Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Welcome. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting City Highland Park Land and Design Commission for May 19th and ask Director Fontaine if you could please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Hencheck?

Here.

Commissioner Fettner? Here. Commissioner Henry? Here. Commissioner Mantis? Here. Commissioner Moore. Here. Vice Chair Nannis. Here. Chair Kirsch.

Present.

We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recognize City Council Liaison Yumi Ross and Corporation Council Marcus Martinez.

Thank you. Thank you. Before we get to the agenda, if I could just take a point of personal privilege and thank Vice Chair Nannis for his capable work in my absence for the last two meetings. I binge watched almost six hours. What could be better than that? Of meeting time over the weekend. And I realize you guys put in quite a lot of long work on very complicated issues. And again, I want to thank him and I want to thank the rest of the commissioners for all your hard work you do. a lot of good for the citizens of Highland Park, and I hope they all appreciate the work that goes into that. Now, our first regular item of business is consideration of the plan and design commission minutes from May 5th. Do I have a motion regarding those minutes?

Motion to approve. Seconded.

Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion on the minutes? Hearing none. Oh, okay. Now hearing some.

On the minutes, page two, it's not of the packet, it's of the minutes file, line 27 and 28. There was a comment by Commissioner Henry about the difference between an owner occupied building a lot too versus a certificate of appropriateness. And I believe you were asking Commissioner Henry about why the owner couldn't just build another home on the property. So I wasn't sure if the certificate of appropriateness captured your comment.

Okay, Commissioner Henry's all right with that record. I think we don't need to amend it. All those in favor? Aye. And I'll abstain.

And I'm abstaining as well. Okay, minutes are approved.

Okay, first up, The regular order of business is a public hearing PUD 202600087 to amend the following. One, 011-2026, an ordinance approving special use permit for a planned development for 227 residential units, i.e. townhomes with garages, parking, clubhouse amenity, landscaping, other related improvements, and a special use permit for an off-street parking lot, including modifications from city code. Two, a plat of resubdivision approved by resolution R22-2026 with variations. And three, design review with variations for 1660 and 1700 Old Deerfield Road, also affectionately referred to as the Solo Cup property. So welcome, this is a new public hearing, so we need to open it. And welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission. My name is Steve Kirch, a quorum of the Plan and Design Commission being present. The members of the commission will now introduce themselves for the record from my right. Kristen Inchuk.

Danny Mantis.

Karen Moore.

Josh Nannis. Kevin Henry. David Fettner.

The plan and design commission is charged with hearing applications for rezonings, plan developments and subdivisions under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations of the city of Highland Park. In all matters, we recommend to the city council based upon the testimony presented to us in the hearing. We are required to decide cases within 45 days after receipt of the transcript. All testimony is under oath. Both applicants and others who wish to speak on a particular case should present specific evidence as to why a proposal meets or fails to meet the standards for the relief requested. For clarity of our records, only one person at a time will speak and all questions will be directed through the chair. We ask that you make every effort to not be repetitive in your testimony. Finally, we will make every effort to adhere to the schedule prepared for tonight's hearing. If additional time is needed on a matter, it will be continued until the next available agenda. With that, I open the floor for the staff of the Plan and Design Commission to read into the record proof of publication and ownership.

Mr. Chair, proof of publication and ownership are available for viewing at the Offices of Community Development, 1150 Half Day Road in Highland Park. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senior planner, Burhop, do we have a staff presentation? Yes, thank you, Chair.

Okay, good evening, everybody. Good evening to the Planning and Design Commission. My name is Carl Berhop. I'm a Senior Planner with the City of Highland Park in the Planning Division in the Community Development Department. This is the presentation for this request for the property 1700 Old Deerfield Road, 1660 to 1700 Old Deerfield Road, to amend various approvals that were approved on the February 9th by city council. And so this is a public hearing. It's also two public meetings. It's concurrent. So this is a concurrent public hearing. to request to amend that specific ordinance approved on February 9th of this year for a planned development for this site, as well as a special use permit. This is also a public meeting for the amendment to the plat of resubdivision, and then also to amend the design review. And the commission may, at the conclusion of this, actually direct findings of fact, recommending approval be drafted for a future meeting, can direct for denial, or it can continue to a future date for more information. This item still does have to go to the housing commission. So this is the site, 28.6 acre site that was subject to multiple meetings throughout last year, culminating in a February 9th, 2026 final plan development approval and several other associated approvals for a 227 residential townhome development with other onsite accessory structures and improvements. Okay, so what are the changes? So this is an amendment. The applicant is requesting amendments to this project. Just wanna make sure everyone's able to get in, Chair. So these elevations on the right were included in the packet. And so the height was reduced by two feet. So on the bottom right, it shows the old height, which is measured from the grade adjacent foundation to the median of the roof as 37 feet and 10 inches. And the one on top is reduced by two feet to 35 feet and 10 inches. And all the elevations for all the townhome units reflect that. So this is a change. And so the relief that was granted on February 9th was a modification to allow from the 35 feet maximum height limit to 41 feet in height. They're now reducing that modification, making the development more compliant with respect to height. They're reducing two feet. And if you look at the elevation plans, you can see why that is. It's the middle floor and the top floor. And again, this is my presentation. These are posted online. So anybody can go online and zoom in on it. They're reducing the middle and the top floor by one foot a piece or two feet total. Okay, moving on. Okay, there's some new modification requests. So this is a request related to temporary marketing signage that the applicant wants to put on the property. So this was in, there was an exhibit in the packet. It was, I think it was labeled something like model home and temporary signage or marketing signage exhibit. It's essentially, it was the landscaping exhibit. In my staff report I said, The last four pages, the last four pages on that are what are new. So the Apple is proposing temporary marketing signage and it does require variation. This is more than the code allows. And I would specifically draw attention to essentially two areas. So there's the signage that they propose that are within the site. And then there's the signage they propose that are along the streets. And for the one along the streets, there are six total that are combined 379 square feet. That's counting one face. I want to be clear on that. Because if they're sideways, then it would be a double. And then those are the signage that they're providing. And I just want to indicate that some of those, you know, this one here, they're proposing two of these. that are 16 by nine feet in area and 12 feet high. Those are the two big ones that are gonna be across from the police station and then on the corner of old Deerfield Road and Ridge Road. And then one of these eight by eight signs that is gonna be down here. And then what they call these trail signs that are, those are the three by three. They're gonna be six feet in height. They proposed three of those along Ridge Road. So that's a modification request before the commission. Staff had suggested in the report that the applicant Do temporary marketing signage here of the same size that was approved for their permanent foundation sign for their development, which is five and change by 10 and change. So somewhere between 50 to 60 square feet in area up to five feet in height. What does the code allow? So the code allows one construction sign for the entire development. That would be up to 12 square feet in area and six feet in height. The code does allow for one real estate sign per lot, has to be on the lot, up to six square feet in area and six feet in height. Okay, what are the other modifications? Okay, so there are a handful of modifications that are due to the changes to the plat. And actually I think that's on my next slide, right? So the plat is being amended. The applicant has stated that this is a four cell project and that they had to create lots for the building assemblies to accomplish that. And so because of that, because of those lines that have to be drawn on, the plat, these are new modifications. So on the one hand, I want to be clear to the commission, these are new technical elements of relief. From the other hand, I want to be clear to the commission, This is a technical change. It's a line on a plat. This doesn't change anything physically about the project. It's still the same project that came before, well, albeit except for this change, it's still the same project that came before the commission and then ultimately the council on February 9th. So these are technical requests because when you create a lot, that lot now, you now have to measure the zoning requirements from that. So this is a tenant request. Are there any questions on this slide? I just want to be clear that this is a technical request that does have to be considered, but it's just because it's a for sale product and now the lines are being drawn on a plat for that. Yes, Commissioner.

Can you explain the first item to allow accessory structures on a lot where there's no principal?

Oh, yes. In my report, I have additional detail on that. Obviously I summarize it here. So there is one lot they're creating that has their maintenance shed on it. I think it's lot 50. And then there's one lot where they're doing their community development building. And then there's the out lot itself that has the dog parks and the tot lots. Now, technically, again, technically, Those will now be structures on their own lots. And so it needs relief to that. But as the commission may recall, those are accessory structures to the development as a whole. And that's why that did need relief when this came through the first time. Are there any other questions on this? I'll move on to the next. Okay, so what are the Platte re-subdivision changes? So they're renaming the Platte to create lots to reflect a for sale product. They're renaming the Platte and the development to the Bowery. There is a pedestrian public use easement that was connecting the West Tot Lot to a no longer proposed pedestrian crossing at Devonshire Court and Ridge Road. And then the modifications that were previously discussed. Floor and elevation plan changes. So on specific affordable units, I believe it was 12, they are changing from two bedrooms to three bedrooms. That actually makes the development more compliant with respect to the inclusionary housing code. And so flowing from that, the matrix and the flow plans were updated to show that. Right, the elevation plans, as already stated, the town homes were reduced by two feet. There were certain window and color scheme changes to the elevations. This is the slide I was looking for earlier when I looked confused for a second. I thought this was up next. So I just picked two here. So there's essentially, if you can tell, So this is the old one on top and there's like a panel there or something. And so on this, that's removed. And then on several of the designs, you can see there's just a color change where it's this color here and now it's that color there. And so there's changes like that, similar to this. None of the changes, are more than this what I'm showing to you. They're essentially like that. And there's on a handful of the elevations, that's what changed. Inclusionary housing, the top bullet points the summary. They removed two elements of relief, meaning the development is now more compliant with respect to the inclusionary housing code. The housing commission is, the review is required to approve these changes. And so that is tracking to the first meeting in June. The change, they're converting all units on site. Well, it says converting all units on site to three bedroom units. It's specifically they're converting, I believe there were 12 affordable units. That's what is getting converted to three bedroom units. They're proposing all units for sale and that removes the relief for rental inclusion rate units. There's one departure that still applies, the second bullet point from the bottom, that was granted and it still applies. And then the cash payment, that hasn't changed either, that still applies. The applicant is making changes to their phasing and construction logistics plan. They want to move from a three phase plan to a two phase. The left is what was from February 9th. The right is what's new. Remove the construction trailer. If you go to the, Their new landscaping plan in the packet, the last four pages, they also had the site plan that showed where they want to have their sales office and their model sales units. And they were essentially, they were essentially in this area within the development. So as you come off, what would be their main entrance and come into the site, that's where they're proposing essentially, you know, the customer parking and the model sales units and the sales office. Other staff comments. Staff does recommend that the existing land statement strip on the abutting property, the bluegrass restaurant up on the Northwest corner be incorporated into the landscape buffer for the development along the common property line, provided of course that that abutting landowner does grant permission for that. And then I just want to state that the applicant is still completing their Lake County SMC approval and any comments from the Lake County SMC that stands for stormwater management, I believe it's commission, may affect future submissions and generate additional comments from the city. And then this is just a reiteration of my first slide. So these are the amendments that are before the commission to consider for this development. I can take questions if there are any.

Questions for staff. Start on.

Larry.

I have a question.

Carl, can you explain why the Devonshire crossing was removed? I know that was from the city council discussion.

That's correct. My understanding is the city council was okay or accepted removal of that. Though it is in the development agreement, I believe. that that will be something that has to be reviewed again when the applicant does their traffic study. There is a requirement that they perform a traffic study when they hit 90% occupancy, but that's for now, that's not a requirement, something to be looked at when that new traffic study is completed. That comes from the city council. Again, that's the simple answer.

Commissioner Mantis.

Just confirming, you said that the easement for where that crosswalk was going to be is no longer necessary, given that the crosswalk's not going to be there, but the trail component is still going to be, there's still an easement for that, right? That's correct.

That's correct, sir.

Can you go back to the comment that they should include the in the buffer zone, the bluegrass restaurant?

Yeah, so staff would recommend that the commission recommend that so up on the Northwest corner, well, I can pull up an exhibit if I need it, but where, so the commission may recall, there are two parking lots up there. One is for a private easement holder, and one is going to be a parking lot that the applicant provided as a public benefit for the police department's use. Along that North property line, there is a proposed, I believe it's two and a half feet in depth landscaping buffer. And what staff are recommending here is essentially that, you know, assuming landowner permission from the bluegrass property that the two work together to expand that buffer and perhaps go onto the bluegrass property with their permission to make that landscape buffer a variety of grasses and a variety of different heights to improve that buffer.

essentially incorporating it with that, right? So that you don't have two, a small one and another bump so that it's all in one buffer, right? It's offsite, but it's nonetheless would be contiguous without separation so that could all grow and thrive and have a larger buffer area.

Anymore?

No, no more questions.

Commissioner Fentner?

No, but I do have actually a question. Who's to maintain that buffer once it's completed?

The applicant has to maintain all. The applicant will have to maintain the buffer. Okay. Currently, the buffer that they're proposing would be maintained by them. It will have a sprinkler system and would be maintained. And then that additional area, if not separated from but made part of, would then become part of that buffer, yes. So we would make that clear in whatever the amendment is that is approved here.

Okay, great. And did I hear that there's going to be an updated traffic study?

According to the development agreement, there is supposed to be one that's provided when the development hits 90% occupancy or sooner if determined by the city manager. Okay.

Was there any concern with staff by adding those additional bedrooms into the affordable housing that would create a little bit more density? I mean, it's 12.

Right. No, because one, it's just for 12 more units. And two, it brings the property more in compliance with respect to the inclusionary housing code. Yeah, I agree. That's nice. Okay. Thanks.

Do I understand we're also waiting for the housing commission to pass on theory aspects of this, these modifications?

That's right. And there are not findings of fact today either for the commission. That's right. You would want to receive the housing commission's recommendation.

When are they meeting?

June 3rd, I believe.

Yep. And so they will have deliberated on this and we'll bring back that report to you for your recommendation. That's right.

Yep.

Vice Chair Nunes. Yeah, so in regard to the signage, you said that by right, they're allowed to have a one, 12 by six.

12 square feet total up to six feet in height for the whole development. They're allowed one construction sign that's 12 square feet and up to six feet in height. Got it. And you're proposing... well, 379 square feet along the property line.

And the flagpole, it's not marked in the packet. Where would those be located?

Oh, the interior. So they're also proposing temporary interior signage. I mean, that's just broadly, I mean, just, I hope you can see my cursor. So there's like 11 signs, including the flagpole on the interior of the site. And then the six signs along the property line. I just don't see the flagpole marked.

I was just curious where, what it would be.

Oh, it would be letter F. Well, I'll have the F cameras. Thank you.

I have a sign question too. So how long are the signs allowed to be out?

Well, for the, I'd have to go back to the code. So a construction sign, I mean, I'd have to pull up the code to look. Essentially, you know, while it's under construction and then there's specific language, I know that the real estate signs have to be, and I think the real estate signs really have to be removed like once it's sold. So they're meant to be temporary in nature, but, you know.

Right, but are we leaving all these signs up even if one unit is unpurchased?

You can set a timeframe to when they would need to come down.

Okay. Chair? Yes, Commissioner Henry. Are signs supposed to be up now, Carl? The private or public hearing? No, signs advertising this.

They could theoretically have signage up now that complied with the code, the one that's up to 12 square feet in area and then the

Now, I was just curious, because I happened to drive by there the other day, and there is a pretty big sign up that would- I didn't measure it.

That may be out of compliance. They are in for an amendment right now to try to get an approval.

Any other questions for staff? Can we hear from the petitioner? Yeah, that'd be great. Good evening. Good evening. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And then can you please state your name, spell your last name for our note taker?

Yeah, my name is Russ Whitaker, W-H-I-T-A-K-E-R. I'm with the law firm of Rosenhofer and Whitaker here this evening with MI Homes. So I guess Carl did a nice job covering a lot of things. Sounds like there's a couple of questions with respect to signage specifically. So what I want to do is we've got... kind of a full presentation here. I'm not going to bore you with that. Hit on a couple of points on overview of MI Homes, how they relate into the project, and then we can kind of jump into the signage and back to where you were at in questions. So by way of introduction, MI Homes has partnered with Habitat Habitat was with you through the original approval process for this property. If you go and look at the approval documents that were, the city's approval documents, you would see that there was a call out that the project would either be for sale or for rent. It was set up as a for rent project, but it was certainly held out that it could be converted to a for sale project. Sometime, you know, towards the end of that approval process, we began collaborating between MI and Habitat regarding a joint venture that has been formed and ultimately acquired the property. MI has come into the joint venture for the purpose of building the community out as for sale. MI Homes is a national footprint home builder. They've been building in the Chicago region since 2007. They construct a diverse array of single-family attached and detached homes with a commitment to quality, value, integrity, and excellence, treating the customer right at every stage of the development process. You see, we called out projects that MI is working on either building or through the approval phase currently in Lake County. Some additional detail on those projects. So Kemper Ridge is recently approved by the Village of Hawthorne Woods and will be a mixed residential community coming up on the south side of Hawthorne Woods. We're building out remaining lots in the Hawthorne Woods Country Club. That has been an ongoing collaboration with the Village over the last couple of years. And then we have Highbury Club and Buffalo Grove, which is currently under construction, and then the towns of Barclays. So just a couple, a little sampling of projects that are underway with MI in Lake County. This is obviously not a single-family community, but a attached community. So what we wanted to do here is just show an example of where MI is building attached product that I think would be comparable in sort of value proposition to what you have here in Highland Park. So two examples where we've got three-story townhome product, Northwoods of Naperville on the top, which grand opened, I think it was last week. and then Benton in Maine, which is a project under construction that is effectively in downtown Naperville. You see some different architectural character to those elevations, but then you can also see sort of fit and finish for the interior of what MI is constructing. I'm going to, unless there's specific questions about other items, I'm gonna jump down to the detail on You know, I want to stop here for one second. So when Carl was going through this, and I think I've got a, you can barely see it. So Carl was identifying that this is the area here that is changing with the conversion of two bed units to three bed units. So one of the other things I would point out that you're seeing here is you can see a shadow line running across the back of this building. If we look at, If we looked at the approved elevations, you'll see that there is that shadow line here. The shadow line stops here and it continues here. So that's effectively a foot or 18 inch bump out off of the back of the building. So we're converting to from two bedroom to three bedroom units. We're now going to, sorry. we're now adding that bump out. So the bump out will be continuous along the back of the building. That's really the most significant change is that we're adding that just that little bit of square footage where we're converting from two bed units to three bedroom units. And then you can see where On the old plan, we had that horizontal siding running up across the third story. With the bump out, we're continuing that articulation from the third story across, kind of maintaining that consistent pattern. Really wouldn't make sense in this application to try to do the horizontal siding there. Marketing plan. So I broke this out. I took the same exhibit Carl had and I broke it out just a little bit differently to kind of help. There's a lot going on with the signage. So I thought if we broke it down into more bite-sized pieces, it might be a little easier to work through. So Similar to Carl, we've got exterior marketing sign. Here we've got effectively billboard signs. This would be prototypical of what we would do for a new construction community. Obviously the goal is to bring buyers into the community, have recognition of the community, A RECOGNITION OF OUR NEW NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE BROADER COMMUNITY, SO WE CERTAINLY WANT PEOPLE DRIVING BY, SEEING IT, TALKING ABOUT IT, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A FORESALE COMMUNITY AND DRIVING BUYERS INTO A SALES CENTER THAT WILL OPERATE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO THERE ARE TWO OF THESE LARGER 16 BY 9, WE'LL CALL THEM BILLBOARD SIGNS, THEY'RE LOCATED RIGHT AT THAT CORNER. SO ONE AT THE ENTRANCE DRIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AND ONE AT THE CORNER OF RIDGE AND OLD DEERFIELD ROAD. I'm gonna pause there for one second. I know Commissioner Henry mentioned that there are existing signs on the property. Carl kind of mentioned early in the presentation that there was communication between the city and HomeBuilder about their monument signs that were approved as part of the development. And it sounded like this city was okay with marketing signs going up in the same size and location as that monumentation sign that will be built. And so that's the signage that you saw out there. It's a sign right here at this entrance to the community and then all the way to the north where we've got that kind of finger extending up to, help me out the road. out to Deerfield Road, there's another sign there. So those are where we would have those community entrance signs. We've just included that kind of preliminary marketing at those two locations. So these are some other identification signs. The idea here is that you're not just identifying by name the community, but you're advertising some other components of the community. See here by way of example, in other subdivisions that we're working on, we were advertising ranch plans or oversized lots, a smart home or community playground on site. So here we're on that public road, we're trying to communicate with the broader community what's happening within the neighborhood where we're building. And then the final sign along the exterior is this eight by eight sign, which is down, I'm sorry, you see it here on Ridge Road. And this is again, a marketing sign identifying community by name and as a for sale subdivision, trying to bring traffic off Ridge Road into the subdivision. And I think part of the reason we're identifying Ridge Road is there's not an entrance on Ridge Road, so we're trying to bring that traffic along Old Deerfield Road and into the community. The remainder of the signs are all interior to the site. So here, this is a little bit hard to read, but we included the location map up top for your benefit, and you can't see that at all on there. But the red box on the top right shows where our model area is going to be located. So we'll have models across a couple of buildings. You see here where we've got customer parking and parking. model homes and a construction office all labeled. So I'll try to identify here. The top, that northernmost unit is a model. A construction office below it. We've got customer parking in this area. Again, customer parking in this area. And then another model here. And so the thought process is, as we go through here, that we've got signage that relates to that customer entry. We're bringing the customer in, we're communicating the story to them, and that's what all of the signage is intended to do. So the product placing signs are again telling the story of the community. They're right here at this open space feature labeled T on the entrance drive into the community. I believe this is also where So the info center sign here is at entrance to one of the model units. This is also where the flagpole would be located. So Commissioner Nannis was correct. We didn't have F labeled, but that flagpole goes in coordination with this model info center sign. So it's going to effectively go right behind it. It's going to help identify where you want to begin your entry point if you're going through on a tour of the model home units.

May I ask, are you trying to use the pointer because it's not, we're not seeing anything?

Yeah, you know what, I'm sorry. Some people are looking there. I guess I'm pointing here.

Oh, sure, sure.

If you want to use the mouse, you can draw your attention to anything. Yeah. If you need to, it's up to you.

Yeah, that's better.

So this is, that last sign, let me try to use bold. So that last sign we were looking at is in the open space here. The identification sign, and so everything where I'm talking about the sign and I show the sign, you see the lettering is circled in red to try to highlight it. So this model identification sign is at your entry point into the model units, and that is also where the flagpole would be located. And then the remainder of the signs are just identifications. So we're marketing by model name, like which model you would be entering. We're labeling the construction office, we're labeling parking, and we're labeling construction parking. So by way of example, this would be a placard sign labeling parking. Over here, we're labeling construction parking. Here we would be labeling which model you are entering. Again, parking, and these would be labeling the models. So this is all developed by a marketing team that's responsible for driving traffic to the community. It's how we talk to home buyers, not just here in Highland Park, but throughout the Chicagoland region. So this is a similar format to what you would see at any of our communities. Knowing that this is not something that's receiving a vote tonight, we're obviously doing a presentation. There are other communities in Lake County which would have similar format signage to this. I certainly encourage you, if you're interested in some of these items, understanding how we're conveying this type of messaging in other communities, take a drive out, go visit those communities, and you can see sort of in real application the type of signage we're proposing here. I didn't hear a lot of other questions on parts of the change, but I'm happy to dive into other components of the change if there's some specific direction.

You'll probably hear some now. Let's go in reverse for my assumption. Commissioner, Vice Chair Nanis, any questions?

No questions for my general point of view, but we can, the questions first.

Okay, Commissioner Henry.

I'm with Mr. Nanis. I concur with my colleagues, no questions right now.

Former Vice Chair.

Former Vice Chair. So we spent a lot of time having a lot of meetings to get this project to where it was when it was approved. And now it seems like you want to take back a lot of those changes. So it makes me feel like our time was wasted. I'm not hearing any reasons why we're removing the, the access across the street at Devonshire, because I guarantee people are going to cross over that anyway. But when we take away the pedestrian access easement at that corner, part of the reason we put that in was to make this feel less like, you know, What's the word? An enclave, which was a concern from the beginning, which is why we pushed to have more access to the development. And now that's being taken away. And if the city council took it away, that's fine, I understand that. But, you know, I appreciate the reduction in the size of the units, because I know that was an issue. So anyway, that's kind of my comments. I guess it wasn't really a question.

Commissioner Mantis. No questions. Commissioner Inchik.

No question, thank you.

Chair, may I answer just a couple of questions that had come up before regarding the sign and expirations? Certainly. So I looked at the code construction signs, as currently written in our code, expire once a certificate of occupancy is issued. Temporary signs, permits for those can be up to 30 days once that, permit for the temporary sign expires, they must be taken down within seven days. One more thing I'll cover is just the sign variances that were granted as part of the PUD ordinance. Modifications from the sign code increased the maximum permitted number of ground signs for the development from one sign to five, and then the number of sign faces for the development from two to nine. And so that was the modifications from the sign code that were granted by city council.

Did they understand that they were going to have a row of them along Ridge Road like that?

They weren't specific in terms of As far as I recall.

They're not shown in the approvals, but that's permanent signage. This is, they're referring to temporary signage at this point.

Okay. I have a question about the lots. We're in the pre-subdivision. We, you have, you now show 50 lots. but you're planning on selling 227 fee simple homes. So how are we getting from 50 to 227? And why doesn't it have to be shown on the plat?

So this is the plat of subdivision that was originally approved. And so what we've done is we've circled areas where things are changing. What you see on the face of the plat, so I'm going to say in the area here, is that we've delineated building pads and those building pads are called out here as an NEA or that means non-easement area. So the structure of this development was approved so that there's an easement over the entirety of the property except for those areas designated as non-easement area. So all of the building pads are effectively an exception to the blanket easement. That doesn't provide us a means of subdividing the property. So on a move forward basis, we've presented this plat of subdivision and this plat of subdivision is exactly the same structure. It takes those non-easement areas and it creates lots out of them. And so each of the lots corresponds to a building and it is in the exact same location as the non-easement area from the original plat of subdivision. The only thing that's different is it's a lot instead of a non-easement area. What we're doing here, and this varies by county and by community, we kind of roll with what the local custom is, but we're creating the lot for the building. And so that is a separate lot. Instead of, sometimes we go and we delineate each of the units on that lot. Sometimes we come back and we create the units afterwards. And so it's sort of a re-subdivision of that lot and it's done as an exception to the PLAAD Act. And it meets and bounds conveyance to each individual homeowner. What we're showing here is that secondary configuration, which is you have the lot, the building goes on the lot. We would build the building. We would then shoot the party walls. So we would know exactly where the wall was dividing the units. And then we would create a meets and bounds description based on that as-built survey. And that meets and bounds survey would then be the basis for conveying to each homeowner.

And mortgage lenders are okay with that? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER?

I HAVE A QUESTION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

A QUESTION REGARDING THE SIGNS. you showed eight by eight and 16 by nine. And can you speak to why you feel eight by eight is not sufficient in size? It's not as traffic to say Deerfield Road, or I'm just wondering why that big?

I think it's kind of a corporate metric that we use and it's what we present at most of the communities we're building in. We'd have a little bit more permissive signage, but we have a conversation with communities on a pretty regular basis, understanding that our goal is to build through the project as quickly as possible. Generally speaking, the community's goal is to build through the project as quickly as possible. Part of the reason for that is we understand that our construction process is going to disturb people who live in the community, right? And so the quicker we can move through that sales process, the quicker we're out of everyone's hair and life returns to normal with no construction traffic, no buyer traffic. So our goal is to create a format where we can sell through the community as quickly as possible. We think having a more robust sign package helps us do that. If there's discussion about specific size of signs, I think we're happy to have a discussion. This is a format we use on a pretty regular basis.

Thank you for your answer. Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

So, also, changing from a three phase construction to two phases, how does that affect the end point of the project?

So we're consolidating down, right? And again, our goal is to be able to build through things as efficiently as possible. We look at this from like a utility standpoint and a service of bringing services to the homes. We wanna get a model sales area open as quickly as possible. So we sort of looked at what the utility infrastructure is necessary to serve that model area. And that's sort of where we backed into the phase one. We think that this is going to be a very attractive community. I mean, PREPARING FOR ANOTHER HEARING TOMORROW WHERE WE'RE WORKING ON A LARGER SCALE OR A SIMILAR SCALE TOWN HOME COMMUNITY. I WAS REVIEWING THE GOVERNOR'S BUILD ACT TODAY AND STATEMENTS THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD MADE SURROUNDING THE BUILD ACT. THE GOVERNOR IS TALKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE VERY SHORT SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN THE MARKET. I THINK THE QUOTE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDY THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE BUILD ACT THAT THE GOVERNOR IS PROPOSING RIGHT NOW IS THAT BY 2030 WE'RE GOING TO BE SHORT 227,000 units of homes in Illinois. I mean, that's not just Highland Park, that's obviously all of Illinois, but there's a huge shortage of housing. The shortage of housing is driving up prices, right? When we don't have enough supply, costs go up. So the goal is to increase supply. Because of the supply constraints, we think that we'll move through this community quickly. By being able to finish all of the infrastructure in phase two, we've made the preliminary investment. I mean, it's a greater risk to us by completing all of that infrastructure in phase two, but then it's going to provide a foundation for us to move as quickly as the market does in terms of sale of the units.

Okay, but that doesn't quite answer my question, which was, If you had already planned for three phases, you must have had some endpoint on a timeline. And if you're switching it down to two, obviously each two must be larger than each of the third phases. How does that change the endpoint?

So my understanding is that the original habitat plan was to be done building in 24 months. So it was three phases to be completed in 24 months. I think we're roughly a similar timeframe in two to three years to complete construction.

Okay, so it's not really changing the endpoint, it's just changing the phasing.

How much of the infrastructure we're going to build up front, correct? Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for the petitioner? Do we have members of the audience who would like to speak on this issue? Just one thing, Mr. Chair.

Before we do, if I may just, one item I want to just bring up before you. So in phase one, what's very important and what is included in our agreements and approvals is a couple of things. One, the public improvements. Okay, so you've got Old Deerfield Road, you have the police station improvements. Those are included in phase one. So that's front-loaded, along with the first phase, you know, which is about... 75 units in that phase roughly. So that's phase one. That phase one also includes the clubhouse, which is an important part of having that in the phase one. So that residents ultimately, while the rest of the development's built out, would be able to benefit from that clubhouse. So as for whether the two and three phases, and now it's all just two, the city is not concerned by that.

Chair, can I make, may I please make a correction? Absolutely. Yeah, I want to make a correction to something I said earlier. So the 12, there were 12 affordable units that had two bedrooms that are now going to three. I do also want to point out there are 51 market rate units that were originally listed as two bedrooms that are going to three. And then the other remaining townhome units were already three and are staying at three. So I just want to point out that correction to my earlier statement.

Thank you, Planner Burhapp. Can I just get a show of how many people would like to speak on this topic? Everybody's here for, for, for charity. Okay. Otherwise I was going to swear everyone in at once, but I think I could do this individually. So if you'd like to make your way to the microphone, if you'd like to address us.

Lisa Raiden.

Do you swear to tell the truth? It's the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do. Lisa Raiden. So I've become friendly with Rob Pluto, which is a sewer foreman in Highland Park due to a recent sewer backup we had on April 15th. Now the problem didn't come from my manhole cover in my parkway, but from clogged sewers down Ridge, Winthrop and down to Edgewood. Given this, I've asked Rob how the sewer system for solo development will impact Southwest Highland Park residents. And he indicated that the objective is to not have storm or sewer connect with any existing lines. While that's the objective, we're looking for a guarantee. When I looked at one of these charts that was on 8A, there's a lot of red lines that were water lines crossing Ridge over to Devonshire Court. The bottom line is we don't want to take on the 227 units sewer and water issues. Just some additional points. The last storm research that was done by Habitat was done in 21 and 22, looking at 10 year trends. I think a new study reflecting more current dates and increased rain should be conducted. In addition, I don't understand how permitting can take place without a known storm system. that's been approved, which it was mentioned in your notes. I have seen no information in this packet about making the railroad crossing safe and whistle-free. We'd like to see that sooner or later. It seems like a key issue. It says that the construction trucks will not use Ridge unless we need it. Is this too open-ended? And should you consider avoiding certain times of days when the school buses are running, et cetera? And then I was talking to Ed Brill regarding grammar in high schools, and Ed had the assumption that there would only be one school district serving these residences. And if not, what traffic considerations, two times the number of buses, two grammar buses, two middle school buses, two high school buses. That's six buses going in and out of the development twice a day. I would like to mention one other thing on signage. There's going to be a lot of activity by the police station and by the corner of Ridge and Old Deerfield Road and pounding that area with signage just seems to be overkill and could impact visibility. Don.

Thank you. Correct me if I'm wrong, Senior Planner Burha, but the engineering department will have to review all sewer connections and

Right, so final engineering was approved as a part of the February 9th city council approval. And my understanding is that the applicant is still getting, it's required, it's separate from city review, but it's still required. They're still getting their Lake County SMC permitting. I mean, if they have changes for that, then that's to be seen, but then that would theoretically come back here as and if needed.

Thank you. Yes, anyone else?

Hi.

Do I need to swear?

Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Absolutely.

Sandy Lurie. I live across the street from the development as Evan said, just to give the people who aren't here. So I just have a few things. First of all, I hope you're totally successful. I want you to sell everything. Excuse me being quiet. Okay. So number one signage, a 16 foot sign is too big to go on Ridge Road. People that drive down Ridge Road know that there's construction there. They turn the corner, they're on Old Deerfield Road. I don't think you need that many signs. for marketing. That's number one. Number two, a quick question that I don't know that you can answer. When does the EPA come in and make their report? That's just a question. How many have to be sold before a homeowners association is formed? With regards to construction, this was a question we asked a long time ago. How will the developer be responsible for what happens regarding critters that will be let loose once this ground is dug up? That's another question. And the third, actually last thing, under your objectives, you make a notice about giving surrounding neighbors privacy. What are you going to do for screening along Ridge Road? Because right now there's screening. And there's this yin yang that's going on from the beginning of the project about it being part of the community, not part of the community, because it looks so totally different. And the people who live there really, we've always enjoyed the screening there. And if that's coming down, but then I saw this in your objectives that you're gonna provide screening. So I don't know if I read that incorrectly or not. And I think that's it. But since I have a little time, I wanna just address your issue about the Devonshire crosswalk. The people who live in the area worked long and hard to get rid of that dangerous crosswalk. It should never have been there. It does not connect the development to the community anymore. It is a danger to the community. So that's why we are very heartened that the city council listened to us and took it off of the agenda, took it off of the development. So that's what I have to say about it. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, I do. Jim Lederer, Bluegrass Next Door Neighbor. As I've been here numerous times, pretty much speaking the same thing. At this point in time, we're going to be giving them six to 12 inches of our dirt, which is really pretty much past our driveway, the asphalt. I've been trying to get, you know, three to four feet so we could get a little bit of a berm, a barrier, some screening. Right now we've got two and a half feet. You can't put trees. So we're going to lose all that screening. We got a 40 or 37 foot building going on. 40 feet away. So I'd still like to get four feet of dirt so we could put some trees there to have some proper screening. I mean, once again, they're coming back. I think the project is better with lower heights. They're making some nice changes. My only comment as far as the signage is our roads are 25 miles an hour. No one's driving that fast. So we might not need quite as many, but that's up to you guys. But once again, I'm looking forward to seeing this come to fruition. but I also like to make sure that it's done the right way. And if they're coming back asking for more, well, let's get a couple of feet between the properties. I mean, if I'm gonna give them another 12 inches to get to two and a half feet, let's get to four or five. That's all.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak on this particular issue?

I wanted to make one response to Chair Moore's question about that crossing that it wasn't as though, you know, PDC was just uh you know disregarded it there was a lot of conversation about it and um there was debate uh and i i think that um there was as as the um uh the public commenter who just spoke mentioned um there was uh concern expressed by neighbors uh about the safety of it so um Council took a step back from that. And anyway, I just didn't want you to think PDC was disrespected on this. Yeah, I appreciate it. Just there was neighborhood concern about this. So thank you.

Pleasure of the commission. This will need to be continued because of the housing commission action that's needed. Do we wish to do that and direct findings of fact? Do we have any just general discussion at this point?

Please turn it in. Yeah, just looking at the signage, I'm really not a fan of the NASCAR back wall on Ridge. It doesn't really fit our community. I don't think it's going to be very effective. And I'm in marketing, so I understand what you're trying to do. But I think everyone that's been coming down that road is gonna be local and they're well aware of what's going on. So if they're interested, they'll be interested to begin with, regardless of your six signs or whatever it may be along Ridge. I think one of the larger signs would be appropriate, not two along Old Deerfield. I think that would be, and then maybe one smaller sign on Ridge just to, make things known but having a whole trail of signs telling people there's a tot lot and a pool is personally I don't think merited or necessary in 2026. I'm okay with the internal signage and wayfinding I think that is appropriate and fine and I don't really take much offense to that and I think given it's an active construction site makes sense. The flagpole fine if it's just one on the property but the litany of signs that are way well and above what normally we permit in this town. I think it's unnecessary and I'm a hard no on what's presented.

I agree with Vice Chair Namas. I think to have three signs on Ridge is kind of silly because all those people are local. They already know this is happening and they'll all be making, when they come down Ridge, they're all making a turn onto Old Deerfield Road and then they'll see the big sign there too.

I agree.

Save your money.

I think I'd be a no on the Ridge Road signs. I mean, it looks like, you know, like, 294 as you're going by O'Hare. But the interior signs, no problem. But I would like to see maybe a little bit lesser signs up on Deerfield too, a little bit smaller. I mean, everybody knows this is a development here. Everybody knows construction is going on. I don't think it's going to add to any marketing. As far as the other modifications, I think those are actually improvements, lowering the height, adding extra bedroom for the affordable. And I understand with the lot lines, but the signs on Ridge, I'd be a hard no on those.

Yes, Commissioner Mnuchin.

I agree with everything said about the signage 100%. I think there's so much pent up housing demand in our community that people will be all over this if they're interested, based on the people I know, at least in Highland Park. And the only other thing I wanted to say, I agree that most of the other changes seem really reasonable, like good improvements. I think we did talk about the screening between the industrial properties to the north and the development at some point during the public hearings. And I would love to see a little bit more effort in that screening or like a real buffer between the homes and the industrial properties to the north. So just boosting what the Bluegrass owner said, I think that that would be a real value add here too.

Commissioner Mantis.

if the will of the commission is to reduce the signs, that's fine with me. I don't have a big objection as much as everybody else to it, but I'm generally fine with this.

I believe, so we did have, if we, in the findings of draft findings of fact, we would include that buffer piece, right? So you had a slide in which we talked about that buffer being negotiated and yeah. So we could include that as something that needs to be addressed.

Yes, yes. I would encourage the commission as well to ask the applicant on the record their comment on that condition as well.

Okay, would the applicant care to comment on that? And you may as well comment on taking your signs off of Ridge Road as well.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate all the feedback. We don't have a problem with this as long as it's clear that we would require written permission from the effective property owners. I think we're good. We have absolutely no objection to working with folks and massaging that landscape in that area. As it relates to AS IT RELATES TO THE SIGNS, CAN WE TAKE JUST A SECOND AND NAIL DOWN WHERE WE'RE AT? BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE HEARD A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS FROM FOLKS. YEAH, THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL. SO FROM COMMISSIONER NANIS, I HEARD A SIGN ON Old Deerfield and a sign on Ridge Road. My thought is that when we come back, we would have this modified. We'd just clean it up and detail down to what was workable for the commission. So I just want to be clear on, is that what is acceptable? Yes, so for me, speaking for myself, I would be

open to sign S on Ridge, so a single eight by eight sign, which you proposed, removal of all the B signage across Ridge and pick your spot for V, one of them. Great, thank you.

And I believe we also, I didn't hear any objections to the other new variations that are basically

Carol, you corrected yourself on how many units were going from two bedroom to three bedroom units. How many units is that all told? 63 out of 227. Pardon me? 63 out of 227. I've been concerned about the density of this development since day one. In fact, I voted against sending it to the council. 63 units that go from three bedrooms, two bedrooms to three is just adding a lot more potential density to this property. I just have a problem with that. I don't think it's appropriate. And I'm all in favor of more housing in Highland Park. And God only knows that I think everybody on this commission is happy to see this property developed after all these years. But I just have a problem with the density. And when you increase 63 units, I mean, it's out of 227, but 63 that are going from two to three, I think that just, exacerbates that issue, in my mind.

Thank you. Do we have other feedback for the petition? I think the signage was the main hang-up. Anyone disagree with that?

No, and I just want to make one clarification. I don't think I would be agreeable to even the S sign on Ridge. But again, that's my personal opinion. I think Ridge should be clear of signage.

Yes? Ridge, one sign, no sign. It doesn't bother me to have one on Ridge.

I think one sign is all right. I don't think any more.

Okay. Are we clear on the signs? Got it. We're good. Interior of the property, everybody says you get the swag at all you want, right?

If I could, could I just indulge? There were a couple of resident questions. Oh, absolutely. It felt like they were asked to us, so I don't want to ignore folks.

No, you can certainly respond to those.

Yeah, so I just, I want to clarify that there was a question with respect to screening along Ridge Road. None of that's changing. So with this plan, we're not modifying anything, any of the open space configuration that was approved as part of the original development. So the trees that were slated for preservation as part of that original plan will be preserved in the same location and format as they were before.

Excuse me, excuse me. No back and forth. Just let him answer the questions. Thank you. If you wish to speak again after he's answered the questions, we'll consider that.

And I'd be happy to chat with residents after the meeting as well, too. And then I think it should address signs. And then the other question was with respect to EPA. So I think there was some discussion of this during Habitat's approval process. So we are in for an NFR before IEPA right now. All of that documentation has been submitted. We're not expecting any problems. Generally speaking, the exceedances on the site are naturally occurring, so it's heavy metals. Given the residential nature of the property, we've elected, by and large, to remove the impacted soils, take those soils off site at a at a certified waste disposal site inconsistent with applicable state regulations. So we're working with an environmental consultant. Everything is pending approval from EPA, but we don't see any issues with the cleanup associated with site.

Thank you. Chair. Yes, just want to emphasize something Mr. Whitaker said that I'm sure none of you need reminding. What's before you is merely the amendments. This application as it exists, this development has been approved. If the amendments tonight are not approved, then the previous proposed development continues as it is. And so anything that does not have anything to do with the amendments really are not before you. I just want to say that you don't need reminding of that, but I want to keep the record clean.

Thank you.

Okay, motion. I have one question, one more question. Chair, is that okay? Sure. Of the Attorney for the Applicant, just a clarification on what you said about the landscape strip. You said that you're open to massaging that.

That was not what you're referring to. So the there's the open space along the perimeter of the property along Ridge Road. We're not making any changes to that open space. Okay. With respect to the easement that crosses, we've eliminated that and that's part of the plan.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Thank you. So I've been looking for a motion to direct findings of that. Sorry.

Yes. Just for Council Member Ross's question, I just want to put a finer point on that. We're talking about the, landscape buffer that abuts what's referred to as bluegrass restaurant, that property and the number of inches that are technically offsite on that property that currently have some form of landscaping in them and whether or not that area, the applicant would be amenable to including that in their landscaped area should proper permissions be granted by the landowner of the bluegrass property. So I just want to, that was what I believe Council Member Ross was referring to. And I stand corrected if you correct me, Council Member.

I was referring to that.

Yes, so it wasn't about the Ridge Road. No, sorry. I just went through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant, just put that question to the applicant as to being amenable to doing that.

That's, I believe, how are you answering? That they are amenable and... And we will expect that in the draft findings of that. Thank you. If anyone actually moves to produce draft findings of that, then we can continue. Yes. Come on up. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and spare your last name for the record.

Dan Wagner. I like what you did with the lighting. I've been going to a lot of these meetings and so forth and you've reduced the lighting and so forth. I just realized that you're talking about a flagpole and if that flagpole is just during construction, I'm fine with it. If it's going to be there afterwards, please do not light that flagpole.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Mantis. I would move to direct staff to prepare findings of fact recommending approval for everything that we've discussed here tonight. Marcus, is that adequate or can you help me?

Yes. One thing that you all are just kind of split on is the question of the 16 by 9 sign, whether it's just one, whether it's completely eliminated,

I also heard 8 by 8. One 16 by 9 on Ridge and one, I believe, 8 by 8 is what was proposed on, or one on Ridge, one on Old Deerfield. Okay.

And I want to confirm that is the motion that's being made? Yes. Second.

Any discussion? Director Fontana, can you call the roll?

Commissioner Ntchek? Aye. Commissioner Fettner? Aye. Commissioner Henry? Aye. Commissioner Mantis? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. Vice Chair Ntchek? Aye. Chair Kirsch? Aye. The ayes have it. The motion carries and staff will be back as directed. We just need to continue the item.

I will be looking for a motion to continue this public hearing to June 16th.

We would recommend June 16th in order that we can bring the housing commission's recommendation. So June 16th is the recommended continuance date. Motion to approve the date, June 16th.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

And notice this item has been continued to June 16th, 7 p.m. in city council chambers. Your notice is actual. There'll be no additional notice for that continuation. June 16th, the continued public hearing regarding 1700 Old Deerfield Road. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. If you could keep it down, we still have business to perform on your way out.

Chair. Yes. Do you mind if I check real quick? If anyone is in the pre-session room, I want to invite them. I just want to check real quick.

I don't like what I'm doing.

Okay, next up on the agenda, public hearing PUD 2026-00086 for a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final plan development, design review, variations and modifications from city codes and to amend the plan development approval 029-98 for property commonly known as Town of Fort Sheridan, including the Town of Fort Sheridan Master Redevelopment Plan at 0 Patton Road, a vacant parcel with PIN 1611301063 adjacent to the property at 3535 Patton Road. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission. My name is Steve Kirch. A quorum of the Plan and Design Commission being present, the members of the commission will now introduce themselves for the record starting on my far right. Kristin Inchuk.

Danny Mantis.

Karen Moore.

Josh Nannis. Ken Henry. Can you go to the bathroom?

Can we have him chime in when he returns? As soon as he sits down. No, here he comes. Here he comes.

Nope.

We should all stand.

Expecting applause. Give your name.

The planning design commission is charged with hearing applications for rezoning, plan developments and subdivisions under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations of the city of Highland Park. In all matters, we recommend to the city council based upon the testimony presented to us in the hearing. We are required to decide cases within 45 days after receiving the transcript. All testimony is under oath. Both applicants and others who wish to speak on a particular case should present specific evidence as to why a proposal meets or fails to meet the standards for the relief requested. For clarity of our record, only one person at a time will speak and all questions will be directed through the chair. We ask that you make every effort to not be repetitive in your testimony. Finally, we will make every effort to adhere to the schedule prepared. For tonight's hearing, if additional time is needed on a matter, it will be continued until the next available agenda. And with that, I open the floor for the staff, the plan and design commission to read into the record proof of publication and ownership.

Proof of publication and ownership are available for viewing at the offices of community development, 1150 Half Day Road in Highland Park. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Senior Planner Burhop, are you up again? Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening again, everybody. My name is Carl Burhop. I'm a Senior Planner with the City of Highland Park in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. This is a presentation on the project to amend a plan development and a master redevelopment plan. from the town of Fort Sheridan. And so the commission should consider this request. It's for a 10 unit detached single family development to amend the plan development that includes the master redevelopment plan for this site. There's also design review associated with this. If appropriate, the commission can direct for findings of fact at a future meeting, either to approve or to deny, or can just continue to a future date for more information. I do want to point out one thing. My report, for whatever reason, I think I used MRD. I meant to use MRP. My apologies on that. I hope that didn't confuse anyone. So this is the site. It's 1.33 acres in area. It's already stated it's regulated by a plan development and a master redevelopment plan. It does have underlying RM1 zoning, but it's important for the commission to know what applies, what's applicable is the master redevelopment plan. The RM1 is only applicable if and when the master redevelopment plan is silent. Otherwise, it's not a competing thing of what's more restrictive. No, it's the MRP. The MRP is what applies. That's the law for these properties. The applicant also indicates that a landmark Illinois approval and master HOA approvals. So this is part of the town of Fort Sheridan. And so this image is from the approved back in, geez, I think it's 1998. DMRP was 1998. This may also be 1998, maybe a few years later. So this is for the ravines. And so on the left there is essentially what was built and is there now, 3535 Patton Road. And that includes, this in the middle, and then to the right, that was not built. That's the unaddressed property that we were calling Zero Patent Road. So the site, the site is approved for multiple family land use mirroring the tower on 3535 Patton Road. The height is allowed to be up to 114 feet. It's nine stories. I think some people call it eight stories. It's eight stories of residences and then like a first floor parking and below grade parking. The density of 50 to 51 units as per the county assessor. and proof of below grade parking and parking in the building. And then the MRP, the master redevelopment plan had designated setbacks. And so this is a clip from the master redevelopment plan for the specific site. And I didn't post this in total in the packet, but this is just a clip from the specific one. And so this is for the site as a whole. And obviously we're talking about a southern portion, approximately this area. And so per the MRP, there's supposed to be a 30 foot setback along the west to the Patton Road property line. There's supposed to be a 25 plus 25 foot setback along the east here along Bradley. And so you'll note, again, there's a 25 foot setback, and then it shows buildable area, but it shows another 25 foot setback. So that's 50 feet in total. And then a 50 foot setback along the south here, which is along the ravine. Then I'll also point out that driveway access was not granted to the subject site along Bradley, access is granted along Patton Road. So deviation from that would need to amend this. All right, I have that summarized, okay. So the neighborhood, so this is a zoomed in image. So to the west and to the south, here we have ravine and vacant land. To the north, you have what I already referred, you know, the way back, you know, 27, 28 years ago was the tower that was supposed to be there, or excuse me, the one that was built as part of the project. So that's the 3535 Patton Road. Then you have Bradley. Then I do want to point out there's a single family home that will about the property right here along this property line. And then it's a single family neighborhood there that goes up here to the east. This is the site plan. The applicant is proposing 10 detached single family homes on this site. That red dash line is the approximate property boundary line. Again, these site plans are in the packet. So anyone, if you're having any issues seeing it, again, you can download this on the internet. Let me know if you ever have any issues. My name's Carl Berhop. And so that's just showing the outline of the property line. And so this development is oriented kind of towards a private cul-de-sac. So the applicant proposes their own private access with a cul-de-sac, then the 10 units are wrapped around that. This is a zoom in along the east property line along Bradley. And so the property line is here. And again, I just want to call out the encroachment. The applicant has a 25 foot setback along here. Like I said, the MRP has a 25 foot setback, then it has an additional 25 foot setback. And so that shows the applicant's encroachments. They variously, I think at the closest, there are about 2.9 from the building to the property line here. And then they also variously have an 8.25 setback, which I think is this one, and then a 14.75 setback to here. And those are setbacks measured from property lines to the buildings. Then I'll also point out, you know, there's the patio as well that's proposed. So the applicant does ask for modifications to the MRP setbacks. And so along the north, and I can go back to the site plan if needed, but at the closest, it was a 0.4 foot setback, which is like about five inches or so. And so that's, I forget it's one of these here along the north. That's what I'm talking about there. But I will point out that the north property, appears to come up to the property line. And it actually, it appears to me, it actually has like, I forget, I looked at it earlier. It's like vent or some type of encroachments onto the applicant's property. Yeah, and it varies. And then obviously that's the minimum setback. And then there's other setbacks. There's a 3.4 foot setback and then it opens up from there. So the MRP has no setback contemplated along the door. And so in that instance, since it's silent, we go the RM1. The RM1 underlying is a 10 foot side yard. That would be a side yard. So the relief to that is 9.6 feet into a 10 foot requirement. The west, there's a five foot setback encroach to the building, though it does look like there are non-building encroachments the city's reviewing. Like there was like a curb encroachment that would need a special license agreement. I do have that down to our public works department to double check that. But the master redevelopment plan requires 30 feet, and this is on the west, and so the relief to that is 25 feet. And again, that's here along the west along Patton Road. Moving on to the south. So our closest is 10.9 feet. So there's a patio that's closer. The MRP requires 50 feet. And so that's a 39.1 foot encroachment into, well it should be, that's a typo, I apologize. And so the 50 foot requirement. And so they're talking about this south or southwest property line. And then moving on to the east. along Bradley Court, along the actual street. It's called Bradley Court on the GIS, but a lot of the old documents call it Bradley Loop, anyway. So it varies from 10.9 to 14.75 feet. There's a patio that's closer. There are certain allowances for patio encroachments, by the way. There's a specific matrix in the master redevelopment plan that does discuss encroachments. So again here, the setback requirement is that 25 plus 25. So the 50 foot requirement is a 39.1 foot relief. And then to the east, so this last one, that's the one that adjoins that single family home, that's on the southern tip of Bradley. And so at closest, it's 2.9, and then there's also an 8.25 setback. And so the relief to that would be 47.1 feet to the 2.9. And again, those last two I'm talking about here along Bradley, and then I'm talking about here as it abuts the 3477 Bradley core property. By the way, I believe they did have, this owner did have comments in the packet. So I hope that the commission did have the opportunity with all, to read all the public comments that were submitted. Coverage, I'm still reviewing that to determine if the MRP has a coverage limit. The applicant proposes 41%. I thought the applicant, on there, but I think what they did is I think they did a calculation just on the buildable area and the setback. This is a question of geometry. I think they did a calculation as to what was allowed based on the master redevelopment plan. There is relief required to the PUD requirement from section 150.5 distance between new buildings. 15 feet is required and they're proposing three feet in some locations as 12 feet of relief. And just so the commission knows what I'm talking about, those are these gaps in the buildings here. The applicant requests a new landscaping plan.

That's not necessarily- Excuse me, excuse me.

That's not necessarily a modification per se. It's an amendment because there is an approved landscaping plan and they're proposing a new one. So the commission, in terms of that, you just have to use your judgment, see what they were proposing for the nine-story building, and then look at what's proposed now and how that screens or buffers the property from the adjacent properties. And then also exterior lighting is still under review. The applicant needs to submit that. The setback relief to the MRP dust trigger Requirement for public benefit, the commission should discuss the applicant's proposal. I'll let the applicant speak on behalf of their public benefit proposal. Okay, so the ravines open space plan. So I took these images again, these were included in the packet. So on the left, this is kind of just one of the cover sheets for the ravines. Oh, Some of these are not oriented correctly. Some of them are. Some of them I did reorient, realizing that. But sometimes when you reorient some of these, sometimes I feel like it makes you more confused. So I don't always know. So I did both. I have one like this and one like the other. We'll see what one sticks. Because this would be the proposed... driveway for the ravines development back in the late late late 90s and so that aligns to like kind of like here on this plan to try to give you an idea of the orientation well actually Bradley Court is what helps that's the loop and then that's the loop there so the idea the idea for this so I'm just trying to give a sense of the difference in coverage or footprint between the two developments because you have one development that was approved to go up to nine stories, 114 feet. Actually, I'm not sure the building actually did go up to 114 feet, but the MRP states it allows for 114 feet. So then you have the proposal that's here now, considerably less units, you know, not 50, it's 10 units. The height's obviously lower. I believe it's 32 or 33 feet based on what the applicant submitted, but you have a development that's spread out over the site, so. the commission can consider and contrast those. But yes.

So they're not building the second tower?

No, that is not the first.

So that is being erased off this plan and being replaced by this 10 unit development.

That is 100% correct. The second tower was never completed and the applicant is instead asking to amend the MRP to allow for this.

Okay.

So this is the landscaping plan. I tried to reorient the plans here. So here, You can see, so this is the private drive and cul-de-sac proposed by the applicant as it goes out onto Patton. And so this was the access for the South Tower as it goes out onto Patton. So this is Patton up here and this is Patton up here. This is Bradley Court on the bottom and Bradley Court, the loop on the bottom. And so this is an attempt to show the landscaping. I have the numbers coming up on the next slide. And again, this was in the packet in case anyone has issues reading what's there. You can always pull open the packet and zoom in on it. Okay, and this is, so I reoriented the landscaping plan here and I just tried to zoom in along the east property line, which again, they're asking for encroachments. And then this is a single family home and a single family neighborhood over here. And then in terms of actual landscaping, they meet all the requirements. Now, this is a comparison slide. This is not the code. The code for this is what was approved for the ravines. But if I had to compare it to code, this is what code would require to give you some type of comparable or idea as to what the code would require. But I want to be clear on that because I actually, I wouldn't call this a modification like we do normally. They just, they want to amend the landscaping plan that was approved for the ravines to this one. And this is the landscape counts for this. Those last three columns are for chapter 94 tree code. That's a separate thing. I'll have the city forester address that. for the future meeting. Renderings. This was one of the renderings that the applicant provided. And so this is from Patten looking into the development. I did verbally discuss with the applicant earlier today, I believe, I think it was earlier today, that they should also consider a rendering from Bradley that shows what it's going to look like on Bradley as it will face the single family neighborhood. The applicant may have additional renderings to show today. I'll defer to the applicant. There were, I think there were two basic types of elevations. And I just included one in here. I mean, the colors are, colors and materials are relatively the same. And I'll let the applicant speak about, they did talk in their narrative about where they drew inspiration and about their architectural design. And I'll let the applicant, I'll defer to them on further discussing that. Inclusionary zoning, well, long story short, for this type of development, they can do a cash payment in lieu since it's detached single family homes. And the applicant has elected to do that route. And so this will not need to go, as proposed here, as proposed now, this will not have to go to the Housing Commission. They will have to do a cash payment in lieu of $370,800 to the Housing Trust Fund. Other comments? Stormwater is still under review by Public Works Department. They have not approved these plans yet, but they provided comments. So it would be the applicants, it would be our expectation that they respond to those comments for the next meeting and submit revisions as appropriate and Public Works Department will re-review and update their comments as appropriate. I had a variety of comments in the packet. I just picked several here that I just wanted to draw attention to. The applicant should depict mechanical units and screening on the site, especially as it abuts north and east property lines. The commission should also consider what fencing, if any, will be allowed along Bradley Court. The MRP allows fence up to six inches from the property line in a rear yard. I know we talk about zoning a lot, you know, Bradley Court, it's a front yard, it's a front yard, it's a front yard, not according to the MRP. The MRP calls it a rear yard. Where do I have that? You got to zoom in there, but that's an R for rear. So they are allowed according to the encroachment matrix. to build fence up to six inches from the property line. And so we would just consider the commission to also consider what restrictions should be imposed for fencing. Cause you know, if fencing is put up there up to six inches from the property line, it has certain visual impact upon the neighborhood. Right, I already stated exterior lighting specifications and plan must be submitted. Pedestrian movement on site should be clarified. Pedestrians get to sidewalks. I have one bicycle comment in my report. These are single family homes with garages. So for bicycles, usually we don't recommend bicycle racks. They can put bicycles in the garage. Oh, this is, yeah, this is just reiterating my first slide. I can take questions if there are any. A couple questions.

If a petitioner, this petitioner came in to build the tower, the 50-unit tower, without any modifications, would they be able to by right without coming to the board? That's my understanding is yes.

Okay.

That's correct. It's been approved.

Okay.

And then my other question is, I saw in the packet that the petitioner is requesting a waiver on any traffic studies or market studies.

That's right. And they discussed that with staff in advance as well. It's a 10-year development going on a site that was originally approved for approximately 50 units.

And staff agrees, the opinion of staff is that that's okay. I do. Okay.

Yeah. In terms of plan developments, our office makes a determination on what's needed to come before the Plan and Design Commission. Of course, the Plan and Design Commission can decide whether it's adequate. Ultimately, you're the arbiter of that, along with City Council. But to get to this stage, we did not believe that was necessary, given the context Carl described, and that it's going to be 10 units.

Okay. Thank you. Those are my only two questions for staff.

Thank you.

Yes. Commissioner Inchik.

Carl, can you speak to the common open space that will be available on the property? The packet says there will be 20,500 square feet of common open space.

Without referring to any specific notes, I can remember specifically that I did review it to the PUD requirement. Again, I want to reiterate that the MRP is what supersedes here, but I did compare it to the PUD requirement for residential development is 20%. And I don't recall their exact, but I know that in their numbers and calculations, it was over 20%.

Would you mind going back to one of the site plans that shows the layout of the homes? I was having trouble understanding how we could possibly get to that amount of open space and where, is it that Southern corner where that open space would be located?

Well, right, I mean, the bulk of their open space is located in this kind of this triangle right here. And then the open space is just located around the sides with some interior space.

Okay, so that doesn't assume that they're subdividing the lots in order to get individual rear yards. I guess I'm confused about how that works with this particular property not subdividing.

They did not submit a plat of resubdivision, no. Sorry, restate your question.

Yeah, wouldn't they need to in order to sell these homes?

Well, I mean, there was a comment in the staff report way, way, way, way at the end. There were three things that staff were still reviewing. And one thing we were reviewing is whether or not a plot of consolidation will be required. In terms of resubdivision or not, that's up to the applicant to determine what they need to accomplish their end goal. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Mantis.

So I understand that 50 unit building is not before us, but do we know like, cause it wasn't that long ago, do we know why? the second building wasn't built? Was there something that made it unfeasible on the site? Is the site too small? Because weirdly enough, it feels like a 50-unit building would be a better fit for this site than 10 houses.

You know, we don't know, Mr. Chair. Staff don't know why. Over time, you know, over the years, people have kicked tires, but it just hasn't happened.

It's true that no one ever changed the master plan. so and that it is also true isn't it Carl that the site and the setbacks are specifically designed for the mirror building that's right and that's why whatever this is has to have so much relief that's correct I mean I have a

And I had the entire, again, the entire ravines plan set as an attachment, but right, I mean, well, it's harder to see, but if you open it up online and zoom in, you can see the setbacks.

Yeah, to Commissioner Manges, if you look at the original Balsamo plan, you realize that the only thing that can go on that site is the mirror building. I mean, I think that's absolutely correct. So... but 30 years is also a long time. Yes, Director Fuente.

So just one area that staff just draw your attention is the homes off of the Bradley loop or court. Those are the rear yard. Yeah. If you can go, no, if we can go back to the actual site plan, Carl. Yeah. No. Yeah. See there on that, the back there, those are the rear homes on a cul-de-sac with home. The home there that exists is, that's the front yard. Is that correct, Carl?

That's right. So this is the front of this property, 3477 Bradley. It fronts on Bradley. Okay.

It's just something to note. It's that that's the rear of those homes. And there is no access allowed from Bradley Court to that parcel call from Bradley Court to the park?

That's right. In the original MRP, these darker bold black lines indicate allowed access. And so there's no access allowed here to the subject site along Bradley. Access would have to be, that would have to be amended to allow for access.

Thank you. Commissioner Henry. Carol, I understand from listening to you that when they contemplated this development in this MRP at that time, they had significant setbacks as we see. This is a different ballgame. We're in a different ballpark. Can you provide the commission with what the RM1 setbacks would be for each one of these proposed developments, each one of these proposed single family houses? Individually? Oh, well, individually they wouldn't.

I know they're not 50, I know it's not 50 feet. I can tell you. But it's more than four inches. The RM1 has a 25 foot front yard setback requirement and it has a 10 foot side yard requirement. The rear yard I don't recall because this property by chapter 150 doesn't have a rear yard. By chapter 150 in the zoning code, it's a through lot with frontages on the west and on the east. Those would both be 25 feet when you'd have a 10 foot required setback along the north and along the south, except for where the steep slope zone is more restrictive along the south.

I just think it would be helpful for the commission if we were able, because they're asking us to look at this as 10 residences. 10 single family residences. So the setbacks set in the RFP are clearly inconsequential in terms of this, except that they set a standard that if we were to propose granting the modifications would be significant. But I think it would be helpful to the commission to know what each one of those proposed homes would require if we applied the RM1 standards to it. Because that's really what we're talking about here. And we need, I think the commission needs a frame of reference in that regard.

I would agree with that and follow up that the surrounding single family neighborhood that's to the east there, that'd be really interesting to know in the, what those setbacks and density and bulk are like compared to what's proposed, because even just looking at that aerial view where you have the 10 homes next to three single family homes that are existing, it looks like they're taking up the same amount of space. And so I would just be curious, because it is in context of this neighborhood, what those bulk standards look like for the surrounding neighborhood as well, yeah.

So that's an image of obviously how it exists now. And then the MRP, again, it's hard to read on this, but they're all supposed to have a 25 foot front yard setback for all the lots that are called the H lots, which are the single family homes.

Doesn't all of this come under the Lake Shore Zoning District where they have to have a certain size lot?

This one, no, is not in that district. This one is in the, it just has its own mastery redevelopment plan.

Okay. Because I agree with Commissioner Henry, it would be nice to know what would be allowed under just the RM1, and I don't think it's this. There's just... way too many really big houses. And the entire lot is only, someone said 1.33 acres. That's a lot of homes on an acre and a third.

Oh, the subject site here is 1.33 acres? Yeah. These are all, I actually got the average of all these. All the H lots, which are the single family homes, they're an average of 20,300 square feet.

Can someone convert that to acres? A little less than a half.

Okay. Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for Stan? Could we hear from the petitioner, please? You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Thank you. State your names, Bill, your last name for our note taker.

Thank you. Scott Borstein, B as in boy, O-R-S-T-E-I-N. The Law Offices of Neal and Leroy here on behalf of the applicant team. I can see we've got a large turnout, which I want to thank everybody for coming, even though I'm probably not going to like to hear what a lot of them have to say. But, and of course I want to first thank Carol too, who's been super helpful. We've been talking about this project for over a year with various people. So this is the culmination of a lot of thought and a lot of planning And so what you're going to see tonight, and I'm going to, you know, quickly turn it over to the architect and the rest of our team, and they can introduce themselves when they get up here. But just again, sort of a frame of reference. This is a planned development. And so I do hear a lot of comments about, oh, well, you know, how do you treat a single family home? These are you know, these could have taken on different shapes. This could have theoretically taken on the shape of town homes, could have been smaller towers. There could have been lots of different iterations of what we're proposing, but we felt that just based on the market and what was around us that this was really, as I say, the culmination of a lot of thought and really the highest and best we think, right? The highest and best use for the site. So because it's a planned development, of course, you know, the idea behind that is you get to modify the standards and you don't have to necessarily comply with each and every each and every rule. And obviously if we did, you wouldn't have what is before you today. So I would note though that in terms of one of the things you're asking about in terms of the setbacks, under the master redevelopment plan, there are 25 foot front yard setbacks, but the side setbacks are only nine feet in the MRP, okay? Which is different from what the RM1 might provide. But again, you know, we've got different standards. So in terms of side setbacks, which again, because of the odd and weird configuration of the lot, we are not asking for that much relief is at least as it relates to side yards, which in almost all of these areas, you could consider it a side yard. So, I'm trying to think if there's anything else in general. Okay, well, I'm gonna turn it over to our architect. And as I say, he can introduce himself, and then we are here to answer any questions you have. And with that, I'll turn it over to Jacob.

Oh, yep, that's exactly right.

And then if there's a pointer. Oh, I guess this is- So do you see how this does work?

So you can hover over something.

Yeah, rather than using the laser. Thank you, Carl. Thank you for the commission.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. And please state your name, spell your last name for our note taker.

Jacob Dodds. Last name is D-O-D-D-S. I'm with Dirk Dennison Architects. Thank you, Carl and the commission, members of the community. We're excited to present this to you. I'll try to get right in the microphone. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present to you. We're excited about the project. We love Fort Sheridan. The setting of Fort Sheridan was the inspiration for what we created here. The natural setting, obviously, of all the landscape, the heritage and the history at the fort, the architectural heritage, and of course the community is so vibrant here. It was a challenging site to work on. As you know, it's geometrically, it's hard to envision what could go there and how to fit it in. Being respectful of the neighbors and all the various factors, pushing and pulling on the site. We always envisioned a cluster of homes around a central courtyard, creating a little community within your community. It evokes some of the images of the 10 villages of the old fort. And then of course the iconic forms of those historic homes with the steep pitched roofs and of course the colors and the materials. So we've strove to create something that we feel is fitting providing something that is needed in the community in terms of the single family homes. So I'm gonna go through, there's some additional images that we have from what you've already seen, just to give you more of a look of the design. And then we'll go into the landscape and site, but we won't go through in detail each of the drawings. But of course they're available if we have questions. So going around the perimeter of the site, so this is on Patton Road, as you're looking south, you're seeing the ravines drive and then our site beyond. So you can see that we envision of this being all of these pitched roofs in a cluster around a courtyard with dense landscaping in the setting of lush landscaping. So we're not proposing a fence around the perimeter, but a lush screen of landscaping facing the neighbors. along Patton Road, of course, that's the public walk and front facing, public facing. So the solution there was to have the masonry wall of the homes facing the street fronted by landscaping leading you in with a clear story of windows sort of maximizing the privacy and light and creating a nice frontage for Patton Road and for people walking along the sidewalk. So this is, of course, looking at the access drive as you come in. Coming into the center court, this gives you a look of the forms of the homes. Of course, we kept within the natural materials of the fort, the main materials being the stucco and masonry, brick masonry, the slate gray zinc roofs and stained wood. you know, the brick masonry and the buff color that was actually taken from the natural materials on site and fired, giving you that color that just comes from the conditions of the site. So even on the interior, as you can see, we're fitting in as much landscaping as possible. This is along Patten Road looking north. And then here's the view on Bradley looking sort of, this is at the end of the drive looking north. So this is the rear of those homes, but it presents similar form from the rear as from the front. And then of course we have the landscape screening for privacy and just this kind of a continuation of there's, landscaping along Bradley Court, along the back of the ravines building. And this kind of continues it to the edge here, which is our neighbor directly to the south and east. And giving a visual representation of the main materials, that buff color brick, the slate gray roofing stucco and wood. and of course the site plan. As you can see the challenge of fitting onto the site of all this irregular geometry, apologies for that. The pinch points are really just the corners of the homes. So there's actually quite a bit of green space around the perimeter of the property, but in those sort of triangulated areas. And then you've seen these images of the elevations, and these are the rest of the materials that we submitted. So the homes are about 2,300 square feet on the first floor with a half second floor. and a partial basement. And there's two different unit types basically, but there are variations on the same design as you saw from the extra images. It's the same design, same materials, but configured differently to each of the homes. And of course the landscape was a huge part of it. And our partners with Erickson are gonna go a little bit more into what they've done with the landscape.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do. My name is Steve Gregory, landscape architect with Erickson Engineering. Last name is G-R-E-G-O-R-Y. I think it was a nice introduction by my teammates. It was a challenging site. There were some challenges we had, as was mentioned by staff, with how do you apply a standard for a 50 unit, 112 foot, 114 foot tower, how do you apply that landscape to a completely different product, a completely different feel, and kind of bringing that more down to a human scale, more to the ground level, if you will, to help create these spaces within the space. So creating the patios, the backyards, still trying to provide that privacy on the perimeter, and then focusing our attention to direct most of that to the interior. We did take our cue from the plant palette that is part of the master association or the master agreement. And that informed our decision for our largely native plants that we've chosen either native or adaptive. Obviously some of those kind of had to change a little bit in order to get some arborvitae so we could do some screening around that perimeter in the narrower spaces. So there's just a lot of, again, we wanted to get as much green as we could into that interior so when you come in there it feels more welcoming and a little softer. Try to dissipate any of that. negative impact from any of the paved surfaces in there. And then again trying to keep what we could around the perimeter and respect for the neighborhood as much as we could with again the tight configuration that we're working within here. We were able to keep down in the south in that triangle where we talked about the largest interior open space if you will. That does have a large oak tree that we are going to be able to preserve down there, the largest one on the site and one that's actually in the best condition. Several of the other ones that we went out and looked at are not in the greatest shape, but we will still work with staff in the forestry department, because I know that they still have their comments coming. We understand that we're willing to work with staff to, you know, look at plant selections, what we can do to enhance what we're proposed here. And with that, I don't know. We'll be here for questions, obviously. But if there's anything immediately that comes to mind, happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, I don't know. We'll let our civil engineer come up and talk briefly about the site in terms of civil engineering.

Up to you. Pardon me? Do you want? Yeah. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do. My name is Alex Ebert. Last name is spelled E as in Edward. P-P-E-R-T. I do not have any slides for this. So. Louder, please.

I don't know if you need a server. Are you?

So the existing site has, does this have a laser pointer on it by any chance? So the site currently has a high point towards the north side of the site with stormwater landing and draining basically north a little bit, but most of it drains to the west, south, and east into the ravine. Currently on the Currently on the southwest side of the site, there is a crossing spanning the ravine and there are two curb inlets down towards the, let's call it a bridge, the crossing. Those are currently owned by the Navy. And that is where any water that makes it onto Patton Road collects and then discharges onto an existing I'm not sure if it's able to be seen by everyone here, but it's roughly where the mouse is currently. So there is a discharge for the water that makes its way onto Baton Road that funnels and shoots out onto the, it's a concrete trough basically that slowly drains onto the, into the ravine. Since there's nothing on the site, demolition is pretty straightforward and it's just going to be removing the layers as necessary to prepare the site for construction. As mentioned previously, the site has 10 houses and we will be providing access to the The site is a little tricky with the stormwater because the site has a natural high point on the north side of the site and drains south. That is where we will be matching the existing conditions. Modern stormwater regulations dictate that we be less with our proposed improvements with the discharge than existing, so there will be less water cubic feet per second discharging into the ravine. Sanitary was also kind of tricky with the two access points that were available to us being one over in Bradley Loop and one up towards on the northwest side of the site on Patton Road. Essentially, the northwest corner is what we will have to discharge to. However, since it is a high invert elevation for the pipe, we're going to need to include a lift station in order to get the pipes, which are low as they leave the house, obviously, to get high where we need to connect. So a lift station is proposed and that will, we're still working on the design of that. So the location, the size, screening, all that kind of stuff is still being hashed out, but it will obviously be. Water, previous discussions with Highland Park, the water will be tapped from Patton and connect straight through to Bradley Loop to create a looped system, no stagnant water, no standing water within the pipes. There is an existing hydrant right here. And as you can see, that's where our driveway is going. So we are going to relocate that just up the hill a little bit on Patton Road. Oh, there's also an existing hydrant in Grading and erosion control, there are some steep slopes on the site, so we're gonna be making sure that erosion is kept to a minimum, silt fence, stabilized matting, construction entrance, inlet protection, all of it.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Scott Borstein. Just before you turn it over, I did want to respond to one of the questions earlier about whether we're subdividing the site as it relates to the open space. Currently, the plan is to do this as a condominium development. And in that scenario, we wouldn't be necessarily subdividing each individual lots. and so everybody would have a you know their common area right which would be or they might be limited common elements which would be their yard area everybody has some limited space that they would have that would become their private yard in addition to their patio and then obviously our limited common elements or they're technically, you know, those are the condominiums. So anyway, that's the idea of it. And that's how you get to the open spaces. It's really these open areas behind the homes where you get up to the number that we have in our application packet.

Questions for the petitioner from the commissioner? Vice Chair Nanis.

Have you discussed this with the fire department and their turning radius of their large fire truck that they like to impact in most of these developments? Because I don't see how their large rate will fit or turn in there, which will just scuttle the whole thing. So I'm just curious to, if you've,

thought about the large truck. We did review the plans with the fire department and other representatives actually to an earlier version of the plan that had a more challenging drive situation and they said they had no issue backing out of such a small drive, but that was very typical for this kind of situation. The turn radius coming in is compliant And then they said they could back out.

And they have no issue with the court?

Well, they've yet to review this plan, but the, or they've done just a preliminary review of this plan. So the only thing that was in question is whether or not the center landscape element would be an issue for them. Of course, that's negotiable in terms of the design.

or eliminated. Yeah, we just have seen a lot of these developments, not these developments, but developments in general where the fire department

And all plan developments are sent to the fire department for review. And if they haven't finished in time for the first meeting, certainly before you vote. Definitely have these new plans reviewed as well. They've probably been circulated already.

Right. And there were fire department comments included in the report, but right. They're going to have to update their comments once revisions, et cetera, are submitted and recirculated.

Commissioner Mantis.

I know there was some mention of it in the packet, but can you speak to the public benefit being proposed here, please?

Sure. There's various public benefits. I guess the main one, or the first one at least that comes to mind, is that the site has been vacant for almost 30 years. And so knowing that Highland Park is in need of new housing. The fact that we're finally found a plan that somebody wants to develop, we thought was a public benefit. As you know, like we talked about, wanted to do the 50 unit building the site set fallow for all that time so we now have something that we know there's market demand for so we think that's a benefit a second benefit is the fact that the site is currently vacant and has no landscaping so we're going to obviously be providing significant landscaping a significant what we consider to be a beautification of the site there was going to be and I don't have the exact number I think was in Carl's materials but there's going to be a significant increase in the number of heritage trees that are planted on the site we're going to try to save those heritage trees that are in good condition on the site so we're trying to at least be as good environmental stewards as we can. There's a few other benefits that I think I outlined in the narrative. I just don't have those handy right in front of me, but those are some of the things that were.

So I would encourage you to speak again with the staff about the public benefit. None of what you mentioned is in our ordinance. that would, everything you mentioned is a part and parcel of the development that you have to do in this PUD that is not a public benefit per the ordinance. So I think you need to review that.

Okay, we certainly will. One thing that was possibly mentioned was possible preservation of a monument sign that's And we can certainly talk to staff about that.

But you're asking for, I mean, at the moment there is an awfully lot of relief that is going to be necessary to make this site work. So just keep that in mind. We certainly are open to discussing further with the staff.

I just wanted just point of clarification. The applicant mentioned heritage trees and they're not going to plant heritage trees. They're going to plant trees. of the same species as heritage trees. Heritage trees are, in part, the definition is the diameter of the tree. I just want to be clear about that. Well, there are people that do plant really large trees, but that's usually very rare, and they cost a lot of money. I'd be surprised if they could plant a heritage tree. Yeah, they probably cannot, but I just want to be clear on that.

All right. Speaking of heritage trees, are there any heritage trees that are coming down due to the development? Staff no or petitioner no?

I can respond. Would you like me to respond? There are no heritage trees proposed for removal. So the applicant did provide a tree preservation plan that lists what's being preserved or what's being removed. And that was reviewed by the city forester. There are city forester comments in the packet. They were brief, they were brief. The city forester did not have concerns for the site. I actually also double-checked if they were removing any heritage trees, because there may have been one public comment that discussed heritage trees. So I actually double-checked myself. I looked up our definitions in Chapter 94. No, I mean, there are some oaks, there are oaks that are in the 20-inch range, but for that, you have, by definition in the code, you have to be 30 inches, and they are not. Okay, thank you.

If I may, just as a point of clarification, there are some key trees

not to the level of heritage trees. And again, we're trying to keep any of those that are in good condition and we'll continue to work with the forester. Once we get his comments, we'll see if there's anything else we can do. And then yes, we're not planting heritage trees, but they are species that we are asked to plant when you would take a heritage tree out. You have to select from your A, B or C trees in your ordinance. And that's what we're proposing to put back

Other questions, Commissioner Hinton? None for me. Commissioner Moore.

I have a question. I just want to make sure I understand that you're asking for relief to the side yards down, you would like three feet of side yard, which to my math would mean six feet between the buildings. that seems like that's gonna be a really dark, wet cave in between the buildings, prone to mold and mildew and I don't know what else. So I have a real concern with that. There's a reason we have our rules for setbacks, and I think this is one of them.

So the typical space between the buildings is five feet. There's some projections into that because there's some window projections into that. Certainly we, from a design and engineering standpoint, are mindful from a water management and then light and durability of materials are mindful of that. There's no real issues in terms of mold or erosion. I mean, this is unusual in certain contexts, but not unusual from a design and engineering standpoint to have buildings of that proximity. We certainly designed to that. Commissioner Hinchik.

I have a clarifying question for you on that. When you say five feet between the buildings, because there aren't property lines to step back from, if there was a property line in the middle of that, it's essentially like a two and a half foot step back, right? There's five feet total between the buildings. Five feet total, correct. Not 10 feet between the buildings. Okay.

And some, the minimum is three feet where there's the, it's sort of like a,

the smallest point is three feet between buildings. Okay, thank you. All right.

Questions on my left? Okay, thank you. Do we have any members of the audience who wish to speak on this matter? And if you could raise your hands if you're interested in speaking. Okay, well, I guess I can do you guys individually too. So come on up, whoever wants to start. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. Please state your name, spell your last name for me. Lisa Rosenberg, R-O-S-E-N-B-E-R-G. So I appreciate your preparation this evening for this review, and I'm speaking to express my concern regarding the proposed single family residential development within Fort Sheridan. Fort Sheridan is not simply a collection of homes. It's historically significant and a carefully planned environment with a distinct architectural identity. The character of the fort is designed not only to have individual structures, but they're defined by the relationships between them. the open space, consistent design elements, cohesive building materials. So I have concerns about this proposal for two large reasons. The density and the site plan is one. The proposed layout is substantially more dense than the established single family home development pattern within Fort Sheridan. The level of density risks erosing the historical spatial character that defines the area, including the openness and visual continuity that distinguish the fort. In terms of architectural materials and compatibility, the apparent departure from the forced traditional brick to a primarily stucco and historically consistent materials undermines the architectural integrity of the area. The material consistency is a defining feature. of Fort Sheridan and contributes significantly to the sense of place and historic cohesion. So I respectfully urge the commission to require revisions to the proposal that one, align density more closely with the established pattern of single family home development and not violate the various reasonable setbacks in common area space that Highland Park currently requires. and secondly, incorporate building materials and design elements consistent with the historic character of Fort Sheridan. Thoughtful development can occur in this spot, but it must be done in a way that preserves the defining qualities of our unique and irreplaceable home in Highland Park. Thank you. Thank you.

Next. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. My name is Philip West. First name is Philip with one L, last name West, like the direction. I live in the condominium building right next to the proposed development. I serve on the board of that condominium building. I also serve on the board of the Town of Fort Sheridan Master Homeowners Association. Tonight, I'm just speaking for myself. I'm not representing either board's viewpoint. I sent a letter into the commission in advance of the meeting So I won't rehash the points in that letter. I just want to make a couple of additional comments. Personally, I'm not opposed to this development. I think the property ought to be developed. I oppose the site plan. As we've talked about already, it's awfully dense, 10 homes on 1.33 acres. This plan would look terrific on the near north side of Chicago. somewhere in Lincoln Park, somewhere around Wrigley Field. We've all seen what they do in the city. They pack in homes and it makes sense there because it matches the density of what's around. This does not match the density of what's around it. So in our view, or in my view, development consistent with what's already in the neighborhood would make a lot more sense. If they were to continue the arch of homes that come around Bradley Court. Maybe put three or four homes up similar to what's already on Bradley Court. Or across the street from us on Patton is a townhouse, a townhome stretch of seven. I think you get five or six easily on this property. Something like that would by definition blend into the neighborhood because that is the neighborhood. In our view, my view again, variances should just be granted for extenuating circumstances. If you've got a neighborhood that's got some unusual setbacks or some unusual heights and somebody wants to build something and it wouldn't make any sense to follow the code, you make some variances. That makes a lot of sense. Here, the variances are being requested so they can pack more homes onto a small parcel. I don't begrudge anybody making money. That's what makes the world go round. But here I just think they're pushing the envelope a little too far. Thank you.

Thank you. Come on down. Well, that's all right. We can have a queue, just like the Brits do. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

Steve Cantor, K-A-N-T-E-R. If you'll excuse me, I'm a little upset because I'm the home that borders this property. And I also submitted a letter, so please read that if you could. I won't rehash it again, but When I moved my family to Highland Park and Fort Sheridan, we put our faith in people like you, the hardworking people of this commission, and Highland Park to protect us, to protect our investment and our house. And we need you to protect us from developers who want to take away our rights, the rights of the setback, the rights to enjoy the property, that we thought we were buying. The gentleman here, I'm sorry. Carl, when he presented that map of the original development, you could see the open space that was there. That's what was sold to us. That's what we were told we were getting. And we have a developer here who wants to take away our rights to make more money. I don't think that's, what Highland Park is about. So I ask you to protect us, protect Fort Sheridan. To answer the question about the trees, there's three or so big trees that they want to take down. Do you know if you drive through Fort Sheridan, there's two big pillars there, they want to take down one of those pillars. I don't see how that's adding to our community. I'm sorry, but it's very emotional. We feel our rights are being taken away so they can make more money. Thank you.

We appreciate your comments. Thank you. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do. Anthony Rosado, R-I-Z-Z-A-T-O. Good evening, Highland Park leaders, development representatives, and the Planning Commission. I am present today to share my feelings and many of my neighbors that reside on Bradley Court, Logan Loop, Whistler Road, and the ravines to name a few. I would be more than happy to provide signed petitions if that's necessary, but I do speak on some of their behalves. Our concerns this evening include the following. We feel strongly the board needs to take into account in relation to the proposed development of Zero Patent Road. While we support development of this parcel, the scope and level of variances requested far exceeds the total land square footage that is consistent with four shared and single family homes and the requisite notification needed to request such changes. Some areas to note include Sorry about that, it kind of jumped on me. A majority of Fort Sheridan residents never received proper notification via certified letter as required by statute. This is a basic component to the notification process and precluded many residents from review and preparation of the thoughts and concerns of lot zero. In preparation of the review this evening, please note the Highland Park Master Plan, as noted on the City of Highland Park website, notes there are specific components of the plan that include community values and principles. Problems and negatives about Highland Park and conflicts to achieve community values. To that end, the proposed variances and rezoning requisite of Zero Patent Road are drastically inconsistent. Some clear examples include under community values and principles. Number one, maintain neighborhood character. The proposed development does not mirror any development in Fort Sheridan. It is a gross exploitation of land. Under typical situations, a 56,000-square-foot lot may be considered for subdivision to accommodate 4.5 homes, based on a 12,000-square-foot single-family home model. Number two, ensure the new development strengthens the existing fabric and is compatible with what already exists. There is no such subdivision and the proposed development neither strengthens the fabric nor compatibility with the existing Ford homes. Number three, design quality and not quantity. The proposed construction of 10 homes in no way meets the quality standard of the project. Green space is severely minimized, setbacks encroached, and quantity and economic gain far exceeds quality or conformity and aesthetics of the community. Number four, control impacts of new subdivisions. Many parties have expressed interest in the Lot Zero property, however, as this property has been under pending status for almost two years, they have been precluded from making an offer. Such a dense new subdivision goes against the very fabric of the master plan. A smaller aesthetically appropriate fork project that does not encroach on the established setbacks, maintains green space and meets the single family requisites will decrease impacts of the proposed project. Also noted under community values is the desire to enhance the natural relationship of ravines, preserving natural settings, and the prevalence of nature over the built environment. The project goes against these values even to the extent of eradicating one of the pillars that reflect the character of the fort. While not historically protected, it leaves an incongruent focal point at the entrance. Also, the slopeland described this evening by the architects and developers are part of the ravines. Okay, I'm going to have to cut you off. I'm sorry.

Thank you. We used your time, but thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to speak on this matter? Yes, ma'am. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do. My name is Sarah Appel, A-P-P-E-L. I'm a resident of the Ravines Condominium, which is the nine-story building adjacent to this site, and my apartment would overlook the proposed development. I believe that the development is too dense. And one thing that really bothers me is I guess you mentioned in the zoning that the buildings, the homes are supposed to face the street. None of these homes face the street. They're facing into the courtyard with the back of the homes facing outward. And that doesn't seem to be consistent with all the other homes in the fort. The use of stucco really bothers me. The characteristic of the fort, the original buildings, the bricks were made onsite by clay dug up by the soldiers in the fort. There was a foundry onsite in the fort. So all the original buildings have that beautiful light tan-ish gold brick. And the newer construction has tried to remain brick construction and often matching the tones of the original brick. And even our tall apartment building tried to keep the same color as the original brick, as did the condominiums across the street from us. The condominiums across the street from us are denser housing, but they have architectural details that are consistent with the fort, such as arched entryways. There's no stucco anywhere else that I've seen in the fort. It's a cheaper building material. It's not as durable. And most of these houses are stucco and wood. There's only small portions of brick wall. on these houses. And the brick wall is facing Patton Road. There's almost no setback from Patton Road at all from the front, from the side walls of these houses. So this does not fit with the architectural design of any of the surrounding houses. And I think it would be a big mistake to put this density of housing on this site. If the zoning could revert back to RM1 if single family homes are gonna be built there, that would preserve the neighborhood. These beautiful homes across the back, really were a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. And if some other nice homes with larger yards around them were built there, it would enhance the neighborhood and the property values instead of diminish the neighborhood and the property values. And I'm really concerned about the traffic. Each of these 10 homes has a two-car garage and some have aprons that could accommodate a third car. This is going to have a lot more traffic in a very narrow part of Patton Road there going over to the open lands. And so I think traffic congestion is potentially an issue. Parking is an issue. And also I'm quite concerned about the sewers. The runoff from the bridge is into the ravine. There's a chute going down into the ravine. I don't know how the stormwater would be accommodated from 10 homes. And I don't know how the sanitary sewers capacity would accommodate these 10 homes. It might require additional sewers to be installed. I don't know, but I'm concerned about that. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Cindy Zarconi, Z-A-R-C-O-N-E. I've lived in the North Shore community of Fort Sheridan for five years, and I moved that direction because of the quaintness, the beauty, the prestige. It offers an absolute sanctuary. And I think I... as I hear my neighbors speak that they're in agreement that the density of what is being proposed on this development is extreme. If a 1.33 acre lot would accommodate 56,000 square feet, if you do the math, I believe on the Highland Park site, it states that a single family home at a minimum would take 12,000 square feet. So if you do the math, you are obviously overextending the capability that the land has to be able to accommodate 10 single family homes. Now they're addressing this as if it were a condominium community, which is a lovely idea, but the setbacks that are being requested are so extreme, they're taking away our green space. I kind of visualized it to be, you know, the song paved paradise to put up a parking lot? Well, we're putting up a cement city in the southeast corner of Highland Park's Fort Sheridan community, which is so inconsistent with what the property looks like in the surrounding areas. I believe that there were a lot of different issues that were being addressed. The tree preservation is significant. Parking traffic, significant. Setbacks, obviously extreme. Green space, the lack thereof. If we could provide green space, that is what our community offers us. We have the green space in the center, which was supposed to be a golf course. It's now almost designed to look a little bit like Central Park. People are out and about enjoying the community. We would be eliminating that vision in what is being overdeveloped in the land there that you're proposing. The tower square footage we just spoke about, the square footage that was originally going to be used to build the tower is now being extended beyond that square footage footprint to accommodate 10 homes. We're not against the development and the idea of the development. What we're against is the extended amount of homes that are being squeezed into a spot that doesn't really fit what the available land would be able to provide. the pillar, the whole topic of removing the entrance to our community from the south side of Patton Road would be gone. So what do you do with that? You have pillars that are entrances I don't know if you're familiar with what that looks like, but as you enter the fort from each of the three different areas, there's these monumental pillars that say, hey, you're entering Fort Sheridan. This is historical. My father joined the army and started his army career in Fort Sheridan. So having those pillars have a significance. They may not be historical, but why would you remove something like that? And now all of a sudden you drive in and well, where are we? The pillars were an important part of it. And the last point that I'd like to make is the water runoff that Sarah addressed earlier. There is the intent to build a large MHA facility right off of the west side of Fort Sheridan. And that has been an approved entertainment facility. When they build that, it's going to increase the amount of water flow that will work its way towards the lake. That runoff is going to extremely impact the ravine, which is the green space that they've all been talking about that they're including in their plan. That green space is actually a ravine. It can't be built on. But the water runoff going into the ravine needs to be addressed so that there is, it can be taken care of. That doesn't become a back issue to those other residents living within the fort. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, seeing none. Commissioners. Feedback for the petitioner.

I'll go first. I think that the houses are too big for the spot that they're going to go into. I can't get past the five foot gangways between the buildings. It's taking up a lot of room. You get more green space if you just make the houses smaller. And as much as we think we're contributing to the housing stock in the area, I don't think there's that many people who truly need this side of home. I mean, if we put smaller homes in there, then I would feel more that we were helping the housing stock in the area. But for this, I don't think so. So I don't think that's a valid reason for approving it. And as it stands now, I can't really approve it. So the buildings need to be smaller. and there need to be more setbacks.

Commissioner Mantis. Yeah, I think there were actually two points that were raised from the public comment that resonated. The first was the brick element missing, which I think is kind of foundational for the character of Fort Sheridan. which kind of struck me as I was originally going through, so I'm glad that that was brought up. The other thing was context within the rest of the fort. There's no shortage of townhouse buildings here. throughout the fort, I should say. And I think that the site, you know, if you want the density, which generally I'm usually in favor of density, I think that's probably a better dynamic for the context of the overall like Fort Sheridan area, rather than the single family homes being so close together. And so, you know, I don't know if that's, something that they can do and change. But I think that would probably sit a lot better with me.

I can go. I agree with my fellow commissioners about the scale of what's being proposed here and like the balance of the open space or green space alongside what's proposed. I think I would react better to fewer single family homes or town homes. that had a better balance of green space alongside. And I also really think this pillar needs to be maintained. I know it's not historic, but I'm looking at it on Google Maps and it just, it is iconic for the area. And I think it would be a mistake to take it. I know that's not really our purview, but I do feel like that's a good point to keep in mind as we move forward with considering any of the application.

Thank you. I mean, this is interesting because, you know, the master plan has a 50-unit, eight-story condominium building planned for this space. But, you know, that being said, that's not what's before us today. And it just seems, I forgot who said it on the commission, but it just, I don't see it by, eight-story building doesn't seem as dense as, you know, 10 single-family homes. and it's just it's a hard pill for me to swallow to approve it as is right now I do want to say I do commend the architect for putting together a very nice design based on those materials however I concur that I think it should really be a lot more consistent with Fort Sheridan I have a history with Fort Sheridan I think an old brick type of building trying to find the original type of stone or brick that was used would go a long way And it kind of creates its own little subdivision in there and it's not really open to the rest of the fort. The fort's a special place and I'm not against the development at all. I do think I'd like to see maybe them come back with a different type of design or plan. It just doesn't pass the test for me right now.

Commissioner Henry.

I think everybody on this commission wants to see property developed in Highland Park. And in fact, one of the things that prior chairs of this commission have said is that we try to make it better in part. I just think this plan, frankly, is ill conceived. with maximum space between the buildings of five feet, someplace three feet, one ingress and egress, building materials that really are not consistent with the fort. And I live in that, I don't live there, but I live in that area and was very involved in the fort at one time when they were decommissioning it. I just don't see any way to support this plan as it's presently in front of us. There's also, as one of my colleagues mentioned, there's that entertainment facility that Highwood approved against their plan design commission, frankly. But it is what it is. There's traffic issues. storm water issues, utility, I mean, this is just fraught with challenges for sure. This plan just does not meet those challenges in my estimation. I could not support it.

Vice Chair, yes. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, there's lots kind of hard, like you guys are, I can see why it's been empty for 30 years. It's a challenging lot and I applaud you guys for attempting to figure out a way to make it economically viable without rehashing what everyone else said. I do think a different housing stock might be better suited for this property, just given the fact that you already have minimal to no setbacks. adjacent you may as well just take those five feet and push them together and assess there but I mean I don't know how you're gonna make it work on that lot it's challenging but that's why you guys are getting paid what you're getting paid and do what you guys do. I mean, personally, I like to see it. I would prefer a larger condo unit there. I want more density and more people in the city writ large, but given that it doesn't seem to be economically viable based on it being sitting empty for so long, Yeah. And so I generally concur with everyone else here, but would probably want to see a different housing unit. I just don't see how single family homes, you know, fit and went to that property.

Well, it's a rare occasion when I'm not on the opposite side of everyone else here, but I agree. It's good to hear all this feedback. It is, I'm going to be a defender of the master plan because believe it or not, I was a real estate writer for the Chicago Tribune when this plan was developed and I was covering it for our real estate section. And it's always been held up as one of the great examples of not only intergovernmental cooperation, but just planning purposes. I don't want to change that master plan willy-nilly and I certainly don't want to change it for this particular project which is at least double the density it should be even if we wanted to to decide that there should be single-family homes on it, but I I understand the economics, but it's hard to convince me because I looked at the other building and I, because I thought, I mean, someday I'm going to be an empty nester in not too distant future. And I only found one for sale for $750,000 in the 35, 35. I'm not going to be convinced that there isn't some market for that 50-story condo building if it's done right. So I'm going to defend the master plan on this.

50 units.

If it was 50 stories, maybe I could afford one of them. At eight, probably not. So that's, I think that's it. I think the, you know, there's lots of language in the original ordinance about how important the master plan was. and that they just did not allow modification of it for very many things. The public benefit, as I said, is non-existent. I'm still worried about the trees and what's being cut down and what's being put back. And very clearly, this is not in character with any of the other single family product that's in Fort Sheridan right now. So I mean, I would... I think we're pretty much in agreement that you need to go back to the drawing board. I don't know how this particular plan is going to pass muster with the big majority of the commission. So with that said, we will need to continue this. I don't think we're anywhere close to directing findings of fact.

So- Carl, is there a date?

Yeah, I think- Let me ask the petitioner if they- When do you think you could come back with something more acceptable?

So what do we have, Carl, June 16th or July? The upcoming meetings are, well, technically June 2nd is the next, but that's just a two-week turnaround with a holiday in between. And then we have June 16 after that, and then July 21st.

Any of those acceptable, petitioners?

I'm sorry, Carl, what's the question to us? I'm sorry.

Well, so the commission has provided feedback and in general gives applicants a chance to consider that and make revisions or changes. And so they're just trying to pick a date to continue this too. And we just want to make sure you have an appropriate amount of time to do that. It's not just to continue to an agenda and then continue it again and again and again. Sure, it's better to have something ready if you can. And so the upcoming meetings are either June 2nd, June 16th, or July 21st.

Well, based on the comments, it seems like we have to go back to the drawing board. So I don't see June 2nd certainly even June 16th, was that the next date?

Yeah, then after that there's June 16th, and then after June 16th is July 21st. July 21st.

Well, is this something that you and I can, can we? No, because we have to have a motion and approve it. I got you. So, I mean, if we do pick a date, but we aren't ready because we haven't designed.

The commission, in fact, it's in the section, the commission's rules and regulations, they are actually bound to give at least one continuance. So you could always continue to June 16th and if you're not ready, you can have one in continuance to the next available meeting? I mean, if we come back on June 16th and say we'll be ready August, for example, can we do that? Yeah, you can just communicate that by a written statement that would be posted for all to know so that everyone could see that on the packet and know that in advance. Yeah.

Okay, well, so let's do that. I mean, I think realistically, it would probably be hard to be ready by June 16th, but by that time, we would have a much better sense of what we can do and then a better sense of when we will be ready to come back.

Okay. Yeah, and you do get the right to a continuing, so not a problem. Okay, do I have a motion to that effect? Motion.

Second.

Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

And notice. Okay. So for everybody here, your notice is actual. The meeting has been, this public hearing has been continued to June 16th, 7 p.m. in city council chambers. That's this room. You'll receive no new notice of that. Should we get a request to continue, that will be posted with the agenda on that date. So you'll be able to see that. That's what I was going to say.

Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you all for coming out. Thank you for your patience. No, we're not done. It's got to be a long evening.

Yes, but we're still not done.

I know we're still not done.

We're still in session.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you leave, please keep your conversation downstairs. We still have business to do.

Senior Planner Burdock, do we have any administrative design review update?

We do, actually. So there were, I know oftentimes... Hey, take it to the wall, please. All the way downstairs. I know oftentimes I don't have... two weeks ago and then this evening I wanted to report on three. There was a administrative design review approval for 636 Ridge Road, the Park District property. So they were approved for a new community center and the administrative change, it was related to a utility pad out in front but away from the road. That's number one. Number two, there was a design review completed for, an administrative design review for the Woodhouse Spa, 1850 Second Street, unit 104. And then the other one, there was a temporary trailer approval for the 250 Skokie Valley Road. That was approved for a PUD for an addition for that, Dealership. So this was an administrative approval for temporary construction trailers and office trailers so they can operate temporarily while they're doing construction. Which dealership, the Kia? That's right. Kia McGrath, I believe, is what they go by. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. No, that's my update. Actually, two in a row. Two meetings in a row.

Our next meeting is June 2nd, 2026. I believe we have a couple of agenda items.

So yeah, there will be two for that. And those signs are already posted on the subject property. So there'll be an amendment to the design review approval for 799 Central for the catch-up building. I don't know if the commissioner calls that from last year. So they made some fine tuning on that. And so that'll be coming back for an amendment. And then also about five to six years ago, there was a plat of re-subdivision for the property 1700 Meadow Lane. It's in the middle of the Hibernia development, though it's not subject to the Hibernia development. And so a two acre piece of that was subdivided then, Now they want to take that two-acre piece and re-subdivide that into two one-acre pieces, and so that'll also be on that agenda. And that's it, those two items.

Thank you. Any case briefing, Director Funding?

No, Mr. Chairman.

Any business from the public who did not business before? And there's no public here, so seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Any opposed?