Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Welcome. Thank you for coming out. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission for June 16th, 2026, and ask that Director Fontaine call the roll.

Mr. Chair, this evening, we do have one remote attendance, Commissioner Ntschek. And so I'm gonna call Commissioner Ntschek and defer to you Mr. Chair on that participation.

Commissioner Ntschek.

According to rules, she may participate remotely as long as there is no objection from any of the commission, which I assume we're- Chair, if I may, let's do this first.

If we can go through those physically present and establish that a quorum is present, and then we can handle the electronic participation.

Thank you, Corporation Council. Commissioner Fentner? Here. Commissioner Henry?

Here.

Commissioner Mantis? Here. Commissioner Moore? Commissioner Nanis?

Here.

and Chair Kirsch. We do have a quorum and now back to Commissioner Ntschek. She did indicate aye and carry on. So in terms of that staff have determined that she does have a qualifying reason to be remote.

And so it's, you know, it's consent of the- Okay, so saying no objection, I would deem her to be present for the meeting. All right, we have a full agenda tonight. So bear with us as we go through this. If it's okay with the rest of the board, I'd like to make one change to that agenda and take item F out of order, take that first. Any objection? So that's item F is public hearing PUD 2026-00086 for a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final plan development. design review variations and modifications from city codes to amend the planned unit development approval 029-98 for a property commonly known as the town of Fort Sheridan, including the town of Fort Sheridan master redevelopment plan I had zero Patton Road, a vacant parcel with pin 1611301063 adjacent to the property 3535 Patton Road. And as I understand it, the petitioner has asked for a continuance in this matter. Is that true, Senior Planner Burr?

That is correct. The petitioner has asked for a continuance to the date specific, the Tuesday, July 21st, 7 p.m. Plan and Design Commission meeting also here at City Hall in these chambers.

Can I get a motion to continue that?

So moved.

Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes six to zero.

And I just want to recognize that that was Commissioner Ntschek who voted aye on remotely. That's right.

I confirm that that was Commissioner Ntschek. And I will try to make sure I call on Commissioner Ntschek throughout the evening, but if you can help me,

And Chair, can I make a quick technical comment on that? So having done this now, I see that when I keep Commissioner in check unmuted, we are getting some feedback issues. And so I'm going to have to mute Commissioner in check, but then we're going to have to remember when there's discussion and votes. When there's discussion, Chair, if you may specifically call upon Commissioner in check to comment or question and I will unmute. And then as well as for the votes as well, if that's acceptable to you, Chair.

Yes, that's acceptable.

One other item is that item was continued to the commission's July 21st meeting. The notice is actual. There'll be no new notice provided on that item with regard to zero patent road. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Next up is a consideration of the plan and design commission minutes from the regular meeting of May 19th. Any additions, corrections, comments on those minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? I move that the minutes from, when was it? May 19th, 2026 be accepted as submitted. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Henry, second by Commissioner Mantis. All those in favor?

Aye.

That's Commissioner Hinchak with an aye as well. That again passes six, zero. All right, first up on the main agenda is DES 2026-0096, a design review amendment, sign package amendment, and variations from the city code at 791-799 Central Avenue. Planner Mestreda, are you presenting tonight?

Yes, sir, I am.

All right.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. FOR THE RECKON, MY NAME IS ANTHONY MISTRETA, PLANNER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND I AM HERE TO PRESENT THE AMENDED DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR 791 THROUGH 799 CENTRAL AVENUE. THIS IS KESHIT WITH ALSO MULTI-TENANT PROPERTY THERE. So the existing property is a approximately 121,000 square foot lot. The owner as mentioned is Keshet. This is zoned B5 and the existing property consists of a multi-tenant commercial facility on the north side of the property and then on the south side there is a two-story parking garage just for the existing property there. This was The design review was approved here on October 21st of 2025. They are amending the design reviews to certain aspects of design review. They're changing the exterior material of the gym addition from a copper patina to blue fiber. There will be renderings of that later. And then there will be a thermoplastic color design. This is similar to what you see on playgrounds. It's kind of a vinyl, you know, plastic feeling design. on the ground kind of gives it a color. There was an approved knee wall that I will show in one of the images above that will no longer be installed. It will be instead replaced with some bollards. There will be a change in the dimension of the canopy that is above the principal entryway. And then the overall openings along the western facade are changed from six to five, and then the north facade openings, and these are windows, storefronts, various openings within the facade, they are changed from two to one on the north facade. The consideration again are for those changes, the design review changes. This is what is before the commission this evening. So this is just going through everything that is going to be changed as part of the approved design review that was approved on October 21st of 2025. This is a existing site plan. The work has not been done or completed on the property yet. This is the site plan as it exists currently. And then this is the site plan post these changes. Again, the renderings will show this in a little bit more detail. On the right side of the picture, you can kind of see in front of the storefront, that's where you can kind of see that color thermoplastic design. And then on the left side, you'll see the parking that's exterior from the garage. And then the north is the commercial, multi-tenant facility, and then the south is the parking garage. So this is what was approved originally in October of last year. That was the copper patina design that was there. And then you can see the knee wall and then the awning to the right, all the way on the right side of the picture. That was the awning canopy sign that is there now. Again, I will show more detailed pictures as this goes. And then this is the overall change. The material change, it's fairly significant, enough to warrant coming to the PDC for commission of an amendment of the designer view. The thermoplastic is that colorful design you see behind the black vehicle there and in front of the storefronts. And then the bollards, the circular bollards are what is changing. And that's what's replacing the knee wall that was there before or proposed to be there. And then there are various storefront openings that you can see that have been reduced in this image as well. This is the canopy sign that was shown on the right side. This is what was approved in October. And then the applicant is proposing to change it to this style, more uniform with the building. And then the dimensions have also been provided in the packet as well. This is the ground sign. Now the ground sign at the entrance on Central Avenue from the principal entryway is the material was approved to be the same material that is going on the gym addition. So this is what it would look like with the gym addition material on there. So just a minor change in color. Again, that's what was approved last year. This is what is there now or proposed to be there now. Just some staff comments here. The applicant has indicated that no change will be made to the existing approved sign package that was included in the October approval. The applicant has indicated that there will be no change to the existing approved landscape plan. The applicant has also stated that there will be no further height increase to the gym addition. It's just a material change. And then there is no addition subtraction made to parking. The parking will remain the same as approved in 2025. At the approval process, the PDC has authority over the design review. The PDC can discuss the proposal per the design review standards. They can direct a certified or a certificate of approval. There is a draft one in the packet. They can deny, recommend changes, or continue the discussion to a further meeting. Staff recommends that the PDC open this for discussion. and then reviewing the recommendation from staff and review the findings and also the show changes from the approval from October of last year. Are there any questions for staff on this?

Questions from our in-person panelists? Questions from Commissioner Ntschik?

No, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Would the petitioner care to speak? And can you state your name and spell your last name for the record, please?

Yes, it's Alec Thornton. Last name is T-H-O-R-N-T-O-N. I'm the architect. I'm with LCM Architects. So yeah, it's a relatively straightforward update. Really, the goal was to bring a little bit more of Keshet's identity to the building. And also we had some budget challenges to overcome as well. And so we think we accomplished both goals with some of these updates. So yeah, Anthony covered the majority of the changes, the blue fiber cement board, which is more in line with some of, yes, which is more in line with some of Keshet's colors and along with the monument sign out front. The site, we took out those knee walls, but we're still providing the same level of security we had before with the bollards. We had, let me go back to some of the images. So now we have a more colorful set of ball bollards. We have regular bollards and we have planters to sort of soften it up. And then the thermoplastic is really, it's a heated sheet that basically gets applied to the asphalt. It's very similar to what you would see at crosswalks. I think there are even some examples in downtown Highland Park here. And then the canopy adjustment was relatively straightforward just to straighten it out. And then we also reduced the number of openings just to the right there to two to match the ones above. And so that was about it.

Thank you. Questions from the in-person? Yes, Commissioner Henry.

Do you think that the change with the bollards will be as secure as the wall would have been, given the nature of society today.

Yeah, I understand. Yeah, we looked at that closely. So we're doing a standard spacing that you would see for most other bollards, if you had typical bollards, which won't allow a vehicle to get through it.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? Commissioner Njik, any questions?

Sorry, Commissioner Nitschek, did you have any questions?

No questions, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this issue? Seeing none, we do have a... certificate of design review approval in the packet who is the commission like to make a motion regarding that approval anyone motion to approve second second motion by vice chair nanis second by commissioner henry any discussion on the motion Any discussion from Commissioner Ntchik?

I had a question. Can you all hear me?

Sure. Yeah.

I had a question about the COA. It looked like it may have been dated for June 2nd. Does that matter?

So, yeah, so yeah, it does probably does matter. Yeah. Yeah. So if that's adopted, it should just be adopted with an amendment to update that to June 16th. So yeah, that was from two weeks ago. That meeting was canceled. Apologies on that. Yep.

Okay, so is it acceptable that the date will be changed to June 16th? To the motion?

Yep, I accept that. Me too.

Is that okay? Okay. All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, could you call the roll? Director Fontaine?

Yes. Commissioner Ntchak?

Aye.

Commissioner Fentner? Yes. Commissioner Henry? Aye. Mr. Mantis? Aye. Vice Chair Nanas?

Aye.

And Chair Kirsch? Aye. The ayes have it. The motion carries. This item is approved with the change to the date.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have a final plat of resubdivision with variations at Zero Metal Lane, a vacant lot with the pin 16163100002 that is adjacent to 1700 Metal Lane. And Planner Mistretta is with us again, I see.

I'm here for the final plat of resubdivision at Zero Metal Lane. The existing property is approximately two acres in size, about 87,124 square feet. It is zoned R3 single family. The minimum lot size in that zoning district is 40,000 square feet, and the lot width requirement is 100 feet. As to the right, you can see the parcel in relation to 1700 Meadow Lane. It is highlighted there in blue. And that is the lot that is proposed to be subdivided. The proposed resubdivision would split a lot into two different parcels. So this would be lot one would be approximately 43,560 square feet or approximately one acre. And lot two would be 43,564 square feet or approximately one acre. Lot two is the one to the north or to the right. And lot one would be the one on the left. The applicant has provided an exhibit that shows lot width and as well as all dimensions of the proposed plat as well. These lots are proposed to be vacant and they will be buildable. This is a zoning analysis chart showing just something that staff do as part of the report. This was included on the report, so I won't go too much into detail. It just kind of breaks down specifically where the variations are requested for both frontage on a public street and lot shape. All the other portions of this review we found, staff found, were compliant with the exception of utility lines. The applicant has requested a waiver of the burial of the utility lines. Other than that, there was compliance in every other aspect of our zoning review for this subdivision. THE REQUESTED VARIATION COMES FROM THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PROPOSED LOTS ON PRIVATE STREETS. THAT WOULD BE THORNWOOD, HIBERNIA, AND MEADOW LANE. ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE PRIVATE STREETS. AND THEN THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE NOT FOUR SIDED. THEY ARE SORT OF A CURVED CURVICULAR SHAPE. AND THERE ARE NOT RIGHT ANGLES INTERSECTING THERE AS WELL. SO THIS WOULD THESE ARE THE TWO VARIATIONS THAT THE that the applicant is requesting. On the right, I included a map that kind of shows that these are private streets with a legend there in the bottom right corner. These were the city department comments. The zoning review is of course included in the staff report. Engineering just had a comment about the current conditions and the drain off to the east with the new lot lines. So lot two will need to accept the lot one's drainage runoff. Forestry's comments. Once this comes to permit, the forestry review will take place during the building permit phase. And the fire department and the building division had no comments. On the utility side, the only agency that provided comments was ComEd and that they just wanted the easement provisions that were on the original plat to be included on the new proposed plat. As of June 12th, 2026, the applicant has provided those easement provisions and that plat was uploaded and is part of the packet for this posting. THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED WAS A LETTER THAT WAS COMING FROM THE GENERAL HIBERNIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THEY PROVIDED A LETTER THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PROVIDED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. The approval process, the PDC can make a recommendation on the variation on the plat. The city council is ultimately the decision maker. And then a notice will be provided for a future city council meeting. The notices for the June 29th city council meeting have been sent out as part of this. The applicant does intend, if they do get approval, to go before the city council on the 29th. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED MINOR PLAT EVERY SUBDIVISION WITH TWO REQUESTED SUBDIVISION VARIATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLAT. IF THE COMMISSION IS READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, THERE ARE DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AS WELL.

and may I make three comments as part of the presentation, Chair? Yes, please. Okay, just three quick comments. So number one is about five years ago, this was all one property and the then property owner re-subdivided this highlighted parcel, and that was approved, recorded, and so that's now the existing situation. This is now under new ownership, this parcel, and this new owner has now come in and asked to further re-subdivide this property, does comply with the zoning for width and density. So that's my first comment, which Anthony stated, but I just wanted to clarify that, or at least the history I wanted to clarify. Then my second comment was, even though this is in the middle of what's referred to as the Hibernia development, it's not actually part of that development. though the HOA is aware of this development and they did provide comments in the packet. And then my third comment, what was my third? Oh, the notice. So originally this was scheduled for June 2nd, June 2nd had to be canceled. And so the applicant did at their risk wanna notice for June 29th. So those notices did go out, but that does not hold the commission to making a decision tonight if staff has I'll send a new letter tomorrow. We will send a new letter tomorrow. But I just want you to be aware that that was the situation.

Thank you. Any questions from Commissioner? Commissioner Henry.

What is the impact of the engineering comments where it says in the current conditions, a lot strain east, so new lot, lot lines, lot two will need to accept the lot one runoff. I just see that as, I mean, not that I'm necessarily opposed to recommending the replanting, but I mean, it is almost consistent that whenever something like that comes up people are complaining or addressing drainage and flooding situations. Are we creating something by saying, you know, block two, tough luck. You're going to have to accept the runoff. I mean, it just bothers me.

Do you want me to respond? May I? Oh, do you want to respond? I defer to you.

It's part of the same development, right? So within the, it's within the development. happening to some other party's land, right? At this point, is that? That's right. Well, if the city approves it. No, because right now it's a subdivision and it's going to have its benefits and its drawbacks, right? And so in this case, you know, this is just an acknowledgement that the city is making that that land will receive water from this other land within this development. Now, That's something that when somebody goes to buy it, it's a situation that they have to consider when they buy it. That's different than if there's a home on that other lot and a different party owned it and they're like, you're doing a development that now is going to cause water on my property. That's not the case in this case.

No, I understand that, but what concerns me is that because the intent is clearly to build on both of these lots. Somebody's going to be catching the runoff from somebody else. Is there a way, and maybe there isn't, maybe that's just the luck of the draw. Is there a way that that can be addressed? Because I'm looking down the road. I'm not looking at what goes on today. We approved, city council approves it. you know, it's goodbye and good luck until somebody buys it and all of a sudden they're getting a waterfall from the other lot.

But I assume, you know, there's no building plans for either of these before us. And I mean, eventually engineers are going to have to design it, right? And they're going to have to deal with the drainage and that's going to be part of the permitting process. And I mean,

Yes. So to your point, Chair Kirsch, there will be presumably drainage facilities. There are requirements in the code that if there are drainage facilities on your property, you're required to maintain those to keep those clear. And so one answer to your question, Commissioner Henry, is that if there is an issue, then citations can be can be issued requiring someone to take care of any blockage and penalizing them on a day-to-day basis if they fail to maintain it.

Well, I'm not, with all due respect, council, I'm not reading that in this comment. What I'm reading is that lot one runoff, meaning there's no No facilities. Sanitary or storm sewer facilities of any nature. It just, it flows, probably it's downhill or something. It flows from one lot to the other. So I'm just wondering if there's something that we can do or does, will the city address that at such time as the lots are going to be built?

I would say to the extent there is a variance request here, I presume that you could put a condition of approval that says that there needs to be stormwater drainage facilities on the lot that you believe would be the one that is contributing to the other lot's water.

And I'm not saying the engineer, you know, our engineer is saying it.

No, no, no. I understand that. But I mean, for the purposes of the, you have to identify the lots and I forget what they were, lot two or one, which is one. which one is. So lot two goes to lot one, I'm told from Gail, thanks. So yeah, you could set as a condition of approval that lot two provides stormwater management such as to mitigate the stormwater runoff from that lot two to lot one. Good.

that would only be in the event they were developed, right?

I mean, I. Yeah, I mean, it would be just condition of the subdivision. You could say that, I mean, only, you know, upon development, these things would need to be.

Is that appropriate at this stage is the question. Yes, commissioner.

I guess as a follow-up to that, does that, I mean, to me, it seems consistent with anybody else buying a house in the city of Highland park. If, you know, water flows in a certain direction, It's incumbent on the lower lot to receive the water from the higher lot, right? And you can't obstruct it in any way.

Right. Right. My understanding is these comments capture essentially the current grading and drainage situation and grading and drainage is something that's sorted out, reviewed and approved by the permitting process. But this is the goal of the, we always try to identify stuff in advance. And this is just the city catching something in advance and communicating that to the now current property owner.

Commissioner Nitschek, do you have a question for staff?

I do have a question. I was wondering on the plat where it's showing the subdivision of the two lots, it appears that we're creating through lots here. And I was wondering about the orientation of the new homes that would be constructed eventually and where they would need to treat the front versus the rear of the property, or if we don't know that yet.

Would you like me to respond? So I missed the last part of that, but the first part about this being a through lot, no, this property here, the proposed lot two, would just have frontage along the north here. I mean, this is an irregularly shaped interior lot, but it wouldn't be a through lot. And then this lot here, lot one, may possibly be a corner lot. I'm not sure it would be. It depends on the degree of this angle, but it would not be a through lot. And I missed the second part of that. What was the second part?

Where the, eventually how the homes would be sited.

and we don't have information on that. We did put in the packet, we did put a preliminary setback analysis. Again, that's just our goal to just try to communicate to the applicant through the public posting of expectations in terms of where you can build in the buildable area. But these are one acre lots. And so there's buildable area. This was referred to the forester as well for any tree implications and the forester had no specific comments or notes. I'll unmute commissioner in check if.

Yeah, the question I had specifically was about, can you hear me?

Yes.

Was about where the front of the lot would be. And it sounds like it would be along Thornwood.

Right, lot two would be along Thornwood and then lot one would be partially along Thornwood, but then along, I think this is Hibernia. Yeah.

Thank you. Thanks.

Any other questions for staff?

I said one question, clarification. So this is, you know, kind of odd that it's not part of Hibernia, but it's in Hibernia, right? And I know the HOA had, I saw in the public comments, they had some concerns about, you know, construction debris, dirt. So I want to confirm the city does have an ordinance during construction, right? That construction has to keep the streets, you know, free and clear of debris and cleaned up. Yeah. Okay.

Okay, can we hear from the applicant?

Mr. Chairman, my name is Cal Bernstein. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I'm prepared to be sworn in. Okay. This is a- No, no. Oh, it's not a public meeting. Oh, public meeting. Public meeting, not a public hearing. Okay, so let me just dive into the questions that were asked. I apologize. With regard to the stormwater issue that Commissioner Henry brought up, this is really preliminary. We haven't even engaged a civil engineer yet. I believe it's... The city engineers just noting that this could be a problem with runoff. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to occur. We intend whenever these lots are developed, they will need to apply with the building permit for a drainage and grading plan so that the water will be addressed. Any runoff will be addressed during that. And I'm, I'm pretty confident that a civil engineer was going to be able to figure out how water will be stored on the property. Again, we haven't gone through the time and expense of retaining them at this point, because again, we just felt that that note on the, from the city engineer was just for, just to put us on notice that this could be an issue that when these lots are addressed, developed that this issue should be addressed. The second issue with regard to the homes orientation that was previously asked, nothing's been designed yet. I mean, really what the intent here is simply to draw a line down the middle of the property to create two conforming lots. for lot width, lot depth, lot size. The only issue is we have existing situation. It's noted in the findings of fact that these are irregular shaped lots. That's impossible to do anything without seeking a variation on the more than four corners, excuse me, more than four sides for a lot. In addition, with regard to access, there is a blanket easement all through Hibernia to allows access. onto the private streets. So where that exit point's going to be, we don't know yet because homes have not been designed. If and when this property, these two flats, if approved or developed, they will submit applications for building permits and it will go through the normal review process with the city. In some, as I mentioned, this is inherently difficult to try to comply with the lot as the lots are irregularly sized, it's oval, it shows curves, it's all a preexisting condition. We're not doing anything different except drawing one line down the middle of them. I mentioned accesses through the private streets, through the easements that are located all throughout Hibernia. These new subdivided lots will comport well with the neighborhood. They will comply with the regulations meeting, as I mentioned, minimum lot width, depth, and area. And so we believe that the request meets all the standards, except for the two that were noted that we're seeking variations for, and we consider those minor in nature. And the proposed subdivision, most importantly, is consistent with the general plan and the spirit of the subdivision code that we're providing lots of proper size for this zoning district. That's really all I have. Again, this is in the preliminary stage. We haven't developed, we haven't built any plans for this. We don't even know if lots are going to be, if houses are going to be developed there or who's going to do that. But again, we're just, at the point of just creating the two lots. And again, that is fairly consistent with what happened in 2021 when 1,700 was subdivided out. So this was kind of contemplated when that was done back then. So I'm available for so many questions. I don't have a civil here because we haven't retained a civil yet.

Questions for the petitioner?

No.

Questions from Commissioner Inchik?

No. No questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Please come to the podium. And if you could state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Yes, my name is Jack Strom. And the last name is spelled S as in Sam, T-R-O-M as in Mary. I live at 1681 Thornwood Lane. So I'd be right opposite the new construction. Okay? Okay.

Three minutes you have.

Thank you. On the clock. So my main concern being on Thornwood Lane is the driveways and curb cuts that will be made in this development. I was hoping that the houses would exit onto the existing interior Meadow Lane Road. I think that the increase of traffic should the curb cuts and driveways enter onto Thornwood Lane would be a concern. There are grandchildren that play in that area, and it is a cul-de-sac. So the additional traffic onto Thornwood would be a major concern for me. And there is, as I mentioned, an interior lane, metal lane road. And I was hoping for a little more clarification. I understand that the utility lines would not be underground as they are presently in Hibernia. And just to know whether there would be like telephone poles or electric lines put up on Thornwood Lane for the utilities. Those are my questions. Thank you for your time.

Anyone else who would like to speak?

I'm Mike McGee. I live next to Jack on 1641 Thornwood Lane. It's Michael McGee, M-C-G-E-E. Just a point of relative interest. When the lot was up there, the, back when this was originally a single lot, it was made clear there is something of a wetland just a bit to the east of the, one of these, the most Eastern of these lots, there is a wetland area. So that may be an area that has some issue that is part of the, Mintzer estate as I understand it, but there is part of Hibernia just beyond that, not our particular property, but just point of interest. I'm curious whether the Meadow Lane access has been granted with these lots in their purchase. When this was subdivided, it was expressed that it was just one large additional lot. I know they're not risk, they can rezone that, but that one additional lot was said to be planned to be served off Meadow Lane, not coming around to Thornwood Lane. So I'm curious whether that should remain an option. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Does the petitioner have any response to either of those?

So as I understand, the question was really about where curb cuts can go. And it's my understanding based on the current easements in this subdivision, so being the whole Hibernia subdivision, is that driveways, even if the subdivision is not created, could come off of the private streets, which is Thornwood, which the neighbors. So it's my understanding currently as a matter of right, those driveways can be put in. With regard to Meadow, that's more of a driveway than actually a part of the private street system that is in Hibernia. I had to talk to the owner of the property and we would engage in conversation. We don't know how they're gonna wanna put the driveways or not, whoever buys these lots or whoever develops these lots. That's something that may be an option in the future, but as it currently stands right now is that access can be made off of the private roads, including where those gentlemen live. And that can be done as a matter of right under the underlying easements of Hibernia. So that's something that may be explored in the future, and we're not against that obviously, but we don't know at this point how these lots are gonna be developed.

Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Any questions from Commissioner Inchik? No question. Okay. Thank you. No one else. Oh, we do have another potential speaker.

Yeah, Mike McGeehan. I was curious whether in purchasing these lots, whether the agreement included any understanding with respect to Meadow Lane, as that was clearly a big part of the initial discussion of the Minster, estate, the original contemplation. So do these lots have any understanding or any, is there any part of the agreement as far as you know, dealing with Meadow Lane?

I believe that was answered already that the easement by right is through Thornburg.

Well, my only question was whether there, I mean, if I was representing somebody buying these, that would have probably been part of the discussion as Meadow Lane runs on the site.

So again, it's just my question, not. No, I'm just, as the petitioner has said, there's no building plan whatsoever at the moment. So it's kind of speculative.

Okay, so no agreement with respect to access off Meadow Lane was really my question.

I mean, and the petitioner suggested that anything is possible in the future.

If I misstated inquisition, I'm sorry. I would just mention that I did not represent the owner. They own the property currently. They're not contract purchaser. I did not represent them when they purchased the property. So I don't know if there's any legacy rights to Meadow Lane. That's something I can ask and I can see. But as of now, based on the title work that I've reviewed, is that the access is allowed along Thorngate. And I'm not sure about Meadow Lane, but that's something I can look into, but I don't know the answer to the question.

Thank you. Commissioner Henry. Carol, maybe you can answer this. I see there's Hibernia Drive on one perimeter of this flat and then Thornwood Drive. Are those public?

Those are both private streets. Those are both private streets. Yeah, and that's a variation to our subdivision code to allow for this along those. Okay, that was my question. publicly documented. Yeah, there's no public frontage along this property. Gotcha. Okay, thanks.

Okay, any other questions for anybody? Any other public wishing to comment? Otherwise, commissioners, we have findings of, draft findings of fact in the packet. Anyone? Discussion?

I would move to adopt findings in fact, recommending approval for the final platypus subdivision. Second.

Motion by Commissioner Mantis, second by Vice Chair Nanis. Any discussion on the motion? Any discussion from Commissioner Ntschik?

No discussion.

All right, we have a motion on the floor. Director Fontaine, can you call the roll?

Commissioner Ntchek? Aye. Commissioner Petner? Aye. Commissioner Henry? Aye. Commissioner Mantis? Aye. Vice Chair Ntchek?

Aye.

And Chair Kirsch?

Aye.

You guys have it? The signing has been recommended. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everybody. Oh boy, now I've got more scripts to read, okay. Next up is public hearing REZ-2026-00014 to amend the zoning map from R1 to R6 zoning district at 1047 Livingston Street. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission. My name is Steve Kirch. A quorum of the Plan and Design Commission being present, the members of the Plan and Design Commission will now introduce themselves for the record, starting with Commissioner Ntschek. Kristen Ntschek. And now going from my right.

Danny Mantis. Josh Nanis. Ken Henry. David Fettner.

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

Thank you. Planner Hoffman.

So yes, Patrick Hoffman, planner two, and I will be discussing the rezoning of, the rezoning request of 1047 Livingston Street. So the applicant, Vaughn Hinov-Meekin, proposes the following rezoning of the property at 1047 Livingston. Currently the property is zoned R1, country estate, single family, which is a residential zoning district. and proposes to rezone the property to R6, medium density single family, which is a single family residential zoning district. This is the existing conditions. So this property, this is the plot of survey for the property. The home was built in 1927, according to the Lake County Assessor's Office. And the property has been zoned R1 or something comparable since 1947, which you can find those zoning maps in the application packet. Here is an aerial of the property. It is highlighted here in yellow. Again, it is a single family house surrounded by other single family houses. Here's just kind of a wider shot. This property has a little bit of floodplain around it and adjacent. As you'll notice, this is the Compton Livingston, that put in 10 new single family houses. This property was also zoned R1 and was rezoned to R6 as a part of that PUD. This area here was to help mitigate that kind of flooding issue in the area. Yeah, so this is the surrounding neighborhood. The zoning context, so this lighter area here and here is the R1 zoning district. This area has been zoned R1 for a considerable amount of time and the property surrounding it highlighted here is the R6 zoning district. Again, this project here was rezoned from R1 to R6 and the properties across from Compton and Half Day Road here have been zoned R6 for a considerable amount of time. The blue highlighting here, this is the public works facility and fire station, so government facilities. Comparing the R1 and R6 zoning district, you'll notice that there are some pretty considerable differences between the two requirements. If you'll notice the lot area is quite significantly higher. The existing lot here is only 9,375 square feet. So it is very non-conforming with current zoning standards and would be conforming with the R6 zoning requirements. As it stands, these setback requirements are so stringent that there is no buildable area on this lot. This lot is only 75 feet wide. The side yards are 50 feet. So there is no buildable area. So any work done on this property requires a variation and to go before the zoning board of appeals, if they were to improve it with pretty much anything. So the owner has gone to the zoning board of appeals in 2022. However, they didn't want to go forward with their proposal and rather than having to go and go in front of the zoning board of appeals every time they wanted to improve their property, they'd rather have the property rezoned and do things as a right and be more congruent with the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, the city is working on their comprehensive plan and we'll be taking a look at these blocks and working on rezoning the surrounding areas as well. So the recommendation is the commission should open the public hearing, take testimony and consider the application and either deliberate, either continue or adopt the findings of fact as appropriate. Please know staff has provided a draft findings of fact for you to review, which you can find in the application packet or the agenda packet. And if you have any additional questions, I'd be happy to help.

Questions for staff? Yes, Vice Chair Nunes.

Is there any reason why these houses were originally zoned R1? Cause none of them look to be even conforming, just looking at Google maps.

Correct. So this subdivision is also very old and how I also referenced this area is in floodplain and there was the Skokie river is just right here. So it's likely that these areas are meant to be more open to mitigate those flooding issues. But development has helped to that area with this large detention area and So yeah, again, areas have been like this for a considerable amount of time.

And I would just add to that. So the city's first zoning code goes back to 1922 and these properties, they were just always zoned the least dense, most restrictive zoning district. That's just what they've always been zoned. And most of the homes were built in the forties and fifties and sixties before we have more of our current zoning in place. So it's just always kind of been that way, so to speak. Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Mantis.

So obviously the master plan or comprehensive plan would need to be actually voted upon, but is it, I guess, staff's understanding that this would be rezoned as R6 under that proposed plan, given that it's surrounded by R6?

That would be staff's recommendation, yes. And that's why in this case, staff has provided findings of fact recommending approval. It's consistent with the neighborhood.

Commissioner, do you have any questions for staff?

I have a question again about the floodplain regulations. In the packet, it said that Any development that happens on this lot has to comply with the floodplain regulations, including FEMA, city, and county. And I would like to know what those regulations may or may not allow. It's my understanding that developing within the floodplain is not necessarily recommended. And so to make this zoning district more intensive to me just feels kind of wrong from a best practices perspective. So I'd just like to hear more about what would be allowed.

What we can say is we don't have an answer specifically to that question, Mr. Chair, but what we can say is that 2006, the area, that's called the Compson and Livingston or Hidden Oaks was rezoned to our six and 10 units were built on three acres of land with the stormwater management there and that conforms with the requirements to build in that area. Yeah, so you could see the relative size of that to the size of the area above and you could see what was needed to be done to build in that area. And that was just recently completed within the last year. There might be a couple of homes that are still trying to sell that have few minor things that have to get done, but the rest are either sold or fully constructed. I mean, that's the best I can do to answer that question right here. I mean, you can see right across the street what it is.

We're in the same boat, right? We don't have any proposal for building on that other lot.

Correct. Not at this time, no. But it's important that the applicant know that, yeah, that that would pertain to that, any development that they do.

And to be clear, this property, it looks like sits in the city's floodplain. It looks like sits in the FEMA 500-year floodplain. And so it's not in the, not to confuse anyone, but it's not in the floodway. The floodway is just a no-go zone, period. And in general, well, the director already commented on it, but in general may include elevation or storage on site for volume displacement for water. Those are some of the types of considerations a property owner would have to consider to build in the city's floodway, or excuse me, flood zone.

It's a 500 year zone, not the 100, yeah.

I'll add one additional comment that there are a lot of single family homes already existing in this area. I haven't done an analysis of the full block to see if they would all be conforming with the R6, but they are pretty closely sized to the applicant's property. It will still be a single family home. It's not going to be two single family homes. There's not going to be an increase in the amount of units on this site. So the, while yes, increasing the density from the zoning perspective as an existing condition, it won't change.

Any other questions, Commissioner Ntchik? No, thank you. Okay, would the applicant like to speak? Good evening. And I'll need to swear you in, sir. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do, I do.

And can you state your name and spell your last name for the record?

My name is Von Joseph Hanovnikian, H-A-N-O-V-N-I-K-I-A-N. And I think... the design engineer, he presented enough about, I have no other additional comment.

Okay, thank you. If there's any questions from commission, any questions from commissioner Ntschek?

Nope.

Okay, thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Okay, seeing none, there are draft findings of fact in the packet. What is the commission's wish, if anything?

Yes, Commissioner Henry. I'd make a motion that the findings of fact on public hearing REZ202600014. Did I, too many zeros? regarding zoning map amendment to rezone 1047 Livingston Street from R1 country estates to single family residential district to R6 medium density single family residential district be approved.

Second. And that's just to clarify, that's recommendation for approval? Correct. And then the seconder? So second, yeah.

Okay, motion by Commissioner Henry, second by Commissioner Fentner. Any discussion on the motion? Any discussion from Commissioner Ntschek? No, thank you. Okay, seeing none, Director Fontaine, if you could call the roll.

Commissioner Ntschek.

Aye.

Commissioner Patner. Aye. Commissioner Henry. Aye. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Vice Chair Nanis. Aye. And Chair Kirsch.

Aye.

The ayes have it. The motion carries. This item has been recommended for approval to the City Council. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the petitioner as well. All right, moving on. Public hearing PUD-2026-00083 and PUD-2026-0084 for a zoning map amendment to rezone from RM1A to RO, a special use permit in the nature of a concurrent preliminary and final plan development and design review with modifications and variations from city code for multi-story multiple family developments at 1696 to 1704 McGovern Street and 793 Laurel Avenue. This public hearing is a continuation of previously open public hearing. So Planner Hoffman, you're up again.

Thank you. Yeah, this item was last before the PDC on April 21st, 2026.

Oh, let me stop you just for a minute because I was absent from that meeting, but I would like it to be known that I have reviewed all of the packet material for this. I have listened to the entire discussion and deliberation of the commission through the tapes from April 21st. So I feel I am, able to move forward on this matter now.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, it's all good.

Thank you for that clarification. Thank you.

Okay, so the applicant Structa LLC proposes the following, a 20 unit residential development and a 14 unit residential development, both being five stories with a lower level parking. The proposed parking will be accessed along the alley, which is accessed from Laurel, additional parking and landscaping plans provided. So yes, again, since we went, this is from the April 21st, 2026, I'll review some of the items pretty quickly and review kind of what has changed with the applications, but please, if you need a refresher to ask. So continuing on, the applicant requests the following considerations to rezone the property from RM1A to RO, consider the concurrent preliminary and final plan development with modifications from city code and design review. So the existing conditions are the vacant church at the corner of McGovern and Laurel, as well as the vacant church residence, which considers this lot and the parking lot across from the alleyway. These properties have been held in common ownership since at least 2002. And again, the city is not interested in relinquishing this public alley for life safety purposes. Here again are some property photos as a refresher. This site has a considerable amount of grade change. Up here is McGovern Street. And as you continue on Laurel, it gets lower in elevation. And here is just a existing site photo of the Laurel home. Neighborhood context. So just north is B4-5 zoning district. The current zoning is RM1A, which is also across the street. And there was also a rezoning of the Laurel property here to RO, the RO zoning district. So this PUD request is again rezoning from RM1A to RO. To consider this project one zoning lot, they're offering 34 total units on site, 67 parking spaces, four guest spaces, perimeter landscaping and pedestrian access off Laurel and McGovern. So the setback analysis for 1696 McGovern, which is the church, the existing church location, they are conforming with both their front yard setback requirements. The rear along the west side, which is the alley side is compliant. but the rear along the north is non-compliant. They will be 10 feet from property line. So it's an encroachment of 15 feet, as well as they'll be covering more than 30% of that required yard. They'll be at about 51.5%. for the Laurel Ave site. Again, they are compliant with their front yard requirement. They are compliant along the west property line as well for their side yard. They did move the structure two inches over. That is to be compliant with one of the article five considerations of being 15 feet from an existing structure. So they are now compliant with being 15 feet away from that existing single family home to the west. They are still proposing to be five feet from the Eastern property line. That is the alley side. Just one note in the staff report, I believe I said six, that is a error on my behalf. They're staying consistent with five feet and still requesting that five feet of encroachment. To the north, they are compliant with the setback. However, they are non-compliant with the rear yard coverage. That is where the driveway is to go down to the lower level parking, which is covering most of the required rear yard. This is the lot coverage analysis for the existing sites. Again, the McGovern will be covering 50.3% and the Laurel will be covering 52.26% of the lot. So the maximum height, for 1696 McGovern, they did lower the site by one and a half feet. That helps with twofold is one, it lowers the overall site. Previously it was 70.25 feet in height above average grade. And it also reduces the stories. So while there is still five levels of residential and then one lower level of parking, why it was considered six stories previously is that lower level parking was 50% above average grade. Now that they've lowered the structure entirely by that one and a half feet, now that lower level is considered below average grade and is not considered a story. The Laurel Ave has not changed. It will still be at a height of 64.75 feet and five stories. And again, the lot coverages have not changed as well. Here's just an exhibit to kind of demonstrate that shift a little bit. This red line here illustrates the average grade, and this white block here is the lower level parking. So you'll see that 50% of this level is below the red line, and that's why it's now considered a lower level and not considered a story. Additionally, you see this red dotted line. These are step-back requirements for, again, the Article 5 considerations. Any level above four stories would need to be at least 15 feet stepped back, which is compliant. So this also shows that compliance, which I'll talk a little bit more later on. I'm going to just an exhibit submitted by the applicant with these red highlighted properties. These are kind of more newer residential properties. The average lot coverage of those is 51.27%. The average lot coverage in the RO near the metro station here, which is just a comparable zoning district to what they're asking for, is 40.6% lot coverage is the average for that. And then I also wanted to highlight, so this is the block here where the proposed site is. I wanted to highlight two projects, number seven, which was the McGovern House, the property just north of 1696 McGovern. They were approved for a height of 74.5 feet above average grade and a 49.6% lot coverage. But please be aware that this is in the B4-5 zoning district. That is a different zoning district that does allow a little bit higher heights. So, but I just wanted to at least provide kind of a bulk comparison between the two structures. And additionally, eight and nine here, those were the two buildings that were rezoned RO along the block. They were approved for a height of 45.92 feet and the lot coverage of 51.7%. Getting into the lot area, these numbers again, have not changed. They are consistent from the previous meeting, but just to go over it in the RO, you need 21,780 square feet in order to use, to be allowed to use multifamily in this zoning district. So the applicant is wanting to request to consider this development as one zoning lot, which is a modification from 150.104, considering the alleys breaking these sites apart. So from the whole, the site has plenty of- There's plenty of lot area between both of the sites to meet that lot density. But between both of them, McGovern does meet that lot area requirement and Laurel is a little bit underneath and undersized from that lot area requirement. So that is what the request to consider this one zoning lot is coming from. And then I just wanted to highlight again in the RM1A, they do have the same lot area requirement for using multifamily. However, you'll notice the square footage per unit is a lot higher at 19.80. So they're switching to RO to get a little bit more of the units, which just a refresher on both sites, they will be requesting 34 units in total, 20 on the McGovern and 14 on the Laurel. So the Article 20, I was saying Article 5 earlier. Article 23, that is the step back that I mentioned earlier. The applicant has provided more materials and they are compliant with this 15 foot step back for any additional story. And I also mentioned that shift over two inches to be compliant with this 15 from building to building. They are compliant with the primary structure adjacent to them on the west, that single family home. However, there is a detached accessory structure that is quite close to the property line. So they will be non-compliant with this section in terms of that detached accessory structure. And here are some exhibits kind of detailing that. So you'll see here, this is the primary home. This block is indicating the primary home, and this is the proposed structure. They have the 15 feet between building to building here. They do not have the 15 feet from building to building here. And this is indicating there's a bunch of kind of stair steps on the building. This darker shading is five stories. This lighter shading is four stories. And this lightest shading is three stories, just indicating how it's not five stories directly adjacent to the single family home to the west. There are lowering levels. And this exhibit also kind of indicates those different levels a little bit clearer. And on the left here is a rendering of what the proposed building would look like next to that single family home. We'll see another shot of it here highlighted in yellow. You'll also notice the structure has this carve out here. So down here is gonna be just a terrace decking area, but will be cut back so that it's kind of in the middle of this primary structure. So it's carving out a little bit of space. So it's not right on top of the house. And here's just a rendering from Laurel of what both of the structures would look like side by side. Getting into parking, there was some subtle changes, not many. They are compliant with the sizing of the parking stalls with code. And I also wanted to mention people over parking, which was the act passed by the state of Illinois. And it has been effective since June 1 of 2026. This project is within a half mile of public transportation, meaning that no parking regulations can be regulated against this property. So they have no minimum parking requirement. However, they have provided 40 underground parking spaces at the McGovern site for guest parking spaces, 27 lower level parking spaces at the Laurel site and zero guest parking spaces for the site. They'll be sharing the guest parking between the two sites. landscaping they have updated their landscape plan I haven't gotten to sit down completely with forestry to go over every fine detail with it they have they've been working hard clearing trees lately with all the storms but these tables are indicating the new counts with those landscaping they have provided more trees and shrubs on site. There is still some relief. I will be working with forestry to add up their requirements and our requirements to get a final count for what is relief. There is one note that they are also providing trees in the parkway. That's not counted in the table here because those are only counts for what's on the property. But those trees in the parkway are considered for forestry's tree removal permits. So that is considered replacement for any key and protected trees on the site for forestry. But we'll get those reliefs squared away at the next meeting, but they are more compliant with the landscaping requirements. Additionally, they also provided landscaping around all of the foundation as well. There were at the previous meeting, some gaps between buildings. They have provided an updated landscaping showing shrubs and different plant materials around the foundation. So they are compliant with that requirement. Here is an exhibit again of their just materials of what the, of their building materials. And the public benefit, the public benefit has not changed. Their proposal has not changed since the previous meeting. They plan on burying the existing utilities on the site here. This is utilities within the alleyway and they plan on, yes, burying those facilities. The city made comments that they view these facilities as detrimental to life safety when accessing the building. Say if there were a fire, fire trucks would be working in these areas and trying to get around these transformers would cause a bit of difficulty when trying to access in an emergency. So city views the public benefit as kind of almost necessary for the building to exist. but PDC should be reviewing the adequacy of this proposal. Design review, the foot candles were updated a little bit. There are still some non-conforming sections, but that is adjacent to entrances to the building for pedestrian access and for car access along the alleyways. So they'll be asking for relief in those sections where you're entering the building. And I've already discussed the landscape plan enough. No signage was provided. This property at 1696 McGovern, this is what is called the visual clearance. So making sure to stay outside of the corner area. So cars turning from McGovern onto Laurel have proper visual clearance to see around the corner. That is 25 feet from property line, making this triangle area here. and they'll be encroaching about three foot six inches into that visual clearance area for this terrace area. The applicant did note the size of the parkway being 17 feet from this concrete path. So trying to signify that it is quite a large parkway area as well. Housing Commission did review their inclusionary housing plan. It was continued to the July meeting. So we will be providing you a further staff report on their findings when they do vote upon it again. But just as a reference, the applicant proposed to provide three inclusionary units of the 5.8 required. And traffic study we did, we're still going a little bit back and forth on it. We're just checking some of the final numbers, but the initial comments were fairly minor in nature that was provided in the packet. Per the traffic study, the traffic generated from this site can be accommodated by the existing roadway network and be pretty limited in nature for, the area as well as being fairly close to the Metro station for any city commuters. Interdepartmental comments were included in the previous packet. There weren't many two new updates on that one. And we also didn't receive two public comments, which is also in the agenda packet. So recommendation is the commission should reopen the hearing, take testimony, consider the application and deliberate, either continue or direct findings of fact as appropriate. And that's all I got. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. Questions for staff.

Commissioner Henry. I noticed in the report that there were supposed to be discussions regarding required public benefits. Has that,

proceeded in any significant way? I'll have the applicant respond to that. Currently the proposal is the same, but I know that they're having discussions on that. We have had meetings with them on it, but nothing formal has been proposed yet.

Commissioner Mantis.

Has staff done any analysis? So this is going from RM1A to RO, skipping over RM2 as a zoning? designation, right? Has staff done any analysis for what RM2 would look like in terms of what's allowable, both from a height standpoint, as well as a density standpoint, in terms of what that would translate to, to number of units? I guess my concern is still that this is not enough units. And so we're favoring, or I'm sorry, the request is for a higher zoning district simply for height rather than actually benefiting from the unit count?

That's a good question. On the height perspective, I see Carl's bringing that up. From the density perspective, RM2, I know that they would be exceeding that just slightly. So they would be over the required amount for RM2 for the density purposes, but on the lower end for the RO unit. density purpose.

So that's 30 units per acre for RM2. And then this is 50. So this is the appropriate, I mean, the zoning district that they've selected allows for the density that they're doing. It just doesn't maximize the density of that district. It also has a bigger envelope in terms of what can be built. In terms of the height of the building. 51.

So in other words, the only reason to go to this zoning district is for the height.

And the density. They can't get the same density.

But there would be a variance in either case, right?

No, you can't vary density.

So RM2, the maximum height is 40 feet and three stories. This zoning district is 51 and four stories. Yeah. So that is the change in the height. Yeah. And then for the, yeah, I don't have any additional comments on the density. It's they're just at the lower end of the RO allowance or yeah, they're just above RM2, but kind of just at the lower end of RO. Thank you.

Commissioner Hinshaw, any question? No, thank you. Okay. Just so I'm clear, the variances that we're looking at that I don't believe have changed between the two iterations are in height and in landscaping, although the landscaping's still in review, the rear yard setback, the lot coverage, the foot candles at a couple of places, And the, well, it's not a variation, but that all ties into the public benefit, which

So not everything that you listed is for public benefit, is up for public benefit consideration. The landscaping and the lighting does not count towards the public benefit. It's just the chapter 150 zoning encroachments. So the lot coverage, setback encroachments, the height, those are things that go towards public benefit consideration. And just one other correction, the height did change between the previous meetings. At the first meeting, they, were proposed at 70.25 feet. And they're now at 68.5 feet for maximum height.

All those things still require a variance, whether it relates to the public benefit or not. Did I miss any?

So yes, the lot coverage, maximum height, the setback requirements for the rear yard, the rear yard coverage, and the side yard setback on Laurel as well. And so, yeah, those would be the ones considered for a public benefit or contribute to the public benefit.

Okay. Did I ask? Commissioner, I asked Commissioner Ntschig if she had a question. Could we hear from the petitioner?

Well we're pulling this up, good evening.

I have been sworn in.

I was sworn in, but I will introduce myself to you because you were not here last time. Michael Esger, I'm the zoning attorney on behalf of the applicant struck to LLC. And here with me today is from the team is David Goldman, the principal and Jeff Goulette from SGW Architects. And we also have the owner in the room also, and Jeff Michael. And so I wanted to bring up a few points that just to sort of reiterate what Patrick said, when we first came before you was last October for a pre-application meeting. And since that time, there's been some significant changes that have been, that we've been working very closely with staff. And so we've been getting, taking their feedback, taking your feedback from our last meeting, from our October meeting. And there's been a lot of changes to the building just to, highlight some of those. Our lot coverage was significantly reduced. and our setbacks were also reduced as well or increased our setbacks. We've created a significant spacing between the two properties onto our property on the east side to create a very expansive public benefit or a public open space, I should say. And as well as to provide for, firefighting capabilities of working closely, hearing from the fire chief designed specifically for that purpose. And also for loading and parking in shared facilities between the two buildings that are really meant to work together. There is this extensive landscaping, and I just want to clarify as far as landscaping goes, we're not asking for any relief on landscaping. We've just submitted our updated landscaping plan. It's still under review by staff. To the extent that something is not compliant, our intention is to make it compliant. We're not trying to ask for any relief there. And as far as the lighting goes, we've also just submitted our updating waiting plan. We're not intent on asking for any relief there, except for there is a conflict, as Patrick pointed out, between one section that wants a certain lighting and then the entrance lighting for pedestrian safety. So there's one item of relief, but anyways, it's intended to be compliant. Again, parking and all the other features are intended to be compliant. And I wanted to just show you that when we started, this is what the buildings look like. And after working, again, getting your feedback and working with staff, you can see the differences from this to the reduced. So again, The zoning on the whole block is a lot of RM6, excuse me, B46 and B45. That's more than half the block that we're on. On our side, on the Laurel side of the block, this is very similar to the project at 815 and 833 Laurel just to our west that received a zoning change from an RM1A to an RO. that RM1A zoning as we understand from working with staff is sort of becoming a little obsolete so the RO seems to be the district that we fall into and it seems appropriate if we were a B4-5 like McGovern House our immediate neighbor our adjacent neighbor to the north then we would be asking for a lot less zoning relief but I think we're comfortable I think staff we're working closely with staff we're comfortable with the RO and where we're at with the project I just wanted to show you the impact of, this is what it looked like from the street looking east, and this is what it looks like now. Here's a view looking back to the west, and here's where it's been reduced to. Here's aerial views that you can see. It feels very contextual. We feel that we definitely fit into the context of the area, tapering from the taller building of McGovern House to our north, and McGovern House is there. That is our context there, a 72-unit apartment building that's taller than us and has similar lot coverages, et cetera. And we are tapering down to the south. And so we feel that this is an appropriate transition, the way that the building is designed. And again, we got there working really closely and listening and working with staff. The building itself has a lot of variations in the massing and breaking up of the mass with both high quality materials, another point of improvement to the building. and as well as the various setbacks. I should note that our setback, we're asking for a fifth story and that requires a 15 foot setback. significantly exceeds what's required. So while there's some points of relief that we're asking for, we also have a few things that we've done that significantly exceed what would be asked for. Setbacks are one of those items, I think, Patrick had that exhibit and if I can find it here with the red lines and you can see that what he did mention is that we exceed what he left out is that we exceed by pretty a significant amount the setbacks and as compared to other similar RO buildings that this body has recently approved we're in excess were of those setbacks similarly the because there's a technical issue we're a corner lot we front McGovern we front Laurel this is similar to the McGovern house to our north and they had to deal with this condition so they got this relief of because this is a corner lot our side lot which would be to our north they're side lot which would have been to the south those are both considered rear lots so both of these buildings had are faced with two rear lots our rear lot on the alley is significantly again more compliant than we need to be we would need to have a 25 foot setback we are 45 feet that includes the half the alley so but even without the alley we're in excess of required and our setback to the north which would have been 10 feet if it was a side yard is a 25 foot setback and so we are asking for that relief which is the same exact relief that the McGovern house was granted and our conditions in terms of where the existing church is located now as compared to McGovern house our building will be very similarly situated there will be improved landscaping between the buildings So we feel like that setback, which is the same one they received, is reasonable and certainly contextual and certainly appropriate under the circumstances. And I think the only other thing I'll say is when we look at this exhibit, we might be able to break down different sections of this as to what average lot coverages are, but on the whole, our lot coverage is less than what was granted to the 815 and 833 Laurel buildings to our west. And it's also very much in line with recently approved condominium, large condominium buildings like this is intended to be now. And you can see, if you look at this page, which is in your report, you'll notice a lot of 50%, in the 50% range, and we're right there, fitting right in there with that sort of contextual and and sort of consistent request. So I guess we're coming here tonight with feeling pretty good working with staff about our zoning compliance, at least in terms of answering the questions about height, the reductions in height, how we got to our height, with all of our setbacks. We're comfortable with the lot coverage and with the so our step backs, excuse me, for height and our setbacks as well. So we've, again, from a zoning perspective, are much more consistent with what was being asked and what we're discussing with staff. The areas that we still need to, that we're still working on, that will, discuss with you at our next hearing or meeting would be the public benefit. We still need to resolve that. And we're working, we've been having a couple of meetings with the engineering staff and the fire department. trying to get clarity on exactly a few issues, drainage, stormwater, the utilities itself, and making sure that we're clear on that public benefit based on those engineering requirements. There's been some confusion about, and the way it's phrased is that we're asking for of electric lines to be part of our public benefit. And it's not exactly accurate. What we're asking for is there are transformers that are not on our property, they're in the alley. And there's plenty of examples that you could see in your experience where there's buildings built next to an alley that happens to have electrical infrastructure. The lines that we're burying that are on our property, we're not asking that to be counted for the benefit. The transformers that don't serve our property, that serve downstream users that have been there, by removing those, that was our ask. But again, we're not gonna, argue that or with you tonight we're going to go back to the drawing board to make sure that we fully understand and that the engineers and fire that we're all on the same page so that's an item that we'll come back to you with and then the other item that we'll come back to you with is the affordable housing we obviously have to with the Housing Commission on that before coming back. So those are the two main sort of areas where we'll come back, we'll finish, you know, our engineering, our public benefit, our affordable housing. The other areas that you've seen presented are, I think we're feeling comfortable in discussions with staff that we're in a good spot with those. With that, I'll stop talking and see if, do you have anything to add at this point or would you want to wait? Covered? Okay, great. Thank you.

Questions for the petitioner? Vice Chair Nanis.

So other than the building being a foot and a half shorter and then by definition as a story smaller and the setback from the side being altered, What fundamentally has changed between this presentation and our last meeting in April?

Just to reintroduce myself, Chairman Kirsch, I'm David Goldman. I'm the owner of Structa Development. To answer your question, The structural form of the building has lowered that amount, as you mentioned, but the rest of the building has not materially changed. Thank you. Just to be clear, it's the height above the average grade has changed?

Yeah. I'm Jeff Goulet, the architect for the building. But one additional item I might mention. might mention is that we worked with staff to satisfy a request for relocation of our fire pump rooms and the addition of a hydrant at our expense in the front of the building. So that's another element that we've cooperated with staff and we'll be changing the building.

Yeah, but that didn't change the form of the building to be clear. Thank you. Commissioner Mantis.

At the last meeting, I asked about the unit sizes. I think you had mentioned that the average unit size was about 2000 square feet. We have unit square footages now suggest the average unit size is about 2400 square feet.

the unit sizes haven't changed since the last time we were here. So I'm not sure what you're referring to, but we haven't changed the unit sizes.

I was just going back into the minutes from that meeting. And you said that it was like 2000 square feet on average, and now it's 2,400 square feet. So these are like single family houses on top of each other.

In my recollection, I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I'm not sure what you're referring to where you're seeing that difference, but we have 34 units and the total saleable footage is... You've got a total of 81,775.

That's gross building, that includes the garages.

Okay.

that was just the sum of the, so that's included in, so the garage space, so if I'm looking at unit 101, for example, in the east building, 2,800 square feet, that includes the garage space?

No, the garages aren't included in that, so. The average is between the two buildings, so.

Yeah, so I just added the 49,800 plus the 31,975 divided by 34, comes out to 2,405 square feet. Okay. If that's the math, then that may be correct, but it hasn't changed since the last time. So if I...

made a mistake or we misunderstood each other the last time you asked that question, the numbers have not changed since the last time we were here.

Got it. I'll just jump in and say that these figures were not provided last time and the floor plans did not have any dimensions on it. So we did not know any of this information at the previous meeting.

That's why I was going off of what was in the minutes from the last meeting.

Other questions?

COMMISSIONER MENTIONED THAT THERE IS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ALONG LAUREL AND I WAS JUST HOPING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT WHERE THAT'S LOCATED AND IF THAT IS ACTUALLY PUBLIC OR IF IT'S JUST OPEN SPACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

In answer to that, I believe Mr. Ezgar may have misstated that is not public. It's accessible to passersby, but it is private space.

Other questions, Commissioner Minchak?

No.

Thank you. Okay. Now, Director Fonte.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just a point of clarification. So this says the building total is 49,800. And so that's the sum of the units. That does not include common areas. That's just my question because it says building total. We're talking about only the portion of the building that is represented by units in this table, or is that the total area of the building, including common area?

That's just the units.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Do we have members of the public who would like to testify in this matter? If you would please step up to the podium. Have you been sworn before in this matter? No. Okay, well then, if you please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do as well.

Thank you. My name is George Sang. I live at 760 Central. I'm somewhat of a new resident there. It's also the McGovern House, and I'm listening with open ears and an open mind as to what is going on. First, the way I see it is the south side of McGovern House, if any setback variance is granted, they'll be, I mean, they'll be right up against each other. What that does to views of both buildings, but especially the McGovern House residence is impacted. You're dealing with, there's 72 units there, The fact that all of these other setbacks were granted to the McGovern House is irrelevant. It's not like if you had both projects going at the same time, considerations would have been different. So what variances were given to them are already granted. Now you have a second corner unit being constructed. And I don't think the same considerations should at all be granted because of the impact it has on the preexisting building and obviously all of the tenants within the building there's obviously concerns with landscaping although they're planning some new landscaping but what are they going to do to the existing landscape that is there now I mean it's just the reality is we have more luxury condominium units being built apparently there's a need for them but there's also a need for the Albion, the McGovern House, the new Albion. And if you're impacting the lifestyles in the inhabitants of those by compressing everything, it's not something that I would like to remain part of. And I'm just appealing to your better senses as a resident and a concerned citizen.

Thank you. Please come up. Have you been sworn before?

No, I have not.

Raise your hand and do solemnly swear and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

I'm Rhonda Biller. I also live at McGovern and face, I am on the south side of McGovern, which is the north side. So, and I agree. When McGovern, just to really clarify also, when McGovern was granted the 10-foot variance, the church was there and operating. And I don't know if you're familiar with the back of the church, but there's probably another 20 feet from their property line that's all backyard and playground for the nursery they had. So it's not like when they granted McGovern the 10 foot variance that it was encroaching on a residential property in anyone's privacy. So that's where I feel it's not, just because we were granted the 10 foot variance, not me, McGovern, you know, eight or nine years ago. I feel like it's a different scenario right now. The other thing that I wanted to ask about is, are the two buildings gonna be constructed simultaneously because between the construction at Central and McGovern, the construction already going on on the other side of Laurel, and now the construction at McGovern and Laurel, all, I mean, we're surrounded by it. And I'm just wondering, how is that, how do you logistically account or allow for all of the cranes and the trucks and the workers and the parking, and for us to still have access in and out of the alley, because it's only one way coming in from Central into that alley, that is how we access our garage. So those are my questions. It's just the nightmare that's going to create when all this construction around us is going, we're going to lose all of our sidewalk everywhere. We've already lost someone, McGovern. So that's my comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none. So commissioners, We know this is going to be continued, has to be continued because of the housing commission action. Do you have any preference for any more feedback for the petitioners? Any desire to direct findings of fact?

You know, I appreciate them coming back and taking the comments seriously. And I know they still have to have some discussion on public benefit and get through the housing commission. I see this as part of the downtown area, downtown expansion. And I'd like to see some progress be made in our downtown area. I think that the city needs it. from what they came with us, you know, from the first time. And I see how they have worked on the setbacks and really scaled it down a little bit. And from what they, you know, when they show the previous iteration to what it is now, I mean, it feels a lot better. And I think that, you know, I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. TO ME, THEY SEEM REASONABLE IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, I FEEL THAT AREA IS READY FOR. You know, I understand Commissioner Mantis had some questions on the square footage of the units. And, you know, I think that's relative. I think there's some units around there and some of the multifamily that are, you know, over 3,000 square feet. But, you know, to me, I feel that what they came back with today is fairly reasonable for that area.

Commissioner Mantis. So I guess I'll start by saying, I mean, I fully want to see this go through, right? I think it's a good project. I think it's a good spot. I totally agree with Commissioner Fentner in that this is an extension of downtown. I think our real estate is part of our economy and being that it is so close to downtown, This is where you get foot traffic that is going to feed into our retail, that is going to feed into our businesses that are in downtown. And therefore I am continued of the mind that there should be more density here, not less density. I raised the point about unit square footages. I thought 2000 square feet was a large average unit size. The last time we contemplated this, 2,400 square feet feels 20% larger as we sit here this week. And so I think that anything that we can do to get more units here would be greatly appreciated. I don't know that there's a lot of places where you can say, I want to see more density and it's probably contrary to what you usually get, but that would very much be my desire in order to see this advance.

Commissioner Ntchik, any comments?

Anything that's been said, and I appreciate the changes that have been made. I still think the bulk is something that I'm kind of grappling with, even with the foot and a half off the top, but it's something that I think would be a good overall development. And so just, I think the unit sizes is the biggest thing the biggest issue. Yeah, I don't really have anything else to add.

Thank you. Vice Chair Nanis.

I echo what Commissioner Mantis said and would prefer to see more units here than more luxury, overly luxury units. And I would also implore you guys to please try to buy that little house next to it and keep trying because it's just going to be stuck and we're going to come back here in 10 years and trying to fit something in there. So preferably find a way to do it. But again, it's real estate and other things out of our collective control, but in a perfect world, it would be great. Yeah.

Commissioner Henry, I know you have, I know you have an opinion.

I find myself in the same mind space as Commissioner Ntchik. Yeah, it's, I just, the density bothers me. And what bothers me most of all is that the city frankly hasn't provided us much guidance on that for a number of years. And to echo my colleague, Commissioner Mantis, We've been making these decisions with thoughtfulness and trying to have a relatively consistent approach, but it's just troubling, frankly. If the city wanted this, they need to move on it. I'm glad to hear that they're addressing some of this stuff, kind of a day late and a dollar short, but I find myself in line with Commissioner Ntchik's thinking on it.

I too want to commend the petitioners for the changes that have been made. This has advanced a long way from October and it is much better than it was originally presented. My feeling at the moment is we have a number of issues that still need resolving, particularly the public benefit, which, may at the moment be non-existent and with the relief that's being requested, that's not gonna fly. So you guys have to work on that. The philosophical discussion about how the downtown has evolved, yes, it's evolved piecemeal, but I think it has evolved within, and at least a broad outline of some pretty good planning. I think we talked at one time about as we move closer to Green Bay, we wanted to get denser. We are sort of accomplishing that as parcels become available. I too remember the story of, was it in Atlantic City? The one homeowner who wouldn't sell out to Trump or whoever. And you have this little house wedged between these two giant casinos. but I'm not sure how you resolve that in a... I don't know, it might've been some other casino operator, but I don't know how you resolve that when it's a person's property and they have the same right to have a single family home there as anybody has to build the condos. So I guess my suggestion to the... commission is that we simply continue this matter to July 21st. And I would not order findings and not ask for draft findings of fact at the moment because of the outstanding issues. And hopefully petitioners will take this feedback and come back with still an even better plan. So, Anybody like to make a motion to support me?

I move to continue this to, do we have a date? July 21st. July 21st. Second.

Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Inchik, any discussion? No discussion. Voice vote or? Voice. Voice vote, okay. All those in favor? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, this item is continued. This item is continued to July 21st, and Director Fontaine will tell you that no new notice will be issued. The notice is actual.

That's correct. July 21st, 2026, right here in City Hall, City Council Chamber, 7 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Did we get Commissioner Ntchuk's vote on that? Did you guys hear it? I believe I heard it.

I believe I heard it.

Okay, just making sure.

I heard a mumbled I. I was just making sure. I was just making sure. I heard the feedback. Yeah. Could have just been all of us reverberating through it, but it sounded more feminine than any of us. Folks, folks.

We still have another few items of business. including public hearing PUD 2026-00087 to amend the following. Number one, zero one. Number one, 011-2026, an ordinance approving a special use permit for a planned development for 227 residential units with garages, parking, clubhouse, amenity, landscaping, and other related improvements, and a special use permit for an off street parking lot, including modifications from city code. two, a plat of re-subdivision approved by Resolution R-22-2026 with variations, and three, design review with variations for 1660 and 1700 Old Deerfield Road, also affectionately known as the Solo Cup Site. Senior Planner Burhop.

Okay, good evening, everybody. My name is Carl Burhop. I'm a senior planner with the City of Highland Park, the Community Development Department in the Planning Division. And so this was considered on, I believe it was May 19th. And then the commission provided feedback and it was continued to this date. So as a brief summary, so staff recommend the commission consider the request to amend those approvals that go back to February 9th city council approvals of this year. Ones for the PUD and an SUP, ones for the plat and ones for design review. If the commission wants and is ready at the end of this meeting, there are findings of fact that do recommend approval. The commission can also continue or recommend denial as appropriate. This is the site. This slide is for May 19th, except for I just indicated below that this was on May 19th for first consideration. Okay, so brief summary, because I'm not going to go through everything we went through on May 19th. I'm just going to stick to changes or new things, but this is just to recap. So to recap, the applicant changed the townhome elevations. So this works in this packet, but they are part of the recommendation though, because they were in the first packet. And they're proposing to reduce the height of all the townhomes by two feet. That's a reduction in the height modification that was originally granted. That's number one. Number two, on May 19th, we did go through a relief, well, they want to amend the plat of subdivision and what relief that incurred due to that change, due to for sale, they're going to make it a for sale product, no other changes to the plat. We went through that, that was on May 19th. We also went through the changes of the 63 units. They want to go from two to three bedroom counts of the 12, a subset of that 12 for the affordable units actually makes that component more compliant with city code. We discussed that briefly on May 19th. We also discussed the elevation changes on May 19th. We also discussed the temporary marketing signage. With that, I'm going to revisit this evening. We also talked to the housing commission inclusionary zoning changes. I'm going to revisit that and there's just a few new items. So let me move on. So we're going to talk about the temporary marketing signage first. This is what was proposed on May 19th. Oh, it says that. That's a May 19 slide. Since then, the signage that is proposed along Old Deerfield Road, along Ridge Road, has been decreased. So this is what's in the packet now. And so it was decreased. So there's one proposed sign that's 16 by 9 feet or 144 square feet that's 12 feet high right here that is approximately across from the police station and then one sign that's 8 by 8 feet 11 feet in height down here along Ridge Road opposite the neighborhood they struck the three marketing trail signs, and they reduced from six signs overall that are 379 square feet in area. They reduced that now to two signs at 208 square feet. Again, talking about those along the frontage, obviously they have interior signage they're proposing as well. I do have a slide on conditions later in this presentation. Our staff is recommending whatever relief is granted for temporary marketing signage, that there is a condition that any such signage be removed in three years at most. And this is just the interior signage update. You know, they indicated where the flags are going and where the other interior signage is. This is just my summary slide. And this just sums it up. What would they be allowed by right? By right, they'd be allowed one construction sign for the development. That's 12 square feet in area and up to six feet in height. And they would also be allowed one real estate sign per lot. Not like you can group those along the... right away, one per lot, that's six square feet area and six feet in height. And what they're now proposing along the frontage, well, I already stated this, two total signs along the frontage for a total of 208 square feet. And again, also that interior signage. And then this is just a photo, staff took this today, actually, this late morning. This is just a photo of the sign that they already have up there. Staff understands that the sign is approximately, we didn't measure it, but the idea we had spoken with them beforehand, that the sign should be something that matches what was approved to be the permanent sign. And so, you know, this would be the temporary marketing signage until their permanent sign was installed. And the permanent sign at their primary entrance on old Deerfield Road across from the police station was supposed to be about five feet high by 10.6 feet long. So that's what's there now. And we just put that to the commission to also consider that this is what they have right now and if that's adequate. That's why I have a temporary signage. Are there any questions on the temporary marketing signage? I will move on. So the Inclusionary Housing Update, I mean, it's the Housing Commission recommended approval six to zero. The notes, I had further notes in the report from Zubin Coleman, Senior Planner. He said the changes were well received. And this is just a bullet points. I won't read these off. These are actually repetitive from the prior slide and they were in the report as well. Okay, phasing and construction logistics plan. So they didn't make updates to this. So the first bullet point, that's already the case. That was discussed May 19th, remove the construction trailer location and change to two phases. And I just want to be clear that the language about the primary entrance for the Spur Road remains and the Ridge Road limitations remain. So the limitation is down here. And of course that was of great concern to the neighborhood, the construction act traffic on Ridge Road, that on Ridge Road it'd be limited to only that which is necessary, you know, when there was construction improvements that were along Ridge Road. And so that language does remain. So the applicant is supposed to use the spur road that runs along the railroad track as the primary road for construction. I know earlier I said that the permanent signage was going to be like looking at the primary entrance here. Well, that's the primary entrance once the development is active for the residents. Okay, quick update on exterior lighting and landscaping. So for lighting, the applicant didn't make changes. So I believe there were two new exhibits in the packet, one with foot candles and another information. The project complies with foot candles. I mean, the development is away from the perimeter along the west and the south. It's obviously set back further. And then on the east, you have the railroad track. And then on the north, it's zoned industrial. And there's setbacks, of course, along the north and the east as well. The number of light fixture types is being reduced. I'll note the woodland path is not being lit, or I did not see bollards along that. I do want to propose a condition. And I'll let the applicant speak as well. I thought that fixture S was a new fixture because I didn't see that on the prior plans. And so I asked for that spec. The applicant did send me that. The staff did not receive that until either today or yesterday. And so staff would just indicate that that could also be a condition of approval if, and I have several laid out on a slide, that if the commission is comfortable that this proceed, you know, with a caveat that fixture S is going to be compliant with you know, shielding and what have you. Fixture S, just so you know, it's not going along with the perimeter. Fixture S is actually, it's kind of, I believe on, and the applicants can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I believe that fixture S is going along, not all, but I think most of like the garages. It's just like a light that goes kind of like on the front of the home, so to speak. So these are not fixtures along the perimeter or towards the neighborhood. Landscaping. Oh yeah, so the landscaping, so what's the easiest way I could explain? So it's still compliant, it's still compliant, and they're still providing excess trees. They're providing fewer new trees But the reason for that is that now that they've gotten more into the nitty gritty of their review, they're actually removing fewer trees that are on site. And so that's actually, I mean, that's actually what the code wants. The code wants you to not remove trees on site. So what they're reducing is they're reducing the number of replacement trees that the code would have made them provide because they were removing trees. But what the code really wants, the code wants those trees not to be removed because those are already out there. They're already growing. They're already at some degree of maturity. And so the takeaway from that is that they're still compliant with the zoning code. They're still providing the number of shrubs and trees they need to, and they still are providing the same excess amount beyond the zoning code requirement. But if you did look at it and you're like, but it looks like they're doing few, that's what's going on. They're taking down less trees, and so they have fewer replacement requirements. And then they are adding six new trees along the Northwest buffer, junipers, I believe. And so this is a zoom in and I have just a few slides on this. So this is the Northwest part of the property. And so to the North there, this is the bluegrass restaurant right here. And then, you know, this is old Deerfield road at the police station across to the West. And so, and there were comments in the packet that were submitted and by the business owner for bluegrass. So I did point that out to the commission. And so there's just a concern about screening here. And so there's a parking lot right here. And as the commission may recall, there's an easement holder that actually holds that. And then the applicant is proposing as part of their public benefit, a new parking lot here of 14 spaces for use by the city, the police department. And then the closest townhomes are here. And so from the north wall of the townhome to the shared property line, it's approximately an 80 foot setback. And so this is a, on the top right is a photo of the shared property line. So on the left here is the 1700 Old Deerfield Road property and on the right is the restaurant. So this is just a comment. This comment comes from the May 19th presentation. Just gets to the landscaping here. So what the applicant had originally proposed was a two and a half foot wide buffer here with grasses. I looked them up. I think they're called Carl Forrester grasses and they go like taller. The applicant added, so the applicant is now depicting here a 3.3 foot wide buffer. And then with a group of three of these junipers here and then three there. And so that's in the applicant's plan. And so, you know, I zoomed in on that and, you know, obviously at staff's point of view, if anything goes on to the neighboring property, they obviously need permission from that property in order to do that. And that just gets to the idea of this, a landscaping easement. to incorporate that area, but obviously the property owner would have to agree to that. And I think the purpose behind that is to allow space for those junipers to grow. So then this comes from the business owner to the north, Mr. Lederer, Jim had a comments on the packet. So this here to the right is an exhibit that was in the packet that was provided by the restaurant owner, Mr. Lederer. And so the idea there, I believe, and I can let, you know, if Mr. Lederer is here, I can let him speak for himself, where he had comments in the packet. So please refer to those comments. The idea here is that there's some type of, fence or trellis or arbor, whatever you want to call this, that will provide kind of additional screening, both for the patrons on the patio, but then also, you know, for the residents that are living the new development screening from each other. And so this would be an offsite screening. So it's not along the property line. This is on the bluegrass restaurant property. And then I would just reference this as a development agreement, section 6M consideration for the commission and later the council. And basically that's a section of the development agreement for additional public benefit as determined by the city. And so that's a consideration here before the commission. Okay. Okay, so now I'm gonna change gears. Oh, so these are conditions for consideration. So one, And I want to be clear, these are actually not in the findings of fact. So if the commission wants these, you can just adopt them by reference. So one, the applicant does still have to satisfy outstanding engineering division comments. Those comments are important, but my understanding are not necessarily showstoppers. They're just things that the applicant needs to be aware of and they need to take care of before permits are approved. Okay, so that's number one. Number two would be, I already brought it up, temporary marketing signage must be removed within three years of an approval date if this is approved by the council. And then I just get back to that fixture as the new exterior lighting must be reviewed and be by right compliant, meaning just meeting what's in article six of the zoning code. And that last one just gets to the fact that that landscaping goes over the property line. They obviously need permission from the property owner for that. Cause we don't approve things that go over other people's property lines. And then that's my presentation. I can take questions if any. Questions for staff.

from the panel here. Questions from Commissioner Ntschek? No, no question. Okay. Petitioner would like to speak.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. My name is Zach Kennitzer, last name K-E-N as in Nancy. And were you previously

You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you.

Yes, I can finish spelling my last name for you guys. It's late, guys. I know. I get it. K-E-N as in Nancy, I-T-Z as in Zach, E-R. And my first name is Zach with an H. So first of all, thank you guys for taking the time to hear this amendment again. We really appreciate staff's feedback, this commission's feedback. We believe it's yielded a better plan. I'll keep my points very brief because Carl has gone through and done a very good detailed presentation. You know, previously when we were here, we received basically two major asks. The first of which was to revise the marketing signage plan to remove some signs. I believe Councilman Fettner, Councilman Nanis, or Councilmember Nanis, Commissioner Nanis, pardon me, provided some guidance. We followed that guidance exactly. We represented exactly what you guys suggested we do, and this is the product of that. The second piece was to engage with our neighbor, the tenant of the Blue Grass Restaurant. We did so. We actually met out in field about two weeks ago, had a robust conversation. You know, part of the challenge of this, right, is it's an easement or it's a landscaped area between two parking lots. It's very narrow. There's an easement holder, Mr. Joe's Cerrone, or I can't remember his name, I have trouble saying his last name, but he owns Comfort Care and he has rights to that easement for parking for his patrons of his business. And as part of the agreement with Joe, one of the things that will happen is once the plantings get established, he will be taking over maintenance of those. So anything that we put in those beds, we wanted to make sure he was comfortable with it. The thing that he really specifically wanted was that Carl Forrester feather reed grass. We've gone in and made sure that we've put that grass there. The primary reason he wants the grass on his section of that landscape buffer is because he has security cameras on his building and he wants to make sure that his patrons for his building feel secure and that their belongings are secure in their vehicles. So with that said, we did have a conversation. There is a small section of the landscape buffer that is part of the public benefit area. That was the 14 parking spots that Joel was, pardon me, that Carl was speaking about. for the police station. So after a robust conversation, what Jim, Mr. Lederer, the owner of Bluegrass Restaurant suggested was that he would like some trees there. He wanted them to be salt tolerant and drought tolerant. I will note that this landscape strip is irrigated, but it is a nice feature to have them drought tolerant just in case. So we took this back, took us some digging, and we were able to find these juniper trees that are six feet tall at planting that we could provide in this landscape buffer to serve Mr. Lederer's desires to have an enhanced kind of privacy buffer in the section of landscaping that is not being maintained by Joe of Comfort Care. So we feel like we faithfully worked with him, listened to his thoughts, perspectives, and executed on that. With that said, there's a couple other items I did want to mention that Carl brought up in his comments. The first of which are the coach lights. So those coach lights were always present in the original plans. They are the rear coach lights for garages. The reason why they were not included in the photometric plan previously is they could have been switch operated. These lights have a photometric capability, which means that when a car drives by or when the sun's on or off, they will turn on or off. So the idea is that what we did is because they're photocell lights, they have to then get included in the photometric study. So we did that just to make sure that we dotted our I's and crossed our T's. The second piece is the reduction in lighting. When the project was previously approved, it was either a for rent or for sale community. With MI joining the joint partnership, it's moving into a for sale product. Certainly people in residential neighborhoods, that less lighting at night is nice, right? Having a little darker sky, I think we can all agree that that's a great benefit for the city of Highland Park as well. I wanted to talk briefly about the trees as well. So yes, we did reduce the number of replacement trees, but that's because we went through the site. We actually brought in a consultant to do an updated tree tag, and it was great. We actually learned some things about the trees that we didn't know. And we've been working hand in hand with the city's forester in order to make sure that what we're doing is up to his standard. And we've been having really, really robust conversations with him. In fact, I believe he is actually in the course of approving the tree removal permit for the site, pending our payment of fees. And that was just, that came through today. And then the one, or two other things, back to the landscape buffer and the screening, I do want to point out that there is an existing fence on the plan set behind the rears of the units and the parking lot, with some landscaping around it. And the second piece is that those six trees that we saw that we got added into the police station buffer, those are going to be planted regardless. The easement piece that Carl was talking to, Joe and Jim, From my understanding, they've said they have a good relationship. We asked those two to engage with each other. And Joe from Comfort Care offered to take care of the additional six to eight inches of landscaping on the Bluegrass Restaurant's property through a maintenance easement and offered that. It's not something he had to do. It's something that he's going above and beyond to do. And we offered that, or not we, he offered that to Jim and Jim's property owner. So we don't take a position one way or the other on that. It's just something out there. If they want to engage in that, we can help facilitate it. We've got no problem helping out.

Thank you. Questions for the petitioner? Questions from Commissioner Ntchik for the petitioner? No questions. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Have you been previously sworn? A long time ago on this, yes.

In this particular case? Yes. Dan Wagner, W-A-G-N-E-R. So the things that kind of surprised me in the last couple of months were the change of the bedrooms, getting rid of the two-bedroom units and replacing them with three-bedroom units. it seemed to happen just in the dark as it were, where it was just like, oh yeah, they're all gonna be three bedroom units now. And looking through the numbers that they presented is that you're going to have 227 three bedroom units, and you seem to think you're only going to have 13 high school students. That seems, I mean, I don't know where your numbers, I mean, they're getting them from you guys, the tables or something, but that seems like very low. People are going to be moving into this. You're not going to have elderly people moving into this facility. because of the stairs, you're going to have people that want to bring families in to go to the schools. And yes, I realize it's two different school districts and so forth, but that's also six buses going in and out of this, six buses going in and out every day. But overall, I kind of like it's better. It's gotten a lot better with the lighting and so forth. That was another one of my concerns, but all in all, Just don't light the flag poles. Do not put lights up on the flag poles. That will just like illuminate the sky and we don't want that. That's all I got.

So two things, first of all, your concern about student generation is heard. Staff directed us to update the fiscal impact study. We use the approved tables for the school districts in question and provided that updated information to the city of Highland Park. So hopefully, you know, that will absolve your concerns. The second issue about lighting, I will note that we do not have up lights on those flagpoles because we, We have heard that that it would be something that residents wouldn't like so we we followed through and we're not going to uplight those flagpoles.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, just one other thing. Yes. A fiscal impact study has been circulated to the school districts and they have no further comments from, that weren't already addressed in our previous plan development approvals. So the communication I said.

That's somewhere in a packet or.

The fiscal impact is, but I just want to say we did transmit that to the school districts and they had a question about a particular matter that's already handled in the approval documents. And that's what I responded to them. And that's that. Thank you. Thank you.

You, I know, have been sworn before. A couple times.

General letter of bluegrass. We've had some good dialogue, and at this point in time, we're willing to give them 12 inches of our property. Joe's going to be putting down mulch so that now we're going to have three feet of dirt between the two properties. Once again, we're sitting on less than a half acre. They've got 26 acres, yet we're giving them 12 inches to get three feet. I'm just trying to get a little bit of a buffer between the two properties, which I think should have been required by the city, but that's separate. So we have 110 feet and they're putting six small junipers to cover 110 feet. If we can't get more, then I tried to get some screening, let them help pay for the screening on my patio, which you saw a picture, which was AI generated. I just kind of threw it together. And here's an idea. And the idea is just, there's a little bit of blockage so that there's a little bit of privacy. And we've been here for 23 years or 22 years, and we're just trying to maintain what we have. And would it be a benefit for the community? Call it what you want. We're just trying to retain a little bit of privacy so they're not looking over into a 45 foot building or 41 foot. And as they're reducing the buildings by two feet, great. I'm in favor of that. They're saving quite a bit of money by doing that. Perhaps a little bit more screening and they're cutting some trees back. So let's get a couple more trees out there to help just buffer the two properties.

Any other members of the public who wish to speak? Seeing none, commissioners, we do have a draft findings of fact. In the packet, I have a question.

Oh, yes. For the applicant. If you're not putting lights on the flagpole, is somebody going to take the American flag up and down every day?

Yeah, we'll talk to our sales associates about doing that.

Because that's what the law requires.

Yeah, we have construction managers and sales associates. And we can make them aware of that. Yeah, that's not a huge issue.

A federal law requires if an American flag stays up at night, it has to be lit.

Yeah, I mean, unless the commission would like the American flag to be lit at night, we would be willing to put one light there.

Yeah, I'm just asking the question.

Yeah, it's up to you guys. I mean, we're open to either or.

Director Funding.

There isn't just one way to light a flag. So it doesn't have to be up lit. There are controls against up lighting, right? But you can light a flag a different way. You can down light it.

You can take it down and you light it some way. I'm just saying.

Understood. The old flag raising ceremony every day. Well, I'm a former federal employee.

I was going to say we could also down light it too. I mean, we're open to that. They could do like a solar down light on top. And again, those flagpoles are only temporary, right? Those are only part of the marketing window for us.

More discussion? Any motion?

Okay.

You know, I'll tell you, it troubles me We've had these hearings on this project, which frankly, I have not been in favor of the way it's been presented with all due respect to the applicants who have worked very hard at it, for sure. Mr. Lederer has been at virtually every one of these meetings we've had, starting when we were meeting with the same mantra. And it is frustrating to me, despite what may be reflected by the applicant as robust discussions, that there just doesn't seem to be any thinking outside of the box on something that is really so insignificant in light of, not insignificant to Bluegrass, but insignificant to this project to get something done that's gonna make people happy, that makes your neighbors happy. And I just find that, as I said, I voted against this project originally, and my position on that really hasn't changed much, particularly when you're adding an extra bedroom to 63 units. But it's just frustrating that something is really considering the size and scale of this project can't seem to be resolved in a way that makes everybody happy. I just find that extremely frustrating.

I'd like to add on to that. First, I appreciate taking our comments on the signage. So thank you on that. But Mary said six juniper trees, and that sounds great. And then we hear it's spread across 110 DO MUCH AS FAR AS A BUFFER. AND I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER HENRY SAYS, I DEFINITELY REITERATE, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF CONCLUSION WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BLUEGRASS RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR SATISFACTION. THEY ARE GOING TO BE A NEIGHBOR THERE FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, IN HIGHLAND PARK FOR A WHILE, AND I AGREE. I THINK IT'S, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, IT'S, YOU KNOW, COULD BE A MINOR CONCESSION.

Yeah, I think we're, again, we're committed to continuing conversations. Carl, can you go back to the slide that shows the landscaping, the plan view? So it's hard to see from this diagram, right? But, you know, as we kind of stood there and looked at the plans, I think one of the things that, you know, even, it's really hard to see in a plan set. but there's really genuinely some really good layered landscaping here. So basically the back edge or that blue line, that blue vertical line is only, call it 10 feet west of the front door of the restaurant. the majority of the paved seating area that he has out front is actually in front of that blue line where we have those additional kind of pine trees you've got the deciduous tree there with some additional bushes right so even though it doesn't look like there's a lot there's a layered effect that begins to occur on top of that even when you get to the building to the south there's a fence there's additional landscaping so it's not just this little two and a half inch or two foot two and a half foot area that's getting plantings there's several layers of plantings before you get to the building which is something that you know when you're out in field and you're standing at the plan diagram and you're looking up and you're looking down it kind of gets lost in the details a little bit um but i do want to point out that there is fairly abundant layered landscaping with this is it landscaping or buffer landscaping you know to kind of i think i think their concern sounds to be Can you repeat your question? I'm so sorry.

Well, is it landscaping that's more for a buffer or is it just the trees? Because it sounds like their concern is more to kind of shield their patrons from staring at the buildings.

Yeah, I mean, it's this is the landscaping strip that is kind of the locus of a lot of this conversation is a landscaping strip between two parking lots. And I'll note today that what you currently see out there is you see a vacant former industrial site, right? And prior to that it was a working industrial site. You know, so it's not as if the view today is particularly good, right? I think what we've really tried to do and attempted to do, and I think we've been successful in doing, is create not just a landscape buffer, but create a larger experience for the patrons of both the restaurant and for our homeowners, right? It's not just the buffer piece, it's the whole thing together, if that makes sense, right?

Is there a way for you to, create a rendering from the viewpoint of this patio, looking onto the property?

You know, I think that's something we could definitely do. Yeah, I don't think that that's a bridge too far for us to do. Would that be helpful? I mean...

I think a rendering would be good there that they can see. As you're saying, you know, talks are ongoing, right? You're not done talking about it. I think rendering something visual would probably be helpful.

Yeah, we can absolutely provide that.

Commissioner Ntchik, any discussion? No, thank you. Commissioner Mantis.

I have no other comments on what's been.

Well, if the sense is we want to see a rendering of the landscaping, that's going to push us off another

I mean, is it, can we make it a condition since it's going to go to city council that they have that rental? That's up to them.

Would you be comfortable making the decision without?

I'd be comfortable as a condition. Commissioner Henry? No, I mean, getting a picture doesn't say anything until we look at it. I mean, I think that's, just kicking the can down the road.

So we're really asking for something that will help the city council decide not really help us.

We're asking for something that will help us recommend or not recommend something to the city council, which is our job, isn't it?

Yeah. I mean, my point would be that that would make it, we would need to put off the decision on the findings of fact until another meeting. Understood. Can I chime in briefly?

Yeah. I know you want my name after I'm sworn in, so I'm going to swear myself in.

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

I do. Thank you. My name is Scott Barenbrugge, B-A-R-E-N-B-R-U-G-G-E, VP of Land Within My Homes. it's worth noting that your recommendation on the amendment that's before you, this is actually a topic that's not germane to the pending amendment, right? This is the point of discussion that's been ongoing since before and after the plans were approved back in February. We're not considering changing the geometric plan that would move parking lots, for example. So the area that we have to screen and landscape is set in stone and it's not related to the amendment that has to go to the city council. So I just want to make sure that that's clear before any recommendation is made.

Am I mistaken that we are reviewing a special use permit for an off street parking lot? Isn't that the parking lot we're reviewing?

That wasn't any change. Joel and Carl, can you guys chime in on that?

It's part of the plan development. The changes that have been proposed to enhance the landscaping buffer. That's what's been proposed here.

So it is, it's very germane to our discussion. It's one of the three points that.

Chair, if I may. Yes, please. Conditions have to, there has to be an essential nexus between what is requested and the condition. And so we're, they're not requesting at this point. the special use permit that's been granted. What they're requesting is an amendment to the special use. And that's an important distinction. And so as we craft conditions, we have to determine is the condition that the commission wishes to recommend related to what they're asking for now and not what was granted before.

So what exactly is being asked with respect to the parking lot? What is it? Is it the landscaping?

They made some changes to the landscaping plan to enhance it for the conversations with the butter. And anything to do with that offsite easement, should it be granted that that's just been discussed with the abutters. And so that's a desirable thing to have. However, that's an offsite thing and that's an easement language that can be drawn up separately. But the idea that, the landscape buffer that's there, that's been approved, incorporate that eight inches or so, if it's amenable to the abutting landowner, just seems to make sense. Mr. Chairman, that's why staff and the applicant and Jim and the easement holder have been talking about it. So there's no relief being requested in any of that though. That's only an enhancement. Otherwise you get eight inches of dirt on the other side of a landscape, right? So that could happen too. It just seems unfortunate if that were to happen. So that's what that's about. So it's not changing any of the area of relief that was granted, which was the relief was granted for landscaping islands in that parking lot. That's it, not the buffer between the parking lots. It's not required. It's a I zoning district that the restaurants are there, okay? So typically it's the other way around, right?

In terms of- Am I mistaken that originally we did not approve a separate special use permit for the parking lot?

Well, that's true. No, we did. It's part of the, ultimately, that's what we did do. Yes, that's correct.

Yeah, the February 9th City Council approvals, it was an ordinance for both the PUD and then also its own SUP for these two parking lots here.

So that was in the original?

Yeah, that's right.

So are we talking about this simply because it's a change to the landscaping plan? It's just because it is a change to the landscaping plan.

The plans are incorporated as part of the deal.

And so is it like, generally speaking, am I fair in saying that this is a improvement over what was originally in the landscaping plan previously relative to the neighbor's position?

I suppose it depends on who you ask.

So this is a snip of the landscape, of the amended landscaping plan. And it's, it enhances it in that it added these two sets. Three a piece of the junipers.

What's that?

There's more. And then, and then it, again, it also looks to expand like the area, the plantings were going in. from the 2.5 feet to the 3.3 feet. This other exhibit here, this was something that was provided by the Bluegrass property owner as an offsite improvement for screening. That's what they provided that was in their packet of information.

I also want to make one additional point clear, which is that regardless of whether the property owners and easement holders and the bluegrass owner agree to allow us to maintain that additional six, eight, 10 inches north of the property line, the actual plantings will go in the same either way. So they will still get the junipers, they will still get the grasses, they'll still get all the landscaping and the medians and islands.

So my position is if this is a net improvement over what was there previously, then I would be very comfortable. I mean, if my colleague's opinion is that they would want to see renderings, I would be very comfortable asking renderings be provided to city council rather than holding it up over this is my opinion, but I don't know if there's enough support for that idea, so.

I would support it with the emphasis that city council knows that it should be reviewed with some some seriousness. Yeah, right. Careful, sorry.

The entire packet will be provided to the council along with that extra rendering if you direct so, and that would be provided to the council so they can weigh this matter further. Otherwise, I think for the purposes of the commission, you have a plan that has been in staff's perspective, improve whether or not that's sufficient in totality. And there's some offsite additional public benefit screening that's needed. I think that that's something that, you know, could travel to council. We do have in the development agreement, a specific section that addresses that and that consideration, so. That's up to the commission how you want to recommend to council, but I don't see it as out of bounds to say, yeah, provide a rendering to city council, you know, this can keep moving.

Okay.

Yeah. I think this would be pretty clear then. We want them to review it carefully. Yep, okay.

And they will. I would make a motion to adopt findings of fact recommending approval to PUD number 202600087 to amend the following. Number one, Z0112026, an ordinance approving a special use permit for a planned development for 227 unit townhomes with garages, parking, clubhouse, amenity, landscaping, and other related improvements and a special, use permit for an off street parking lot, including modifications from city code. Number two, a plat of resubdivision approved by resolution R222026 with variations and three design review with variations for 1660 and 1670. 1700 Old Deerfield Road with the conditions presented by city staff, as well as the condition for renderings for the buffer zone that we just discussed.

And before that gets a second, I just want to clarify that the first two, the amendment to the SUPs, as well as the approval of the Plattebury subdivision are for recommendations. The design review, you have final decision-making authority.

Second? Second.

Moved by Commissioner Mantis, seconded by Commissioner Fentner. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Ntchak, any discussion? No, thank you. Okay. So I'll... after all this time, everybody I think knows my position on this project. I haven't changed my mind. And I know I'm not going to convince anybody on the city council of my view, but I'll just, this project is too dense. It's an enclave. I see no earthly reason why there are three zoning districts on it. I don't think any of the changes, here have improved any of those things, as well as the monotony of the overall design. And so I will vote, be voting no on this. Will you call the roll please, Director Fontaine.

Commissioner in check. Commissioner Fetner. Aye. Commissioner Henry. No. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Vice Chair Nanis. Aye. Chair Kirsch.

Nay.

Two nays and four yays. That's right. The motion carries. This item is recommended to council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you and thank you. Good luck with your project and please straighten out the buffer thing before you get to council. Other business information item, any administrative design review update?

No, there are no, there's no administrative design review update, no.

And our next meeting is July 21st. Yeah, we get, we get the 4th of July off.

Yes. So there's only two commission meetings in the next two months.

Right. Oh, that's right, August, yeah.

So there you go. So that's nice.

Yeah, that is nice.

So we have two that we already moved to July 21st, the McGovern Royal and the, Well, whether or not the town of Fort Sheridan will come back, we don't know yet.

Those two will be on the agenda for July 21st.

And anything else we know?

No, not that I'm aware of, but that's because we're also five weeks out. Today's actually the deadline, so I'll know another week or two.

Okay. Case briefing.

No, Mr. Chairman. I don't have one.

Seeing no public, I'm going to assume there's no business from the public. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. That's the way to put the emphasis.