Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome back to the regular meetings of the plan and design commission. Um, so I'll call the meeting to order at whatever 7:04 p.m. Please call the role. Commissioner Inchek here. Commissioner Fetner. Commissioner Nannis here. Commissioner Henry here. Commissioner Mantis here. Vice Chair Kersh present. Chair Moore present. We have a quorum. Madam Chair. All right. Wonderful. Uh first item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from way back November 4th. Um does anybody uh can I get a motion? Motion to approve. Okay. Can I get a second?

Second. Okay. Um any comments on those minutes? All right. All in favor? I.

Any nays? No. Any abstensions? No abstensions. Okay. So, the uh the approval of the minutes from November 4th is complete. Okay. So, um, our only item of scheduled business is the public hearing PUD-2025-000079 for a special use permit in the nature of a final plan development with modifications from city code and design review and final PL of consolidation with variances from city code at 734 central avenue. So, I will read out the public hearing opening statement. Uh, welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission. My name is Karen Moore. A quorum of the Plan and Design Commission being present, the members of this plan and design commission will now introduce themselves for the record from my right.

Kristen Inchek, Josh Nannis, Danny Mantis, Steve Kurich, Ken Henry.

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

Thank you. All righty. Mr. Burhoff, are you presenting to us? Uh, yes. Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everybody. Okay. My name is Carl Burhop. I'm a senior planner with the city of Highland Park and the planning division in the community development department. So this evening it's for 734 Central Avenue. It's the final plat to consolidate the property, the final plan development, the final design review, and then the modifications from city code that are requested thereof. This is the sites on Central Avenue to the west of downtown. Uh staff recommend the commission consider the those those three requests that I just listed off. This is a public hearing this evening. Uh so open the public hearing and take testimony when that time approaches and when ready make recommendation to the city council. So the project so it's an 11 uh 11 proposed residential units uh and a six-story building. So multiple family land use first floor parking garage. Second through fifth floor are residential. The sixth floor has roof access roof access and structures. And there's one inclusionary unit in this background real quick. Um I should have reversed those. So the commission considered this at the preliminary phase on February 4th, March 18th, and April 15. And those were public hearings. On April 15th, the commission recommended four to zero to approve with some uh comments. Um, and I had those of course in the staff report. And then this went to the city council. I had two meetings at the city council on May 12th and on May 27th. The council granted the preliminary approval and I included that resolution as evidence of that in the packet uh by a vote of 6 to1. And so what are the changes? So they're in for final now. What are the changes? So the one substantial change which has triggered the public hearing component uh there's additional bulk on the sixth floor and I have some slides on that to

explain that. Um basically there's an expansion of the proposed rooftop pen houses for the two residential units. Um staff has advised the applicant that they should provide the square foot and dimension changes for those for the commission to consider that there were various minor changes uh that don't trigger the public hearing but just want to make the commission aware. There was a reduction of one parking space in the first floor parking garage. It still complies with the parking requirements. They had two to give and they eliminated one. And the commission may recall when this was considered uh half a year ago or whenever the commission did have comments and concerns about maneuverability in that first floor. In fact, the applicant even provided a diagram of maneuverability based on those comments. And if you had a chance to see the uh floor plans in the packet, uh you can see there was one spot that was removed and they had a an ADA accessible spot in there. Also, I I noticed that they added additional shrubs, more shrubs on the west side of the building along McGovern. Okay, so this compares the two site plans. The site plans, I mean, are essentially the same. The only difference I noted was that there's additional three or four shrubs here. Otherwise, this the site plan, the the two-dimensional site plan is essentially the same. Okay, the rooftop. So I will try to explain this. So on the left you have from May the preliminary. So you have an elevator bulkhead and that's essentially the same. And then you have uh stairwell access and stairwell access. So there's residential units below those. And so that's like stairwell access to the roof. And so those are essentially the same. I'm not saying they're like 100% with the dimensions. They may be, but that's essentially the same. But the difference is, you can see there's like

an expansion of the residential unit like this penthouse there and an expansion of the residential unit or the penthouse there. And in part in part that is to accommodate uh ADA accessibility. I believe the applicant included some notation there on possible future some type of lift for accessibility for those residential units. And then you can tell that the the pergola structures um change locations. And again, I staff had indicated to the applicant they should be ready with the dimension numbers if the commission needs to know that. But that at least gives you the visual of what's changed. And then this is the elevation comparison. So on the left you have from back in May and then on the right you have what's now, what is before the commission. And so you can kind of tell what's changed. So you just see. So I I think I have two of these though I can pull up anything the commission wants to see. I can pull up the whole packet. But I I have the two that are visible from the street. So this is from Central Avenue, the north facade. And then this next one I have this is from the west which faces McGovern. And on this one you can kind of tell the pergola change uh location. And then, you know, the final plans tend to be more refined. So, you know, you're getting a better visual of like the windows. You know, you can see the windows up there. And also, there's there's either a door or window there as opposed to how it's changed from there. But that's just better refining and fine-tuning of the plans as they get ready for permit submitt. Um, I do want to point out the materials. Um, I I do put it to the applicant to verify that the renderings from preliminary are still accurate or if they've changed how. I did go through and just list these are not all of them, but these are the ones that I I thought were the highlights, but there were others. Um, I will note that that stucco color, it says color by the architect.

So, I put that to the commission to ask the uh the applicants team what color that will be. And so that refers to the stucco up here on the rooftop structure. And then this is what the commission had looked at back in well actually may be the council, but you looked at essentially the same thing. I believe that it was even a comment from uh one of the commissioners on what that color was going to be on the top. So then these just discuss uh the the other uh materials. Again, there's actually a longer list that the commission wanted me to. So again, I can pull that specific specification sheet up and zoom in on it and go through it. Uh this just points out the the materials for the facade and that rooftop. Uh other items, this was in this was all in the staff report. Um the material stuff, I just had a chance to look at that between uh today and yesterday, so that wasn't in the staff report, though the applicants um plan obviously was that listed those. And then this was just from the staff report. or the application just verify the exterior lightings are the same that it's still that the exhibit whatever I think E it might have been in the resolution and the application should verify if there any other changes have been made um for modifications again um the only change it gets to the fact that there's more bulk on the sixth floor so it's not that they're going higher they're not asking for more height or more stories uh the height in the stories that was reviewed by the commission is the The difference is is that it's like a volume an expansion of bulk at that height that's not allowed. Is there questions on that? So yeah, that's the only change for the height or or for the height modification. Otherwise, it's the same. Uh the traffic vision um request is the same. The relief for no uh shade ornamental trees is the same. They actually added the shrubs like I pointed out.

Um, these are all the same. This gets to the uh there's a parking uh limit within the front 40 ft. Uh there's the uh 15 foot step back from the building to the east as RZ's proposed that was discussed in preliminary. That hasn't changed. the exterior lighting. I will point out as I was looking through my notes when this left commission um there was an exterior lighting packet before the commission, but there's it seemed to me there were still maybe some tweaks being made. Um but there was an exhibit before the commission at your final meeting. And so then that exhibit ended up going to council and the council did look at it and did include in the council's relief for specific foot candle relief and those are just at the entrances. It was also pointed out at the council meeting that, you know, there's street lights there as well washing onto the property. Um, yeah. And so, none of those have changed or at least from the resolution that went to council and I don't think from the uh commission's last meeting other than the finetuning on the lighting. Um, yeah. So, this is all the same. Again, I just point out the change to the bulk on the height uh which again is a bulk volume issue. not asking for any higher subdivision is is technically new. They didn't submit the subdivision with preliminary which was fine but now the final plat is here. It's a consolidation. You know consolidations of forsighted properties are usually straightforward and uh I actually thought to myself, huh, there might not be any relief for this. It's just a regular four-sided lot. But you know, we go through everything. That's our job. it it technically it doesn't meet the 125 ft depth. I will point out to the commission, you know, this is the pre-existing um site is that so it's not like they're asking for more. That just acknowledges what the existing site is.

Um public benefit, uh the applicant proposed the cast donation of $15,000 to the downtown streetscape improvement fund. was also the uh public benefit that was recognized in the resolution that the city council adopted in May. Uh parking reduction. The applicant did request a 15% off street parking reduction based on proximity to transit. The resolution acknowledged that. I just point out that they're uh they're going down to 20. Actually, it must well if I read that must have already been 20. I'd have to double check that. But I know it's one space less than what they had with the commission, but it still complies with the requirement. The inclusionary zoning, um there are no changes to that. Housing commission recommended approval on April 2nd. Uh the the preliminary resolution approved that plan as exhibit F that was in that. Okay, I believe this is my last slide. Uh so the commission may recommend approval, approval of conditions, denial or continue to a future meeting. the applicant the applicant at their risk did ask for findings of fact and so staff did provide those. I had those in the packet. I had a redline version that showed how I changed it as well as a clean version. And then I just will note the following and I and I and I do want to put out or I do want to state these conditions are not in the findings of fact. So, if the commission wants to move forward with a recommendation to adopt the findings of fact, staff would ask that you consider uh in the motion just amending to have these three. These were three things that uh I just plucked out from the the council report and from the resolution from May. Uh the applicant does need to demonstrate that the rooftop mechanical equipment and that's where the mechanical equipment is located. It's on the rooftop is screened behind the parallel the parapal wall and will also comply with the article article 6 performance standards which gets to the noise or sound generated from them. Uh

provide brick paper sidewalks is required for the downtown streetscape program. The applicant had indicated in May they they would do that and I have not heard uh otherwise and then provide the bicycle parking. So, there was parking, bicycle parking depicted in May, and I don't know if the fine-tuning of the plans, maybe that was just left off, but there I mean there are storage spaces indicated and so uh staff would just recommend that those spaces be put back in there as the commission had recommended it back in um uh when was yours? April.

The commission was April. Yeah, just as the commission had recommended those. So, those are the staff comments. I can take questions if any or pull up anything from the packet if the commission desires. Anybody from the commission have a question for staff? Um, yeah, Commissioner Mantis has a question.

So, on the additional bulk on the six story, so there's height relief that's being requested, right? technically were the building as proposed would not otherwise accommodate a uh with the existing zoning would not accommodate five stories. So we're we considered five stories whereas it should have been four per the underlying zoning.

That's right. And so now we're going up to a sixtory which we had already approved in the preliminary and now we're adding additional bulk. Even though they're not going any higher, we're granting height relief. Is that additional bulk considered additional relief then?

Yes. That's why staff determined this was a uh a public hearing. uh because um when when the commission makes a recommendation or the council makes an approval, it's very it's us unless otherwise stated, it's usually very specific both in terms of dimensions and also to the plans. And so in this case again, um it's not that they're going higher. You know, they're not asking for additional stories or additional height. That's all the same as what you reviewed. What's changed is it's just more bulk on that roof. It's it's just more six six floory uh six floor structures or or rather large I shouldn't say more I should say rather larger or expanded six floor structures and I do want to also pull up I did receive from the applicant this afternoon uh updated renderings. So I just got these this afternoon. I was just going to uh put these up and just go through them really quick. The applicant also submitted materials today to uh respond to the engineering division comments. Yeah, those comments, I mean, they have to be met, but they're not they're not red flag comments. Did any of those include the dimensions for those areas up on the sixth floor?

I did not see that in the materials submitted today by the applicant. No. Okay. So, how do we know that that won't change between what we approve now and what actually gets built? The well in terms of that well when when staff asked for the dimensions we were asking for the square foot dimensions so that the commission would be able to like chew on this was the area that was on there back in May. This is the area on there now. But in terms of other dimensions just in terms of like how they're building it and all that's those types of dimensions are in the various plans. Okay. So we're not getting the percentage correct

increase of the square foot of the sixth floor. Correct. That is the correct that is the number that staff wanted the applicant to provide. Okay. Um any more commission questions? Commission questions. Um all right. Would the applicant like to come up and speak?

Good evening. Um happy holidays. Uh for the record, my name is Cal Bernstein. I'm the attorney for the applicant. And since this is a new public hearing, I don't know if we have to be reworn. So I think there's going to be two people speaking. So if you Nate, you want to come up and so we swear together then. Okay.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. And before your colleague speaks, he'll need to give us his name and spell the last name. Why don't you introduce yourself? Uh Nate Kitnas.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you, Madam Chairman. Okay. So, this is really um we're here tonight to discuss the additional bulk on the sixth floor. Um that's the what's triggered the the new public hearing. Otherwise, uh the the plan is substantially conforms with what was what you saw back in in April and the council approved in May. I just wanted to give a little more context to the height relief that was previously given before I turn it over to Nate because it's really his show tonight and just describe what why he made the changes that we're seeking relief from tonight. Um, if you recall, this property is actually zoned B45 and which allows five stories. And what happened was because this lot was undersized that as a result of the fact it was being undersized the B44 height requirements applied which only allowed for four stories. So as we noted back in the spring is that the properties surrounding this next door are actually four or five properties. So you could build five stories there. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what what I believe what the PDC and the city council thought of back then is that it is that just the site context would allow the five stories because this is actually zoned B45. It's just an anomaly that that B45 zoning doesn't apply to this property because it was undersized. But because other property around it was B45 and allowed for five stories that the relief the the both PDC recommended and the council eventually approved back in May the fifth story. So the sixth story was a different story because that a different issue because we were trying to activate the rooftop to allow that to be open space to be used and and Nate's going to describe as the pro as the project evolved because you don't see a lot of these two-stage developments. I mean usually people come

in here for preliminary and final at the same time. The difference is is that once the final engine once we get the plinary approval back in the spring, we went through and and got the final engineering and see how everything lays out which has required us after considering all that to come in for additional relief. And and Nate, I'm going to turn it over to you unless there's any questions on the underlying height variance that was or variance that was given back in the spring. If there's questions on that, I can answer it now. Otherwise, I'll turn it over to Nate and he can describe why he made the change on the rooftop that we're seeking relief from tonight. Hearing none, I'll turn it over to Nate.

Thank you. Oh, by the way, just for just to make sure that we're all stay organized, the staff report, senior planner brought an excellent job going through the uh going through the planning comments and they're on page two of the staff report and I've asked Nate to go through it's really 1 through five are the ones that we're talking about tonight. Um 6, seven, and eight do not really apply to the consideration tonight, you know. But um I'll let Nate go down the list one through five. Nate, I'm promising something. So don't

Well, give us one moment here. Just, you know, I've never done this ever. No pressure. I don't even know what to do. Um Huh. It worked. It just went before, but maybe here's the

uh No. So, I go to settings. Was that Vic here running up? Vic, do you know how to Is there any way he can connect to this computer to do a presentation? Oh yeah. How do I turn it?

Okay. So then we got to get um I got to do this on my mirroring. So this would be I don't know what that is. Yep. Here we go. Here we go. You What's that? You'll come back up. Okay. That means he should go over his presentation. Okay. Great content for the YouTube last monsters. Okay.

Uh um well, just give me one. He's just trying to the applicants design professional is trying to bring up uh his presentation to give to the commission. Well, it would be good if we could do this. Let's see. Boy, I I am not going to I don't think I'm going to be able to get this.

Do Do you have an alternative like a a jump drive or or email it to me?

Um yeah, let's do that. So, I wanted to answer uh So, we should go back. Can you come back out here and Well, we can just maybe unplug it. I don't know. Or not. Oh, wait a minute. Well, not critical that we view this. I think the the image that you had the 3D, if you could I don't know how, but if you can get that back. Okay. But the the question I know there was a question on the size of what's up on the penthouse. Could you go through the list?

Oh, yeah. Okay. All right. So, there's a list with uh 11 items on it. And the first one is about the rooftop mechanical units. The rooftop units are um under 42 in tall. They're like in the low30s to 36 in. The parapit's 42 in tall. So, that is not going to be visible at all from anywhere. And frankly, the sound is just going to go straight up. It's not going to go outward. Um there was a question about um accessible parking and rooftop access. So two parts to the handicap. Um we do have one handicap accessible parking spot. We did lose one spot based on when we got the structure actually in the garage. It ended up that we just lost one, but we still have like Carl said one additional beyond what's required. Um, for the rooftop access, we were questioned about uh handicap accessibility. There's two units on the fifth floor. Each one has a private stair that goes up. And um so in in our mind, it didn't need to have handicap accessibility. We talked to the Illinois Capital Development Board and they said as long as we provided the ability for a unit to put their own elevator in. So we did do that. There's a closet on in each of those fifth floor units and directly above it is into that penthouse space. The framing is boxed out so that can be easily done in the future. And um I have a a letter from her and uh basically she said if you meet the requirements of this specific section it you know if accessibility the second floor meaning the second floor the fifth floor unit can be provided by the owner by installation of a Lula a limited use limited application elevator

um or a private residence elevator or a platform complying with this certain code uh then you should be in substantial compliance with this handicap section. So we are providing that ability to do that. Um the next item is about the brick pavers and actually and that's on the sidewalk and we had actually uh found uh a document from 2016. We went hunting around for this and it shows that our property in fact is stays existing and does not need the brick. So whatever staff says we will do but the most current document that we could find showed that it stays concrete. On McGovern house there's a section of it that is brick and then it stops and it goes back to concrete and they're in the same area we are the same map designation. So, I'm not clear on that, but whatever staff says, we will comply with. Um, the bicycle parking, there are 13 spaces in the garage for that. So, that um that meets that requirement. Um, so the reason that the penthouse issue is here uh up on the sixth floor, originally we just had the stairs come up to essentially what we call a doghouse just to get access to the roof. And after looking at it, we're like, well, if we're going to all this effort, why don't we make a small room up there? And so I can give you the dimensions of that and the area of that. So one of them has an area. This is outside to outside wall 339.7 square ft and the other is 348 square ft. There's a small mechanical room in that space and a small closet. So it's

the usable space is less than that. Um if you have any questions on on that, but it's it's not a very big room, but it's just a it's like a little den and then there's trelluses out there for them to utilize the deck with. Um then the next question is um uh about the pergolas up there. Uh it's there were changes to the roof deck. Do you have an exhibit that better shows how it's enlarged? And I that would be what I'm discussing right now. And it didn't impact the setbacks. I think Director Fontaine had a quick question about the structures up there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so the the rooms that you're creating that that includes sufficient room for that lift, that elevator. Oh, yeah. Should it be desired to be included? Okay. Yeah, I can Carl, I can go ahead and email you this one. Okay. So, it has a mechanical room, a small closet, and room for the elevator. Yeah. As well as a staircase. Yeah. There's that much of a room. Then it's got these other things that it's really just an access point for. Right. So I forgot to mention obviously the stair is coming up in there too. So the usable area is, you know, the size of a den in a house. It's not very large. It's not small, but it's not very large.

Okay. Um Okay. And then the the other question that you had was with regard to the pavers. We want the pavers along Central. um and to the extent that they go along govern McGovern to complement and to mirror what's across the street at McGovern House. Well, can I add paper?

If I can also add on that and I I just sent the applicant asked me to provide a link to the the city planner document related to the pavers and I just sent that to them earlier today. side if they hadn't had a chance to review. But what I pull from is the design guidelines which is the 2018 documents for the downtown design guidelines. And on page 21, it talks about uh pavers for the streetscape. And it says either Yankee Hill brick charcoal paver or Yankee Hill brick flash manganese paper. So that's that's that's the reference I would reference to for the papers.

Okay. Um, the next one is, uh, are the renderings the same? So, I'm going to point out one change on the exterior. Uh, if you noticed the corner balconies with the glass railings, capping that is a similar metal uh, uh, roof structure. It's just a metal band and it's white underneath it. That was a cornice before. And as we were looking at it, it just looked like it was defining logical gravity. I mean, we could make it work, but it visually didn't make sense. This is the only change to the exterior is that upper canopy over the upper deck on each of the three sides.

Oh, are you referring to

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right there. So, that used to be limestone like like this was and it just didn't look right. So that that is the only real change that we did. Um then uh is the lighting still as approved? And yes, and I think that that nighttime rendering shows that pretty well. Uh the landscaping, this is item nine. The landscaping is the same except we increased these little hydrangeas on the west side. That is correct. um asked again about the parking spot that was lost. Yes, we're down to 20. And then the last question that came to us was are there going to be above grade utilities? No, everything is buried. So that is the uh bulk of the questions or that is that is all of the questions and if there's any questions from you then be happy to answer them. Any more questions for the applicant? Oh, down here. Um, Commissioner Inchuk,

uh, the, um, space that's on the roof, um, is that all accessible to all of the tenants of the building or just the penthouse? Just the penthouse. And that was if it became part of the whole building, then there's a whole accessibility question. There'd be an elevator that would be required to go up there. Um the access in a fire they can use the common stair that goes up but the stair going out is locked. Only the uh the uh maintenance people can get up there. Otherwise the units just go up and down within their own and uh they there's just the two of them. They're private private decks, private stairs.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Nannis has a question. Yeah. Excuse me. Um yeah. Um, you said that there's 11 bike parking. 13. 13. Can you I I just have a hard time finding them in the architectural renderings. Do you mind pulling them up and pointing them out to where they are?

Crotch. Oh, what happened? Got the gremlins tonight. That should absolutely open. This is just the packet. Okay, bear with me. I'll get it open. There we go. Yeah. So, if you scroll down, keep going. Keep going. Okay. Right there. So, they are located Oh, go ahead, sir. They're They're located right here and there's 13 across that. So, this is the storage room there. Thank you. Oh, it does say that there is a notation.

Yeah. Says I think it says DRO track rack wall-mounted bike storage system 8 8 ft 13 bike capacity. There you go. I missed the fine print. They are on there. Does that particular storage area um also serve as extra storage for people's units or is it only for bikes? So you can see the uh rectangles in here. Those are individual storage lockers for the 11 units and then the space beyond up here is where the bikes would go. Oh, I see. Okay.

Okay. Any more questions? Did you have a question, Mr. us. Uh, I lost it. I apologize. Sorry. Yeah, you have to strike it when the iron's hot with me. I was getting a bit trouble on their turn. Okay. Um, any more questions for the client? Any more discussion items? Okay. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Uh, vice chair Kirch,

the so the added bulk creates an a a bigger in a sense requirement of variance, right? So that should be offset by more public benefit, right? That's a good point. So what what I mean I don't know what it's kind of hard to decide how much more public benefit without knowing how much more percentage wise space we're talking about. Sure.

Well, I mean here's here's my immediate suggestion. It's those brick pavers seem to be an issue of some sort. Those might make if they're not required, they might make an acceptable additional public benefit. Agreed. Especially if they do them on both sidewalks. Yes. Because they would have to Is that correct? They'd have to match the length of the sidewalk matching the McGovern house across the street. Right. Well, that's what Can That's what Google

We were saying to the applicant and that that way downtown the public benefits of sidewalk improvements are an important part and you can look that up. Hold on a second. because it's not just concrete um sorry also with regards to the public benefit it depends on what the impact of the relief is I mean if we can't actually see the change that they made up there it is it technically larger but is it visible right

question it can I mean if Nate was speaking, you won't be able to see the additional bulk from the street. However, you know, if we're fine with putting the additional pavers on along Central Avenue, try to match it up with McGovern House. I mean, and we would offer that as additional public benefit. So, I I just want to point out there's brick on the sidewalk, but this is the McGovern side right here. And if you see it just stops it stops right there. So I I just want to point that out, which is what I said. So just to match the across the street. Yeah, they can match it. Yeah. But then along Central Avenue, we want the brick

along Central. It's all on McGovern as well. Yes, it's all brick. But on McGovern, I think we're just saying there right there that it stops partway down the lot. Yes, that's correct. To match to mirror across the way. That's how we'd prefer it. Yeah. Okay. Then extending further than that. You know, our goal is to have it Central Avenue is the main focus and then those kind of end caps going down McGover but not all the way. Uh, Commissioner Manttos, you thought of your question?

Not a question. I I just I I have discomfort with the additional bulk. I wasn't crazy about when it was first proposed and there was going to be elevator access um through the main elevator. I think it was originally proposed that that main elevator was going to go all the way up and only the fifth floor units were going to have access to the rooftop from that elevator. Um, and I think we lowered it so that that capped out below the parapit. Um, I feel like now that we're adding additional bulk on the sixth floor, it's a lot of relief and I don't know that I'm comfortable with just more brick papers. And while I understand that we can't see them see the relief from the street, it's that the you know the point is that it's there and that it's an additional step beyond the relief we already gave. Um which some of us are a little uncomfortable with as well. Um

just point of clarification, the favors have always been required for this project. Okay. I just Yeah, it's this isn't something new or being introduced. That's just saying. Okay. Just on central or there's specification on those brick papers will need to be the city standards and we need to work with the applicant to make sure we provide those to them and there might be some confusion there, but McGovern House although similar isn't quite what the city standard is at this point. So, we'll take care of that. We just did Second Street. We have construction documents as you know. We did the on this. I'm not sure brick pavers along the uh east and it was side of that street.

So I just wanted to make clear on that and and staff isn't looking for additional brick paving beyond mirroring what McGovern House has for the aesthetic. So we can't call that a public benefit. No, it is a public benefit what they're doing in terms of the big favors. It is it's that we do want those and they had agreed to them and so public benefits provided by street shape improvements are listed as public benefits. So that's that is a public benefit and we do want that and we did want it during the preliminary. Okay. So we just don't want any additional down that street. We want to mirror it for the aesthetic appeal. That's I wouldn't want to see that happen necessarily because of

we have the calculations on the additional square footage. So well I I mean it's the total up there outside dimensions is 687.7 ft. I think it was probably 125 or 150 square feet before for just the stairs for each one. So it's you know the delta on that if I call it 300 you know it's it's about 400 extra square ft about 200 per unit. So it's roughly increasing in size by what 200%.

Well my calculator Oh no, math. Yeah. Wow. Yeah, it's a little late. It would be a triple or quadruple actually. We're going to have the calculator. Yeah. I mean, and again, in the room there's this uh room for the mechanical, there's room for a closet, like the actual usable square is not that large. Can you can you bring you just so we're clear? So, the additional space on in the pen houses, we're calling them pen houses. Part of that was for to for for ADA accessibility. Correct. There's there's a box out. Yes. Which which creates for the elevator which additional space? Box out there and there for the future elevator.

Okay. What about the stairs? And then here's the stairs here. And then there's the mechanical. The mechanical. What was there before and what's there now? Um beforeh um was just the stair coming up right here. So you have mechanicals and and then you have the box out for the elevator. So it's it's this area clear right here. It's again it's not a very large room. So what's the use usable square footage? That's what they're asking for. No, I don't think we're asking for the usable square footage cuz we're not seeing from the outside. You're not seeing what's interior. You know, we're trying to get to the full bulk change. What is the

I could ask for the volume change if we knew the height. So, so, so what what Nate has told us is that it's about 200 ft or 225 foot per year per unit per unit. So, it's a total of 450, but again, not all that's usable square footage. Some of that's for mechanicals, some of it's for the box up for the potential for building an elevator. So, in connection, we we understand and we realize that that's additional relief. And so we're prepared tonight to offer and because we hear that the brick pavers were part of the project all all along is that um we'll increase the public benefit uh from the contribution of $15,000 to $20,000. Okay.

Can I ask a question? Yes, please do. Where were the mechanicals in the original plan? Um I'm I'm pulling up the original. they were upstairs. Well, there there's mechanicals on the fifth floor and I'm just not sure if they were also on the sixth floor at that point. Um, they may not

seeing them on the sixth floor. So, it seems like it was a convenient move to the sixth floor that we're now saying is not usable square footage. Well, this this what I have up here is the rooftop plan that was in the resolution that city council adopted in May. So, it it doesn't give the interior, right? Yeah. So, those AC units that we're looking at there, are those actually on the sixth floor or those on the fifth floor and we're not?

No, those are those are on the sixth floor. Okay. Behind Okay. My question was specifically about the mechanicals that are shown within the doghouses for those fifth floor units. There were not there was no mechanical in the doghouses. Sorry for that's a new yes change. That that was my point. Thank you for clarifying. Just you know you have a separate floor. You know at this level you have mechanical on each floor. You're not going to have one and have a thermal gradients in there. You're going to want to have your own mechanical for that. Very small unit, but still correct.

It's to heat these units. There was not one when it was just the steer. Georgia Fontaine. So, if you can go back, you have you have units on the roof as well. So you're saying for these units that have the two floor um unit, they would have their mechanicals within that that

So we're talking about two different things. One are the condensers that every mechanical system has. Those are all on the roof. So there's a set towards the front, there's a set towards the back. They're only this tall, the parapit this high. The actual furnaces that handle that the air handlers, they're within the unit. So, uh, in this fifth floor, uh, duplex, they're on the fifth floor and in this additional small room up there. I see split system, right? Split heating system for that. Um, I think that is a mini split up there. Yes.

Okay. Just one other thing, Madam Chair. There's talk about the the equipment being screened by the parapit which they've indicated that it is. Then there was talk about the performance standards of the code and making sure that you know sound was not an issue up there because there are going to be people up there um in close proximity to those those units up there. So what I would suggest is around those units that low-level screening wall be acoustic acoustical tile screening wall for sound medication. Um I think it is

okay and that should be okay in terms of the performance that okay so we should add that as a con I mean I saw that was up on our conditions list um and say that's just so how do we operationalize that? That's what we'd want to see. Right. Okay. That being tall. Doesn't have to be any taller than what it So, it's still below the parapit. That's 42 in. He had said, so should be okay. Um that way folks that are on that that roof or in those the small uh rooms there, you know, um the sound from all those units won't be, "Wow, it's really loud up here." You know, that

Okay. Um, can you pull up that list of the three conditions that we might consider adding to the findings of fact? Right. Um, so I will say that the uh the bicycle one um that is on there. That's on just a miss on my part. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine font, but it is there. And I I thank the design professional for pointing that out to me. Okay. And then do we think that um we need to include the provide brick paper sidewalks or is that already included through some other requirement

for uh madam chair can I comment on that? So it yeah it is included in the design guidelines but it still needs to be noted on their plans is what I would say. So the condition would just be noted on the plans is what you could change it to. And then for this one, um I don't know if we need to add a comment about the acoustical tiles or not. Um,

and then also I will point out the applicant stated that they'd increased the public benefit to 20,000 to the is it the downtown street uh downtown improvement funds. Okay. All right. Now that you've fixed all those conditions, do you want to pull up the findings of fact? Chair.

Yes. I have a question. So, yes. To your question, Commissioner Henry. So, Carl, are you suggesting that the rooftop mechanical condition be screened behind by acoustic screening? Is that Well, right. Is that right, director? Was that your suggestion that the uh acoustical the rooftop units you know contain mitigate sound through acoustical screening? Yes. We'll check that at building permit. Right. That the parapit is not enough. The outside right. I understand that.

The parapit will be there. So the other sides that are not the parapit will have this acoustic screening. Yep. Right. so that it'll absorb some of that sound and mitigate so that the folks on the roof using that won't be like, you know, there's six units, you know, five units away here at me. Yeah, I think that would be sufficient. And it's on the roof, so it's fine. I'm not worried about ground levels. So because the carpets on the outside, that's what we just said. Put that

on the the sides. It's not the right. So say that again. How should I change this? the parapit and the um screen wall that has yeah not par so is screened behind the parapit and additionally screened behind um just this uh mechanical screen that will have some acoustic properties. I mean I don't we're not setting a number right here but better than at least it did I'll look up. Yeah.

This still would have to go to city council to be approved after that's right. Okay. Less than 90 dB on the A scale on an 8 hour time waited basis. We understand for the purposes of this recommendation by that acoustical street. We understand that. We'll work with corporation council for the council um approval, final approvals to make sure that it's word smith properly. Okay. Um I just did some back of the envelope math and it the square footage increase is 266%. Oh boy. Um on that rooftop. So

I knew I knew I should have made the stairs bigger. So, is there an additional closet aside from the closet that can be repurposed as an elevator? Can you bring up the floor? And can you zoom in a little bit? Okay. Excuse me. One. Yeah, perfect. Okay. Yeah, that's good. Um, so you can see that mechanical closet there is uh about five by about 5 and 1/2. And then this this is the elevator box out, right?

And here's an elevator box out in that unit. This one is about 3x 7 and 1/2. And then obviously each one has their their uh stairs coming up, right? But those clo those closets are already mechanical closets. Yes. I mean, there's tiny bit of room on the side and in front of, but yeah, you're not going to put much in there. I'm just trying to picture it. So, okay. Um, procedural question. Yes.

If I were to make a motion regarding this project, do we combine all three of these elements in one or do we need to vote on the design and the consolidation separate? And when you say designer speaking of design review,

right? So there's three things, right? The the P design would be separate because that's your you have final authority over that as to the um recommendation on the final plan development um and as well as any conditions that you'd like to make. That would also be one vote. So the way that I see this being packaged would be two votes. Okay. So the plat the plat of consolidation, right? And the plat would be because that's also um uh recommendation

as we usually do that would just be kind of packed into that plan development recommendation. Okay. Final. Uh, can you put the conditions back and can you make them larger? Come on. Tune up your glasses. I know. I know. Yeah, we really got to answer just there.

If I may, madam. Yes, you chair. Uh, I'd like to move that we uh recommend adoption, I'm sorry, that we adopt the findings of fact recommending approval for a special use permit in the nature of a final plan development for a multifamily development at 734 Central Avenue, including modifications to city code and a final plant of Lee subdivision with three conditions. One, uh, that the petitioner demonstrate the rooftop mechanical equipment is screened behind the parapit and provide acoustical screening and complies with article 6 performance standards. Two, that the plans depict brick pa sidewalks as required for the downtown streetscape program on an updated plan. and three, acknowledging that the public benefit moves to a $20,000 donation to the downtown streetscape improvement fund.

Um, any questions from the Oh, we need a second. Sorry. Can I get a second for that? Okay. Comm Commissioner Mchuk had a seconded. Um, do we have any more discussion amongst ourselves? Commissioner Manttos, I still don't think $20,000 is adequate for the increased relief being requested. I think something larger than that is appropriate. Do you have a suggestion? I mean, I would say double is what came to mind. They're asking for over two times as much square footage from what was originally requested. So, from 15 to 30, I think, is appropriate.

Okay. Any more comments on that from the rest of the commission?

I mean, it was the bulk wasn't the only variation, right? There the Oh, the the story. I mean, the the height the height was right. So, just because we doubled the bulk doesn't mean we doubled the That's correct. That's correct. Yeah, I would think. Right. is fair, right? So, yeah, they didn't increase the height and number of feet straight up. They increased the volume of that height that you've already granted. So, that that's a that's a good point that the commission is making. And we're clear that that extra volume is not visible from the street. That's what I was referring to before. The impact of it is no.

Um, give me one more try with this. Uh, Vic, can you switch it over to the other computer again? If you heard that, Vic, uh, the applicant's team is trying to switch over to their computer again.

Oh, he's doing it. Well, he's trying to do this, you know. Maybe, maybe not. Okay. In the interest, in the interest of trying to get move this forward tonight, um I just have an opportunity to talk with the decision maker and we realize that there's obviously additional variances granted with the setbacks and the upper stories and also the hype, but um we realize that we're asking there's an ask here. Um so in order to move this forward, we're willing to go up to $25,000 as the public benefit. And um that's all I have to say. No. Okay. Okay. And an option, excuse me, two an option in two years. Yeah, exactly.

And um and a plan to be named later in the trade. Okay. Okay. So, if I may, Madam Chair, just to put a final point on that for the commission, just to remind everybody. So the general standard all proposed public benefits shall be a commensurate with the zoning relief request requested by the applicant and b proportional to the anticipated impact of the proposed plan development on adjacent properties and properties and land uses and on the community at large. So that's that that's the standard. Okay. The entirety of that relief that triggers that. Okay. Um, so do does our motioner wish to So if I modify amendment,

if I don't modify, I won't have to vote on your amendment, but uh strike $20,000 where I said that and substitute $25,000 and did our seconder agree agrees with that. Okay. All right. Any more discussion? All right. Um, please call the vote. Commissioner Inchek, I. Commissioner Nannis, I. Commissioner Henry, no. Commissioner Mantis. I appreciate the gesture. I would like more, but I'll go yes.

Vice Chair Kersh. I. Chair Moore. Uh I will also vote I with the caveat of you know all these are always precedent setting and um so it is hard to always create always grant more always grant more variations is hard for us because then it puts us in a bad position for the next person who comes. So,

chair, I'll just say in terms of presidential value, um, each parcel of property is unique and, um, there is no precedent. I know it's it's hard to say no to something once you've said yes last week or two weeks ago, but um a justification for saying no is always that parcels of property are uniquely situated and what works on one doesn't necessarily justify uh doing it on a separate parcel. Understood. Thank you. Can I clarification on your vote, Madam Chair? Um so I still voted yes. Yes. Okay. So you guys have it.

I believe so. One dissenting vote. One dissenting vote. Just unless you change your mind.

No, no, no. I don't change. I I still think it's too high. I thought it was too high back in the spring. I think it's too high now. Uh but to council's comment, which I agree with, but then you have attorneys such as Mr. Bernstein, esteemed Mr. Bernstein, who don't forget this stuff. And you're right, Marcus, but if we do something today, understand, and a similar situation comes up next week or next month or sometime next year, and we have an an attorney who's prepared for his appearance before this commission, he will remember that. Just understand that,

Madam Chair. With all due respect to to you, Madam Chair, if I if I may first. Um I'm going to go with Director Fontaine first.

Um so similarly situated property should be treated similarly if they're in the same zoning district and the same laws apply to them. So that's what I would say to that. And so while each project must be considered on its own merits and in its own context where you find that similarity as I said that should be the case. what corporation council notwithstanding what the corporation council is saying it's it's not necessarily presidential you you got to look at these particular facts of the parcel into question and what's around it and what they're proposing. So it's a very fact specific kind of test but yes staff would advise you and we do our best to advise you in a fair and equitable manner in the land use administration. So, um, I just wanted to be on the record of saying that and that's what we would recommend.

All right. Understood. Um, do you wish to speak one last I want to thank everybody for the careful consideration tonight. Um, I just to respond to member Henry. Um, I've been doing this a long time and um, I don't recall maybe a very very few instances where I've ever brought up other projects in connection with with something that I've worked on. So, I don't think there's a danger of that happening with regard to this cuz this is a very specific property on on the on the ridge on the Skoi Ridge where there was relief granted across the street which I had nothing to do with the map project.

Yeah, I was just I was just a citizen on that one. Okay. And so, but again, these are there's there's a lot of unique properties in Iowa Park and and I I'm I'm from the zoning board in front of the the plan commission and each property is but there's some similar some are on ravines, some are on lakefront and they do have some on the Skooki Ridge like this property. So, some have that similarities but but there is, you know, Highland Park is just is is is not a square. We're not a rectangular lot type of situation. There's a lot of unique properties which create unique situations in Highland Park and and I don't and I don't say it to be critical. Yeah. Okay. Honestly, any good lawyer would do the do the job and you're a good lawyer.

I appreciate and you appear and you appear before you you appear before this commission and other similar commissions in the in the city of Highland Park. And I just think we need to understand for those who don't understand it may not be presidential, but don't think it's not going to go unnoticed if the lawyer or whoever represents the property owner does their job. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

And I just I I just want to say also this not this is a very good-looking project on a very difficult site. Um, and I think I'm not going to fault people for, you know, using that penthouse as a marketing tool to upsell those two fifth floor floor units. I I think this will be a a good addition to Highland Park. All right. Thank you. And just to make sure Yeah. that we don't forget the design about 5 to one. So recommending approval with the conditions as stated by Vice Chair Kirsten. The motion.

Okay. Our second We need a second motion for um design review. Good. We move that we uh approve the design review for 734 Central Avenue. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Um do we have um any discussion on the design review? I don't think anything substantial has changed. Okay. Please call the vote for the design review. Commissioner Inek, I. Commissioner Nanis, I. Commissioner Henry, I. Commissioner Mantis, I. Vice Chair Kersh, I. Chair Moore, I. The eyes have it. The motion carries. This matter has been approved with regard to design review.

And is there one last thing? The um final plan of consolidation. Oh, that was Yeah, that was Is there like a third thing we need to vote on that I'm not aware of? That was in the Okay. Vice Chair Kirch's motion earlier. Okay. Wonderful. All right. Thank you for all the good discussion on that. Um we have some quick other items. Um approving an amended resolution setting the schedule of regular meetings of the plan and design commission of the city of Highland Park for 2026. Um Carl, do you want to walk us through that real quick?

Yep, sure. So there was updated law uh from the state um and there cannot be uh yeah the commission can't have a meeting on a Tuesday where there's a um a local or general or I don't forget the exact terminology there can't be an election. So that that strikes the March 17th and the November 3rd date. So yeah. So this is the version where I just did the red line track change and then this is the clean version that just shows those gone. Okay. Um, and so yeah, we're just looking for the commission to to adopt a state compliant meeting resolution. Right. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve? So move. Okay. Second. Seconded.

Seconded. Okay. I just question. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, if we're losing two, did we think about putting back a July or August meeting? I don't I don't know what the workload's going to be like. I think then we handle the way we've handled it in the past and we call a special meeting if we know it's going to be that's what we would suggest. I mean it's it's up to the commission and we understand it but we'll monitor our application load and we'd make a recommendation accordingly. Yeah. Yeah. I know it's it's making a little more challenging. I agree in terms of that. Okay. Um voice. All in favor? I any nays? No nays. Wonderful

sustaining on this one. So we'll be sure to post those uh the meeting schedule um repost because this is a amended one that I have signed it. Wonderful. As well. Okay. Okay. Um the next item of business is um any administrative design review updates. Let me look real quick. I don't think there are.

No, I do not see any. I don't think so. No. Okay. In that case, our next meeting will not be until January 6th of 2026, which will be a regular meeting here in city hall. That's correct. Yes. There will be uh one item that I'm aware of for that. Uh the signs will be going up on the property shortly. That's 147 central. It's a larger residential property. They want to resubdivide it. Uh it's one property right now and they want to resubdiv two. I won't comment further. That's just the item that's will be on the agenda on January 6th. Okay. So, wonderful. Um attorney Bernste may be back for that.

I'm not going to discuss it further than just to let you know. That's fine. That's the item. That's That's all we need to know at this point. Um do we have a case briefing? A case briefing.

So, so council um last night um voted uh to approve the Walton project. Uh Mark Mueller, Fulton Developments, uh project for 1632, 1640, and 1646 2nd Street. Um, as you recall, the commission made a recommendation uh to approve um the public benefit was increased um to include $25,000 um donation, a $25,000 donation to the place of remembrance and to include a parkway landscaping slash uh landscaping improvement to uh the Second Street fronting. a portion of the second street frontage near the drop off. So that will be um include flowers and additional plantings and just grass and trees, although it will have trees and and some grass. Um and it will be maintained by the uh property owners of that property, although it's in the city right away. So um that was last night that was approved. um a minor amendment to plan development at Sheridan Road, the 1950 Sheridan Road development, Park Sheridan, that was a minor amendment. Did not uh come to you. It was not necessary to come to you. Um it involves some lighting. Um that was to be included at the front of the building that's going to wash up the building but not be up lighting. So, it's at an angle that's sufficient and has a sufficient um shielding um to prevent that from being a violation and needing to come back for a variance. Um let me just see there's

and then there is special use permit for plan development on Deerfield Road 932 and 942 Deerfield Road. remember the four unit that was approved. Trees were chosen, windows were discussed, um, and that was approved. So, we're happy to see that. We also had 250 Skooki Valley Road. You may recall this was the Kia dealership, the reuse, then changed to that building. Um, so that was approved as well. Uh, in addition, it's a pretty busy night. Thank you, Marcus and Carl and everybody involved. Um, in addition, the council uh adopted um the mayor's appointment schedule for boards and commissions and vice chair Kersh will become chair and commissioner Nannis will become vice chair uh January 1st. And so I've sent a an email out about last night's meeting with links to the documents, the the memo that went along with that and and the list for the commissions, all the commissions, including yours. That's all I have to report. Manager,

I I saw something in the news about a certain basketball great house. Was that something that might come back to us? Yeah. So, the council, there was an information item regarding a proposed land use. Um, the council did direct staff to come back um with a uh referral of recommendation. Um that would go to this body should the council decide to refer that document. So, last night there was no action taken. It was a committee of the whole that was moved to this room. So committees as a whole can't make final votes or take final action, but they did direct us to do something for their next meeting and put on their agenda to have that considered whether or not to refer that to you all and to staff to um formally consider.

All right. Um I'll say thank you to our two council members for stepping up into their new leadership positions. I will look forward to working with you in in that aspect. Well, I I do remain on the board. I will move down in the voting order somewhat. We do appreciate your chairmanship and uh really enjoyed working with you in the role of chair and we look forward to you as commissioner again. All right. Thank you. And welcome, Chair Kersh and Vice Chair. Thank you so much for the motions that I know. That's right. That's that's

this is this is I'm I'm so glad you're staying on the board. Uh Julie getting a lot of soul moved. We uh Yes, I I think this is a great group of people. I love all the different viewpoints and I have I've learned so much and even sometimes you guys get me to change my mind. So,

and Commissioner Fner was was uh reappointed to a new term. even filled in the remaining portion of a previous commissioner's term as you know commissioner armor and now is uh was reappointed so it's the same same commission wonderful all right um any business from the public there is no public so I guess there's no business from them um so we'll move on to adjourn the meeting um let's sorry go ahead

can I say one I apologize I just want to say something real quick we are looking at potentially a special meeting on January 13th. And so I'll be sending out an email as to availability. Uh just trying to determine uh options for uh when uh the uh final PUB and other related requests for the 1700 Old Deerfield Road might go. So second to hearing back. I move adjournment. Can I get a second? All in favor? I All right. I motion is uh meeting is adjourned.