Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

City of Highland Park, Illinois. Today is September 14th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Center. Present. Council Member Bruckman. Here. Council Member Ross. Here. Council Member Tapia. Present. Council Member Littler. Here. Council Member Bloomberg. Mayor Rotering. Here. We have a quorum. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the consolidated meeting of the City Council held August 17th, 2026? So moved. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. And I'm staying present as I was not here. Thank you. We have a motion to approve the warrant list.

So moved.

Second. Any comments or questions on the warrant list? Hearing none, will the clerk please call the vote?

Councilmember Senter? Aye. Councilmember Brunkman? Aye. Councilmember Ross? Aye. Councilmember Tapia? Aye. Councilmember Littleware? Aye. Mayor Rotering?

Aye. Six ayes, no nays. The warrant list is approved. Report of the mayor. We have no appointments this evening. We have one proclamation. Each year from September 15th through October 15th, we celebrate the achievements and contributions of our Latino community members during Hispanic Heritage Month. Tonight, we are delighted to welcome Dr. Kari Rositas-Sheftel, Assistant Director of the Highland Park Public Library, to the podium to read the proclamation in Spanish and share a few words. We're very grateful for our ongoing partnership with the Highland Park Public Library, and we're proud to highlight the library's Hispanic Heritage Month programming this evening. Thank you, Dr. Chappell. Go ahead.

Reconocimiento del mes de la herencia hispana. Considerando que el mes nacional de la herencia hispana se celebra en los Estados Unidos del 15 de septiembre al 15 de octubre, la observancia se introdujo por primera vez en 1968 como semana de la herencia hispana bajo el presidente Johnson y fue ampliado por el presidente Reagan en 1988 para cubrir un periodo de 30 días. Y considerando que la comunidad hispana representó la mitad del crecimiento de la población de la nación en la última década. Y considerando que para el año 2050 se espera que el 30% de nuestra nación sea de ascendencia hispana. Y considerando que la comunidad hispana representa un mosaico multiracial diverso. Y considerando que en honor al mes de la herencia... Nacional de la Herencia Hispana, la ciudad de Highland Park se complace en celebrar a la comunidad hispana y latino, latina, latinex en toda nuestra ciudad. Y considerando que el mes de la herencia hispana celebra la historia, las tradiciones y las culturas de los residentes hispanos y latinos, latina, latinex en Highland Park, Admiramos las invaluables formas en las que contribuyen a nuestra ciudad, aportando rica diversidad, contribuciones y crecimiento a nuestra comunidad. Y por lo tanto, conmemoramos este mes reconociendo y dedicándonos a trabajar juntos para abordar los desafíos que aún enfrentan nuestra población de hispanos y latinos, latinas, latinx. Y por lo tanto, durante el mes nacional de la herencia hispana, reafirmamos que la diversidad y la inclusión son una de las mayores fortalezas de nuestra comunidad. Ahora, por lo tanto, yo, Nancy R. Rottering, alcaldesa de la ciudad de Highland Park, junto al consejo municipal de la ciudad de Highland Park, proclamo y pido que cada ciudadano Reconozca y celebre el mes de la herencia hispana y celebra la comunidad latino-latina-latinex desde el día 15 de septiembre 2026 al 15 de octubre del 2026 con fecha del 14 de septiembre del 2026.

Gracias. Thank you so much. Councilmember Tapia is going to read in English.

Whereas National Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated in the United States from September 15th to October 15th, the observance was first introduced in 1968 as Hispanic Heritage Week under President Johnson and was expanded by President Reagan in 1988 to cover a 30-day period. And whereas the Hispanic community accounted for half the nation's population growth in the past decade, and whereas by the year 2050, it is expected that 30% of our nation will be of Hispanic descent, and whereas the Hispanic community represents a diverse multiracial mosaic, and whereas in honor of National Hispanic Heritage Month, The city of Highland Park is pleased to celebrate the Hispanic and Latino, Latina, Latinx community throughout our city. And whereas Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates the history, traditions, and cultures of the Hispanic, Latino, Latina, Latinx residents of Highland Park, we admire the invaluable ways they contribute to our city bringing rich diversity, contributions, and growth to our community. And whereas we commemorate this month by recognizing and dedicating ourselves to working together to address the challenges that still face our Hispanic and Latino, Latina, Latinx population. And whereas during National Hispanic Heritage Month, reaffirm the diversity and inclusion is one of our community's greatest strengths. So now, therefore, in name of Nancy, our Rotary Mayor of the City of Highland Park and the City Council of the City of Highland Park, we hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month and urge each resident to recognize and celebrate our Hispanic and Latino, Latina, Latinx community on this 14th day of September 2026.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. We want to encourage everyone to visit Highland Park Library to explore the all ages book displays in English and in Spanish and to sign up for bilingual programming throughout the year. And I believe September is also National Library Card sign-up month. If you don't already have your library card, now is a good time to stop at the library, register for the most valuable card in your wallet. Visit hplibrary.org to learn more. Did you have any that you wanted to share?

No, thank you so much. And you will see some of our special programming that we're going to have for this month. We'll love to see you stopping by the library.

Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you again. Thank you. We have one item of other business. I am so excited about this. A celebration of our SALT students. Yes. That's service and learning together. They made a concerted effort to impact our community through volunteer service since 2020. And the SALT program was recently recognized by the state of Illinois as the 2026 Governor's Cup winner in the Serve Illinois Governor's Hometown Awards. This is the very first time Highland Park has received this prestigious honor. We're delighted to welcome program coordinators, Brad Swanson and Ida Fiore, and SALT students Julia Block, Logan Garcia, Julia Herz, Reese Lindstrand, Katie Manister, Francesca Natoli, Abby Uhart, and Olivia Worthington. And in addition, we are honored that Serve Illinois Commissioner Carolyn Robert and Volunteer Program Manager Jacob Jenkins are joining us this evening. SALT is 100% volunteer-run, student-driven, and adult-supported nonprofit. Students are active in every aspect of the organization, taking on significant leadership roles. And since the program's founding in 2020, SALT has literally helped thousands of families in our area. We're so proud of these outstanding students and their tremendously generous and dedicated work, and grateful to the adults whose support and mentorship has been instrumental to the support of the SALT program. Your efforts truly represent the best of Highland Park. We are so delighted to celebrate SALT's 2026 Governor's Cup Award tonight. Didn't know if you guys wanted to talk a little bit about the fabulous things you've been doing and making us all so proud. Come on up to the podium, please.

kind of travel as a team.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

But thank you so much for hosting us tonight, giving us the opportunity to essentially present to you the Governor's Cup for volunteerism throughout the state. And our amazing student leaders, some of them, we have a number of student leaders who work throughout the year in so many different ways, our student interns. But on behalf of Ida Fiore, the other sponsor, I would like to introduce our students to share a few words.

Excellent.

Good evening. I am Marlee Palmer, and we are all SALT interns that attend Highland Park High School.

I'm Sam Dedini. I'm a senior at Highland Park, and I'm happy to be here.

We're happy you're here.

Hi, good evening. My name is Sophie Cohen, and I'm a junior.

I'm Olivia Worthington. I'm a senior and I'm honored to be here.

Hi, I'm Julia Herz. I'm a senior. I hope you guys are all having a great start to your week.

Thank you for your time. I'm Logan Garcia and I'm a senior.

Hi, I'm Julia Block. I'm a senior. Thank you so much for having us.

We were incredibly honored to receive the 2026 Governor's Cup from the Serve Illinois Commission, the top honor through the Governor's Hometown Awards. A group of us SALT interns had the opportunity to travel to Springfield and represent SALT in our Highland Park community. It was an amazing experience to stand in front of the judges and share what SALT has accomplished and what it has meant to all of us. This year alone, more than 500 high school students have participated in SALT programs, service projects, and leadership opportunities. And we were proud to represent all of them.

What made this award so special is that we brought it home as high school leaders. We shared the impact of our three main programs, Shop and Drop, Fighting Food Insecurity, Love to Learn, Addressing Educational Inequity, and Take Care, supporting communities, families, or individuals in crisis, while also showing what young people can accomplish when they're trusted, supported, and given the opportunity to lead. through shop and drop alone salt has filled more than 51 000 bags with groceries and household and essentials for families in our community those numbers are incredible but behind every number is a person or family that our volunteers have had the chance to help

Through SALT, we have a safe and supportive place to belong, take on real responsibility, build confidence, and learn leadership skills that we will carry long past high school. We often refer to SALT University because we have learned so much. We've learned by actually doing the work ourselves. We're not just showing up to volunteer, we're learning how to communicate, problem solve, organize events, work as a team, lead others, and show up when our community needs us. SALT has shown us that we don't have to wait to be adults to make a difference. We are grateful to have these opportunities now.

We are humbly proud that SALT, a group of high school students, were able to represent this community and bring the Governor's Cup to Highland Park. But we also know that none of this happens alone. SALT is built around people who are willing to show up and be part of something bigger than themselves. We know that SALT exists because of this amazing support from the numerous community partners, individuals, businesses, and organizations who have donated and supported to our programs. So if you would like to volunteer, get involved, support one of our programs, or make a donation, we would love to have you on our team. There is always a place for someone who wants to help. THANK YOU FOR BELIEVING IN SALT, BELIEVING IN YOUNG PEOPLE, AND MOST OF ALL, FOR BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF COMMUNITY. WE ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK MAYOR RODERING, CITY MANAGER NEWKIRK, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK FOR ALWAYS SUPPORTING SALT AND BELIEVING IN YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE US. It means so much to grow up in a community that encourages young people to get involved, give us a voice, and recognizes the importance of taking care of one another. We are really proud to call Highland Park home, a community that shows up for its neighbors and comes together when people need help. Your support makes us want to continue learning, leading and giving back. So on behalf of all the SALT volunteers and the families that we serve, thank you for this opportunity to present the City of Highland Park with the Governor's Home Award 2026 Governor's Cup. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Jacob Jenkins. I'm the volunteer program manager for the Serve Illinois Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service. And I bring you greetings today from the Office of the Governor, IDHS Secretary Dulce Quintero, and our board chair, Amy Ruff. This amazing group of students that you see before you came to Springfield, Illinois during the heat of August and presented in a very almost dusty room. And they did a wonderful and amazing job representing the city of Highland. Their work far surpassed the works of others who came and competed. And I am here today because they came all all the way from Highland, Illinois to Springfield. So I came all the way from Springfield to Highland, Illinois. And Madam, Miss Mayor, you will be receiving today and the city of Highland, the Office of the Governor, Illinois Commission on Voluntarism and Community Service, Illinois America 250 Commemorative Certificate, and it's presented to Mayor Nancy Rottering as an expression of our appreciation for outstanding contributions on behalf of the people of the state of Illinois. It bears the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who said that everyone can be great because everyone can serve. So if you could please give this to the mayor. And the second one is to the city of Highland Park because the Governor's Hometown Awards are done in partnership between city and a nonprofit organization. So you have this one as well.

And we also got you Some goodies?

Yeah, please approach. Absolutely. Thank you so much.

I'm going to go on and force you to be okay.

So this is yours. Love it. This is yours. When the councilman stresses you out, that is yours.

Thank you very much. And a lunch bag.

And one more thing. You get a little...

I need that.

Thank you. But then, for you.

Can't wait. This is our sign.

Okay, so please grab it for me. All right. We are going to unveil your sign.

This is so cool.

And so it is my honor to present to the city of Highland Park your very own Highland sign.

And we will be in coordination

Once you can get this one put up, you are allowed to work with your city transportation department and request others of these. Yep. Because this would be really good to place over by where Salt has their thing. So thank you again, Madam Mayor, on behalf of the people of State of Illinois and to all the residents of Highland, Illinois, congratulations on being our 2026 Governor's Hometown Award winner and keeping it coming for years.

We need you all to come up here. Come on, Salt.

And Mr. Jenkins also, please. And Brandon, I want to thank you for this wonderful

amazing what you've achieved and thank you. Thank you. Do you want to leave that just right in front? I think that would be so cool. In the cup? I love it. Thank you. That's excellent. It's so good to see you. Thank you.

Thank you.

You bet. Absolutely. Students, I just want to say thank you. You make us proud. You inspire all of us. And we're just delighted that you were recognized for what I know has been years of hard work with this group. So now to the seniors, maybe take and sprinkle a little salt when you go to college. bring that whole concept with you. So just love it so much. You're also free to leave because I know school's in session. So you don't have to stay if you want to go. You're welcome to stay. We've got cool things going on tonight. But just want to thank you all again for making us so proud. Thank you. For anybody who wants to know more about this incredible organization, saltservice.org is their website, and you can explore ways to support their mission. And again, congratulations to our amazing Highland Park High School team. Good job. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And that's a wrap. Is there any business from the council? No? Okay. Business from the public? No, I think we usually hear from you first, but it says business from the public, but we will hear from staff first. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

So just two reports on behalf of staff. If we can go to that next slide. One, we've been working for a couple of years with the property owner who owns the majority of businesses on the south side of Central from 2nd Street to Green Bay. There's a sign.

Danny, we need to leave the door open. Thank you.

Sorry, Geeta.

That's okay.

There's a sign on public right-of-way that's a little bit misleading as it pertains to the artwork and the amusement devices that are in this area. I just wanted to provide some clarifying information. So as indicated, again, we've been working for a couple of years with the property owner for the city to do some maintenance in the public right-of-way. We're looking at removing some dead and declining trees. You can see pictured here on the screen two trees that are clearly dead that need to be removed. We are planning to install new plantings. There's a landscape island there that currently does not have any trees there, so our plan is to do some planting this fall. We want to add seasonal flowers and repair the city's spigot. So in order to do that, it does require some work in the public right-of-way, and we have asked the property owner to remove some of the items that are in the public right-of-way, and then So we have strongly indicated that we definitely encourage him to replace, to put back those items or we can put them back, but we recognize what value they provide to the overall community and the vibrancy and the vitality of the area. So this is the schedule of what is planned in that area. So again, removing some of the electronic equipment, there's work that's planned. So having that electric separated is for safety purposes. And so that's important. There's work also being done on the utilities, specifically like a water line. So again, because of the digging, it's important to just make sure everything is disconnected, or the majority of items are disconnected. We are planning to have planting done just by the end of September as noticed on this timeline. And then really everything in place certainly by the holidays and time for the holiday lighting and all the other festivities. So overall, it is a short time period for when the work is planned. The sidewalk will not be closed at all. There will be a couple of parking spaces impacted for limited periods of time. But really, our objective is to make sure that we're maintaining our public right-of-way and minimizing impact on businesses, on guests, as well as the residents in that area. So if anyone has any questions, they can certainly contact us. We are staying in communication with the property owners in that area and the businesses and keeping them apprised of our work effort.

Excuse me, City Manager. Does that mean that beginning the week of September 29th, everything can be put back?

Yes.

So we're talking about the period from the 15th to the 29th. Correct.

Two weeks. And not even everything. So the carousel, for example, can stay in place, but just things have to be unplugged because of the digging and the work that's being done in that area. Okay. Yes. Now we have looked at, so there was an elected official that asked, you know, can this work be done in December, for example, when there may be the least amount of impacts? And I mean, although technically it's possible, it is strongly not advisable. I mean, to do planting is typically in the spring and in the fall. That provides for the greatest viability for plant life to succeed. And then also when you're working in the middle of December, you just don't know what the weather conditions are, frozen ground conditions and so forth. So again, really the bulk of this work is done in the fall and the spring and we are flexible on the time. But again, we've been working towards this WORK TO BE DONE FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS NOW. SO IT IS SCHEDULED AS NOTED HERE. AND THEN There are eight items on the omnibus agenda. All are recommended for approval. I just want to highlight items one and two. This pertains to updates to chapter 119, which is our liquor license regulations. This initiative was part of our major project work plan. We spent a considerable amount of time, and specifically Assistant Manager Aaron Jason and Assistant to the City Manager Ashley Pelbitzka, and Megan Cherry working on the update to this code section. Everything's been reviewed by Corporation Council. We did present an update to Mayor and City Council at the last Committee of the Whole meeting. Everything is recommended for approval, as noted, and also just special thanks to our Business and Economic Development Advisory Group, as well as businesses that also gave us feedback in the last year pertaining to these updates.

And that concludes our staff report. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And assistant to the city manager, Ashley Pelbitzka, would you please introduce the next item on our agenda, business from the public.

Thank you, Mayor. The next item on the agenda is business from the public. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council on a topic that is within the council's purview and jurisdiction, but is not listed in another location on the agenda. If you would like to speak about a matter that is listed on the agenda, we ask that you wait until that agenda item is called and we will give you an opportunity to speak then. If your matter is on the omnibus consent agenda, please let us know if you would like us to remove that matter from the consolidated list so that you can speak about it. Please be aware that business from the public is not intended to be a forum for open dialogue or engagement with members of the city council. Rather, it is intended as an opportunity to make comments to the city council. Please do not expect a response from anyone tonight. If appropriate, we may direct the city manager or other city staff to respond to questions or issues raised at a later date. All comments should be directed to the City Council. All speakers will be limited to three minutes. We request that the public not applaud or make other comments after any speaker. We ask that everyone be respectful, civil, and non-repetitive.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to be heard this evening on an item not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll continue on with our scheduled business. As noted, items one through eight have been grouped together for omnibus consideration. Are there any questions concerning any of those items?

I just have a comment about one and two. I don't know that I need to pull it, but I do want to make a comment about it.

Okay, go ahead.

So I really want to commend our staff for doing a major overhaul of our liquor laws under Section 119. I'd like to note that it's amazing the number of streamlining and categories that we have gotten rid of. It's very impressive that we will now be able to have happy hours, that the hours can be shorter in terms of employees. There are a lot of things that are bringing us into compliance with the state of Illinois. I also need to note that this is a major overhaul. We are taking our fees down. We're taking them down to such an extent that it's going to take five years to get back to where we are right now. So while I really commend us, I don't know how we got to a point where we were charging so much more, but I'm really glad we're taking it down after having reviewed it. It's really good to see that through comprehensive review of our ordinances, we can make improvements for the way we run the city. So from that perspective, I think it's really good. You'll also note that in this is we have brought it up to date to ensure that the language is inclusive of everybody. Council members can now hold office even if they have a liquor license. It was something that it took 13 months for us to change for one. And here we've done a full overhaul in less than a few months and it will affect our application processes going forward. So again, I'm just very impressed with what we've done here. I think we're on the right chart and I'm very pleased that this is where we've come to with regard to this aspect of our ordinances.

Great, thank you. So with that, I'm, oops, sorry.

Just a quick comment on one. As I'm the liaison for BDAG, I again want to echo what a great conversation we had at the August meeting. They really went through everything, all the different options and really participated with the change of this, ending the liquor license. So thank you to BDAG.

Great, thank you, Councilwoman. With that, I'm seeking a motion to approve items one through eight.

Yes, so moved.

Second.

Any comments or questions from the public on those items? Hearing none, will the clerk please call the vote?

Councilmember Center?

Aye.

Councilmember Bruckman? Aye. Councilmember Ross? Aye. Councilmember Tapia?

Aye.

Councilmember Littler?

Aye.

Mayor Rotering?

I six eyes today's items one through eight are approved next items that are other business and then ask that we take these together item a is a resolution approving a plan of subdivision for one forty seven central avenue item b is an ordinance granting a special use permit for a planned development at one forty seven central avenue. It looks like director fontaine is getting ready to talk to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Thank you for taking these up concurrently. So two items before you this evening are an ordinance granting a special use permit for plan development and a resolution approving a plat of resubdivision with variation for 147 Central. Staff recommend consideration of an ordinance granting these matters and a resolution granting the plenary subdivision with variance. Council direction, however, is needed regarding Section 3D of the ordinance to specify the number of feet for the Western setback provision in that proposed ordinance. Okay, just a little summary background. Council last considered this item on August 17th, 2026, and directed staff draft approval documents. The proposal is to subdivide a property into two legal lots of record and to obtain a plan development approval. This is an aerial photograph of the property with the approximate delineation of the proposed subdivision. So there'll be two lots, the existing lot, the Cornelius House, and a proposed lot two that you see there to the right or the east of the home. Here's the home, quite a handsome home. And it is a local landmark, the whole property. And that has been the case since 1985. Okay, as I had mentioned at the outset, the council voted to direct staff to draft approval documents. The western setback for lot two, the vacant lot if you will, The Council had looked at what was the Plan and Design Commission's recommendation. After reflecting on that, further recommended that the Western setback for Lot 2 may be more restrictive than recommended by the Plan and Design Commission reflected in the subdivision. And so on the subdivision plot, there are the setback lines shown. And they vary on the western portion of the proposed lot, too, from 30 feet to 25 feet. I'll show you what that looks like in a moment. Section 3 of the ordinance details other conditions of approval related to the donation for historic preservation, maximum height, side yard improvements, exterior improvements, driveway easements, certificate of appropriateness, and additional restriction prohibiting additional zoning modifications. So in Section 3, there is this Section 3D2, which we'll talk about in a moment. The subdivision plat includes a depiction of various setback lines, including the front, side, and rear. And so here, you'll see the side yard setback. It's 30 feet along the length of the home that exists there, the Cornelius House. And then it goes back. It jogs back to 25 feet thereafter, going northward or northwest. The ordinance section 3D2 allows discretion on the setback through a required certificate of appropriateness consideration. That's where we need additional feedback from the council. Okay, so this has to do with the setback from the Western Property Line and Section 3D. Council had sought last time that they considered this matter to provide some discretion through the certificate of appropriateness consideration process regarding the required setback for that Western Property Line. and hear from the ordinance section 3D regarding side yard improvements. Number two talks about without limitation of its authority set forth in section 24.0.30 of the city code that has to do with the certificate of appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission or HPC may in its discretion and in accordance with chapter 24 of the city code prohibit the location of structures within, and this is where we need council's guidance, X number of feet of lot two. Upon a determination that such prohibition is necessary to mitigate the visual impact of the scale or mass of the proposed structure and to preserve the open space character of lot two. So that's where staff seeks direction and feedback from counsel on the number of feet there. The applicant did object to this provision in the ordinance, so I do note that. The applicant's representative is here tonight, Attorney Cal Bernstein. So staff recommend consideration of an ordinance granting the plan development and the resolution approving a platypary subdivision with variance. We do need your direction on that particular blank section in section 3D regarding the Western setback. Concludes the presentation. Madam Mayor, if you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you, Director Fontaine. And I'm sorry that I wasn't at the meeting on August 17th. So I do have a statement I'd like to share before we get into the nitty gritty of what's before us this evening. Prior to being mayor, I was a city council member and I was the liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission and it was frankly my favorite commission. And I had the opportunity to visit the Cornelius Field House with the Historical Society. They had open houses and you could go in and see these beautiful homes. that create the character and the uniqueness of Highland Park. And this house truly was spectacular. I had a hard time leaving. It was really tremendous. To me, a landmark is a landmark. And I don't quite understand, if this is all a landmark, how we have gotten to this place of subdividing and then building on what is landmark land. I see you, Danny Kahn. We worked on 405 Sheridan together. I believe it was 14 houses that Oren Pickell tried to put there. And we fought hard. It was also including Jens Jensen landscaping, the meadow, the council ring, the classic Jens Jensen elements. And on the PDC, Council Member Bloomberg and I worked hard to protect that landscape and that land because that was part of what was landmarked. So again, I think it was Lisa Temkin who said, I can't understand how we got here. I feel strongly that we as a city are committed to preservation. We've made that point over and over again over the last year. We have celebrated homes being landmarked, but that feels like now a hollow victory if we can just subdivide the land from the house and kind of ignore what was landmarked. That doesn't make any sense to me. And we recognize that for a lot of these homeowners, preservation can present certain burdens, but to offset those burdens, we provide incentives in the form of tax breaks. So thanks, staff, for pulling together the tax listing for 147 Central. And Mr. Bernstein, I heard your impassioned plea about the carrying costs and $81,000 and so on and so forth, but as you and I both know, In 2010, the taxes were at $73,000, not that far from $81,000. And then there was a huge tax break that came and they were $55,000 and $57,000 and $58,000 and so on all the way up to 2024 when they were $77,000. So 13 years. of savings in terms of property taxes as an incentive to this family. I loved the Crain's article where Mr. Roethlisberger talked about how he loved the views out the big window, and I so appreciate the hard work that he and his wife Gail did. I've looked at the code in terms of the certificate of appropriateness. And for the life of me, two things. Mr. Gonca, I agree with you. How do you have a certificate of appropriateness when you're not supposed to be building there in the first place, right? So it's kind of a moot point, but we'll play along just for the sake of argument. Two, I don't understand how anybody's going to be able to design a home that meets the historic criteria, that matches this incredible home that Cornelius Field and his wife built and others have made so special. As far as I can tell, it's off the market. When I kind of looked around, they said that estimates for the price were like 2.3, 2.7, 3.4, 5.5 seems really, really high. But it does seem like perhaps somebody thought, oh, this is an opportunity for me to split off half the land. One of the things that I like to do when I'm analyzing policies is to do a cost benefit analysis. Who's gaining and who's losing? To keep it preserved sends a message to those students and everybody in this town that history counts, that we value the old, architecturally significant, beautiful homes, and we want to protect our history for the next generation. To subdivide and then grant a special use permit, I'm sorry, benefits a handful of people temporarily. Maybe the new homeowner gets the benefit at the end. And I'll be the first to say that I love progress and I love new housing, but I don't like the use of and the expense of the landmark, one of the most important homes that we have in Highland Park. So I had to make that statement because after listening to last week's meeting, all four hours of it. Great job, presiding officer Tapia. I can't vote yes on either of these. So that's just my position and my plea to my council members to maybe reconsider. Because if we say we stand for preservation and we celebrate landmarking, then who are we if we're like, yeah, but in this case, this is a very special home and it needs to be protected. So thanks for listening to me on my soapbox. Council Member Tapia had to stand up, and then I'll call on you, Council Member Ross.

Thank you. Well, after that big picture thing, thank you, Mayor. I have a very more focused question. Do you have a, you know, you wanted us on the setback, there's a range that you're recommending, right? It's either one or the other, Joel?

It's not a particular recommendation. There was a desire to have some more control that was shown on the subdivision flat, which shows 30 feet would be the side yard setback. The Historic Preservation Commission talked about an 80-foot setback. And so somewhere between those two is probably what the direction we were thinking would be. Or it could be just what's on the plat of subdivision, which is 30 feet and 25 feet, as I showed you.

Yeah, and what is the setback of the current house?

The current house from that western line is 20 feet. So there's 20 feet between the current house and the line, and then there's going to, by the subdivision plat, another 30 feet.

All right. So I don't know what the right answer is in terms of the particular feat, but I would like to have it not be more closer to the street than the current house.

It won't be closer to the street? Isn't it just the west side? It's the side. This is referring to the west side. You can put it into the water. Because there's already been an agreement. There's already been an agreement that it will not...

Okay. All right. So it's about the side setback. Yep. So that's the side setback, the western setback, the western property line of Lot 2. That's 30 feet there, and then it jogs back down to 25 feet there. So it's 30 feet along the length of the home, the existing home, the Cornelius Fieldhouse, and then it jogs into 25 feet. So... The setback of the Cornelius Fieldhouse is about 20 feet from that line, and then there's 30 feet on the other side.

And what the Historic Preservation Commission is recommending, when they say 80, where would that line be?

So then that's 30 feet, so it would be somewhere out there. Yep, it would. And as we had said at the Planning and Design Commission meeting, we said something that far out would be... The same distance roughly as the Cornelius Fieldhouse is separated from the home at 175 Central. But it would necessitate an orientation, it might necessitate an orientation change for any proposed new building, any new home.

At 30 feet, what's the, how much of a house could be built under the code and under what the table?

The building area that you could do, you could do like a 15,000 square foot home. You could go right up to the limit.

And how would that get a certificate of appropriateness?

Well, we don't know what's proposed. I'm not saying that it necessarily would because mass and scale are things that are considered as part of a certificate of appropriateness process under the standards. 15,000 square foot single story building would be quite large on this property, although it could be done. But not with a certificate of appropriateness necessarily if the commission said that's not appropriate for this particular lot, which is part of an estate and its value is that it's open. in part, so there.

So my follow-up is simply, we could just use the Plata survey and go with 30. I mean, that would be... You could.

You could.

Thank you.

But there was some desire to do something beyond that from last time. So that's why it's there, but you certainly could say it's there.

I have a question for Mr. Bernstein.

So I'm sure you're... Good evening, Mayor. Good evening. I represent the applicant in this matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sure you're familiar with this table. What was going on in 2009 and the paid-to-date $152,133? What was that? It says tax sale and... Let me back up a second. The reason why

taxes went down from $73,000 in 2010 to $55,000 in 2011 was not because this property was landmarked. The reason why the taxes were reduced is why they reduced on my house and probably everybody in this room because of the great recession that happened in 2007 and 2008, which all of a sudden impacted the value of these homes. This house has never had a tax freeze. It's never received any benefits from being landmarked. And as you can see, and the reason why you can see that is if you look on not the actual amount of the tax bill, if you look at THE ASSESSED VALUATION, WHICH WAS ALSO PROVIDED BY THE CITY MANAGER. UNDER THE STATE, AND THANK YOU TO DIRECTOR FONTAINE, HE EDUCATED ME TODAY ON WHAT YOU NEED TO GET THE STATE FREEZE. WHAT THE STATE FREEZE DOES, IT FREEZES IT FOR EIGHT YEARS. And then after eight years, you get a step up to the current value. If you look at the valuations on this property, they were not frozen for eight years. And so this property didn't get the benefit of the state freeze. So again, the reason why the taxes went down was because of the market and what happened with the economy, not because this property was landmarked. And I apologize, I forgot your question. So if you can please repeat it.

What happened in 2009? It says tax sale.

What I'm guessing, my client bought it in late 2009. What I'm guessing is that the previous owner did not pay the taxes. And under the state statute, you have two years to redeem the taxes. So if I had a way back machine and I went back there, what I'm guessing is the previous owner did not pay the taxes current, and when the current owner bought the property, those taxes were redeemed, and that's why all those taxes were paid in that year.

It does look like they were paid.

Well, it does. If you look at, it says the tax sale 2009, it shows, well, you don't see it on here, but the $152,000 is basically a double tax bill. Right, right. Yeah, because it was paying the previous one because the previous one wasn't paid.

Thank you.

That's why the tax payment. So I would just, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the council. I would say that the... We are here tonight to, based on the fact that the council voted five to one at the last meeting to draft documents in the resolution, the ordinance, the applicant is fine. We've had an opportunity to talk to staff and corporation council with regard to the documents and they are consistent, which was the motion that was made by Councilman Bloomberg and seconded and then voted on by this council, except for one point. and the one point is with regard to the side yard situation and there was a discussion and council person um bloomberg's not here tonight obviously to speak but if i was putting words in his mouth i would say he was saying that the the hpc has the ability to have a a more strict or more or a larger side yard if that's what they determine and try to give them some leeway What I would mention, that under the city code, and specifically section 24.03 , which are the standards for certificate of appropriateness, there are three standards that give the Historical Preservation Commission discretion on the massing of the property. Number two is proportion of the front facade. Number five is the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street. And this one specifically talks about visually compatible with other properties. So the HPC already has that discretion. And if you go down to number 10, the scale of the structure, the size, the mass of the proposed structure and how it's visually compatible with the neighboring properties is again, one of the standards the HPC is gonna have to find to determine if they decide to grant the certificate of appropriateness when something is brought to their, when there's an application pending in front of them. So based on that, We believe that putting this provision in the ordinance is unnecessary because those provisions are already there because the Certificate of Appropriateness allows for the HPC to make that determination. And the last point I'd like to make in direct response to your statement with regard to a landmark's a landmark and that there should be no construction on a landmark property. There have been several Certificate of Appropriateness granted by the Historical Preservation Commission for additions to properties. In addition, there has been a, speaking, you brought it up, 405 Sheridan, there was a certificate of appropriateness granted for 405 Sheridan to build a whole new structure on that property, which was the pool house. And again, there was the Jenna Jensen landscaping. There was a Howard Van Doan Shaw house on that property. And that house, that property was actually the HPC in that situation. I believe Danny Kahn was the chairman at the time. They voted at that point to grant a certificate of appropriateness to allow a brand new structure on a on a landmark piece of property that was not only landmark for the the property but the landscaping on that property was also landmarked as you recall so it was um to say that that it can't happen it's happened and it's happened numerous times in the past so i'm going to guess that they didn't put the pool house in the middle of the jen's jensen meadow just saying It was attached, it was actually next to the Jen Jensen. I represented the applicant in that situation. And I know exactly. I remember that meeting well. I remember the exact situation and it was adjacent to the Jen Jensen landscape. It was adjacent to the meadow. It was along the ravine on the north side of the property and that's where it was located. Actually, if you really want to get to there was some there was some sort of some woods there that was deemed protected and it was right next to those woods also. So a lot of care went into where that pool house was put. And I'm sure that when a buyer comes along for this property and he proposes an application for certificate appropriations, the same type of. sensitivity will be used. And again, it must be used because there are 13 standards here that the HPC is going to have to make the determination to determine whether a certificate of appropriateness will be granted. And it's within their discretion whether they grant it or not. And they have done it in the past. And again, we don't know what the application would look like. And I don't know if I'll be involved in that situation. But something will come in the future probably. And again, these standards will have to be met.

Just to clarify, however, if a certificate of appropriateness is issued and the applicant does not appreciate what has been put in there, they can then appeal to the city council, correct?

No, if the certificate of appropriateness is rejected, is denied, the applicant can appeal that to the city council.

No, but it's also if you don't like what is in the certificate. I watched the meeting literally this afternoon.

No, it's my understanding. The Corporation Council can address that better than I can.

It was clarified during the last meeting.

Well, I don't believe the Corporation Council opined and he wasn't here for that meeting.

But his colleague is here who did opine. Okay. So you guys can look that up and get back to you.

Again, it's my understanding is that the only appeal right, it's certificate appropriate. It's not going to be approved on an application. It's either going to be approved or denied. If it's approved, it's based on the application that's pending. It's not approved on something else. They're not going to...

But you and I both know that there's advice and recommendation that comes from the HPC. And if the applicant doesn't want to do what the HPC is asking... Then they'll deny the application. No, no. They can then appeal to the council.

Yeah, yeah. No. They can only appeal to the council. Again... That's not true.

That's not true. Yeah. They can appeal. Yeah. And you had the same argument on August 17th. I know this, Cal, because I watched you. All right. We have a couple of comments from council members.

Would you mind if they... And we have two former chairmen of the HBCU. Absolutely both.

Thank you.

Can we have a corporation council just clarify what...

The mayor's statement was correct. They can appeal to the city council.

The mayor's statement was correct.

Yeah, that's what they did.

Yes.

Okay.

AS WE OPINED TWO WEEKS AGO.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU BOTH. YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ROSS AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER BROCKMAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHO KNOWS. OKAY. AND COUNCILMEMBER LITTLEWARD AND COUNCILMEMBER CENTER.

OKAY. Thank you, Mayor. A month after the vote on 147 Central, I'd like to share my thoughts again. And I'll throw in here the fact that a COA has been issued before does not mean it should happen here. it shouldn't set precedent. To start with, I ask that when leadership of both the Planning Design Commission and leadership of council are all unavailable to attend and vote at their meetings on EXTREMELY CONSEQUENTIAL PROJECTS THAT WE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE DELAYING UNTIL THE NEXT REASONABLE DATE WHEN LEADERSHIP CAN ATTEND. IN THE CASE OF 147 CENTRAL THE CHAIR AND IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR OF PDC BOTH EXPERIENCED COMMISSIONERS WERE EACH OUT OF TOWN SO THE NEWEST MEMBER OF PDC PRESIDED OVER HIGHLY COMPLEX APPLICATION. Next, the mayor was out of town when the council voted. I ask that we look at a way to avoid having that happen again because I feel our residents get shortchanged. My second concern is the following. While I greatly value the developers in our city are bringing many new residents to Highland Park, thanks to whom our city is growing, Many applicants have significant advantages that residents who wish to share their concerns about an application do not. What I've seen attending in person ZBA, PDC, and council meetings, literally hundreds of meetings, is that the applicant's entire team receives almost unlimited time to make their cases and make their rebuttals, whereas public comment is limited to three minutes per person and people can speak only once. It feels lopsided. Further, it turns out applicants can pull their application at the last minute if one of their team is missing, even after a ton of time is spent on preparation by both staff and council, not to mention our citizens. But the city doesn't ask an applicant to delay two weeks if the presiding officer for PDC or council is missing, unless the city has asked for additional information. Instead, we've heard that it's unfair for the applicant to have to wait for the next meeting. But we see residents who oppose a development often struggle to squeeze their speeches into three minutes. probably spending hours distilling them down only to find that they've wasted their time because meetings are continued, again, lopsided. I feel we need to level the playing field in some way because any development, whether this single-family home or a multi-unit apartment building, is only affecting the economic investment of a small group of owners and potential owners, whereas if developers receive their variances, these projects ultimately affect hundreds of people or even thousands of people. Back to 147 Central, I still feel that subdividing this property, and this will come as no surprise because I said this at the last meeting, is opening a Pandora's box of legal and financial nightmares for Highland Park. I've heard two separate finance experts say it's a horrible financial decision for the city, including because we opened the city up to future litigation. This property, I believe this property has gotten you know, well, actually that might, I'm sorry, I'm gonna revise that question because I think it's been answered. A majority of council will, if they vote for this or continue to vote for this, will render landmark protections in Highland Park utterly toothless. Worse, we are in the process of dreaming up financial incentives to convince people to landmark their homes when it can be undone by persistent attorneys and future councils. This will waste staff time, council's time, and taxpayers' money. Allowing subdivision for the purpose of development literally endangers all of Highland Park's historic buildings and properties in theory anyway. I could see, well, I'll leave it at that. Ironically, this property is not in question as a landmark. It was voluntarily landmarked by owners who were big preservationists. My colleagues are allowing the subdivision in the name of saving the existing house. But it's not just a building that is historic. The entire site is historic. And the land surrounding the house is fully half of what makes this house beautiful. I'm sorry that council might not see that. How can we say Highland Park prides itself on historic homes and structures when council is permitting real estate speculation We didn't even require a site plan from the owner or developer on one of its most important landmarks. I do not blame the attorney who argued this case for his client says that is his job. I do not blame the developer representing the owner because he naturally sees great land as an opportunity. I do not blame the folks who want to build the house. They want this beautiful property. So I asked myself what failed here. I am left seeing city processes failing where our historic preservation commission, our experts voted three times against the subdivision, but simply weren't listened to. Where our PDC, which has extremely smart, hardworking commissioners, who I sincerely respect and greatly appreciate, but currently the group lacks even a single architect or designer on this extremely important commission project that was meant, I'm sorry, on this extremely important commission that was meant to vet and guide good architecture and urban design. but its chair and past chair were out of town. Last month, my colleagues seemed to hope that they could thread the needle to do two things at once that are in reality impossible to do, to help the owner, developer, and buyer, and to protect the house itself. But the house is already landmarked. How are your actions doing anything more to protect it when a huge part of what makes this house special is the historic landmark land that surrounds it? And without the beautiful land, the house becomes far less appealing to a future buyer, the remaining land. With the house on it and by the way the house as the mayor stated was listed at 5.5 million With a beautiful house that from what I recall seeing many years ago needs significant renovation work I'm told the owner never reduced the price despite the active marketing council was told they did I still have yet I still have yet to hear from anyone outside the applicants team that they actually saw the marketing and The house currently has a tax bill, yearly real estate taxes at $80,000. This property may be among the lowest real estate taxes per acre in the city. I dare say anyone would be delighted with 20,000 for an acre, 10,000 per half acre. An owner across the street is paying nearly 90,000 in real estate taxes for their property, which is on one single acre. Many months ago when council considered a historic district concept, I advocated for far better economic incentives to Landmark so that ideally people would be lining up to Landmark. So I was delighted when city staff started council on the path toward more serious financial incentives during a committee of the whole meeting that coincidentally took place one week before PDC's commissioners deliberated on this Landmark site. Council discussed awarding significant monetary grants to renovate homes and potential tax freezes. However, and this saddens me, if Council moves forward with allowing speculative development, and make no mistake, this is speculative, because again, we do not have an official buyer, we do not have official plans submitted to the city, so to speculative development on a landmark property, sadly, I will not be able to support incentives, these very same incentives I was previously excited by, because this is taxpayer money, we're dealing with not monopoly money, And now a future developer could contest any landmark and say they're unfairly being penalized. If we refuse to allow them to materially change a landmark site, they could reasonably point to us allowing a major change on a far more important landmark than theirs, the site that holds the first house ever built in Highland Park. If we allow it, we will simply be throwing a lot of tax money If we allow this, we'll simply be throwing taxpayer money away. How do we protect landmarks in the future? We lose all credibility. How will we have a chance of protecting Frank Lloyd Wright's Ward Willits House, which remarkably doesn't even have the landmark protection that 147 Central does? This feels like we are starting a nuclear chain reaction that we will not be able to stop and that is ultimately going to cost the city more and more if it's historic landmarks and more and more money will go down the drain. But to the many Highland Parkers who say we are not protecting our investments in precious assets like landmarks as it is, who say we don't care, they already believe that much of what happens in our city is beyond their control, which is extremely sad. We owe it to our community to do better than this. And I would... hazard a guess that we're not hearing a lot of public comment tonight, but I have no doubt that people, as I'm sure we all assume, that they feel that there's nothing that they can do.

Thank you. Council Member Ross. Council Member Bruckman.

Thank you. So I, as I'm sitting here listening to some issues and some concerns, I kind of go back now to what Council Member Liddauer said last time about possibly bringing this back to PDC. This is a 13 criteria set by HPC for approval and now the site plan as well as the step back and how many feet we should look for to me seems like PDC could possibly give this another look, especially since PDC was short on their commission the day that they had voted on this. So I just wanted to mention that as I'm sitting here thinking about some of these issues that we have to discuss. Thank you.

Council Member Littimore.

Thank you, Council Member Bregman. That's very nice. We did discuss that perhaps for last meeting. I don't feel the same way now. I think that we have gone back and forth with this several, several times. And we listened to many, many members from the public on both sides of this last time. Frankly, I came in here last time and I wasn't sure how I was going to vote. All I knew I wanted to do and what I learned from our residents is I wanted to make sure that the land and the structures were protected. And what I like about what was written up and what we have done as an ordinance is to ensure that this land is protected and that anything that is built on it and the home that is currently there will be protected. There are a lot of other factors that go into the preservation. And two of the people who spoke at the last meeting, what I liked most about what they said was they own preservation protected homes, historically protected homes. And what they went through and the processes that they did to preserve and to come under our guidelines was a nightmare and they did it anyhow because they wanted to preserve and do what we have set forth. And what they made very clear as they spoke in favor of subdividing this is that there were no bad preservationists out there when what you seek to do is to protect the land and the structures that exist and anything else that comes into it. And that's why this council ended up voting five to one, because they wanted that protection. But in addition to wanting it, they wanted to listen very carefully to the limitations that PDC put on it, some of the things that HPC put on it, and to make sure that those groups were heard in the process of protecting, but also aligning that with what is Highland Park. This is not like forest. Our lots are not typically four acres and then still having a preserved land. This is still keeping two structures at two acres, which is rather large for Highland Park. So we were honoring so much of the character of both our community and the preservation when we looked at this last time and heard testimony on both sides. The only thing that everybody had in common was the fact that they considered themselves preservationists and that they wanted to protect it, even if that meant subdividing it and still being within it. So on that basis, I actually do have a couple of questions for council because I want to make sure that we are protecting it. I know we have done it in the actual... direction we gave you and what you wrote up. But for example, I do not think it's appropriate for this council to put in a setback amount. We have setback structures and we have HPC and PDC to look at it so that I think we need to say what's the current status right now for the setback on the side.

For the zoning. It's shown in the subdivision. The subdivision. Correct.

Which is right here. It's shown it's 30 feet along the length of the home, the Cornelius Fieldhouse, and then it jogs down to 25 feet.

So there's currently something in there, but under a certificate of appropriateness because, in fact, you would want it to come under some guidelines that were more... more strict than what we currently have, we already have an ordinance. So I don't see the reason why this council should be doing it. If a certificate of appropriateness is approved by HPC, and let's just say, for argument's sake, it's 90 feet of a setback, which we already said at the last meeting would mean like falling into the lake. But could the council then take that on appeal and say, no, 90 is actually too much? Could they do 70? Yes.

Okay.

So that was one of my questions in terms of that. And so reasonableness is really the standard. And one would hope that HPC would bring that bearing in PDC for any plans that come before us. And then you still have the appeals protection of the council also. Is that correct in terms of process?

That is correct.

This is why I don't think our processes have failed us. I think that in fact, we have... a guideline that's general, but then when the property is special because it is historically protected, and then we have a petitioner going through God knows how many iterations in order to in fact bring it before everybody and have PDC go through it and we adopted every single thing. We don't want to lose the driveway and the single solitary nature of that. We don't want to lose the guardrails. We put in protections into this subdivision that really look at preservation. And so if there's one thing that came out of that meeting, even though there were two sides, I felt there was a great... showing in our entire community of support for preservation and respecting it. And no matter who comes on here or how it's divided or how it's sold, they are gonna have to go through our protections and guidelines. So that's where I come out. And I thought that the question was merely to respond to Director Fontaine's first inquiry, and then also to comment on the fact that this group After hearing all of that testimony from scores of people last time, made a five to one decision to move forward with this, but to protect it very carefully. So that's where I come out. And so I actually thank you very much for the call out. But I don't think we need to go back to PDC again. The only thing I would say is if there's a significant change in this council, and so I would ask you, Mayor, if you would poll this group before we take a formal vote. Because if that's the case, then to Councilmember Ross's point, I would want us to have a full body voting on it. And if Councilmember Blumberg is not here tonight, then after we poll, if we are at a standstill, I think we should vote. have a full body and I'd like to continue it to the next vote. So Corporation Council, who makes that determination?

If there's a motion on the floor to continue and there's a second, then you'll vote on the motion to continue.

Got it. Okay. I do have two questions for you. One was a statement that you just made, which was this process is protecting the land. How is this process protecting the land?

There was no clarification in the documents that we went through that specifically said that each structure and the entire land was viewed in the ordinance that it will be protected. And now we are not only saying that the land is protected, each structure is protected, but we are almost underscoring it. And frankly, I sent it back to council when we got the first iteration and I said there was not enough emphasis on the protection.

I'm kind of confused because I thought this property is landmarked and that would be the protection. So now if you are subdividing it and allowing someone to build on it, how are you protecting the land?

We are recognizing the full property as landmarked and historic and that's why I wanted it clearly set forth in the subdivision.

If I may, Mayor, I think what Council Member Littower is referring to is that in the planned development ordinance, we took the opportunity in the condition section to add additional conditions that strengthened and added onto the existing ordinance, our municipal code provisions concerning governing landmarks. So there are now specific provisions that the owner is agreeing if this ordinance is a passed and they signed the unconditional agreement and consent that they're covenanting to.

Okay, I guess I'm just being more obtuse and just saying if you're allowing somebody to build on the land, how are you protecting the land? I also kind of challenge your statement about the people who were talking about the nightmare of landmarking. Tom Hiller from 818 Hill came and spoke in opposition to this. He was so proud that earlier this year we were recognizing him and the work that he and his wife had done on that amazing house on Hill that now we've all driven past and seen. So I kind of challenge that assertion.

Well, there were several other people who spoke who really, the process was onerous, but they're thrilled with what they ended up with. And I'm glad the process was onerous because it meant that they worked to a certain standard and they kept with that standard. Thanks for the clarification.

Okay. Council Member Senter.

Thank you. Like council member Littor, I came in last week, slightly conflicted on this topic and listened intently to compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. And I voted yes, as the record showed, and weighed several factors and articulated the reasons why I voted yes in last, last month's meeting. I don't think I need to revisit them again, but I do always try to have an open mind and I'm trying to very much digest, Mayor, your thoughtful statement, Council Member Ross's remarks and conversations I've had with members of the community, Mr. Gaca, other members of HBC. A couple of questions, Mayor, one for you, one for you, Council Member Ross. WE HAD MORE THAN ONE HBC COMMISSIONER, FORMER HBC COMMISSIONER SPEAK IN OUR LAST MEETING IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBDIVISION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, FEELING LIKE THIS WAS THE WAY TO PRESERVE THE HOME GIVEN THE ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THEM?

That's their opinion.

I mean, it still doesn't... Well, I guess I would have to agree with that, that it's their opinion. It doesn't answer the question of how it saves the House whatsoever. And really, not even remotely. The House, you know, then... I mean, I don't know how to describe how important building and site together are. And the whole thing is important together. The whole thing is landmarked. And if you remove one of, arguably one of the most beautiful parts of the site from the house, then you're left with something that is just not at all what it you know, what it was to begin with.

Sure, yeah, and I appreciate that opinion.

And actually, to kind of get back to your question, we saw this with 405 Sheridan, and we had people, you know, I don't know if you're familiar with that. It was, you know, the Becker Estate, 17 acres? 17 acres, yeah. Jens Jensen Landscape, Howard Van Doren's Shaw House, and owned by the federal government by that point. So, you know, who was motivated to preserve it? Not the federal government. They just wanted to make their money. Kind of the same situation. But instead, we were able to say, no, there is somebody out there who will preserve and will take care of and will be the guardian. for this special land, as Mr. Rothner was with the house on Lake. He did that very thing with the house, the, yeah, Frank Lloyd Wright House.

Totally, I get that, I get that.

And so, you know, they bought it to, and that had been on the market after they preserved it for years. But they carried it and then they donated it to BJE? No, to CJE. CJE. You know, so to that point, That's their opinion. And, you know, I've enjoyed working, I know, with Danny and Jim. It's good to see. But, you know, it's like, whatever. I mean, I just.

I just think the reason I'm asking the question, right, and I guess direct contradiction to your point, Council Member Ross, the reason, the way this plays out is that the current owner can no longer keep up with the cost.

Or lowers the price.

The real estate taxes are too high for any rational economic buyer to come in to an undersized house for a four-acre parcel.

But that's total speculation. You have no idea. I mean, there are plenty of amazing old houses in this town. Some have huge land. Some have not a lot of land. You have no idea what the market will be. But I can tell you this, 5.5 was too much. So let's see if the price gets lowered and if it's marketed again. Again, to Councilmember Ross's point, Nobody has seen this house marketed. And for those of us who love that kind of thing, we watch. We absolutely watch. Sure.

But that's not true, though. It was marked. We went through this one last week, and you watched the video.

Believe me, I watched all four hours, and I pretty much memorized it. So 50 million impressions, 10 private showings, whatever. 5.5, maybe too high. And we know of other houses that are equally unique in this community. CALLING MICHAEL JORDAN THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND MAYBE THOSE WERE NOT THE RIGHT PRICE UNTIL THEY FINALLY GOT TO BE THE RIGHT PRICE BECAUSE THE MARKET. SURE. OH, SORRY. COUNCILMEMBER CENTER WASN'T DONE WITH THIS STATEMENT.

THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU MADE A COMMENT AROUND THIS BEING A HORRIBLE FINANCIAL DECISION FOR THE CITY. CAN YOU JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT?

I'm thinking on a number of levels. I think that it opens us up to litigation over, in theory, somebody who was denied an application in the past could point to this and say they were unfairly treated. We could be litigating at great cost to us you know, future landmarks that people, again, this stands us as a absolutely, you know, monumental example, the first house built in Highland Park. And with so much history attached to that site, I feel that it opens us up to enormous litigation, and with litigation comes cost. I know that. And it, anyway, that's my answer to that. And I forgot what I was going to, oh.

Go ahead, she can go, yeah, it's okay. Go ahead.

we aren't aware that the 5.5 million that it was listed for was ever reduced. There was no effort made to reduce it. There's also, you know, I don't know if this is making my case or not, but it's an undertaking because you have to renovate the house as well. And Lisa Temkin, who wrote to all of us, talked about real estate sites for landmark properties where people you know, like the people who bought this house and fought for preservation in this community. There are sites that attract people who care about landmark properties. I'm not aware that that was explored at all. And this is worth saving in our community. Thank you.

Council Member Tapia.

Yeah, you know, To summarize where I landed last time, I also entered the conversation with a community conflicted because it is a difficult decision with a lot of dilemmas. But in the end, what really stayed with me was the difficulty of selling this house. The real estate agent presented a very compelling case of the efforts that they went through to get the house sold. So I looked at the marketing and the efforts to sell the house. I looked at the situation of the property owner and their personal situation in terms of where they're at in terms of life and also the burden of the carrying costs of the real estate taxes and especially the maintenance. a house of this historic nature and that did not seem to be a sustainable thing for that family or that owner but it also didn't seem to be sustainable for to attract the kind of buyer that would want to take on such a big financial burden of the entire property plus the maintenance of the real estate taxes plus the maintenance of the house so in the end I landed on the following bottom line that I was concerned that we would lose the house to save the land. Because to save the house, which we all agree with its historic nature and importance to saving it, if we cannot attract a buyer who will buy the whole lot and then invest in the house to preserve it to the way that we would want it, I felt that given the dilemma that we faced, I'd rather sort of allow the property to be less expensive by subdividing it, attract the kind of buyer that we do believe is out there that would want to continue to love a house like this and invest in it like the previous owners have been a way that economically would be feasible to do that. So in the end, we all want to save the house. I feel that it feels almost like, do we potentially lose a house if we just hold on to the totality of the property? So that in the end is why I ended up saying, let's subdivide it. increase the chances and I feel very confident that at that point we will find the kind of buyer that will come and love the house. I'm very confident with our protections that we have in our city, with the Historic Preservation Society Commission and the PDC to make sure that whatever gets built in the subdivision will be, you know, meet the standards that we want historically and space and all that. I'm just very confident that we do have those protections in place. So in the end, you know, the economics of it really tipped it for me, but the safeguards that we have also reassured me that we can ensure that the right kind of building gets placed there when this, if this transaction goes through. So I'm still where I was last time.

And I guess part of the issue is how do we know? The price never came down a cent. There's no way to say, well, it could have been lost because the price never came down. With all due respect, we're still talking up here and I'm happy to call on you and I will call on you in a minute.

Thanks for, appreciate it.

You will absolutely have the opportunity.

If I could just answer that part. Yeah. Okay, I don't know the whole totality of the pricing, so I won't debate you on that. I still, was the carrying costs of the real estate taxes are still the carrying costs of the real estate taxes. And that seemed to be also not a sustainable economic issue. And the second is the cost of maintaining the house to historic standards, which is what we want. So a buyer would have to buy the entirety of the property, take the entirety of the real estate taxes, and take the entirety of what it would take to keep that house preserved to the quality that it needs to. And I just felt that that was not a sustainable economic venture.

You live in an old house. You live in an old house. I live in an old house. You live in an old house. You live in an old house. You live in an old house. And we protect it. We're protecting it. We're able to sustain it. I just think there's a tremendous loss to the community that's not being addressed here.

I wanted to answer or speak to some of the comments that my colleague, Council Member Tapia, by that argument that the House is too much of a burden, that scares me enormously because the Frank Lloyd Wright House needs by millions and millions of dollars of money to save so much work, are we giving up on that? Are we saying that, I mean, first of all, it's not landmark, which is a tragedy in and of itself, but this requires a lot less work than that does. And you referenced being confident that HPC will protect it, but they tried, they tried to protect it. They voted against this and yet we're now saying, you know, we disagree with you, but we're going to go back to you and you'll put the protections in. I mean, it seems really contradictory to me. They tried to protect this. So that's my answer to that.

And I'm going to challenge the assertion that the House needs a lot of work. I was in that House 12 years ago and it was fantastic. So I don't know what happened in the intervening 12 years that it is so decrepit that it needs... all kinds of work. Council Member Bruckman, you had your hand up.

Thank you, yes. So I also came in with an open mind today and the last meeting and to what Council Member Center was just talking about. And coming in today, I also mentioned to Council Member Lerner about this going, referring this back to PDC, which I do think would have been a good option at this point, because there's too many unknowns in my mind. I'm also troubled now by the failure to reduce the sale price, coupled with the significant tax savings that the current owner enjoyed. I just feel like this council is bending over backwards. And after now listening again tonight to the comments, I just can't vote in favor anymore. So I'm going to be voting no at this point. Thank you. Thanks.

Before I bring you back up, I want to see if there's any public comment. Is that okay? Any public comment? Come on up. Please share your name for the record.

I'm Danny Kahn, 819 Sheridan. I served on historic preservation for about 10 years and I chaired it for three and worked with the mayor on preserving 405 Sheridan, which is the only time a home has been landmarked without owner consent. There's a bunch of factual errors that I think need to be corrected. But before I get to that, what I said before, and I reiterate it, we need to be flexible and try to support people that have historic homes. I don't think this house got one nickel of tax incentives. It didn't do the freeze. To do the freeze, you've got to spend some huge percentage of what you bought the thing for within two years and do it under the state of Illinois's requirements, it's a nightmare. And you would see if it did it because the taxes would be frozen and they aren't. So that's, it didn't get- Mr. Bernstein, correct. Yeah, it didn't get any tax advantages. The city offers virtually no financial incentives for anybody to landmark a house. I mean, there might've been stuff done since I left, but I don't think so. And during my tenure as chairman, zero people landmarked houses, because after I explained to them what happens, it was too onerous. And I didn't feel bad about that. I was giving them an honest assessment. The city council, and I can't tell who was on it, you guys have de-landmarked houses in the past that have been destroyed. You have taken Marshman, a lovely little cottage, and I don't know what happened, it was after me, but that house is gone and something hideous went up in its place. So the council, and this is, I mean, the council also, when you lament the lack of landmarking of the Frank Lloyd Wright, I think it was some of the members of this council, you were the guys that took away the ability to landmark without owner consent, and that was the house we would have done it to. So, you know, when you're worried about preservation, It rings a little hollow. You got to walk the walk. Yeah.

I'd like to answer that at a certain point.

Also, this house is so different from 405 Sheridan. This is a bunch of grass. I mean, this is not a fancy developed landscape like the Jensen landscape was. And I'm not sure if anybody remembers, but we were prepared to lose the house. Historic preservation was in discussion, and we were prepared to let Piquel take down the house so that he could subdivide that part that did not have Jensen landscape on it, the building.

Because the house had been changed so drastically with the 1970s.

The house had been added to. Right. It wasn't terrific. It wasn't perfect. And we were willing to lose the entire house to save the landscape. This is a way different situation because you got a house there and a whole bunch of grass. Thank you.

And you can add to the list the Allen Loeb house. Anybody else? Come on up.

i'm jim firman and i too was chairman of the historic preservation i served for years with danny on the historic preservation and including 405 sheridan road um which i do think was very different than this house and that it was a really truly valuable landscape this house is beautiful it's beautiful property it's uh uh we'll get into that, but it's different. It's not the same, and I doubt that the lawn on this property looked this way back in 1870 or whatever. So I do think there's, and there were these additions made at 405, but I want to address the setbacks. because um i'm also an architect as you know uh and uh that i that there's a possible buyer and we're having discussions about this house now there's no intent here to, this house is, the main house is gonna be preserved. There's no intent to harm it, only to enhance it. And so the intent is in discussion about creating a buffer zone in front of the east facing porch, which is 47 feet long, in addition to the 123 feet that's already there. TO CREATE A BUFFER SO THAT YOU WOULD SEE THE ENTIRE HOUSE. THAT'S REALLY THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANT OF THIS HOUSE I THINK IS THE REMARKABLE PORCH. WE ALSO SHOULDN'T FORGET THAT Well, so I should say in general that I'd rather not see restrictions now in this side yard, somebody said that, let us come before HPC, if that's what ends up happening, let us come before HPC and go through the process about what that means. Because I think, and I testified to this last time that the 85 feet that came up was totally arbitrary and would force the house in a strange orientation away from the other house and failed to take into account that one of the structures, you know, there are three structures actually, is all the way on the property line towards the other western house. So to say that it was 85 feet was really not entirely true. We're talking about three structures, the burden of three structures to whoever's going to buy this land. And And I've been in the house, I've been in the house very recently, so I just want to say that. It's going to take a considerable investment for somebody who's making investment here to improve this land to the degree that they expect. And the burden of these other two structures, which I don't know personally, I don't know what people would do with that, but that's part of the package. That's what's historic. It was a complex of structures. And that's what's historic. So I think there's a huge burden.

I have a couple questions for you, Mr. Fairman. So I believe the structure in the back on Park Avenue is rented out right now. It has been rented out. Is that correct? It has been. And my understanding is, and I think you spoke to this at the last meeting, that you have been consulted for the potential house that would be built. So essentially you have an interest in having a house built on that land because that's

what you do well i also have come from i have worked on many historic structures i was born in highland park very concerned about this land you know it's it's it's fine to say that but that's not you know the path isn't clear and i'm trying to say that there is a path to creating something on this property, and I said it last time, that is highly sensitive to the other structure without being the same by the nature of the land. First of all, a tremendous percentage of this land is protected, not only the front yard, 120 feet, all the steep slope zone. So tremendous amount of the land is protected. And this land sits lower than the other part of the house. And looking at the two things together, that whatever is built there, if something's built there, that that's going to be considerably recede. from the other house by the nature of the setback away from the street and also by the consideration of the topography. I really believe this, that this is a doable thing and without seeing the rest of the house. I also, if I could take another minute, I mean, I've tried to photograph the house and I've tried to, even in the wintertime, AND IT'S REALLY INTERESTING HOW THERE'S TREMENDOUS TREES AND TREMENDOUS VEGETATION AND SO FORTH ALL AROUND THAT AND WHATEVER WILL BE THERE. AND I JUST THINK EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BLEND INTO THE LANDSCAPE BECAUSE THE LANDSCAPE IS PROFOUNDLY BEAUTIFUL. SO IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE.

Which is why we don't want a house there.

But this is what's saying that the frontage, that what's concerned to the, and as we look at things historically, and we always consider the frontage of things historically, how people perceive it from the street. And I think you won't perceive much. That's what I'm trying to say.

Appreciate your time. Thank you. Any other members of the public? Wanting to be heard this evening please come forward and state your name for the record.

Good evening good evening I'm Anthony gaka I am on the historic preservation commission so I just want to make sure that that is clear but I'm here as a member of the community someone who lives in a historic house has renovated historic house. In this town. Apologies and I. Apologies if I jump all over, but first I want to say I'm sorry that a lot of these comments were probably more appropriate last meeting when I wasn't here. John, you asked two questions. One, the house is saved currently. The house doesn't need to be saved. It is saved. The house is landmarked. It needs no saving. And I just want to make that completely clear because it seems like Andres as well, that you're like, this is the best way to save the house, but the house is saved already. It doesn't need saving. And two, this is only a financial decision for the city because it can't be anything else other than that. The only thing the city could say is, oh, we want to subdivide the lot to get more tax revenue because the taxes are being underpaid on this property. And they are, and I do want to comment about that as well. This house was purchased for $3 million and the taxes weren't reduced because of the recession, because the house was purchased at the height of the recession in 2009 for $3 million. They then, the taxes were reduced lower, at an assessed value lower than the purchase price, which was purchased during the recession for $3 million. The taxes were then further reduced underneath that price, and only now today are at a level of about what that purchase price was existing. So they were reduced at that point in time, not to mention significant permits were pulled for about a half a million dollars. That money was never considered in the tax assessment. The taxes went down from the purchase price, not up after the permits were pulled. And this tax, this parcel has been underperforming tax-wise for the city. So it is only a financial decision for the city. But that financial decision would be made at the expense of every person in this community. Because this house is landmarked already. And to say we're going to monetize this parcel by I don't want to say de-landmarking because it is going to be landmarked. And that's going to be another point is I'm not sure a COA does allow a house to be built here. And frankly, Jim just said something that was for the first time I was going to come up here and say everybody's been misguided about what a COA is on this parcel. The open space is the defining characteristic of this house and the guidelines, which I'm not going to read because you guys have all of them. The guidelines talk about, it's pretty clear that on more than one of them might not allow a house to be built there and would give HPC the discretion to make that determination. Danny Kahn said he's on a commission that didn't landmark any houses. I've been on the commission for about two years. My commission has landmarked a large handful voluntarily of homes, people that are proud because of the advocation our commission is doing and the awareness that we're bringing in this community. So I think that that, I don't know what that says, but also we are landmarking houses. We are landmarking houses. I'm sorry, let me just make sure I'm hitting on everything. Oh, the comparison to 405 Sheridan, the pool house that was done at 405 Sheridan is invisible. It is like set back. It's on the slope down. You cannot see it unless you go over and around the back of the house and look back up towards the house. You can't see it. And that's exactly what, if anything were to be built here, is what I would advocate to be built here.

Thank you, Mr. Gonca. I appreciate it. Any other members of the public wishing to be heard? Please come forward and state your name for the record.

Good evening. I'm Erica Weider. I am also on the historic preservation commission. I'm the chair, which has been a lot of fun. It's been a lot of fun landmarking these houses. I don't have prepared remarks. I'm not a prepared remark person. I'd just like to say that We would like. To be respected. And we don't feel that we have been respected that we have voted against this 3 times. Because. Presumably we know we know the code. The House. Which is protected. when you build a house next to it becomes much less desirable it becomes much less valuable. It be you know there's no beauty there's no beautiful view from that that porch. The site plan showed these proposed setbacks but it didn't show is the distribution across. of homes across the southern side of the street. We suggested 80 feet because that is the rhythm, which is, I think it's Criterion 9. That is the rhythm of the disposition of buildings on that side of the street. I'm sorry, it feels like a lot to the architect who wants to build something with a bigger wingspan, but that is what's appropriate. Please respect our work. Thank you.

Any other members of the public wishing to be heard? Mr. Bernstein, please come back as the applicant. And before I unleash you, I just want to thank everybody, both who are here and who were here on August 17th, for the incredible amount of care and passion that they've brought to this conversation. And to your earlier point, it's because everybody loves preservation, theoretically. So fingers crossed. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. What we heard on August 17th and what we're hearing tonight is that historical preservation is not black and white. You can have, both have the goals for historical preservation and still see this project in two different ways. I mean, we have two members of the current members of the Historical Preservation Commission who are advocating against this tonight. Once, I don't know if they're speaking on behalf of the commission or they're speaking individually, but they're advocating. We have two former members of the Historical Preservation Commission, two former chairmen who are in support of it. So even the preservationist community is divided on whether approving what you what you voted on august 17th five to one to to support um it it's it's not you have two people it's not against historical preservation so to direct regard to council person person person brookman's you know her her statement i mean clearly There was no benefit with the real estate taxes. We've already addressed that because there was no freeze. In addition, as was pointed out by Commissioner Gonca, is that Right now, the property is assessed at $3 million. So even if you cut the purchase price almost in half, it's not going to change the carrying costs of this property. There's another property, landmark property on Prospect that's been for sale for months. I had an opportunity to talk to the real estate agent about what's the issue with that. And what she told me was it was not an issue of price. It's a very small... subset of people who are willing to buy landmark homes and who are willing to to embrace the the beauty of it but also the burden of it because there is a burden of it because you have certain things or limitations what you can do based on the ordinance so we already have a small group of people who may be interested in this property You heard the testimony last time. It wasn't about the price. Again, the price is not going to change the carrying costs. It's not going to change what's going to happen in the future where in four years there could be a $100,000 tax bill on this property. It's not going to change that because it's assessed at $3 million. OUR POSITION IS THAT WE WERE HERE TONIGHT THINKING THAT FIVE TO ONE SUPPORT DIRECTING THE COUNCIL TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOMBERG AND SECONDED AND VOTED ON FIVE TO ONE. I am going to take Commissioner Ross's advice on this. Council Member. Sorry for the demotion. The Councilperson Ross's advice on this. And I'm going to request that we have a continuance on this until we have a full board here.

I didn't request a continuance.

No, no, you suggested.

I didn't suggest it. Let me finish, please.

I didn't interrupt you. Okay, so you suggested that when there's a matter of this consequence, you should have a full board. That's what you stated. And so what I'm saying is because we've heard one member decide to change her position versus what she said earlier. last time. We have the mayor who was not here last time who came out of the gates right of way saying that she's against the application. And then we have Councilwoman Ross who said that, you know, something of this magnitude should have been a full board to hear it. And so...

I said it. Can I correct you? I said leadership. I said leadership.

Okay. Well... I believe the chair. Okay. Well, I believe council person.

Council member. Council member. I'm so confused.

I'm trying to be completely correct. Okay. Council member Bloomberg, who's been on this council for. I don't know how many years, 17 years or so? 15. 15, 15 years. I think that, I think that, you know, he has a leadership position on this board too. So I would suggest that this matter be continued. It's not like you're putting anybody out. There's four people showed up tonight. So you're not putting anybody out by continuous. And let's have a full board because what I'm hearing, it's three to three to get to council person.

By that argument, send it back to PDC because they were missing their two senior leaders of it. Send it back there. And you know,

I'm not going to argue with you. The PDC voted three to two to recommend. This board has not made a final decision yet because they voted five to one to draft documents. Tonight was the night they were supposed to make the final decision. So the PDC already made their final decision. This board has not made the final decision.

We have the ability to send it back. We have.

I'm not sure about your ability on that. That's up to Corporation Council regarding that.

My point was to leadership missing. The chair, the immediate chair and the past chair, both missing. And then the mayor missing. That leadership was missing. And you've continued it twice already. Lady and gentlemen, I'm going to request. No, no, no. This is my meeting. Thank you so much. Please hold.

Please hold for one minute. I need us to maintain decorum.

Yeah.

Because. I'm sorry. We are all neighbors.

Yeah.

And we are all working together to figure out an answer to this question. Okay. Everybody. Okay. Thank you.

What I would just say last is that the last time I checked, each one of you get one vote. The mayor has the same amount of votes as every one of the council members have. And so I think each one of you is important. Not one's more important than anybody else. And so I request that this commission, excuse me, this council, consider a vote to continue this to a next meeting when we have a full board, a full council, so this can be considered by everybody, and then we can move forward on this. Again, we have one person who's changed her position from last meeting to this meeting. She said that.

The beauty of the public hearing.

I also had suggested and I had asked a question to send it back to PDC as well. And I think that's an option as well. Okay.

Again, that's up for the council to make that determination. But that's what we're asking for this matter to continue to have a full council.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Corporation Council. Let's go to town.

What's the question?

That's it.

What would you like to know?

No, no, we just, we need a motion of some form. Do we want to return it to the PDC?

If the question is, can you send it to the PDC, the answer is yes.

Do we want a motion to continue, or do we want to take a vote on items 12A and B?

Mayor, I would suggest that since Council Member Blumberg was the person who made the motion, and he's not here tonight, that's one of the reasons why i thought it was important for us to go take it back to us as a council i have no problem taking it back to the pdc but in because the applicant and this community have gone back and forth the pdc and the hpc so many times and then we had a full out as you watched A DISCUSSION HERE OF HAVE NOT HAVE A COMMUNITY BUT A FULL HOUSE. I I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL SO I'M MAKING A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT TO BRING IT BACK. TO US. YOU'D LIKE TO CONTINUE IT. YEAH SO IF THAT FAILS IF THERE'S NO SECOND OR WHATEVER THEN WE CAN. SECOND. I AGREE I AGREE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATH.

AND JUST TO DO THIS TO THE SEPTEMBER TWENTY EIGHTH MEETING.

OKAY.

I was going to ask the question, when would be the next PDC meeting if we sent it back to PDC? Good question.

Although we have a motion and we have a second currently on.

Right, but if she, that's a question.

I don't mind if you ask a question. When is the next PDC? It's, it's all on.

no and you can't I don't know what if any are we taking it back as a hearing that needs to be re advertised I put that question to council it need not be if the direction is just for them to to

address some of the open issues. It need not be a public hearing.

Just so, Mayor, just so everyone knows, so the chair of the PDC was not at the meeting, but the meeting was run by the vice chair. Just so.

Who was the newest member? But still the vice chair. Still the vice chair, but I'm just saying the newest member. Yeah, yeah. I just wanted to just make sure. Thanks for the clarification.

We do have a motion and a second on the table.

October 6th is the next.

October 6th?

Yes. Tomorrow night's the next PDC. We're not doing tomorrow night. Yes.

Okay. So October 6th.

Okay. It's being done because obviously the applicant senses it could fail here and wants to have... I'm just... Yeah, it was... you know, well, I guess it's not continued. I guess it is continued, right, to PDC?

No, no, no, no, the question is, do we want to continue this to the next city council meeting, which is September 28th? And that's the motion that's on the table. So if there's no further discussion, we will call the vote.

Council Member Senter? Aye. Council Member Bruckman? No. Council Member Ross? No. Council Member Tapia?

Aye.

Council Member Littleware? Aye. Mayor Rotering? No.

So the motion fails due to lack of a majority.

So I'd like to make a motion to refer it back to the PDC.

Okay. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion among the group about returning it to the PDC? Sure.

Are we reopening everything for the PDC or are you sending it back for a recommendation on a specific issue? So at least we know how to prepare for the PDC meeting. All right.

Would it be on the setback issue? It would be on the side yard setback issue.

Is that what we're sending it back for? Apparently. Well, that doesn't make any sense.

They already voted. We already heard in great detail how they've already made a decision.

But I mean, I thought you're sending it back to the PDC as to whether they reconsideration of this.

They already voted.

Right. Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second, but we don't seem to have a real purpose other than relitigating this issue.

With all members present. With all members present. So it's the same concept that Council Member Ross was looking for.

So with that, I'm seeking a motion to approve items A and B under 12. I would like to ask if it was possible, and I don't want to offer up that motion.

What I'd like to do is ask to continue it one more time back to this council. The vote has already been taken. We already took a vote on that.

To a different date?

To a different date.

Is there a reason for a different date?

It's a different motion.

Well, we can do this, you know, for the rest of time if you want to do that. Just another motion with PDC, if we reopened it with all members present to look at the entire decision and the question, yes.

So now the motion is. What was that?

From Council Member Bruckman.

She's clarifying and amending her motion. Council Member Toppius made the motion.

Yeah, so I would amend it to be put back to PDC for reconsideration. But not at a public hearing, just a public meeting?

Maybe you need to explain the difference between a public hearing and a public meeting. One has an advertisement, one doesn't.

Right, it has public notice and other procedural requirements. Public meeting is for them to do the deliberation.

I'll be honest, given the complete inability of this group to make a decision, I think it needs to be a hearing. I think we need to have the full involvement of the community. If we can't get to this point, if this group can't seem to deny...

This group can't, but PDC could. Could they? Who knows? Maybe it goes the other way. Four to three. That's possible, but they already did have a vote. We're just asking so they would have a full body, to your point.

Well, leadership, again, leadership. Semantics. Not semantics. It is. I don't feel. Ladies and gentlemen, again, let's protect our decorum. We are trying to wrap up this meeting.

I am seeking a motion for some sort of decision-making from this group.

To refer back to PDC for full consideration.

As a public hearing or as a public meeting?

Well, I need some legal counsel on this.

I don't know this. I mean, it's your choice. You have the discretion to send it back as part of the process to send the plan development approval and subdivision back to the plan commission for further consideration. You could require them to conduct another public hearing or you can require them to simply conduct a public meeting. Remember that at a public meeting, members of the public still have Okay, I got it.

So I would make a motion to send it back to PDC for public meeting, for consideration.

I have a caveat or additional piece to that, that the, and I don't know how council feels about this, but I feel strongly that either, you know, it seems pointless to send it back if five people are there. I agree. So it would be to the day to which they...

TO THE DATE IN WHICH THE FULL COMPLIMENT OF THE COMMISSION WERE PRESENT. EXACTLY. PUBLIC MEETING IN WHICH THE FULL COMPLIMENT OF THE COMMISSION IS PRESENT.

EXACTLY. SO THAT'S THE CONDITION, RIGHT? TO SEND IT BACK TO PDC FOR FULL CONSIDERATION OF OUR PUBLIC MEETING AND WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT THEY HAVE A FULL SLATE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PDC PRESENT.

AND SECOND THAT.

OKAY.

Thank you.

Any comments, any question, any further discussion? Okay. Will the clerk call the vote?

Council Member Senter? Aye. Council Member Bruckman? Aye. Council Member Ross? Aye. Council Member Tapia?

Aye.

Council Member Littleworth?

Aye.

Mayor Rotering?

Aye. Okay. Well, we'll find out when they are all present.

Thank you, and we look forward to coming back to the council in the future.

Sleepwalk. All right. So with that, I am seeking a motion to go into closed session for purposes of setting a price for sale or lease of property, possible purchase or lease of property, probable imminent litigation pursuant to 5ILCS 120-2C-6, C-5, and C-11. So moved. Second. Will the clerk please call the vote?

Councilmember Senter? Aye. Councilmember Bruckman? Aye. Councilmember Ross? Aye. Councilmember Tapio? Aye. Councilmember Littlewood? Aye. Mayor Rotering? Aye. Six ayes, no nays. We go into closed.

For dessert.