Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the city of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission for April 7th, 2026. Uh will you call the role, please? Director Fontaine. Commissioner Inek here. Commissioner Fentner here. Commissioner Henry here. Commissioner Mantis here. Commissioner Moore here. Commissioner Nannis. Chair Kersh present.

Um Mr. Chair, I'd like to recognize city council leazison Yumi Ross and corporation council Marcus Martinez and student rep Khloe Pilot. Thank you. Welcome everyone. Um, our first scheduled order of business is approval of minutes from the regular meeting on February 17th, 2026. If anybody remembers back that far. Uh, do I have a motion to approve those minutes? Move to approve. Second. Uh, moved by Commissioner Fentner, second by Commissioner Henry. Any discussion? All those in favor? I

I Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. Uh 6. The uh next item is a public hearing PUB 20250081 for a special use permit in the nature of a planned development with modifications from city code and a plat of reubdivision with variances from city code at 147 central avenue. And I understand that the request is to um continue this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting. That is correct.

Uh that is correct, chair. the historic preservation commission is still considering this item and so this is a staff request and recommendation to continue so that way uh the historic preservation commission's recommendation and all related uh materials can be included for the plan and design commission and since that meeting is scheduled for April 15 uh we recommend a continuence to the next plan and design commission meeting April 21st here at 700 p.m. at city hall.

Mr. Chair, just one other thing for the commission's benefit. Um staff member uh historic preservation liaison Maddie Markle will be presenting on the 21st the commission's recommendation with details. It's it's substantive information. So we will have a additional staff presentation on the 21st. Oh boy. Show and tell. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We recommend continuation to that date, sir. Uh could I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Seconded. Uh moved by Commissioner Moore and seconded by uh Commissioner Mantis. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? I

Oh, wait. That's a public hearing. Do I have to roll call that? Uh it's just a continuous voice vote. I I say I do. Okay. Um that motion also passes. Six. Nothing. Um, just for for the record, there will be no additional notice. Notice is actual. This item has been continued to April 21st, 2026. Um, city council chambers, this room, uh, 7 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Uh, next up, dees 20250090 design review and sign package amendment with variations from city code at 1411 Park Avenue West and uh, go ahead planner MRA.

Well, good evening commission. My name is Anthony Mstretta, a planner with the planning division community development. I'm here to present uh the designer view and sign package with variations from city code for 1411 Park Avenue West. Uh this is on the corner of Park Avenue West and Skooki Valley Road on the northeast corner. Uh the project is focused on a corporate rebrand of the convenience store located on the property. Uh the fuel station is currently branded under Shell and will remain that way. It will still be a Shell. uh the rebranded convenience store will be now known as Armarts. Um just as a note uh the applicant did recently come to the plan and design commission on uh 11425 to do the same rebrand for a different Shell station further down Skoi Valley Road. So this rebrand will look fairly similar to that one. Um the design review is a request to repaint portions of the property to reflect the new branding. Uh there will be images of that further on. Um it'll just be a new color scheme. No lighting will be proposed in addition to the painting. It's just painting um on the exterior of the uh convenience store. The canopy will still remain a shell and uh the branding on the pumps and everything like that will still remain shell as well. There are three new wall signs as part of this amendment. Um there is existing signage on the north and south facads of the convenience store that say food mart. Uh those will be replaced with Armart's static non-illuminated signage and a new sign will be added to the western facade. Um and this will be internally illuminated and this will also be the side that will face Skoi Valley Road. Um this is an image of the plat. Um this was obviously done up by myself and senior planner Burhop. I have marked on the left side you can see Skoi Valley Road. That's the side facing. And then

the dash uh the dash line represents the convenience store an approximate location. The plat obviously mostly shows the canopy. So this is an approximate location. Go. Can I make a comment on this one? Sure.

So uh and uh planner MRA has additional slides but I'll just point out so you know why why are you here today? What is the request? So, there's an existing sign and an existing sign on the south and the north of the convenience building and they want to replace that with a slightly larger sign. Planner MRA has the dimensions and ensuing slides and then do a new sign on this would be the west facade, the west wall facing highway 41. Um, and that's a new sign. That one's proposed to be illuminated, but the illumination they propose is allowed in this zoning district. the B3 highway commercial district. So, the the request before the commission is two signs that are already there, but they want to make them slightly bigger on the north and south of the convenience building and then a completely new sign along the west. There's other signage on the property. Just going to stay the same. Anyway, just wanted to say that quick comment and sure plan. We'll get into the dimensions.

Yep. And this is uh aerial photograph of the area um of the area showing the imagery around. Um to the north is a car dealership. Um and then to the south is obviously frontage on Park Avenue West and then to the west is the frontage for Skoi Valley Road. Um so that is the aerial shot and then this is an image um this actually this image is of 10 Skoi Valley Road which was approved earlier this year by the plan and design commission or last year late last year I should say. Um but this is just to kind of show what the signage will look like when it's up. That's not a rendering. It's an actual photo, so you can kind of get a a real look at what this this branding will look like. Um, that style of illumination sign that you see in front of you right now will be the sign that is going on the western facade facing Skooki Valley Road. That is the internally illuminated sign. Um, and that is also the additional wall sign. So that sign that you see right there is the additional sign that they are asking for as per uh senior planner Burhop mentioned earlier. And then this is an example of the static non-illuminated sign that will replace the um north and south facade signage that currently says food mart. Um this is of course non-elilluminated signage. Um it is note I did note this earlier but any lighting that is on the facade will remain the same. They're not proposing any new lighting for the signage. Um this is particularly important with any of the non-illuminated signs. There's not new lighting fixtures being installed to illuminate them. if if any, you know, there's no corporate rebrand for the the lighting. Um this is a photo of the other side of the facade, um the west facade on 10 Stoki Valley Road. This is just to kind of show the painting and kind of how it wraps around um uh just to kind of add some context to what they're doing to the corporate rev. And then you can uh also see in the

background that canopy there that you'll see kind of with shell similar um style of the branding that will remain uh the shell branding will remain on the canopy as well. So um the existing total wall sign area and I do know there's a lot of words on this slide but uh the points that I want to point out here is um the existing total wall sign area as it stands today is 92 uh.7 square ft. uh and the total area will change to 108.1 square feet. So each of the Armart signs are slightly larger um than what is there right now. So um in terms of overall area um and uh they will be adding the additional signs that kind of explains the big difference between the two. So in total it's a jump uh in 15.4 square ft in total sign area for allowed wall signage. Um, I did want to add a note here that the um the actual allowed signage per code would um the two members are generally either 15% of the horizontal area of the facade or 125 square ft, whichever is less. In this case, the whichever uh the 15% number is actually going to be the number that we would use if we were following code here. And that number would be um 15% of 492 ft. And that number came out to 73.8 square feet. So if we were going by code, the maximum allowed wall signage here would be 73.8 square feet. Um just that pretty much sums up that big note there at the end. Um this is a rendering again just to more show a more technical view with uh dimensions shown there with the uh window displays and everything like that. Um the applicant did provide the uh area of the facade. So that was uh helpful in us determining what the total area allowed would be. This is an

image of the western facade. Uh just as a note, the markings on the bottom were added by staff and not by the applicant. This is um the south facade. Again, these are the static n uh this this is the illuminated sign, a rendering of it. This is the static non-illuminated. And then um again the static non-illuminated uh for the north and south facade. These are both of the images here. Um the ground sign uh the only ground sign there is on site is the uh fuel price sign. So um the applicant did provide dimensions of that and it was added to the sign package but there is no change. It's just to make sure that the ground side is included in the sign package even after it's amended. So, um, as a note, 75 ft is technically the allowed amount for a ground sign. Um, this is a fuel sign, so it's a little taller, but it does, uh, exceed what normally would be allowed by code, but again, as part of the sign package, and the fuel sign is existing. Just um, wanted to throw that note in there. There is no change. Uh, the standards for sign package are listed in section 150 2030. Um and then the approval process. The PDC does have authority to make a final decision on today's um amendment to the plan uh to the sign package discuss the proposal for design review and sign package standards and the PDC can direct approval. Uh there is a draft certificate of approval included in the packet if they wish to add any conditions or changes to that. Um with that is there any questions for staff?

I have a question. Sure. Commissioner Mo. Thank you. Um, so the specs call out whether or not the frontage is 100 ft or more. What is the frontage? Oh, go back to your uh uh survey. It is it's 136 feet along the south and then it's Oh, it's 200 some 200 some along the west along Highway 41. So, it's at least 100 ft over 100. Okay, thanks. Oh, right. Referencing that section of code, right?

Yes. Other questions for staff? Okay, I I want to just clarify this again that the 15% of the north and south facade would be 73.8 square ft. Correct. Yes. And then the western one 15% of 288 would be 43.2. Yes. So that's correct.

Should we add those two together? So staff actually had a discussion about this and and the idea was because these are separate facades and they're going around separate sides and separate frontages we we did them separately we can add them together if we wanted to come more like a more complete number like Carl did you have any right when and when staff provides those numbers because this is being done with a signed package this isn't being done obviously per the code nor is it being done as a necessarily a variance such as its own sign package. We provide that just to give the commission an idea of well what might the code otherwise consider reasonable in other situations. Yeah.

I was just saying that then if you add those two together they the total sign area is 108 squared that would be less than those two combined. Yeah. Oh, I see what you're saying. Right. So that's but I but the question is whether that third sign is permitted or not. Yes. Right. So, okay. Well, it would be only permitted by this decision. It's not permitted otherwise. Right. So, yeah. Whether or not So, I get that that that brings up why there's a variance in this. Correct. Yes. Okay. Correct. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Uh, does the petitioner wish to make a presentation or speak or maybe there's questions for you?

Uh, good evening. My name is Ryan Rosowski and I'm the president of Armorarts LLC and with my brother Dan, operator of Park and 41 LLC, the company that operates the gas station and convenience store at 1411 Park Avenue West. Uh my family and I live here in Hen Park nearby in Lynon business has proudly operated Shell stations throughout the Chicagoland area continuously since 1951. The proposed redesign represents the first major investment in this property since its redevelopment in 1995. Our goal with this exterior exterior redesign is to stay competitive with large corporate run operators such as the Casey's further north on Highway 41. Beyond competition, we hope that by refreshing and modernizing the site, we can better serve our community, offering fresh food, bagels made daily, great coffee and pizza. The existing bathrooms, which uh being at the first lighted intersection coming from the city of Chicago are truly a public service, will receive a significant overhaul. We believe these enhancements will encourage residents to shop locally and help keep business and sales tax dollars here in Hen Park. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and I'm I'm happy to answer any questions and look forward to continuing to do great work ahead in H Park.

Thank you. Questions further petition? I do not have any. Okay. Thank Thank you very much. Thank you. What would be the pleasure of the commission at this point? We do have a draft uh certificate of approval and if I just does that include that the design review and sign package are wrapped into one in this. Well um you get to vote separately. You can approve it in one motion but it would be a motion to approve the amendment to the sign package and the design review. Okay. Thank you. Hey,

so I suggest we move to approve the design review and approve the sign package amendment. Amendment. And just to um be sure, that is a move. That is a motion to approve both of those, right? Correct. Did I word it properly? Yeah. Well, you suggested that you mo you move. Oh, I'm sorry. So, I would move that we approve the design review portion and approve the sign package. Amendment for this property. The amended sign package. The amended sign package. Okay. Second.

All right. Moved by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Inchek. Do I have any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, uh, director fund and this is a roll call. This is a roll call. Yes. Design. It's fine. This is final decision. Yep. Okay. For the motion, I'll call the role. Chair. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Inchek. I. Commissioner Fentner. I. Commissioner Henry. I. Commissioner Mantis. Hi. Commissioner Moore. I. Chair Kersh. Hi. The eyes have it. The motion carries. This item has been approved. These items have been approved. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much and good luck with your uh upgrades.

Great. Uh next up is information item administrative design review update if there is any. There is none. And that brings us to our next meeting, April 21st, 2026. A regular meeting here at city hall. What can we look forward to?

There will be two items. the one that was just continued for 147 Central Avenue, presuming of course the well still be on the agenda regardless, but obviously the historic preservation commission is meeting beforehand the week before. And then uh notice did go out and notice signs went up for 793 Laurel in 1696 to 1704 McGovern. That's a church site with a parsonage site that's divided by an alleyway. The commission did consider a pre-application for this back in October. So they did submit with two multifamily buildings, one for each property. And so yeah, that'll be on the agenda for April 21st along with the resoning.

Oh, that's right. It's a resoning, a plan, development, design review. Okay. And for uh the commission's information, I will be out for the next two meetings, April 21st and May 5th. Um, we're heading to Europe for my wife's very important birthday, which I'm not allowed to mention. It's just really important. Um, and we also have to pick up a package for the mayor who is fond of a certain treat from Paris that she wants us to return a few bags for her. So, I will also be gone those two meetings. Uh,

oh, Commissioner Nanis is really going to get thrown to the walls. We will reach out to uh Commissioner Nanis, vice chair to uh I'm sure we'll pull him through with Yes. Okay. All right. Uh case briefing director Fontaine. Um I have none, Mr. Chair. Uh is there any business from the public? Just seeing no public. Uh that brings us to a motion for adjournment. Ify one. So moved. Second.

Uh moved by Commissioner Henry, second by Commissioner Fetner. All those in favor? Any opposed? And that'll do it. Thank you.