big footprint single story or you have, you know, a smaller footprint twotory. These these these things uh make a difference in terms of that open space setting, the setting of the property. And so I think the commission meaning the historic preservation commission was looking at well how do you provide you know how do you try to preserve the estate like feel around the existing homes and so that's why this setback is important. So kind of making it like another front yard although it's a sideyard right and it's then still has this openness but there is another home you know and that's why that home should be set back more so now what 80 ft means on this plan I mean we don't have the benefit of where the box is but we could certainly talk about how uh some distances if we have some measurements there but you know without the benefit of seeing this on the page it's a little hard to abstractly do that but we could certainly I think we have some dimension mentions of uh the width there at some point. I would defer to Patrick Hoffman on that. He did review this and perhaps we do and maybe we don't. Just again trying to give a little more context when we don't have the context that we normally have in terms of where things are going to be on development plan.

So if if so inclined, we would be allowed to approve the subdivision but without um showing designated setbacks. So that it would just be subdivided as a vacant lot. Well, I would still, you know, the the subdivision of the land is is is just that, right? It's the subdivision of land. And if you're choosing to put a building setback line, there was the idea about the front yard setback that's very important and the sideyard setback are both important. I mean, so I don't know that, you know, you don't want to necessarily have anything there. I I do think that they are separate considerations. is you can subdivide the land and still have the PUB needed. But

and I I will note that we included in our plan a significant front yard setback with the building line equal to the existing home. So that is more than the minimum required in the zoning district which is desirable. I mean, you know, we didn't want the new house to overpower the existing landmarked home. So that's why we kind of lined it up directly similar to other houses on the street. So here you see at 80 foot from the property line that's being proposed, right? Is that the property line? This is what the This is the historic. Are you talking about this 80 foot direct? Is that from the building or is this on the property?

This is the historic preservation commission. If this were to be recommended for approval, the historic preservation commission recommended an 80 foot setback from the proposed property line down the middle. From the property line, not from the other property, the other residents. Correct. So, so then that would create, you know, this this type of 122 feet or 12 100 ft 102 feet or about 105 ft. 105 ft. Okay. The the Oh, go ahead.

So, so that that creates that open space there. And then the property, the rest of the property to the right would there's a portion of it that would be developable. And we talked about how we have the steep slope zone and stuff like that as well. But if you look at the buildable area exhibit, you can see that that a good portion of that land could be developed. And we just don't have an idea though of what the box is because we don't have

I would I would note that I mean and you know that would be creating about a 50 foot wide house. would be a long house and that actually would be more detrimental to the estate setting than by than having two wider houses on the property because again it would it would it would something like that would just be out of place on this property. you when you do create a large setback like that, the orientation of the home could become, you know, something, you know, is the home facing into that front of that sideyard or is it facing quote the street, if you will, even though it's really not.

And then one of the important things that one of the important elements that the HBC considered would be the driveway. And then you would have to materially alter the drive that they were concerned about. You'd have to add additional driveway to get to the home. That's or or we can kick the can down the road that can. Yeah. I have a question though because if you sub Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. My name is Jim Frman and I'm u looking at the architecture of the of lot two. Um, so I just want to clarify this whole, you know, the city zoning rules have been applied to this lot. There's there's protected land here and there's regulated land here. And as Kale said, I'm just want to restate it, the front yard is is is substantially in excess of what the established front yard would be. and I don't think would be anyone's intention to have the house be in front of the other house. And this is kind of water under the bridge because this is what's been shown, but that there's this is um you know about around 35 ft further back than it would have been. So the so that setback alone preserves this entire front yard uh of this property and nobody's questioning that. And so this is a very substantial amount of land. And uh and and to me that's the key thing as you look up and down Central Avenue to still be able to see very clearly the Cornelius Field House. And um so that's never been in question. The other the other setbacks are by regulation. There's a 10-ft Well, just cl I'll clarify the sideyard first. The minimum sideyard is 12 ft. the this lot is so large the other sideyard's 65 ft but I think basically all of it except maybe a little tiny amount is in the ravine and the ravine as we know is preserved

and no one's going to touch the ravine and it and there's a 10-ft setback from the top of the ravine which is by regulation these regulations already exist and then then the rear yard was calculated at the proper rear yard uh of the site. And so then the modification was the 12T, you know, the 12T line, the the sideyard line. And then and to me, the ADC thing makes no sense whatsoever. Is it nothing to do? I mean, nothing in the back of this property is really affects the historic home. And so to set back in that direction, it it just doesn't make any sense. does preclude being able to build a logical home on that property and it will be turned it would be turned sideways and it would be forced towards the into the ravine and therefore and therefore uh you know we want would want to preserve that ravine area and that's that's a a fundamental thing in Highland Park to preserve our ravine since hopefully most of the house is going to stay away from it. Uh so we did a calculation today that in this footprint I mean this footprint of this property 70% of the property is regulated with this line only only 30% is the building box and that building box um you know and so this is this is a lot of uh regulation on this property and that excludes the ravine to the north which has included this this particular slide isn't right because

uh the the proposed lot one dog lakes around the other lot. So the the statistics I just told you about the 70% doesn't include the ravine which is basically directly behind lot 2 which is more pre preserved obviously preserved area of this whole property. So there's a tre a tremendous amount of pre preservation of land by the the zoning rules as they exist with certain modifications with a big much bigger front yard setback and a change in the sideyard setback. So I just wanted to kind of clarify you know how these things evolved.

Mr. Mr. Can you go back to that that buildable area slide chrome? Okay. So, but this just to be clear though I just want to explain this. So, they so this this is this is not wrong. It's an illustration if the lots were split straight line. Okay. One two but the numbers I was using were pertained only to lot two as it was proposed. We were just asked to do this by the city. What would like if I think it was originally asked by the PDC, what would it be do if we just did the line straight? That that's what this is. This was just for illustrative purposes. This is not what we're proposing, obviously. I think so.

So, so what what this area here is showing with minimum setbacks. I'll defer to staff, but this is with minimum setbacks right on this this line here, right? that doesn't show the buildable area, the leg that they currently propose, but otherwise it's so notwithstanding what was said, there's lots of area here that you can't build on. We know that is absolutely true. And it's all here, right?

That you can't. It's all the lighter green. That's right. And the front yard, we're saying, yep, that that's the they're basically lining it up with the existing historic home there, um, which is further set back than what would be if it was the established building set back. That's stipulated. So all of this is that ravine area and all that back here and and all the protected area over here. So this is the question is is how big a house can go in this dark green area. Just to clarify with all that other stuff stipulated that green area can be built.

You know it seems it it seems to me to your point Joel we weren't talking about the front yard setback. We weren't talking about the east side setback because that's where the ravines were. God only knows I dealt with that plenty. Uh or the north side which is also where ravines are and that's part of lot one proposed lot one. Anyway, what we were talking about specifically was the sideyard setback period on the story and what would be appropriate for this commission to recommend to the council if anything or just say we want to leave it open and let them come back and have this discussion again which seems to be an incredible waste of time.

I have a a follow-up question about the subdivision into two lots. Lot two, if it's subdivided, will have R4 zoning, right? That's right. That's correct. And so the sideyard setback, if we don't dictate anything, the sideyard setback for R4 would be 15 ft. Is that right? The minimum of 12 ft. Minimum of 12. So if we don't dictate anything by right for their zoning after the lot is subdivided, they have a right to build up to that 12T correct side setback. Except that they have proposed 20T proposing and then go back. But I'm just saying if we do nothing as a commission, it's 12 ft. No, cuz we're proposing 20 ft. It would be this.

Okay. 20 ft and then it would jog back to 12 past the home cuz they're proposing that. You're right. If they were not proposing this line, but they are proposing this line. Okay. Thank you. And let me ask, do you mind if I put one? HPC was recommending 80 ft from the property line all across proposed lot two. Correct. That was the recommendation where one member wanted 100.

But that's not what the proposal is. So that's not part of my thought process. I do want to add one clarification. While the steep slope zone is regulated, you can't place structures within it. You do get the benefit of the land area which then benefits the floor area. So while yes, that area you cannot construct in, you are getting the benefit of having a bigger house cuz that is more land area. So I just wanted to provide that context as well. That's a good point. It's a good point

in regards to the side setback between the property of lot one and lot two. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought planner Hoffman mentioned that your original plan had a 20ft setback. Then you altered it to 12 and then you came back now to a 20 to 12. The original plan was an error actually and the surveyor got it wrong and we didn't realize it until the day of our hearing and then we indicated that we were going to come back with a revised um plat. We that was just that was our mistake. And why didn't you just keep the 20 all the way down into revised?

Well, the reason why we came back with 20 cuz we listened to the HBC. We wanted to create some more additional space and as you go towards the rear of the property with the concern at the HBC was where the house is located and so we thought that once you pass the house that you can go back to the minimum because there's no structures back there. So it's it's there, you know, that's the reason why we did it that way because it doesn't impact the house as you move forward further north cuz the house is doesn't exist back there. The structures but what but it might that's why we put the set back there. That's why we went down to 12 once you passed the house. Oh, you mean the field house? Yes, that's what we're talking about.

So, we wanted the flexibility as you pass the house, what you get into the zoning district and just making a combination of the fieldhouse by creating a little more little more breathing room between the houses.

Any additional question? Oh, go ahead, Mr. Chair. Um I just I just wanted to ask through you to staff um what is the footprint of the existing home uh right down right now on site there that one. Okay. So the footprint of that home is provided by staff. This is sourced from I believe the assessor's uh portal online through our GIS system. If is that correct? It doesn't state. So I just threw you to you comes up on the

Okay. So this is this is what the Cornelius Field home or house is. Just for reference you see that box on the page. We don't have any other right but that particular box is there. So that's what that is. And if you can switch back. So you've got the the Cornelius uh fieldhouse is 4500 and then that coach house is 1,100. So if you can flick back to the other to just look at that current. Yep. So you can see here you know what that looks like. I think that's best or one of those uh options there. So you can see the the size of that home is 4500.

Yeah, it's hard to see. It's the rectangle here at the corner is the fieldhouse not yeah the that's the one we the home and then just the other two structures listed I also just want to clarify that that is the footprint that is not the F right so the applicant talked about a 9600T home so the footprint is 4500 of the home but go back to that previous slide with the purple that will no the house about 6,000 trying to look at the house that is the Cornelius It's about 6,000 ft² total of footprint on the existing lot one.

I did the math. You had you had 4,500 with,00 with 600. Is there another picture? Another um over 6,000. That's right. How I added up. What's a zero? Exactly. 60,000. Okay.

There was another view of that, Carl. No, not that one. But on the map down further that correct. Okay. So you see there the existing home in the purple right. Okay. So staff could talk about the coloration here. Um what are we uh depicting in this uh particular slide? Well, this the the the existing home and the existing shed house here and that's a purple type color and then the dark dark green is uh the approximate buildable area as was proposed several meetings ago.

Right. And so the existing home historic home that purple does looks like it does not coincide with the full extent of that. Is that because of porches and other Yeah, that's right. That's right. This is a carport here. And then you have Just wanted to make that clear to the the commission. There's a porch around the front and then a porch off the back. Off the back. So the home itself, that purple area then is am I right to say that that's the 4500 square footprint, Patrick? What is this footprint? Is it just the homes garage? No, it counts the carport and the porches as well.

Okay, that's important. So if you flick back to that then Okay. So then that purple area isn't the entire extent of what the 4500 is. It would be the white areas that Carl will point to that are uh the uh porches etc so forth. So right now from the porch to the proposed lot line is 20 ft and the applicant is proposing 20 ft on its side of that lot line as well. That's right.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is if that whole area, including the white porch areas and the carport, if you zoom a little bit out, Carl, you can then see what a 4500 square ft footprint would mean on the lot next door. Okay. So, it would be really helpful if we had something like that on here to list to to talk about, but just put that out there. Um, and they mentioned a 9600T home. So twice that size well arguably but not necessarily the footprint but that's the footprint is that correct that is not the grow that's not the total area of that building through you to staff the 4500 footprints of the home

the and what is the total area of that home then is that two stories right it is two stories according to the lake county it was comparable to it was almost 5,000 Um, but you don't count the carport, the porch area towards the floor area. So, what's the footprint though? The footprint's the 4500. Footprint 4500.

That's what that's correct. And that does include the porches and the carport. Correct. Okay. But when you look at the gross floor area of a bu of a home, it's not going to include some of those things. The assessor does not include certain things in those those readings. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, something like that. And if you zoom in a little bit, Carl, you can see the outlines of the porch areas and the carport. That's, you know, 4,500 ft². So, you double that and you've got a 9,000 foot home.

And and I would mention is the house, as you can see, is there's a significant porch on the east side. So, from the house to it's going to be more than the 40 ft to the house cuz you have that porch there. Mhm. And then another important point here is to illustrate that you have 108 ft from that setback line which is 20 ft to the uh the top there I presume of the buildable area. Yep. Roughly on that front yard it's about 108 ft. So if you add if you subtracted 60 ft from the 108 ft you could see that that's getting a little tight, right? in terms of what the orientation of that new home would be a large home. It's just these are the things you know talks about site planning you know these things so that that's an important

but 30 ft might not be unreasonable or 20 ft maybe is not unreasonable I don't know and and the 20 ft came from from from Jim for the architect can I go I just have a clarifying question for the applicant is the um potential footprint of the new house 9,000 square F feet or is it okay the footprint? So, if we're looking at the um existing fieldhouse, it would be double essentially double what the footprint is, not the total. Yes. Can you structures on the property also? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Thanks. Like compared to the corn fieldhouse that's twice the size of the fieldhouse.

Yeah. I I think it's important to keep in mind the other structures on the property because they are also taking footprint which was over 6,000 square ft already and if I was buying that historic house I might want to add to it too in the back you know like we shouldn't preclude that this 2acre site wouldn't want further development after whoever would buy lot one that they would also want some development Well, Frank, you make it more complicated. Well, look, if I if I you know, why not try to make it more complicated than it already is?

If I own a 4500 square foot footprint house and the guy next door to me is building a house with a footprint that's twice that size, you know, well, size is everything. You know, Mandy can talk about this more than I can, but but one of the things I've seen in this is trying to doing certificate of appropriate people to make houses more relevant because this house is is an extremely old house with with and what the modern buyer wants something different. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, Manny, but a lot of times they'll encourage if you're going to do do the additions on the back of the house because it preserves the historical front elevation and which is the most important of all the elevations. So when they come and they say, "Try to improve an historical home, but do it in the back of the house." And and and you've built your great room or new your kitchen that everybody wants, the big white kitchen everybody wants. You could do that on the back of the house. And that would then preserve the house and also make the house more relevant going forward. So it it it matches modern living styles. And that's what that's what I've seen in in historical preservation. Any additional questions for the applicant or staff?

Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would make like to make comments? Seeing none. Um, all right. So, I guess there's a few things for us to kind of settle on. one, do we want to consider do we want to approve things or not approve things? And if we do want to approve things, do we want to take into consideration any of the uh amendments or um

condition?

Condition. Thank you. um that the um HPC um recommended. So, opening it up for conversation from you guys and thoughts. I mean, I I guess I'll start. Um I'm not against you know the approval in theory. Um I was concerned with two issues. One was you know looking at the HBC conditions of the 80oot setback which I think that's unreasonable to be honest. Um and then the driveway. Um understanding a little bit more color on you know why the driveway won't work. I mean I myself I have a shared driveway with two other houses. I understand it's hard. um wish there was a way to make it work but I I understand that's a little bit unreasonable um but you know going to the 80oot setback which again that's unreasonable but um I was hoping there'd be more of a happy medium there you know because again that was their intent was you know 80 100 foot again that's not going to work but I think the intent was they want to see more open space there and more distance so that the new house whether it's 9,000 or 10,000 or 12,000 isn't sitting right on top of the fieldhouse. house and and the fieldhouse would then be in its shadow. Um so, you know, while I again I understand the driveway and I kind of put that aside. I'm like, okay, I I'd approve it with the new driveway. They already said they'll approve the other two conditions, but the one that I'm struggling on is the is the setback. And I understand 12T is what's allowed in that zoning district, but HPC gave us an approval with certain conditions um with very close margin of approval

and it was clear that they wanted to see a a a much wider um you know setback between properties there between the the two structures. So that's that's really only place I'm struggling on to be honest. I ask a follow-up question. I think there was maybe I am getting confused with what the material said, but I thought that the HPC unanimously um I'm thinking defied, but that's not the right word. Denied. Thank you. Um recommended denial and that they said these conditions if if it gets approved. That's what they said, right? Those are the conditions they wanted to see if if approved, right? Yeah.

Yep. That's the part that I'm struggling with. I feel like, you know, I I always think of it like traffic studies, right? Um I don't know how to do traffic studies. I rely on people that know know these things and I don't know that, you know, if I were looking at what the HPC was looking at, I would come to the same conclusion, but I'm also not on the HPC. I'm on the PDC. And uh I like they overwhelmingly recommended denial. And so I'm trying to be uh understanding of that. Right. It's hard to approve it with only two of their four conditions being met.

Right. You know, I kind of have a different thought process on this. Um and I've been giving it a lot of thought since we last met. part of it, but it stems from as a jumping off point the fact that both of these lots are going to still be landmark properties and they're going to have to come to the Historic Preservation Commission to obtain a certificate of appropriateness to build something on lot two. that gives me a certain amount of comfort um because it you know and that's why I asked the question originally in in in the hearing uh could a current owner build on that property and the answer is it be might be tough but there's a process for them to do that to build a second residence on that property even though it's not zoned for that uh that's what we're here for that's what the zoning board of appeals is is there for um which David and I know only too well. Um so so that gives me a certain level of comfort. Um I as David said, I don't I've never shared a driveway. I mean I plow my neighbor's driveway, but it's his, not mine. Um and I don't think I'd want to do that. um the preservation of the fence and gate posts and trees uh and all that stuff the applicant is is willing to to go along with. Um I know height might be an issue. Uh I I would frankly support that and you and we all know how height is measured. It's kind of goofy. Um, but I wouldn't want a second residence on lot

two to tower over the fieldhouse. I would want those to be pretty close to the same, if not the same. Um, I don't know what that means in terms of measuring because, as I said, we have kind of a convoluted way of doing that. Um, but all in all, I'm uh I am not I'm not opposed to this application with with some of those conditions because I think we're and and you know, not that we should necessarily take into account that the taxes on this property is is incredibly ridiculous. Um well, it's high. Let's not put is ridiculous. That's an unfair characterization. Um it's a lot of money. Um, and frankly, you know, even if you own one of one of these lots, it's going to be a lot of money. Uh, th this is not inexpensive property. Uh, we should thank God we have these properties in in Highland Park so they can support the schools and the rest of us don't have to. Um, but I'm I'm I'm in all seriousness, I'm comforted by the fact that the landmark designation stays with it, that the Historic Preservation Commission is going to have an opportunity to weigh in on whatever gets built on on proposed lot 2. uh and with certain conditions. I'm, you know, the thing I've been struggling with, frankly, uh aside from the height aspect of it, um because I don't think it should be higher than the fieldhouse, uh is the sideyard setback. Um we've dealt with those many, many times. Um the current property has got a 20 yard set back from the porch, not the house, from the porch, which is fine. to the to the property line. Uh so I would be

comfortable frankly with uh if if we're the F is is going to be another thing, but if we're talking about height maintaining height, I would be comfortable with a 20 yard a 20 foot setback throughout. Not I wouldn't I wouldn't jog it down. I mean I I understand what what the applicant's asking. Um, I'm not so sure I'm I'm good with that. Um, I think 20 20 feet on be each side of the property line makes sense. Um, it's a little bit more than what the zoning code requires. U, but this is a property that's a little bit different than what the zoning code uh envisions. So, um, that being said, I'm I I would probably with those those conditions, I'd probably be in favor of uh approving this application.

Mr. Chair, I just want to draw the commission's attention to the standard that is relevant to this particular conversation. You have other standards that must be met, of course, for the plan development, but related to the historic preservation aspect of things. Just wanted to remind the commission of that. Thank you.

Um, so I'm looking at the at the bless you the the plat on my computer and my I'm looking at the the sideyard setback where it states on lot one 20 ft from the property line on the west side. But visually when I'm looking at it, the 20 yard set 20 foot yard set back from lot one to lot two looks visually different and smaller. Like if you like look at the like the the amount of space between the property line and the the setback from the that to lot two and then go down to lot one. At least on my computer that set back looks I mean smaller

crazy but it looks smaller. You're saying on the west side to the east side? Yeah this says 20 ft and then this says 20 ft but like looking at this like a third of the way longer. So I'm troubled if that is like that that because looking at the the it just looks like it's either misstated or mdrawn. I think it looks about the same. Really doesn't that look here see like like this is like the width of my finger and this is like half my finger. I mean it's not science but but it looks scale. Which package page are you on? Maybe

I'm on I'm on the the Plat subdivision. Uh one. So he he's saying if you go to the west side of the property, the sideyard set back on the west side of the property looks like it is greater than the sideyard set back on the east side of the property. And so I know you guys are saying, hey, we have a 20ft setback on this side. But just the way it visually is represent rep represented to my eye, it looks at a different scale.

And so I don't know if it's just drawn oddly or are you referring to this page? Yeah, I'm I'm referring to this page. So if you like if you take the cursor to the left, you'll see the property line between lot one and lot two in the distance to the 20ft setback. And if you look at like just visually the amount of space that takes up to that what claims to be a 20ft set. Bring it back down Carl because you're 12 right from there to there. That's supposed to be 20 ft. But then if you go down to the west side of the property of lot one is a 20ft setback. And just visually it looks like a different amount of distance from this

from my eye. Where's the setback from? Where's it? I see what you're saying, chair. Uh I don't know. I mean, I guess I see that this dimension here is listed as being 34.4 ft. Yeah, it doesn't show a measurement, but then this is shown as 20 ft. Yeah, it's weird. Well, is it take note and measure that? What is right right where the is definitely a little bit if you if you come Yeah, I see what you're saying.

South a little bit. Is that is that the carport there? Right there. Yes, that's carport. So is that where they measure are they measuring the setback from there to the property line or where that doesn't look like it I I think the chair is correct the the that's yeah that's the other side of that that's 69.14 ft to property line from the home right but that's set back line where airport

cuz the the the applicants representing that we have a 20 foot setback line over here. So 20 foot setback line is okay on this side, but visually it doesn't look like a 20ft setback. And so I just want to know like what what is it in reality? Yeah, of course. So are you saying it's just so clear? It's the 20 foot from the screen porch to the lot line and then the 20 ft to the proposed setback. Is that No, I'm saying the 20 foot from the lot line of lot one and lot two on the far right side to the setback is stated as 20 ft. Just say 20 ft right here.

And then is that 20 ft from the the the west property line to the where it states 20 foot setback sideyard on the west side? I see what you're saying. I would just say I mean, you know, this is signed by a surveyor. I mean, so if he if he misdrew it, I mean, I we could verify those numbers. It doesn't look like he doesn't look like he has a number, Kale, from the from let's say the carport or somewhere around there to the lot line.

No, he doesn't. He has the 20 I think you're talking about the 20 side yard set back right there. Right. It looks it appears larger the 20 yard on this side than the 20 yards on the other side. Correct. That's what you're saying. And and it may be just a drawing a mistake by the survey. I we could we could verify the numbers. We could say that's the intent and we could we could do that with surveyor. He signed this. So you know um I'm assuming that that's just showing what a 20ft set would be. It's not saying that will help the house.

No no he's talking about this the proposed 20 ft here. I'm just saying that what is representative is 20 ft and what is 20 ft completely different scale. What we'll do is we'll we'll verify that with the surveyor that that's the intent is that we're not fully on that side anyway. So no, I understand that, but like I'm looking at this proportionally of what the setback should be and I'm trying to think about what the effect of a new property, a new home on property potential lot two would be and if I'm comfortable with the 20ft setback and so I'm just trying to understand if you guys are misrepresenting intentionally unintentionally the setback on the west side of the lot to then say, hey, we have 20 ft over here, we have 20 ft over here, but it's really 35 ft so that we don't push you guys for a larger setback. draw this drawing. I don't know I don't know what's going on on the left side of the diagram but these but having drawn or the other side these two things are the same and those are 20 ft

correct but I'm saying like you have that set back on the west side and people looking at the proportionality the setback's a hunch it's mislabelled or misdrawn but the other side is is accurate which is what we're talking correct But I was trying to understand the proportionality and like what is if I was a study man I would bet that that's a 35 go back I keep I'm trying to sorry zoom if I was if I was a bed man. Okay I if you look up to the the onetory residence there's 34.4 ft

and then you look and there's a little area there. I'm guessing that may should have been 35 ft instead of 20 ft. 35. I'm I'm not sure that it makes a difference though. Well, I mean, I understand what you're saying, chair. Yeah. But if if we're talking on the on the east side, it's it's unmistakably 20 ft from the porch to to the proposed property line. Correct.

And then it's unmistakably 20 whether it's whether it's measured right or not. Uh it's supposed to be 20 ft from the proposed property line to a buildable lot. Um the the west side of of proposed lot one would be equivalent to the east side of proposed lot two. What's facing not I I don't I don't I don't here's here's my suggestion is that we'll go back and verify with the way we look at it. I think uh Commissioner Henry is correct. I mean the the relevant is the 20 ft and 20 ft on the on the on the east on the west side and the east the east side and the west side between the two homes. We'll verify the numbers because we're not looking to do anything in that in that area. So we'll verifi we'll verify that that's correct. We'll talk to the surveyor. There's nothing intentional obviously and we want to make sure the surveyor didn't make an error on that.

These I scaled this on my uh PDF which I have a more advanced version than what's available on here. Uh I and there's a scale on the bottom of this uh right here. These are drawn, labeled, and scaled correctly. This one is probably mislabeled. It should probably say 30 ft. Okay.

Yeah, there's a catch. While I have a microphone, I'm to address Commissioner Henry's position about the height. We talked about this last time. The property slopes from west to east and then if there's new lots created as you know height is defined is is is defined by the four corners of the building envelope. So the actual building own the height will be actually lower on the new lot because the lot slope there. So so it it's even though this the existing house I believe we we heard last time was 30 ft. Um, if I was a betting man, again, we haven't done the calculations yet cuz you need a topo survey of the new lot, but I'm my guess would be there's a significant grade change that the anything even based on the existing zoning district will have to be lower than the existing house just because the property slow.

To to your point, Mr. Both the point I was trying to make was understanding that it slopes west to east whether it's the same height the absolute same height or the height of a proposed new house would be no higher than the current house even though it might be taller because it's lower. Yes, I I get that. That's what we were that's what I was trying the point I was trying to make. I'm okay with that. Okay.

I'm I'm not troubled by that. I'm Well, the only thing I would not like to see and I would I would like us to put in there is that the height the site height is the same. If that makes any sense. Confusing is heights could be measured differently on the two lots. Understood. and and change and this commission understands that too well because we've dealt with it on numerous occasions. Okay, great. Altitude altitude. There you go. The barometric altitude. True. I would just refer to that as local height as opposed to the average grade height from which the zoning code requires the measurement. Right. So

you mean when you stand out in front of the door, you look up, how high is string from one house to the other, right? Understood. Yeah.

So, here's my here's my take on this on it. Sorry to digress on a diet tribe on setbacks. Um, my my my point of view on this is like I'm generally okay with splitting up the lots. Um, it's a hu I drove by the site. It's insanely huge. Um it'd be fun to play football on that field, but um and and and I think it it you know over time I think it would be fine fitting in. My personal preference would be to have a 30foot setback between the properties to to give them both breathing room uh between the properties and not have one overshadow um the other and have that 30-foot setback go all the way back and not stagger. Um, additionally, I would um I'd want them to come back um whenever a house is proposed. Again, this is all conceptual and trying to figure out where things are and how they would affect the others. And then the other thing my brain went to is would the applicant be open to and if you guys are open to it as well recreating the entryway and the new driveway so it mirror um what was there existing with the the ornamental uh entryway with the new and have it you know cuz it was built for the intent of that property and so to replicate it in some form or fashion and the new driveway which isn't really shown on the plat. Um, that's kind of where my my brain is at. I have no issue with um the front step back. Yeah,

I'll go unless they want to respond to you on your question. No. Okay. Um, I am really concerned about the HPC vote 7 to zero. Um, and I I agree with Commissioner Mantis that I don't know historic preservation and I I would trust people who do know a bit about it to look at all the facts and deliberate. And I'm worried about the fact that they had big concerns about this property. Um, and I think that even if they do have big concerns and they put these, you know, considerations forward, including the 80 foot setback, which is a big setback to come back with a 20ft setback is still to me like not in good faith. This is a special property. Um, it has an estate feel. It has documented all of these like site conditions that make it special and to come back with a 20 foot is like like surely you can build a building with more than a 20ft setback on that property it's gigantic. Um and so that to me just like kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Um, I think for the footprint and the height, those are things that we could talk about and get to like a decent place with, even if it is building back on the lot more, so it's not so much impacting the view from the street. Um, but I I just don't feel good about the way that the setback's currently being discussed. I think at least 40 ft would be my preference for the setback. Uh, and I think that's pretty much what my thoughts are. Just a real quick question for staff as well. If we were to ask for a larger setback and if this has to come back to

us anyway, could we then back off of that setback at a future meeting or is this how set in stone is that? I going to be an ordinance that gets adopted and there'll be conditions and setbacks established, but that could be changed if the applicant came back and requested that it be changed. You could consider changing it as part of a PUD amendment, but it would be borrowing a PUD amendment. That would be the setback, right? But but it would need a PUD amendment no matter what if they're going to propose a home.

That's correct. So then I would I would tend to agree with Commissioner Inchek in terms of going a little bit more restrictive in terms of a setback, giving ourselves, calling it what it is, some negotiating uh uh leverage for for you know whatever the house is ultimately going to look like um or or be in terms of size and scope. So um that that's my thought to get comfortable with this. No, it's it's tricky without seeing a footprint of a house on there. Like agreed. You

Commissioner Henry and I have reviewed hundreds of sight setbacks on ZBA, but there's always a footprint. We always had something to reference with. Maybe it's helpful if they come back with a footprint of a house and we could see it at 20 ft at 30 ft and then 20 ft may be completely reasonable, right? But it's hard to see without another without a reference point. M um that's you know that's again 20 ft may work but it's hard to see you have a huge lot in a huge you know buildable area so there's really no reference point. I would also love to see some like it doesn't have to be a like a photo rendering or anything, but some contextual pictures of what that might look like with the with homes that are that size that are 40 ft away from each other, just so we can kind of visualize in a better way what that would mean. I think that would be really helpful and not too hard to to find. So we want to continue. I just wanted to address the um the recommendation from the HBC. I I would note that um we have two former chairman of the HPC uh are supporting the subdivision. But even though there was unanimous against, you know, recommending that the the um the subdivision um two former members including Danny Conor, I believe the chairman for about 10 years. Um he wrote a letter unsolicited to us. I was surprised to see it today when he sent us in support thinking that it was a good compromise. So it's not the the the historical preservation community is is not uniformly against it because we do have former chairman of the commission who were supporting this. So give me a second to talk to the client and I'll be

right back. Thank you.

Go ahead. I just want to just make mention that notwithstanding what was just said, the commission as appointed as the body that is advising you. The testimony of others are important and you take testimony both written and uh oral testimony. Oral testimony is under oath. Written testimony is just that's the information you're getting from different stakeholders and people involved. You didn't know you signed up for this entire training for me in two years when I get over 6 in the morning. I'm way more aware. They can still hold still if it goes that way.

Correct. Possibility first. That's what it's always aggravating. They're not for whatever reason aren't sharing with us exactly what they want to develop. That was that was the whole thing with you know what Mr. Chairman, just I would advocate that if there's conversation that it be in the mics and that it can be on the record. I just don't want sidebars. Okay. Thank you.

No problem. the applicants here like to address the board, but before we do that, um I just want to make sure for for for our purposes clarify. So, when you're saying you want a 40 foot or 30 or 40ft step back, it's from the lot line, the proposed lot line. It's not between the two houses cuz there's 20 ft and then you're requesting a larger than we're proposing 20 ft. Um, and you wanted to go larger for 30 and I heard 40 here. So, um, do you still want to you Okay, great. W to talk. Well, we're trying to get a hold of the proposed buyer cuz he's not here tonight. is traveling to see cuz he's the one who's you know he's his envisioning the house on the property that he can live with that um because I would notice if you look at the the lot the lot does the vertical area narrows as you go towards the rear which may handcuff and that's the reason we went down the 12 ft so if you pull that out

have you been uh sworn in for I think you the first Oh do it again do it again do you uh swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth absolutely Um, will you please uh go to the microphone uh state your name uh for the record?

I'm Greg Moyer. Um I am representing and I'm partners with the owner of the house, Eric Roth. Eric hasn't lived in the house for 5 years. Um his he and his wife Gail own the house together. She passed away. He hasn't been back literally been back to the house a couple of times. We've had the house on the market, as you know, for a very long time trying to sell it. Um, it's very limited buyer pool for a historic landmark with a tremendous lot that has to be maintained. We found a buyer that's interested in it. I think the buyer should have given you a site plan to show you where the house should be. I requested it multiple times. Um, I'm glad to hear that you at least drove by. You we should all walk by it and see the the amount of distance. There's a tremendous amount of land there. I live right around the corner. I've lived around the corner. I've lived in Highland Park since 1969. Um I lived right around I lived on Park Avenue. I live now on Hawthorne Lane. And I I know the property extremely well. You won't see the new house after the setback from the street. You you will almost not even see it as you're driving down Central Avenue. Even with Exactly. putting it up all the way to the setback to the the east west setback. So now we're talking about setback between the two houses. you're the amount of setback is you having 20 feet and 20 feet between the houses is a lot of setback. He's not going to build the house to that property line. He's going to build the house. He's not maybe something's going to go to 20 ft, but it's not going to be at that line. That being said, he may not buy the lot. So, I So, we're we're sitting here talking about this and you know, we may build it ourselves. We may find another buyer for the house. Mr. Fentner might buy the house. I don't know who's going to buy the lot, but we have to be able to We have to be able to build something that's reasonable. We can't maintain this house. It's It's not maintain. It's not feasible. It's not salailable. We can't maintain an $81,000 tax bill not living there. I didn't know the taxes were that much. I got my tax

bill, too. I thought sure you guys all loved your tax bills you just got. Um so, so something has to happen. Is it reasonable? Sure. I I I I really believe that the that that the buyer should have had a site plan for you to look at, but we want to he's going to the buyer is also very local. Knows most of you, I'm sure. They want to put a reasonable house on the property. They're not going to build a monstrosity of a house. Um the setback I think is reasonable the way it's requested. The zoning says 12. We went to 20. 80 makes the lot frankly unbuildable. you would have to have a sideways house put there. Um, I wanted to clarify that the 20 ft from the porch to the proposed lot line is okay. I'm fine at 30 ft. Um, I I I can't say I'm going to want you to approve at 40 cuz I don't even know what I have there. I'd rather, you know, take take a look at it, but 30, you know, we're fine. I don't even understand why that jog is there that is on the survey, you know, where narrowed down. I I don't know. The architect said something about the lot narrowing. I don't think it really has that. Okay, I can't imag You're up in the house back there. So, I don't think it makes a difference. So, if you want to go 30 ft all the way back, I think it's probably fine. So, anyway, thanks for your time is we've got you guys have a lot of time into this thing. I appreciate your time. I really appreciate the time of of HPC. I get their point, but the house is land. They're taking care of the house. We're treating it as a landmark. It's going to continue to be a landmark. You can't this. If you look at the driveway, that driveway, I could promise you that driveway wasn't there when the house was built the way it is. Yeah. It only makes sense to put another driveway with the porticoer to maintain it, maintain the integrity. They're going to he's, you know, Mr. um, uh, Freeman is going to design a house that's going to be significant for, you know, appropriate and a driveway that's appropriate for what's there. So, I'm asking that you guys approve this lot split. 30 feet is

fine. You know, we'll make it work. And uh that's what I'm asking. Thank you very much. Thank you.

One thing I forgot to mention tonight is that and and Craig just brought this up is that uh when I went up the t look up the taxes today, I just wanted to see I went to check the exemptions. If you notice, if you have your tax bill, you have a homestead exemption if you live in the property. The last time the homestead exemption was taken on this property was 2022. And the last time the senior exemption was taken was the same year. So basically no one's been living in that house since 2022 because otherwise they'd be taking the homestead exemption. And so um one of the things is is right now the there's one surviving spouse who's very elderly, not living in the house. And we talked about this last time is that what happens if nothing gets done here? um we don't want to go down that road because um if it's unmarketable and even at $100,000 if someone doesn't want to carry such a large property for over $100,000 a year in carrying costs it makes it really problematic. So as Danny Khan mentioned this we're trying to come up with a a a compromise that works with everybody. So let me talk and see what they what the buyer said. Okay. So, the applicant is okay with a 30ft sideyard setback all the way back and we like proceed hopefully on that. And what we would do is is that if the findings are fact, you can make that as a condition and then we'll update this before this the proposed plan before we get to council.

Thank you. Any other deliberation, conversation? I'm a lot more comfortable approving it with 30, so I'm fine with it. Yeah. Sorry that narrow the mic. I'm sorry. You're good.

If you remember on that survey, which I think the surveyor is horrible, by the way, I absolutely that was after the rev two revisions and we can never find the guy. This was the original surveyor for the house. I don't know how this happened. So, you're going to get a new survey from a different surveyor, but we will get that. I didn't even understand what the 20 foot thing was on on that west side. That was ridiculous. that needs that jog. That jog needs I need, you know, with the jog that they said they had it with 20 I think going down to 10 12

12. Um and and Jim explain to me why that's needed because you know there's going to be some the way they're kind of laying out a house that they haven't laid out yet is it, you know, the the way the lot slants. You can see over here to back here, you see how this this angles back, right? You see right over there. So, This is this the bluff and stuff. So just it just the way this this becomes like there's going to be some house that needs to go back that way. So if we could I said 30 ft is fine. If you could do 30 ft and narrow it down to 25 ft or 20 ft would be very helpful in in that spot.

So it seemed that there at least have been some renderings or some sketch or something on a cocktail napkin. Is there like anything that there could be shared that will provide context of potential buyer's vision because it will make it a lot easier for us to approve or not approve things just to have some sort of context of what this proposed buyer would like to see and it also the more information you have about that and also spare folks coming back potentially right correct for an amendment. So I just pointed Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I I can you know the idea is to get to get it further back. So when you're pin when when you're pushing this sideyard all the way back in the back it causes us to want to get back, you know, to lose space trying to arrange a house further back. But the intent is to push the house further back. And and I'm not I'm not promising anything, but that's the idea. We don't want to be up against this other house, but we also don't want to be be restricted by regulations that way exceed what what's normal and it already exceeds that. And because because where the property line was drawn in the first place exceeded what what they needed what they could have done. uh with lot one for example. So the intent is to stay away from it. I mean that is the intent.

I understand but do you have like anything that you can tangibly show us as a a body of like what your potential client has like envisioned or seen or thought or like cuz you said that they're fine with a 30-yard setback and they have a vision. like is there anything again that would help us understand contextually how this would sit on the site as a plan development because you guys will have to come back to us regardless to share and I think it would be easier and quicker for us to approve or not approve this this additional context. Well, not that I could not that I could share without the client's consent

uh other than what I just said. So um is there anything I mean in terms of there I think there's a lot of things that aren't being taken into consideration also which is which is also what the landscape there actually is in terms of there's some mature trees right up against this porch and amazing trees right in front of the house of We know one of those is a heritage tree and u nobody can touch that. So that's regulated too and another magnificent tree next to it. I think I took some photographs which was very interesting and I'm just going to share it of the whole property before spring came. And it's it's really interesting because the the house is well protected by vegetation in its immediate surrounding. And I think that's be considered also uh and it's it's interesting how little you can see the house even with no leaves on the trees. That's how dense things are right around that porch. And it's quite beautiful, of course. But it's something to think about, too.

Thank you. All right. So, what do you guys want to do? Well, They seem at least for the the part where the hypothetical residence is going to be, they'd be amanable to a 30 30 foot setback. Um, then what I'm hearing is that where the JAG shows it going back to 12, they'd be amanable to 20. I think you said unless I'm putting words in their mouth. I heard 25. Okay. I just I heard I mean, if he really needs it,

I mean, you're going to have to come back anyways, but yeah, have to negotiate that, you know, so figure it out.

So, this is a question for staff. Is that is um assuming we we can agree to a revised sideyard setback on the west side for lot two, would we need to become back or could they do that as a condition? Um depend depends on how you want to frame your uh your recommendation. Um you could say that that be revised to show a setback of a particular distance and then that would need to be submitted before it goes to city's council and staff would verify that that happened. The only reason I bring that up is because um the city council is meeting on May 26th and they don't meet again in for over a month after May 26th. They only have one meeting in June, which is June 29th. So if this gets push if there's any way we can avoid pushing this back because then we're two months out from where we are right now. Um so I'm trying to avoid that. Again, if they had two meetings in June, I'd be less concerned. But with only one meeting and that meeting is actually the fifth week instead of even the fourth week, it's it pushes the whole thing way back.

I'm asking for them to make us a condition so we can move forward, not have to come back. That's the condition. Yeah. So, sign up. I'm done. I'm done. It's fine. We'll get it done. We'll come back. Go to city council. I'm sorry. I'm done. I it doesn't matter what he says. Okay. It's not as wide. Okay. Okay. So, we're proposing I I'm going to make an executive decision. We're proposing 30 ft instead of the 20 ft area. And with the 12 ft areas, we would request 25 25 ft. Okay. And we can make that as a condition. So, keep the ball rolling. Otherwise, we won't be city council till June 29th.

And has the commission made a decision on the uh driveway? the driveway condition. Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I was I'm okay with I understand how hard it is to have a shared driveway. Yep. Yeah, I'm I'd be okay with that. I'm okay with that, too. You understand what that'll do?

Um I don't know. I feel like there's a way to do it where that like you're partially sharing it and partially having individual um but I guess that's neither here nor there if you have four people saying they're fine with it.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. You need to either if you're going to speak, you need to come to a mic. Otherwise, I'm going to gamble and I don't know what the ramifications for me gambling. Every intent to maintain that that fence, turn the fence inward. If you want the posts to match, I'm not sure we can make that work. I totally fine with creating two posts on the other driveway. I don't know. It might look goofy. It's kind of hard to comment on that. You understand? Somebody asked you're talking about that if you added another driveway, you would

have a drive the curved driveway. It's almost really unworkable the way the driveway is set to try to service both houses. But if we created another driveway straight in and you could do the double pillars, I don't know what else to call them monuments

that were really not architect. They were not historical anyway. They maybe recreate the pineapples on top if we had to. But um you could turn the fence, which I also challenge the dating of the fence, but leave it alone. turn that in because we don't want to get rid of the the fence to uh to create that. I think that would be fine. Um so that's kind of the my comment if that helps you. Thank you. All right. So it sounds like we have Could you bring up the um conditions, please? Thank you. Can I ask a question while that's happening?

Yeah, please. Um, this is for maybe corporation council. I'm wondering how many votes we need in affirmative for something to pass with five people. So, you need a majority of those present here. You need three. Um, not affirmative, but concurrent. Hopefully, we won't have to get into the nitty-gritty of what that actually means. But so long as concurring in the result, but not the decision. Well, he all of your votes must count. I'll just say that. And if we need to add a couple minutes to your training this year, we'll do that, too. Not do that either. I oppose that. Yes. Three um at least three votes, right? Thank you.

That's a good question. I mean, for the zoning board, you sometimes have to have a certain number require for I think it's a special exception. Yeah, that's right. That's correct. Yeah. So, we have two things to vote for. vote on one is the plat of re subdivision and then one is the PUB correct that's correct that's correct and chair um you can do it how you usually do it um vote to adopt the findings of fact the findings of fact do well vote to adopt the findings of fact that takes care of both the plat of subdivision as well as the PUD and then um which of the HPC conditions if any you wish to adopt.

Yep. Just one other thing though I just threw you, Mr. Chairman, into corp council. So you have the zoning matter that's the PUD and you have the subdivision. Now the subdivision is going to have this this line the subdivision building line that will be that setback. Is it is it uh advisable to include in that recommendation that there be some mention of that as a condition in the PUB also or is it sufficient just to have the building line reflected in the subdivision without mentioning the PD? That would be my question.

Well, I would hope those two would be consistent. My thought is that the condition would say um a setback of 30 feet uh and then 25 ft toward the rear of the property and that would be reflected as well on the plat of subdivision when it comes back before council. Okay. So in both places. Yep. I just wanted to be clear.

So and then someone correct me if I get this wrong. So, could I get a motion to approve the findings of facts for PD 20250081 with the conditions that the gate post fence? No, with um these were for consideration. Oh, for consider that the commission

the ones that I've I've heard thus far and the commission can discuss them. I've heard variously. So, I've heard the the 30 foot set back and then jogging back to 25. Uh, and then I've also heard there was also a comment on height that the proposed home can't be higher than the uh than the existing home. Just

director Director Fontaine had a ter. So with the um conditions that the western boundary, the the western setback of lot 2 would be 30 ft and then past the house 25 ft. And the height, the maximum height on lot 2 would not exceed the local height.

Well, there's two things. If you want the height to be the exact same height as the building next to it is one thing. If you want the height of this building to match the height of the other building, that's a different thing. So, the local height would be right in front of the door looking up. If it's 30 ft on the Cornelius Fieldhouse, then it would be 30 ft here. Now the land drops away. So that would be like this. If you're saying if that's what you want so that the height of this building and the height of this building are the same. That's one thing. If you want them to be aligned, that's different. This building would be taller cuz it's set down, right? And so the the height maximum in this zone district is 32 feet or is it 30 ft?

32. So they cannot go any higher than 32. Okay. And so I don't know the height of the existing home. I don't know if anyone in on staff knows the height of the existing home at this time. 30 ft. 30 ft. They say 30 ft. So just one condition or do we want a condition on a height? Can we bring up the other HPC recommendations? Well, we resolve the sideyard. Correct. That's one.

Um, talk about height. Two, I I thought that we were talking about not they're both 30 feet, but one not exceed the I don't know. How'd you put it, Miss Joel? He I understand what you're saying. Um yeah so the height of the actual structure from local grade right in front from the front door to the top that's one thing. So the corno's house could be 30 ft. Then this would be 30 ft. But given that the land drops away, it would actually be like correct, right? But that's the same that's the same height house in that way to look at it that way. Right. And I don't think that's how

you're saying it can't be any higher. It can't go past being aligned with the height the plane that is the height exceeded the plane of the the height plane of the Cornelius fieldhouse. can't exceed that provided is it meets zoning meaning the 32 ft cuz I don't know what the canal is right whichever is more restrictive or yeah cuz otherwise you're granting potential relief I just don't know the height of that home so to to advise you on that so how do I how do I word this so which is it would you would you want to bound that by the overall limitations to height in the zoning districts

I I would well do But that that means it may be shorter. It may appear to be shorter because it's a sloping property. Could be. So I mean they're going to have to come back for a PUD anyways for the house. So for whatever reason they need extra 3 ft or whatever it is. Well then we don't have to address it at all. It'll be stuck. They'll be stuck with the ordinance. Okay. That's correct. We don't have to address the height. Okay.

That's probably the easiest way to deal with it right now. The ordinance doesn't give reference though to the height of the canal corn. You understand that the the ordinance will use a measurement that is the average grade of the property in question. So will not consider that. Okay. I just wanted to be clear about if they want something different they'll have to come back here and talk to us. I guess but this was saying that it would not exceed the height of the Cornelius Fieldhouse which could be in two ways. The actual height like this or the lining like that. Right. So that's why I point that out. No, and I totally understand what you're saying. And the zoning does not consider that. The zoning does not consider that. No, would not consider the height of the house next door.

So, what do we want to do on height? What do we want to propose on height? Just leave it to the ordinance and if they they want something different, they come back. The intent of this, if I may, Mr. was not to grant more height for the proposed lot two. I can feel pretty confident with that. And Maddie, please correct me if I'm wrong. Then then what I will propose that the structure on lot two would not exceed the draw a line in between the two roofs line across the house, whatever the hell that's called.

And provided that it meets the zoning code, whichever is more restrict. more restricted. Yes. Okay. I think that's probably what you want to say. Is it okay? I think that's clear. Yeah. Is that is that clear? Right. So, it has to it can exceed either the zoning height or it can exceed the zoning height or the draw string across the roof like a plane plane of the height. The relative height which whichever's more restrictive. Yeah. Whichever's more restrictive. And then Okay. a 30ft set back sideyard set back to 25 ft past that fieldhouse. Yep. So 30 ft

on the western side. So they currently have 20 ft. Uh they have current 20 to 12. Now it will be 30 to 25. And where they have 12 it would go to 25. Yeah. Yeah. Because we have an exhibit. So that's what the revision would be using that exhibit. If you're okay with the wear it jogs in that exhibit, it would be changed then to those numbers and provide a different surveyor. They're going to provide a different land surveyor. Well, that's a question. I mean, yeah. Okay. So, then that is something that you want. Okay, that'll be in there. And

well, that is problematic because you're making a decision based on the survey. So, I just point that out. If if there's some question about the survey accuracy, it it definitely needs to be redone. It definitely needs to be cleaned up before city council. Whether or not that's adequate for your decision-making here tonight is your decision. I think that would be adequate for my decision-m if they get a new survey. Okay. All right. Well, then we'll make sure we get that before the city council deliberation on. So, we're on a, you know, we're trying to get to this May 26. There's no way I'm going to get that survey by May 26th.

Okay. Um, you know, we all know what the intention of that survey is. Surveyors are This surveyor took weeks to get this. We're sitting here at May 5th. I mean, it's very unlikely that I'm going to get a survey. Maybe I could get it on May 25th. Well, when's the day? 26th. Yeah. But we we would need the the survey, you know, sooner than that for the packet for the city council, which I'm sure they would before the meeting four or five days ahead of time. is probably pretty unlikely and I you know pushing this to June 29th whether or not we make it's very very cumbersome

because he has you know I I I'm you know it's going to have to get reserveyed ultimately go go to um final plat I guess right yeah so certainly want to make sure that's accurate and and so what I would say is just Mr. shared to the applicants, you know, I don't know that the council will feel very good about that, you know, on the 26th. So, I just point that out. They they they might just say, "Well, then we're going to continue this." So, right. Right. Right. Right. And chair, I point that out.

So, what the and it's not really your problem. What the city council is going to be considering is whether to approve a plat of ser um a plat of subdivision. And that plat of subdivision is going to be what's before them. If it's and this is what Joel I think was alluding to. If it's something that is not accurate um then the question remains how do we approve something that we can't see. You don't have that issue. You can say um we approve or we recommend this for approval with these understandings. Um, all I'm saying is once it gets before city council, um, they're going to have to decide whether they want to approve something that's not before them.

Okay. Works for me. One other thing about the setback. So that you talked about the west uh the the the the common property line between the two parcels, but the front yard makes there's a desire to have that be what's shown as well to align that assuming that the setback would match the mirror the existing setback of the

fieldhouse. Just want to make sure that that's stated in your in the motion. Um, I will try to pull a rabbit on my hat and try to get this to surveyor to update it and to make sure it verified. He's signing it under oath and um, his license is on the line with this. So, um, I will work on that with my goal is to have a revised plan of subdivision to the city at least 5 days before the city council. So, this would not be an issue and um, and let me give me an up. Let me let me try. Okay, that would be preferred. Thank you, Chair. Okay. I'm I'm All right. So then can I help with the uh motion? Help us out.

Motion to adopt the findings of fact um with the conditions that there be a 30 yard side setback

30T I'm sorry 30 foot sideyard setbackt and then a 25t sideyard set back toward the rear of the property. preservation of the gate post, rowd iron fence, and heritage trees. Um, any new structure on the proposed vacant lot cannot exceed the relative height of the Cornelius Field or the underlying zoning requirements uh for height, whichever is more restrictive. And then prohibit additional zoning relief related to uh proposed vacants uh the proposed vacant lot. I'll make that motion as stated by council. Can I second?

All right. Um, no, this is a not a voice vote. Roll call. Roll call, please. Thank you. Okay. It was motioned by Fetner and seconded by Mr. Fner. There was just a question. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Commissioner. No Commissioner Fentner. Yes. Commissioner Henry. Yes. Commissioner Mantis. No. Commissioner I mean Chair or Vice Chair. Now Chair Nannis. Uh yes.

Um the eyes have it. That's three votes to two. The motion carries. This item is recommended for approval with the conditions as stated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and the understanding that there'd be an an attempt to get that survey uh completed 5 days before the meeting. Thank you very much. I know this was not an easy one. I appreciate everything. Thank you. Uh next item on the agenda is an administrative design review update. Staff,

yes, just uh two uh briefly, there was a um an administrative design review approval for 481 Roger Williams Avenue uh for an auding. I believe there's already an awning on the property. They're changing colors. Uh there's signage related with it as well, but that's a sign permit and they meant buy right code for that. And then the other administrative design review update is for 59 Skooki Valley Road. Also an awning. There's already an awning there. I think it's like light blue or sky blue and they're changing it to a darker color to actually match awnings that are already on the property. Then they're making a very uh minor change, hence because it's administrative. There's like two doors there now and they're getting rid of one door, making the other door bigger, but it's all staying the same materials. Um, yes, those are my two administrative design review updates. Thanks.

Thank you. Um, our next meeting will be uh May 19th, 2026 here at city hall at 7 p.m. Um, any updates on that from the staff? We have two significant items. May 19th, there have been two items that have been noticed and uh signs are up. So, uh the former So Cup site, 1700 Old Deerfield Road, has submitted for a amendment to their PUD uh in in uh in some Well, well, I won't get into it. This not this isn't the public hearing. So, that's that and then the next item. Yep.

I was just worried for reaction. the the the other item is uh uh it's it doesn't have it's unadressed. It's zero Patton Road. It's a vacant parcel in the town of Fort Sheridan immediately next to uh I believe it's a nstory condo building at 3535 Patton Road that's coming in for a 10 unit um detached uh town homes. Correct. Or not town homes uh 10unit just detached single family homes. condos or or rental? I don't know, but we're asking them that. Are there any case briefings from the staff? None, Mr. Chairman.

Great. Um, is there any business from the public? Seeing none, um, motion to adjourn. Can I get a motion to adjourn? So, move. Second. All right. I got to get the eyes.