Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody.

Welcome. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission for July 21st, 2026. Director Fontaine, could you please call the roll?

Commissioner Inchik? Here. Commissioner Fettner? Here. Commissioner Henry? Here. Commissioner Mantis? Here. Commissioner Moore.

Here.

Vice Chair Nanis. Here. And Chair Kirsch.

Present.

We have a quorum, and I'd like to recognize Chloe Pilot, student rep, and Corporation Counsel Martinez, here with us this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First item up on our agenda tonight is approval of minutes from our regular meeting of June 16th. Do I have a motion to accept those minutes?

Motion to accept the minutes. Seconded.

Moved by Commissioner Fittner and seconded by Commissioner Mantis. Any discussion? CHANGES, ALTERATIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M ABSTAINING. ONE ABSENTEE. THANK YOU. AND WE GET TO THE Meet the regular agenda, but if it is okay with the rest of the commission, I want to make a couple of changes and take a couple of items out of order. So just in case anybody is here for things that we will not be acting on tonight, we'll get those out of the way right away. Our first up then would be public hearing PUD 2026-0086 for a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final plan development design review variations and modifications from city code. and to amend the plan development approval of 02998 for property commonly known as Town of Fort Sheridan, including the Town of Fort Sheridan Master Redevelopment Plan at Zero Patent Road, a vacant parcel with pin 1611301063 adjacent to the property at 35 Patton Road. My understanding is the petitioner has withdrawn their application for this project and that no further action is noted by the commission. Is that correct, Senior Planner Burkhart?

That is correct, Chair. That application has been withdrawn by the applicant and it's not a consideration and there's no action requested. So that's simply an acknowledgement and then a statement for the audience or anyone who's listening on our video.

Next up will be public hearing PUD 2026-00083 and PUD 2026-0084 for 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, multi-family developments at 1696 to 1704 McGovern Street and 793 Laurel Avenue. My understanding, Planner Burhop, is that the petitioner here has asked for a continuance to September 15th.

That is correct, Chair. That applicant requested continuance specifically to the Tuesday, September 15th, 2026, Regular Plan and Design Commission meeting at this location at 7 p.m. on that date.

Okay, do I have a motion to continue this matter?

So moved. Second.

Moved by... Commissioner Henry, seconded by Vice Chair Nannis. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

So this item, Mr. Chair, if I may? Yes, you may. The item has been continued then to September 15th, City Council Chambers and City Hall, 7 p.m. Your notice is actual. There'll be no additional notice for this matter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, so sorry if anyone came out for those... So now we'll move on to the rest of the regular agenda. And if it please the commission, just for expediency's sake, the first two items on the agenda both refer to fence variations and design room for the... review for the high school. I wish to open both of those public meetings at the same time, if that's okay, and just hear everybody straight through and then take comments after that. Any objections? Okay, so those two items of business are public meeting DES2026-00099 for design review with variations in fence code variations, 2150 St. John's Avenue, the vacant parcel south of the Highland Park High School. and public meeting DES2026-00100 for design review with variations and fence code variations at 1040 Park Avenue West, also known as Walters Field. Planner Mestrada, you have a couple of presentations for us.

I do. Good evening, Commission. My name...

Sorry.

No, this is public meeting, right? Not public hearing. No, public meeting.

These two are public meetings under design review and then the fence and flagpole code.

Gotcha. Yeah, only design.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Anthony Mistretta, planner with the Community Development Department. I'm here to present the fence variation and design review proposal. We will start with 433 Vine, which is known as Highland Park High School. The recommendation here is the staff recommend the commission review the materials and discuss the proposed design changes and variations. And then if supported, staff have prepared a draft approval order for the proposed project. So for the Highland Park High School portion of this project, we are located obviously at 433 Vine. If you look at the Plata Survey, this is the southern portion of what is shown, or in the Plata Survey, it actually is on the left side of the Plata Survey, but this is effectively on the southern portion of the campus. It is zoned RM1, and the property owner is, of course, District 113.

Just to be clear, this property also has the address 2150 St. John's Avenue.

Yes, if you look at the bottom right there of the circled area, you'll see 2150. So there is a shed on that property that occupies that address, just for clarification there. SO THE SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT IS A REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE WITH A NEW CHAINLINK FENCE. THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE FOR THE 433 VINE AVENUE WILL BE 6 FEET. AND THEN THERE IS A RED DASHED LINE ON THIS IMAGE ON THE THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN INDICATING EXACTLY WHERE THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROVIDED AN EXHIBIT. THE SITE MAP IF YOU LOOK AT IT WILL ALSO SHOW THE VERY SAME IMAGE. So this is a variation for encroachment into a front yard with a fence greater than four feet in height. And it is also a variation for a, to allow a material that isn't metal or powder coat black, it is for a chain link fence, which is not an allowed material by right. This is the detail of the chain link fence that's being installed. There are different details for each one. The Walters Field detail is different than the 433 vine. This is a six foot chain link fence. This was also included in the packet, so you can look at it. There are fence posts that they just tie the chain link to, and it will be going around the areas that were indicated here. SO AS I STATED EARLIER, THE CONSIDERATIONS ARE FOR BOTH IN CHAPTER 173 OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE, OPEN TYPE FENCES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ORNAMENTAL METAL WITH A BLACK POTTER COAT FINISH. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY JUST CHAIN LINK STEEL. AND THEN THE FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS MAY NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD. SO THOSE ARE THE RELIEF THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR FOR 433 BINE. AND THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE VARIATIONS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S ALSO MATERIAL VARIATION AS WELL. SO THAT IS WHY THIS IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY. FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS, THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME FOR BOTH. PBC HAS AUTHORITY FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIATIONS IN THIS CASE. DISCUSS PER THE DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AS WELL AS THE VARIATION STANDARDS. AND WE HAVE PREPARED A APPROVAL ORDER SHOULD THE COMMISSION WISH TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT TONIGHT. SO THAT IS FOR We'll stop here for a second. Any questions for staff or chair? I don't know if you wanted me to just move on right onto the next one.

Yeah, go ahead. I have just a quick question. Sure. Is the current fence that's there now, is that also six feet already?

Yes, it is a direct replacement.

Okay. So it's already been granted a variation in the past.

Well, we don't have a record on file of the fence being approved, so that is why we are going through this process now so that in the future when they want to replace this, we'll be able to tie back to this. That's right.

Yeah, because if this is approved, then this approval will run with the land, so to speak.

Right.

And they would then be able to replace like for like without having to come back to either this commissioner or the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, sorry, any other questions for staff on 433 Vine? Okay, do you want to move on to 1040? And then this is the second part of the application. This is for Walters Field. The official address of Walters Field is 1040 Park Avenue West. Recommendation remains the same as 433 Vine. So I won't go too into detail about this, but there are a couple of changes I do want to point out. One, obviously this is a much larger area of fence. The area you see squared out on the right is just the parcel. It is a different zoning district too, but in this case that does not change because they are still residential zoning districts. It does not change what is allowed and what isn't in terms of fence height. The property owner remains the same. It is the high school and the land use is different. Obviously for the high school it was an educational institution. The land use for the Walters Field parcel is a very unique land use. ALMOST MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THIS SPECIFIC USE, AND IT IS OUTDOOR LIGHTS WITH TOWERS FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS LOCATED ON HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUSES AT SUCH MAXIMUM WATTAGE AND AT SUCH MAXIMUM HEIGHT AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO THAT IS THE KEY DIFFERENCE. THERE'S DIFFERENT USES. JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. The replacement here, you'll see on the right, again, the applicant did include an exhibit that shows exactly where the fence is going. But this is just a rough idea. On the right, you'll see Walters Field there, the football field, the multi-sport athletic field. And then the fence starts. I do want to point out that they are not encroaching in the front yard here. They are actually, the seven-foot fence is starting behind and not encroaching in the front yard setback. So it's starting on the western side, moving all the way down the property line to the south. and then into the rear yard and then moving all the way across the southern portion of the parcel as well. So this fence will be seven feet, which would exceed the maximum height allowed for any yard. So that is the key variation of relief that they are searching for here. This is the detail that they have available for this. Obviously, it's slightly different. It's still Chainlink, but albeit it's taller and has a different detail that the applicant has provided with us. So this was included in the packet specifically for Walters Field. So you have a chance to review that in the packet. And then The main difference here, obviously, Chapter 173, again, are the locations of the two variations. The difference between this one, obviously, they're still looking for the proposed material variation, but the difference here is in Section A, the height of noncombustible open-type fence may not exceed six feet as measured from an average ground level of both sides of said fence. So this fence is a total height of seven feet tall. So that is... A FOOT TALLER OR IN THIS CASE IT WILL BE A FOOT TALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED SO THAT IS THE RELIEF THEY ARE SEARCHING FOR IN THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION. APPROVAL PROCESS REMAINS THE SAME AS 433 VINE AND WE HAVE PREPARED AN APPROVAL ORDER FOR THIS AS WELL. SO IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE FOR 10401040 PARK AVENUE WEST.

And this fence is existing at seven feet as well?

Yes, this fence was also existing again. This is just to document that they are getting a special use and allowance for, sorry, variation, apologies there, variation for this specific fence.

Commissioner Mantis.

So given that the proposed fencing here is on two sides of the property, would any variance that we support tonight be part of the other two sides of the property then as well?

So they actually have another variance for the eastern side that is documented. So there is a six foot fence that is on the eastern portion of the property, just to the south of where that Walters Field name box is, text box, that is where that is. The applicant has not proposed to do that, has not proposed to do anything with that fence. So this strictly applies to the areas that are marked.

Right, and if I may further comment real quick. In the draft approval order for this specific site in the packet, it only approves fence along the west and south property line, and it would also be subject to the site plan that was associated with it as well.

Got it.

Thank you.

Other questions? Commissioner Inch?

Is there a reason that the extra foot is needed on the sides of the property versus having it at six feet?

I would probably defer to the applicant on that. But if I remember our conversation, it was a security concern. So I would imagine that that would be part of their answer. But I will let the applicant speak to that.

Okay. Can we hear from the applicant? If you could go to the microphone, please state your name and spell your last name for the note taker.

Matthew Tepper, T-O-E, P as in Paul, P as in Paul, E-R, with FGM Architects representing the School District 113. To answer that question specifically, it was... starting out as in the intentions to match existing what's already there. And then these fields on the south end of Walters Field are predominantly used for other athletic activities. I think there's softball and other soccer. So the extra height just kind of helps any nuisance errand ball kicks or anything from going into in the outside area. And to the south is mainly trees and then kind of the drainage pond of the residential area. And then to the west is a tennis club. And so it's just trying to limit any errant things going over the fence where we don't want students going on the other side of the fence into the woods to kind of gather a ball or anything else. But mostly it was just to match what's already existing onsite.

Mr. Mantis.

So I noticed in the packet, you all spoke to why a chain link fence is necessary for, you know, I guess cushioning should something hit it or someone I should say. But I guess I'm wondering if you all explored kind of the vinyl coated chain link fencing. I think it probably would just look better. It'd be more conforming with code and particularly kind of on the north side of the Vine Avenue property, given that there's no shrubbery over there.

I think we were originally starting off just as a like for like, and then most of the property is either kind of buried within trees and brush that we've cleaned up to try to put the new installation in. I don't think the district would be opposed to, you know, going into a vinyl black coated in very highly visible areas to kind of mimic the same approach to kind of provide an aesthetic if that's the direction that the commission wants to go.

Other questions?

Sure, Commissioner Henry. Around the high school, that's kind of, you're proposing like for like, so that's kind of inconsequential to me. But you're doing something different around Walters Field because what's there is six feet, not seven feet, is what we were just told. The fence on the, what is that, on the east side, Carl? along the east side is six feet. And we'll propose, at least that's what was just said, I thought. And you're proposing seven feet.

So there's existing seven along the west and the south property lines, which is what we're replacing. I think there is some six foot, I think even toward the south, the fence comes down even four foot chain link, but that's not, the east side isn't an area that we're intending to replace because it's in good enough shape as it is right now. And that's the galvanized chain link fence as well. I mean, I know toward the north on the east side is more of an opaque wood fence. But on the west and the south, the existing fence line is seven feet. Oh, it is seven feet right now. So again, it's like for like. Correct.

Okay. Anything else the petitioner wishes to present?

No, I appreciate the attention to the matter and the consideration for us to be able to move forward.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak about the Vine Avenue request? Anybody who'd like to speak about the Walters request? Seeing none, we- Sure.

I have a couple questions that may be inconsequential but they just bother me as a lawyer and it's really for staff it's either for the director or for council district school board of education district 113 is not the legal property owner of this property is my guess it's probably Township High School District 113. Is that important that it be properly reflected in the documents? And secondly, while you're at it, as I look at the variance approval, it talks about being before the Board of Appeals, which I don't think we're called. And it talks about this being an appeal, not an application. Is that important?

What's important? In answer to your question, I don't think so. The reason being what's legally important would be what the public notice says. And public notice doesn't have that sort of information. It puts the request, it puts the location. And so... Scrivener errors on the application really don't mean as much. If there is a clarification to be made as to the ownership, then certainly should be made on the record. But application documents, if there's a misnomer in the application documents, that's an internal document.

Okay. Can I also follow up on that as well? Sure. The... The code was changed a few years ago to allow the Plan and Design Commission to consider both fence height and materials relief concurrently before all height relief period went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, as I'm sure Commissioner Kennedy may recall, as well as Commissioner Fentner. And so in preparing this, staff used the same template as we did for the Zoning Board of Appeals. And so if there was, I went through it, I thought I'd changed them all. If in fact I missed one or two, that is an error, a Scrivener's error, and we will go through that again and to make sure it says planning design commission.

What we're asking for approval right now, what it says, the document was presented to us as before the Board of Appeals.

Oh yeah, so that's in the approval order? in the variance approval. Yeah, that should be corrected. Then I apologize for that. I did actually, I thought I went through them all, but then I just missed that. And then as, so yeah, staff will go through that again and correct that wherever it says Board of Appeals. And then as to the ownership, I just want to see what the applicant wrote on their application, because I actually discussed that as well, to make sure we have that correct. And I just want to look at what the- Well, Carl's looking at that.

Just for clarity, I pulled that information from the Lake County Assessor. So sometimes that information can be a little finicky. So if there is a need, a change for that- Yeah, no, I was- Yeah, so- That's trying to be a troublemaker.

No, no, no, it's not.

Just trying to show that I read the material. I had the same question as well. So the applicant, I have their application in front of me. They wrote the owner as Board of Education District 113. I actually questioned that and wondered if it should be, you used the word township, right?

Well, the official, and we can ask Mr. Heineman here who sits on that board. The official name of the district is Township High School District

Can we ask the applicant to clarify? Because I would like that to also be- Chair, can we ask the applicant to clarify? Because I would also like that to be correct. I had the same question as well. Is it- If you know. If they know.

Sorry, this might be me getting over my skis a little bit, but I guess I've always referred to the owner of any school district as the, probably the Board of Education of Township High School District 113 is like the whole name, because I don't know if the Board of Education is in there, but it's, I don't know.

I can tell you with a certainty that The legal owner is not Board of Education. It's a governmental corporate entity. And that's Township High School District 113, would be my guess is the official name. But it's not Board of Education. Board of Education is just like a board of directors. They're not the owner of anything. They just run the show.

May I speak, Chair? Yes, my recommendation then to the commission would be as long as corporation council concurs, should the commission want to act on the two approval orders this evening, you do so with that, you can add a, I don't know if it's a condition per se, but the stipulation that the aforementioned Scrivener errors will be corrected and then also staff will work with corporation council to make sure we have the correct name.

And don't misunderstand me. I'm totally satisfied with council's explanation and totally fine. I was just curious if we had to be concerned with that as a commission, as a body doing legal or quasi-legal sometimes. Well, I guess quasi-legal at least things. That's all. I'm not trying to be a troublemaker. I have the same question.

Just a brief point. Commissioner Henry is correct in everything he has said, but I will note that it's not unusual that the applicant would not quite put the correct ownership and it's part of our process after it leaves you and before it appears before the city council, not that that's what's gonna happen for this, you have final authority here. Our usual process after your decision, after your recommendation, after your approval is to nail down specifically what the legal name is before providing final documents.

And it's hard to imagine that there's any question as to what we're talking about. Right. Okay.

I have an unrelated question to this conversation. Yes. I'm a happy guy. Just really quickly, so if they put in the fence per the code, it would be like an ornamental black fence with like the vertical slats, is that correct?

Yeah, or any ornamental metal with a black powder coat finish.

And would black powder coated chain link be sufficient for that or?

Yeah, there was a question about that earlier with the vinyl coating. I think Commissioner Mantis asked that question. That would be something of no.

But would that be sufficient to,

That's a compensation. That's a way to mitigate the fence type without the fence type.

And we still have the height variances that aren't recorded, which we would have to do anyway.

Yeah, well, that's true too.

Got it, got it, got it. You know where I'm getting at is like, I understand the... the request for replacing the fencing along, you know, Walters field, you know, with what's like for like, I just, slightly troubled by, you know, we're putting a new chain link fence on Vine where it's more public view. And my personal preference would be to buy closer to the code with an ornamental fence, at least there, just given the fact that that's the code and we're trying to keep our town pretty. And personally, chain link fences are not very pretty, so. we have a code for a reason and I can understand along the train tracks. I can understand along the football fields and, you know, drainage, but I'm really struggling with that, you know, 50 foot or whatever it may be of fencing that is chain link on prominently unbind.

I tend to agree. I mean, I think that This fence is going to be here for a long time once it goes up. So some type of maybe, you know, a step up or maybe two steps up, upgrade an aesthetic from what they're currently requesting other than just a regular chain link fence. I necessarily, I don't really know if I need it to be ornamental, but at least a vinyl coated, but I'd be open to ornamental too, but at least vinyl coated. I think that's a great idea.

Commissioner Winchick.

I'm curious if we have any idea of the cost of doing something more ornamental versus just the vinyl coated, which makes it sound like it would be more inexpensive to do. I bet I'm not an expert knowing this is a school district and finances are always tight at school districts. I'm curious.

And kind of in preparation for that, we kind of had estimates for what those cost changes would be and changing everything to ornamental would be about a 35% increase from what the current cost would be to go. The vinyl coated chain link would be about a 9% increase. And in dealing with the linear footages that we're talking about, it gets kind of into the close to six figures just for an upgrade. portion where we're already spending a fair amount just on the length of of the area that we're dealing with but i understand the area along vine you know could be is more visible completely like the walters field is all along a back side of the property that is backing the commercial businesses that are to the west and then to the south, it's really just trees and drainage, where the relief might be a little bit more preferred, but having something along Vine, I would still want to lean toward the vinyl coated chain link because it is still part of, like the way they've got it striped right now, they kind of have soccer fields, a soccer field there that they kind of do PE and extracurriculars there. And the grade kind of slopes toward Vine. So there is the possibility of people coming toward that street frontage. But there is precedent on site on some of the trail that's there along the tracks of black vinyl coated chain link along the trail that's to the south of Vine. And then also there's black chain link to the north where the trail picks back up as they go across Vine. So there is precedent already out there for the black vinyl chain link. in a new condition. But according to the cost change for any lineal foot to go up to ornamental from just galvanized chain link is about a 35% increase. So.

But you mean when we're talking ornamental, we're talking about the- Aluminum pickets. The aluminum pickets as opposed to the vinyl coated- Was about a 9% increase.

9%, okay.

I don't know, I just drove by there today and I do know the street drops down at the west end of Vine. So the fence is like way up high, but I mean, I agree. I think right now anything would be an improvement, but I would agree with maybe making that section along Vine, the vinyl coated, black vinyl coated.

I'm not in favor of forcing another public funded body to spend more money than they really need to. It exists as it exists now. This will be better because it will be newer. The safety of the students is much more important than what it looks like aesthetically. And I just, I mean, that's my opinion. You guys... If you want to force them to create a bigger fence, that's okay.

So did you say that parts of the fence are like visible along the trail then?

There is a pathway that kind of goes along the trail and then the trail actually comes It's hard to explain and my laser pointer doesn't work on monitors. But when you go like northbound on the trail, it bends to the east and actually kind of slopes down on the south side of Vine kind of on the school district property. And then there's an opening in the fence and then they hook back onto the sidewalk. That's a long vine. Then they cross and then they kind of go up the slope and back up. So the portion that's kind of the black vinyl is kind of the really the up high portion that's like above the street line, kind of where the trail kind of continues. Got it.

Because I think you use the term highly visible. And I guess where my head's going is I would prefer something that looks a little bit nicer, the black vinyl, anywhere where there is a highly visible area. So certainly along Vine, if that exists, you know, on the... which side of the property is that, the west side of the property there. I think that might also be a good idea. I guess my, I would take the opposite stance of Commissioner Kirsch on this point, which is, I don't want to hold a public entity to a lower bar than we would any other resident or property owner in the city. And so I want to make sure that we're trying to at least be accommodating, but also, you know, live up to our code.

Well, I guess the question becomes, is being sensitive to all these aspects of it, would the district be willing to put that portion that's on vine, which seems to be the biggest concern and most visible, make that a black vinyl coated chain link and the rest as you propose? I do believe that would be acceptable. Or, you know, I suppose we could continue it and come back to, because we don't want to force your hand on it, necessarily. It's always an option that we have.

So how about any more questions? Otherwise, I will need a motion to act, that we can act on. Remember, these are two separate, we're going to need two separate votes, one for the Ryan property and one for Wolters.

Even though we said we were taking them together.

Well, I just wanted to, I didn't want to have everybody stand up and then sit down and repeat the same thing.

Well, I would start with, a motion to...

Chair, before we make the motion, if I may. Yes, I'm sorry. If the direction or the consensus of the commission is that your votes for both items are the same, you can omnibus them. You can take them all together by making the motion to approve the design review and the relief requested for both items.

But there are specific conditions, right? Because it's not that are specific to each.

And then adopting those specific conditions.

So just state which one it applies to each condition.

But certainly if it's easier to do them one at a time.

Well, it just seems right now that since Vine is more in question, maybe we should do them separately. maybe already contemplated this and he can agree to it. Well, I mean, if we put that commission on it, they can't do it unless they do what we say, right? So I mean, if that's the will of the commission, then that's what they'll have to do regardless.

Well, you know, I think the sense that I'm getting from the commission, though, is that if it's expensive and I don't know what expensive is well I do because I've served on school boards but if it's an unreasonable expense and they came back and said it's an unreasonable expense based upon their budget we might consider approving it as presented. If it's not an unreasonable expense or deemed not to be an unreasonable expense, then I think at least the sense I'm getting from listening to the comments is that at least that portion that's on Vine, we'd like that to be black final coded. So.

Well, in that case, we would, We're not ready to vote on these.

Well, I think we're ready to vote on Walters. I get the sense we're ready to vote on Walters, which is, I think, what the first motion was going to be.

What's your time frame? I mean, if we put it off a month, you go back to the board and tell them our concerns, is that going to be a burden? I mean, I know school, were you going to get this done before?

The plan was to have all this done before school session started. And right now there is no fencing. in these areas now. No fabric is strung across the poles. So it's kind of an open area now. The district would be agreeable to do the vinyl coated along vine if that has the project moving forward.

Move with it. Yeah, the chair, if I may speak. Yes. The applicant, if they want, they can amend their application on the record and indicate that they will do the vinyl black along vine. Okay. I mean, right, if I'm understanding that they're agreeable to that and just that they verify if that is what they're doing, they can amend their application and we can certainly include that in the amended approval order if that comes to pass. Okay.

Is that satisfying everybody? Okay, so.

So I would suggest making a motion first to approve the fencing in fence code variations at Walters Field, the 1040 Park Avenue West, as they're listed in the documents. Approval order, yeah. Yeah, there's an approval order. Right, approval order. So I would motion that. Okay, I'll second it.

Moved by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Henry. Any discussion on that motion? No. Could you please call the roll, Director Valentin?

Commissioner Nitschek. Aye. Commissioner Fentner. Aye. Commissioner Henry. Aye. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. Vice Chair Nettis. Aye. And Chair Kirsch. Aye. Motion carries. It's unanimous. This item is approved.

All righty. So now we need a second motion for DES-2026-0009 for the design review with variations and fence code variations for 2150 St. John's, basically the Vine Street fencing. So I would suggest that we amend it and say we would like to see the black vinyl coated fence along Vine Street. And it is vinyl, it's not powder. Condition of approval rather than vinyl. I don't think they make powder-coated cyclone fans.

So that would be a condition of approval rather than an amendment?

No, I think it would be to the actual relief. It's not a condition of approval, but you're approving the fence as now amended. Okay, and agreed to by the petitioner.

Second. Second that. Okay, moved by Commissioner Moore, second by Commissioner Ntchik. Any discussion on this one? Director Fontaine, could you call the roll?

Commissioner Ntchik. Aye. Commissioner Fetner. Aye. Commissioner Henry. Aye. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. Vice Chair Nanis. Aye. And Chair Kirsch. Aye. The ayes have it. The motion is unanimous. This carries and is approved as well with that change to the fence. Let it be.

Next up is public meeting. sub-2026-00016 for a plat of re-subdivision with variations at 790 Laurel Avenue, 794 Laurel Avenue, 798 Laurel Avenue, 802, 806, 810, 814 to 834 Laurel Avenue, 812 to 832, 836, and 844 Laurel Avenue.

Excuse me, Chair Kirsch. I'm going to be recusing myself from this one.

Okay. Commissioner Fentner is recusing himself. Make yourself comfortable. Senior Planner Berhop, do you have a presentation?

All right, thank you. First of all, I just want to restate, because I don't know if anybody came to this meeting a little after 7.05 or 7.10. I just want to restate, if you are here for either the zero patent road development, or if you are here for the one that's on Laurel and McGovern, the one that's... Seven, was it 793 Laurel and what's the other address? 1696 and 1704 McGovern. So the Zero Patent Road, they withdrew, their application is done. There's no consideration on that. And for the one, the other one, the 1696, 1704 McGovern Street and 793 Laurel Avenue, they asked for a continuance and the commission at the beginning of this meeting continued that to September 15. So that's here on Tuesday at September 15 at 7 p.m. So I just wanted to state that for anyone who's here for those items. If you do have questions, you can follow up with our staff tomorrow. Just please feel free to call or email us.

Thank you, Carl. But you can stick around for more action-packed design commission action tonight. Okay.

Okay. So... So this is the item for a plat of re-subdivision. So staff recommend the commission adopt findings of fact recommending re-approval of the plat. So this is a plat that was approved by city council last September. It was a plat that was recommended for approval five to zero by the plan design commission last July. Oh, that's wordier than I thought it was going to be. So this request is only for a re-approval. So this has to do with the, I don't have an example. This has to do with the Laurel, park townhomes, it's also called Laurel Park Phase Two. This is on the south side of Laurel Avenue. And so this is only for the plat. This is for an 18 townhome unit and 12 unit condominium that was approved last September. That approval remained, the planned development approval remains in effect and there's no additional changes proposed. The applicant has submitted permits to commence the development. However, the plat was not recorded within the nine month expiration period as required by that section of city code and therefore re-approval is requested. The last bullet point is again, just a reminder. This was, there's 12 existing town homes there now that were constructed part of phase one. The variations are the same. It's the same. It's essentially, it's the same plat. There's some minor tweaks to some amusement language. I had a comment on that in the report, but this is the same plat. And it's the same variations that were granted approval last year. And that's my presentation. It's very brief because this is, It's the same thing that was already approved. It just wasn't recorded in time. Our subdivision code has a requirement that if something isn't recorded in nine months, it just becomes null and void. So by operation of the law, they have to come back here. So that's all. I can take questions if there's any.

Any questions? Seeing none, is there a petitioner? to speak, if you'd like.

Any questions?

Hi, Anthony Oakes, attorney for the petitioner. Just that the executed plat has been submitted with Highland Park. We continue to work with Highland Park to get it recorded, and we were looking to just start working on this project and get it completed.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion. We do have a draft plat in our packet.

That's right. Did you see all the addresses in the motion to approve? Please don't. Just a motion to approve S.U.B. 2-6-0-0-1-6 for plenary subdivision variations. For the addresses listed.

Seconded.

Moved by Vice Chair Nanis, seconded by Commissioner Mantis. Any further discussion? Director Fontaine, could you call the roll?

Commissioner Ntchek. Aye. Commissioner Fentner. Aye. Oh, he's out. Commissioner Henry. Aye. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. Vice Chair Nannis. Aye. And Chair Kirsch. Aye. The ayes have it. Six to zero. This item has been approved. Recommended for approval. Okay.

We'll wait just a second to get Commissioner Fentner returned to his perch.

Miss me? I did.

All right, noting Commissioner Fentner has returned. We'll move on to... Public hearing SUP-2026-0010 to amend a special use permit and special exception approved on September 14th, 2009 by ordinance number 054-09 for a project to allow relocation of a driveway and related changes and design review with variances at 1301 Clavey Road and 1377 Deer Creek Road. Parkway. Senior Planner Burhop, you're up again.

Oh, last time I forgot my introduction. Good evening. I'm Carl Burhop. I'm a Senior Planner with the City of Highland Park. Oh, this is a public hearing, actually. Did you read the... Oh, this is a new one. Yeah, I got it out.

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park City Council. How'd that get on here? You must have taken the mayor's script. I must have? How'd that get in my packet? Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Planning and Design Commission. My name is Steve Kirch. The quorum of the Planning Commission being present, the members will now introduce themselves for the record, starting from my far right. Kristen in check.

Danny Mantis.

Karen Moore.

Josh Nannis. 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. 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 on matter is needed, it will be continued until the next available agenda. With that, I open the floor for the staff plan and sign 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.

Okay, thank you, Carl, for setting me straight yet again today.

Thank you, Chair. So this is a property at 1301 Clavey Road. It's a synagogue. So staff recommend the commission review the materials and discuss the proposed amendments to the existing ordinance. The commission may adopt draft findings of fact recommending approval. There are Findings of fact at the applicant's request in the packet for consideration. Okay, so in the packet and the exhibits, there were multiple things. And in the report, it indicated that there were fire code and fire department related comments that we were in the process of working with the applicant. Well, that's been resolved. And again, just so the commission is aware and the public is aware, that's often how these applications work. Applicants put in a lot of time and effort, they submit something and then staff reviews that, and then there may have to be comments or things that are changed. And then, you know, sometimes those are changed in time to post with the packet and sometimes they're not. It's just, it's a process obviously that has to work through. And so the applicant did get the feedback from the city and the applicant, has indicated to staff that what was plan two or option two, kind of the intermediate option, the one that the fire department said that they would prefer was acceptable to them as well. And of course the applicants here to speak that into the record as well. And so what I have here on the right, that is option two. Now it is a little hard to see, but the idea is that this area here will be removed. It's currently a driveway. It'll be removed and then landscaped over. And so that will remove the property's current access onto Clavey. And then their plan is to then put an access up here, just north. of the building of the synagogue and then connect to this private road, which is a park district road. And there was in the packet evidence from the Highland Park Park District that they are working with the applicant to see this accomplished. In this exhibit, the idea is that emergency vehicle staff would still be able to access the west side of the building and then turn around as needed. And the idea then is there'd be a gate here, then presumably a Knox box that would allow emergency services to access the building. The applicant, the reasoning for the applicant's changes, the applicant has indicated there are security terms and so that I'll let them speak to that, but that is the genesis behind their design changes for the site. From a zoning standpoint, you know, they're removing impervious. There's actually no new landscaping required. They obviously have to, you know, reseed or whatever the area. I think they're actually planning to provide plantings. There's no plantings required though, because there's no new vehicular use area. There's no new foundation being built and they're not proposing to change anything with the exterior lighting. So it's from a zoning and design review standpoint, it is rather straightforward. And so what they're doing is they're amending the exhibits, the plans that are in this prior approved special use permit, which also happened to be a special exception. It was a ordinance approving both at the time. And they also indicated they would relocate their ground sign to the north and they indicated they would put it on their property. This is just the aerial of the site. Again, the idea is that there would be an access here and they would close theirs on Clavey. The commission may note that their current access aligns with the street to the south is where this one doesn't. That was reviewed by our engineering division, our public works department. We discussed that. We do not have concerns for that. This is the background. I guess I already discussed this. And then these are the comments. These comments were also in the report. Your comments are just a way of, again, letting the applicant as well as the commission and the public know what will be expected because none of these comments need to become conditions of approval. They're just all code requirements that are being communicated via these reports. And so, you know, when they remove the driveway, they'll have to replace up there. They'll have to abandon and... remove the curb and gutter and then replace with full depth curb and gutter. And then the forestry division just had comments about where new planning should go. Not that, you know, none should go in the traffic visibility area. And so for conditions of approval, there were two in the findings of fact, and I just want to make some changes because in essence, they have responded. The applicant has responded to some of the fire access concerns. And so one comment of this last one, the third one. So again, just to reiterate, the applicant will need final approvals from the Highland Park Park District to perform work on and use park district property. So, you know, they'll have to sign off on any final permits before the work occurs. And then I just, I do kind of want, I wrote this new, so this one was in the packet applicant to resolve outstanding fire access concerns with the city. Well, in essence, the applicant agrees to go with option two is my understanding is what they've communicated to me. But I do, I've done this long enough to know that there will always be some fine tune changes because the plan at this stage still doesn't have like the final engineering and dimensions to it. And so this is my way to communicate to the commission that if you were okay to adopt, to recommend approval of this plan to know that there could still be some fine tuning to the turnaround so that, you know, a truck can actually maneuver around it. And so then the commission could just consider as a, as a new condition. So to strike that first one, but then add that new in the plan before the refinery provides a firetruck maneuvering. In that way, the commission will know, you know, the plan may be altered slightly to come into compliance with that. And that is the staff presentation. Isn't that? You can take questions if they're there.

Applicant to resolve outstanding fire. I guess you could say that. It's the same thing. Yeah, you're right. I would have thought that.

Questions for staff. Commissioner Henry. Shouldn't it be the condition that fire access concerns should be resolved to the satisfaction of the fire department? I mean, isn't that who we're looking to to say we can get in there with our equipment? That's acceptable.

Just know this, the code requires that. So like that's a code regardless of what you said. So it has to have adequate fire access. What we're saying is that's still being resolved, but we've got option two that the chief is okay with. And there might be some changes to the plan that you approved. So what we don't want to have to do is come back for changes related to that. So that's, you know, just right.

And if this kind of condition where something must be tweaked before it's presented and approved to the city council usually falls off because by the time it's presented to the city council, it's moot. That's at least when I'm drafting these documents, I get rid of it because it's, you know, why are we amending it? And it's already amended, just so you know.

More questions for staff. Okay, can we hear from the petitioner? Good evening. Can you raise your right hand, please, and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And can you state your name, spell your last name for the record?

Yes, sir. My name is Larry Mason. I'm here on behalf of Macomb-Sola Lakeside. I'm a past president of the Saker community. I am also a member of its building and safety committee. and a long-term lay leader of the congregation. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm here, of course, to address your questions and just to provide some very quick background. Two sacred communities came to Highland Park to form independently in the 1950s, and then planted their roots by installing their facilities in the early 1960s, one of which is this property that's legacy Solel, congregation Solel. And when the two great congregations as strong communities came together in 2019, they chose to maintain their sacred home at 1301 Clavey. There's some historic precedent exactly for what we're doing now. In 2009, we came before this distinguished group, although I don't think any of you were here on the commission then, but in 2009, we needed to adjust the special use permit to permit the addition of the administrative wing. And we have today the architect that was involved with that, Matt Wiley, for that project. It was very successful. It was proved. And during that time, we worked together side by side with permission from the Park District of Highland Park, our neighbor that controls Deer Creek Parkway. And we actually put in this driveway right in the exact same spot. And we had a wonderful success story in this location. There were no traffic issues. There were no mishaps. Everything flowed perfectly with Deer Creek Parkway and everything went well, but our deal with, and the reason why we needed it, of course, is we were constructing something right there in the front, in the area where we now wish to put in green space to beautify the community and of course make our sacred home safe. Of course, there's a net benefit to this, as you saw from what Mr. Burhop showed you. For decades now, and incidentally, we were there first before Derrick Creek Parkway. and predecessors to the terrific team here in city planning. I'm not quite sure how Deer Creek Parkway and our driveway got adjacent to each other and then Aspen Lane got built across the way. But I think you could all reflect on what a traffic anomaly and concern that really is. And it really does present a terrible challenge for our community and will perpetuate itself for many, many future decades to come. So although our primary focus here today about this special use permit application is the safety and security of thousands of lives that are addressed in our sacred space, it actually affects thousands of lives that are moving along Clavey Road each and every day that have to impact that conundrum of our driveway currently coming in and out of Clavey Road. the adjacent Clavey, Deer Creek Parkway, and of course, Aspen Road across the way. We're going to eliminate that problem too. So this is a win-win for Highland Park and the community at large for a whole nother reason. So back to what we're proposing to do and what we've agreed to do. I can't say enough on behalf of Macomb-Sola Lakeside, for the city planning department, fire department, everyone that's worked with us, this entire process works really well when there's thoughtful collaboration and communication. We've had that every step of this way through this SUP application. And Mr. Burhop as the senior planner has really been terrific on point. What we learned through that process was we don't know everything. Obviously most applicants don't. It's not something we do every day. This is what they do every day. And we're really appreciative for their support and their guidance. What we learned of course is yes, safety drives this project. And the safety also includes what happens in the unfortunate event there is an extreme emergency. How would emergency services come to our facility at all angles? And there is a need for a certain type of equipment under certain circumstances to get to our Western emergency exit. So that requires the ease of access. So in order to make that occur, Mr. Barap, thank you for getting us to that drawing. I just want to point out one thing. This is not a precise drawing. You see that large oval there, kind of a shaded section. It's fairly representative of current condition. We're using a very well respected contractor, a paving contractor, the City of Highland Park, Total Paving. Total Paving used under an approved permit last summer. We actually repaved the parking lot to the north. That is the same contractor we're going to use again. They've done a lot of work in this community and at large, They're an approved vendor in the community. Total paving, working with our design team will help contour that turnaround in this design to accommodate what the fire department is looking for. And just so that you can visualize what we're speaking of, imagine the largest fire truck in their arsenal, that hook and ladder. It requires approximately, I'm going to rough estimate for you, but there is precision to the code. It's 76 feet. I'm going to round it up to 80. You need to be able to turn that thing around. They don't like to go in reverse, although they can, but they like to go around. So they want to come in from the new driveway. They'd come down to the south toward Clavey and be able to turn toward that western entrance, emergency exit. And they need to be able to maneuver that way if they had to. Hopefully they never do, but just in case they did. They had that ability to maneuver and position themselves accordingly. We don't want to impair that, of course. If that's the recommendation, we accept it. On behalf of McComb-Solo Lakeside as the representative here today, we accept it. So this proposal we believe works on all levels. It provides us the safety objectives that you saw in the packet and read about. I can address those with finer points if you would like. We are in a public hearing and I'm trying to be careful about some of my words because I know we're in a public hearing as to the need, but I know in your public materials, you may have hopefully seen some of the reasons why we're here today. And I trust some of you are aware, of course, the urgency of this concern. So with that, I'll leave it open to questions other than to just share with you that this is a two-part process. This is phase one. Phase one gets us what we need to hopefully stay on track to make these absolutely urgent improvements in time for the High Holy Days this year. is very important for us to stay on track today with hopefully your approval of the recommendation from staff so that we can then get to the city council and then get their blessing so that we can move forward with what we need to do in early September. That would be very, very important to us this year. And it would be very important to the police department of Highland Park. They are an incredible partner for us. They have been dealing with a logistical challenge for our sacred community for decades, but of course, acutely, more recently, more than ever. And for, it's no secret, we're under armed security protection anytime there's a human in our facility and far more protection whenever there's high holiday events, of course. Police department, you know, is overworked in our community and hopefully, They won't be under any extra duress. This helps solve problems for the police. And we need to hopefully support them as well. Any questions?

Questions for the petitioner? Seeing none. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one wishes to speak from the public, do I have a motion regarding the findings of fact that are in our packet?

I would move to adopt the findings of fact. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Ntchik. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Director Fontaine, could you call the roll, please? Absolutely.

Commissioner Ntchik. Aye. Commissioner Fetner. Aye. Commissioner Henry. Aye. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. Vice Chair Nannis. Aye. And Chair Kirsch. Aye. You guys have it. Motion carries. This item has been recommended for approval. City Council, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next up is public hearing ZTA2026-00003 for a zoning code text amendment to revise, strike, or create definitions, land uses, land use permissions, and regulations related to data centers, data processing centers, and similar uses. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Highland Park Plan and Design Commission. My name is Steve Kirch. A quorum of the plan commission being present, the members will now introduce themselves for the record, starting from my far right. Kristen Nijak.

Danny Mantis.

Karen Moore.

Josh Nannis. Ken Henry. David Fettner.

The Planet Design Commission is charged with hearing applications for rezonings, planned developments, and subdivisions under the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations of the City of Highland Park. We are required to design 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. AND 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, 1158 HALF DAY ROAD IN HYLAND PARK. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU. AND BACK UP IS SENIOR PLANNER BURHOP.

Thank you. Good evening again. My name is Carl Berhop. I'm a senior planner with the City of Highland Park and the Community Development Department. Okay, staff recommend the commission consider a zoning code tax amendment to prohibit the land use data center within the city of Highland Park. The commission should consider staff's recommendation and presentation, open the public hearing, take testimony if any, and make a recommendation to city council. As this is a staff petition, we do recommend approval. We have findings of fact recommending approval in the packet as well as an ordinance that makes the proposed changes. So some quick background. So the impact of data centers has changed since the 1970s in ways that were not contemplated that now warrant proactive zoning code changes to address this land use. Since allowed in 1974, data centers have evolved into uses that have potential externalities related to noise and air pollution, high levels of water consumption and electrical consumption, and large facility size that make them incompatible with residential uses and impact on city services. Therefore, staff recommend this land use not be allowed as it is not compatible with the built environment and character of the city, particularly residential uses within the zoning districts. This is just from the report. This is just the brief history of the land use data processing and data processing centers. Can trace it back to when it was allowed in the I industrial and service district back in the, a copy of the November, 1974 zoning code. And then if you go to the bottom line that has evolved to data processing centers, which is an undefined land use, meaning it doesn't have a definition in section 150.202. It's a permitted land use in those districts that are listed there. That's also in the report. And so that's the current status of that land use right now. And so staff recommend, we recommend that we add a definition for data center to section 150.202 of the zoning code. I'll just read it briefly. Data center means an establishment primarily engaged in the storage, management, processing, and or transmission of digital data and housing computer and or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations. So we recommend that definition be added We then recommend striking the existing one data processing centers, removing that, removing those use permissions, removing that, and then adding this data center into 150.490 table M and leave all use permission squares blank, meaning the recommendation that data center not be allowed. We also recommend striking the off street parking loading requirement for data processing centers. So there's no confusion as to why that's still there. And there was one other change I believe there is in the healthcare district. It specifically calls out allowing data processing centers as accessory use. We recommend that stay the same, just strike the phrase data processing centers and use the proposed phrase data center. And then also I will add, Well, not in the report. This doesn't change. I believe it's section 150.404 sub C, which allows accessory uses. Of course, you know, a school district, the city, businesses, you can still be allowed to have, you know, as an accessory use, you know, whatever you need for your servers and your data processing. This is a principal use we're looking at. And so that is my presentation. I can take questions if there are any.

Questions for staff? Commissioner Nijink.

Do we have any of these land uses in the city and would it create nonconformities if we prohibited them?

Not that I'm aware of. Not that I'm aware.

Okay. Anyone else? Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this issue? I don't see any. Is there any discussion from the commission or a motion from the commission? I know one person in my household who will be extremely pleased when This is taken up by the city council.

My son specifically asked about this. He didn't even know it was on the agenda. He specifically asked if it was allowed in town. I'm like, I don't think so, but I'll ask.

Well, it's certainly become an issue.

Oh, absolutely.

Not only nationwide, but worldwide. particularly in areas not far from where they're talking about building a new Bears stadium, frankly. There are all sorts of plans for data centers in Indiana and in many of those areas, and it's very controversial. And to the point of what the staff report has, the amount of energy and water usage and those kinds of things, are pretty astronomical. My only question is, are we being short-sighted by doing this now and having to come back to it maybe sometime or some future iteration of the commission to address it again? Although I don't even know if there's sufficient property in Hyde Park to even build something on this feature.

I think it's best to handle it now before somebody comes with a proposal and then we have to stop and say, oh, wait, we don't want one of these. And then we have to say, we're not picking on you, Joe Data Center. I think it's best to handle it before a proposal has come through. Yeah, sure. That's our thought. All right, so I would make a motion that we adopt their findings of fact, are they? That we adopt the draft findings of fact to prohibit the land use data center in our zoning code. I'll second that.

All right, moved by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Henry. Any further discussion on the motion?

For the accessory use, should we consider a size restriction? just to meet the accessory use tests that's that's what we're at because i'm just trying to think of like you know people could be clever and try and get around things and if there's no like definition of like what fully defines accessory use. And you have people who are, you know, in sales functions or whatever in an office building, but then a chunk of it is.

There's a series of tests already in the code. We're just recommending that we deal with the principal use at this time. Okay. That's the main focus of the main goal.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, Director Fontaine, could you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Nitschek. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Mantis. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. Vice Chair Nattis. Aye. And Chair Kirsch. Aye. You guys have it. Motion is unanimous. This is recommended to City Council. Thank you.

Thank you. In other business, do we have any administrative design review updates?

Yes, one. All right. I believe it's a ComEd facility. It's at 1785 Old Skokie Road. I believe it's along Highway 41, along the west side, along the ComEd road. that power line corridor. They were administratively approved for lighting that complies with the code by right height and bug ratings, et cetera. They complied by right. So that was approved. That's it. That's the only administrative review though.

They did all their upgrades over there, didn't they? We approved a couple of years ago. I haven't been sold. I can never see that property. You got to drive all the way back there to- I remember doing something with them.

Yes, we think they redid their parapet or something.

and the truck bays or stuff like that. Our next meeting is not until August 18th, 2026. That'll be a regular meeting here at City Hall. Do we have any agenda items at this point?

That's still far enough out where I'm not sure we will. Nothing was continued to that date.

And...

I am only currently, it's far enough out that we may, but I'm only aware of one right now, an amendment to a non-conforming special use permit for 2132 Green Bay Road, but there may be several others. So that's what I'm aware of now.

Any case briefing, director?

So the collection of items that represented the amendment to the 1700 old Deerfield, the Bowery now, the townhouse development, that collection of amendments was approved.

Do we have any other business from the public that has not been addressed otherwise this evening? Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Seconded.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right.

See you in four weeks, I guess.