City Council - Regular Meeting

Council Member Andres Tapia, and I'm serving as Presiding Officer this evening in the absence of Mayor Rotering. I'm pleased to call to order the Highland Park City Council meeting on Monday, August 17th, 2026. Will the Clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Senter?

Present.

Council Member Bruckman? Here. Council Member Ross? Here. Council Member Littler? Here. Council Member Bloomberg?

Here.

Presiding Officer Tapia?

Present. Let's all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. with liberty and justice for all. We are going to proceed with approval of the minutes. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the consolidated meeting of the Highland Park City Council held on July 13th, 2026?

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Present. Okay, the minutes are approved then, thank you. All right, now I'm seeking approval of the warrant list, and may I have a motion to approve the warrant list? Move to approve. Second?

Second.

All right, any questions or comments on the warrant list? Any from the public? Okay, hearing none, will the clerk please call the vote?

Councilmember Center? Aye. Councilmember Brookman? Aye. Councilmember Ross? Aye. Councilmember Littleworth? Aye. Councilmember Bloomberg?

Aye.

Presiding Officer Tapia?

Aye. So the warrant list is approved. Next is a report of the Mayor, and in terms of appointments, we have no appointments this evening. And in terms of proclamations, it is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, and I will read this, the following proclamation. September's National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, an opportunity to reduce the stigma surrounding this important topic. Identifying the warning signs of suicide and learning how to connect at-risk individuals with appropriate care are simple actions we all can take to support those around us who may be in crisis. Free and confidential help is available 24-7 via phone, text, or online services by dialing the National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 988. We'd also like to recognize the city's social workers who work very closely together to support the community. The police social worker, Ami Bricker, LCSW. Senior services social services specialist, Rachel Travaris, LCSW. And resiliency social services specialist, Jasmine Alejandro, LSW. So we wanna, let's thank them for their services during this important work that they do. All right, under other business, we have two other items this evening. The September 11th, 2001 25th anniversary. Next month, we will mark 25 years since the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington DC, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Remember those whose lives were senselessly cut short or forever changed on that day, and honor everyone who responded to the call for aid, especially first responders from Highland Park and Highwood. The city, in partnership with Ravinia Festival, North Shore School District 112, TSHD 113, the Highland Park Public Library, the Park District of Highland Park, and NSSRA represent the 25th anniversary observance on Friday, September 11th, 9 a.m. at Bennett Gordon Hall and Ravinia Festival. The Highland Park Fire Department will lead the Last Alarm Bell Ceremony as part of a program that will include remarks from Mayor Rotering, Chief of Police Lou Jogman, Fire Chief Joe Schrage, and Deputy Chief Fire Bill Brennan. Deputy Chief Brennan traveled to New York along with the other fire department employees to provide support. Tom Finnegan of the Shannon Rovers Pipe Band will perform. All community members are invited to join us to reflect on this watershed day in our history and remember all who were touched by that tragedy. Additionally, the city welcomes shared experiences, reflections, and memories from community members as part of a display plan for City Hall in an online gallery on the city's website. Please take a few moments to share your memories with us at cityhpil.com forward slash September 11th. It is so important to keep this history alive by sharing our personal stories. Whether you would like to share what you remember of that day through writing, photography, or artwork, we invite your submissions to illustrate that Highland Park continues to remember and honor all those who were directly impacted on September 11th, 2001. So for more information, be sure to visit the city's website. Transitioning to another item, there is a public hearing related to zoning relief for 1850 Green Bay Road. And so at this time, we'd like to conduct a public hearing pertaining to item number 12 under other business items A and B on tonight's agenda. Pursuant to chapter 150.307E of the Highland Park Code, I hereby call to order, do I do the gavel this time? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ZONING RELIEF OF 1850 GREEN BAY ROAD. NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS PUBLISHED JULY 31, 2026 IN THE LAKE COUNTY NEW SUN. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. And I will now turn the public hearing over to Joel Fontaine, Director of Community Development for the staff presentation.

Council, staff recommend approving the following to allow the installation of a sound mitigation fence on the north side of the property at 1850 Green Bay Road, Highland Park. One, plan development amendment with variations from the fence code and design review. And two, second amendment to the development agreement related to this out beyond at Highland Park development. And as Presiding Officer Tapia just mentioned, per Section 150.307, Settlement of Litigation, this application comes directly to City Council for consideration at a public hearing that you're holding now without prior consideration or recommendation from the Planning and Design Commission. Okay, so site plan for the proposal. Here you can see 1850 Green Bay Road, the Albion Highland Park, and you can see a red line to the north of that. That line depicts the proposed 100 foot long fence that will be 12 feet high. And so that fence will serve as a sound buffer between 1815 Green Bay Road and the abutting property to the north on Sheehan Court, 1853. Relief requests. So the amendments to the plan development and development agreement update the landscaping plan. And I just want to make mention that no new landscaping is proposed and is not required. However, the updated landscaping on that plan does provide additional plantings that captures what has been planted out there over the last few years. And so we do think that that needs to be in there. In terms of modifications, there's a couple. So modification from the fence code to allow a solid type fence that is not either masonry nor smooth finished wood. And a modification from the fence code to grant 4.33 feet of relief from a maximum height of 8 feet. to allow the 12.33 foot high fence. And that fence will vary from 12 to 12.33 feet along that 100 foot stretch. And so that's that sound absorptive fence that has been proposed. For the background, we have council approved the settlement agreement and covenant not to sue. This matter stems from concerns from Jody and Peter Mordini of 1853 Sheehan Court about the level of noise that emanates from and is attributable to the Albion property. The city and Albion have undertaken extensive investigation into sound emanating from the property. The investigation, as part of that investigation, the city issued citations. As a result, the Albion has implemented other sound mitigation, including louvers, and now proposes sound absorptive wall, as agreed as part of the settlement. That wall does need relief in this amendment. And so staff do recommend that the council consider approving the following, the planned development amendment with variations on the defense code and the second amendment to the development agreement. Thank you, Presiding Officer Topia.

All right. Well, any questions for Joel from city council? Any from the public? All right. So with that, I would entertain a motion to close this public hearing.

So moved.

Second. All right. With that, let's do the roll call vote.

Council Member Sanders.

Aye.

Council Member Brockman.

Aye. Council Member Ross. Aye.

Council Member Littleworth.

Aye. Council Member Bloomberg. Aye. Presiding Officer Tapia.

Aye. So with that, we're back to the city council meeting out of the special public hearing. And we will now vote to business from the council. Is there any business from the council that anybody want to bring up? Okay. With that, this is from city staff. City Manager Newkirk, could you please provide the staff report?

Yes, thank you, Presiding Officer. So we have three items to report on on behalf of the staff. First is a slide as it pertains to the city's plan to develop an accessible streets and sidewalk plan. The objective of this initiative is to review all of our sidewalks, shared use paths, accessible parking spaces, intersections, and other city-owned pedestrian facilities. Our objective is to make Highland Park a more accessible community regardless of ability. We have a steering committee that consists of representatives from throughout the community. A couple of those partner agencies include our school districts, Park District, Keshet, the NSSRA, our transportation advisory group, as well as others. And so those individuals are serving on our steering committee. We are in the public engagement phase at this time, so we encourage the public to complete a survey so we can get your feedback on this important topic. So you can scan that QR code, which is listed on the screen there, or email us at the contact information listed on the screen. We are doing a significant amount of public education as well as public engagement and reaching out through a variety of communication modalities to get public feedback. The survey closes on August 30th, so again, we're looking forward to Second item we want to report on is an update on the 2026 major projects. We have a staff report in the packet that provides highlights of second quarter initiatives as part of our work plan. So as information for the public, we have 123 major projects. These projects are initiatives that are outside of our day-to-day operation. They include significant public facing initiatives or just major initiatives that the city is undertaking. So we have a comprehensive report on our website. And if you go to the staff report, it provides a link of where this landing page can be found. So individuals can review initiatives by topic, by department and get a status report. And each major initiative does align with one or more of our core priorities. And then third, we have 22 items on the omnibus agenda. I understand from talking one-on-one with elected officials that a few items want to be pulled, so we're happy to answer any questions. But each staff report includes a a detailed report and recommendation. Just a couple of brief highlights. So one is we do have the recommendation to increase the home rule sales tax from one to 1.5%. And this was based on communication and discussion with the city council at our spring workshop. We are recommending that the increased revenue from that home rule sales tax be directed towards our capital investment plan our capital plan we have 40 million dollars in capital projects that we are undertaking this year and over our 10-year capital plan we have 216 million dollars of infrastructure investment that we're undertaking we did talk to the city council and our Our plan is to implement this increased sales tax only for a five-year period, and then we will review it at that time, and the idea is to bring it back to that 1%. Second, there's a number of capital projects on the omnibus agenda, and just for public information, if individuals go to our website, there is a link to all the capital projects, so individuals can see All the projects that are being undertaken throughout the community through an interactive map or by topic, as well as an update on each of those initiatives. And lastly, item number 22 pertains to a recommendation to enter into an agreement with a consultant to update the city's comprehensive plan. So we've been working on this initiative for some time. So following a comprehensive request for qualification as well as a request for a proposal initiative, we sought proposals, we conducted interviews, we've provided updates to the city council, and then the recommended contract is on the agenda for your formal consideration.

That concludes our staff report. Thank you, city manager. So now we will have business from the public and assistant to the city manager of this. Could you please introduce the next item and explain how this works?

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS TO CITY COUNCIL ON A TOPIC THAT IS WITHIN THE COUNCIL'S PURVIEW AND JURISDICTION BUT IS NOT LISTED IN ANOTHER LOCATION ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT A MATTER THAT IS LISTED ON THE AGENDA, WE ASK THAT YOU WAIT UNTIL THAT AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED AND WE WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THEN. If your matter is on the omnibus consent agenda, please let us know if you'd like us to remove that matter from the consolidated list so that you can speak about it. Please be aware that business from the public is not intended to be a forum for open dialogue or engagement with members of the City Council. RATHER IT IS INTENDED AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT A RESPONSE FROM ANYONE TONIGHT. IF APPROPRIATE, WE MAY DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER OR OTHER STAFF TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS OR ISSUES RAISED AT A LATER DATE. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. All speakers will be limited to three minutes. We request that the public not applaud or make other comments after any speaker. We ask that everyone be respectful, civil, and non-repetitive.

Thank you. So with that, let anybody from the public on an item not on the agenda. Okay. We're good. All right. So now, let us proceed with tonight's scheduled business. Items 1 through 22 have been grouped together for omnibus consideration. Does anybody want to pull any items out?

Yes, I'd like to pull items 1, 4, and 5. One, four, and five.

I was gonna say four and five.

Four and five, okay, anybody else?

Four, five, and 22.

And 22. All right, so let's do the omnibus first. So I need a motion.

I'm sorry, Presiding Officer, if I could, I wanted to raise awareness on item 21. There are going to be changes as to this um amendment of the sup for thirteen oh one klaviy it is minor changes it's essentially um changing the name of the applicant as well as um adding another sheet to the site plan and so um i don't know if you wish to take that separately if you wish to pull it okay all right so um

I need a motion to approve the omnibus bill of one through, well, how do you do this? Minus, do you minus the ones we took? Okay, one through, okay, no. Two through three, and six through 20.

And that's all. That's it.

There.

There you go. All right. Can I have a motion?

Motion. Motion. Second. Second. All right. So can you call the vote?

Councilmember Senter?

Aye.

Councilmember Bruckman? Aye. Councilmember Ross? Aye. Councilmember Littler? Aye. Councilmember Bloomberg?

Aye.

Presiding Officer Tapia?

Aye. All right, nice job, everybody. That was good teamwork. All right, so with that, we're gonna take these five items one at a time. So with item one, can you read item one for us, city manager? Just what the topic is?

Absolutely, yes. So this is an exterior improvement grant for Beanbar and Messy for a five-year consolidated grant. So what we are recommending is based on the investment That is proposed to be made to the property that we combine the exterior improvement grants for a five year period into one proposed grant as part of the overall investment. These are matching grants, but they are providing well, certainly over the recommended $100,000. INVESTMENT INTO THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S DISCUSS THIS. I PULLED THIS. FIRST OF ALL, I'M DELIGHTED THAT BEAN BAR IS COMING TO HIGHLAND PARK. I WELCOME YOU WITH OPEN ARMS. MY ISSUE HAS MORE TO DO WITH some procedural issues that led to how we're handling this on the city council. We have a program that Beanbar didn't really qualify for for a couple of reasons, one of which is that there's no money left in the program. So my colleagues have decided to combine the annual total that would be available over a five-year period into a single year under a different program. That's in my opinion, not fiscally responsible. And I'm opposing it for that reason. I am also opposing it with the comfort of knowing it is likely to pass, but I wanted this to be on the record. So thank you.

Any other comments? I do have a comment on that. I meant to pull that one, too, so I'm very grateful to you for doing that. I also don't like the idea of bringing all that money in one year because it's an upfront cost rather than seeing how the business is performing over those five years. But that's not what bothers me. What was in our packet said there was a precedent set. from the prior business and that's why we were gonna do it. This is not a precedent. It is a year by year exterior grant for $20,000. It is not a $100,000 grant for one fell swoop over five years. So I just wanna clarify that it is not precedent. And I also agree. We're very happy that Beanbar is coming, and we're going to make sure that your money, I have a feeling, is going to go through. But I want to make sure for others who are coming to us to apply for the exterior grant, it is a $20,000 one-year grant over a five-year period up to 100. It is not a one-time thing, and it is not precedential.

Yeah, the unique part of this was at the same exact space, the city council approved an agreement with a different restaurant group. And just given the volume of investment into this specific property, we offered them basically this same deal for that other restaurant group. And so we felt in looking at this new restaurant group, they were making comparable significant investment into the property. They're a well-established business, they're providing you know, full-service restaurant operations, and it was for that reason that we recommended pretty much that same deal. But without a doubt, Councilmember Littler, this is not something that is available on the books that anyone would be able to take advantage of.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify, if I may. Are we giving the entire $100,000 in the first year and they just won't be able to get it in subsequent years? Yes.

It would be correct. It would be based on submittal of receipts. And yes, then they would not be able to apply for that specific program for a five-year period.

But they are getting this as a lump sum. So I would say that the reason they were treated in this way was the way that we had proceeded with the CRG group. I don't want it to be precedential. That's why I'm making this statement. But it certainly has that potential. That's right. Thank you. Any other comments?

Well, I have a comment. The reason I was in favor of what we're voting for is that that property has been vacant for how long? A COUPLE DECADES? 15, 20 YEARS? YES. RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VENUE DISTRICT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REVITALIZE, AND I FELT THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO THE WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE, THAT'S WHY IT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, THAT WE COULD SUPPORT THAT EFFORT, OTHERWISE WE WOULD FACE HOW MANY MORE YEARS OF A VACCINATED LOT. FOR THAT REASON, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

I just also wanted to add as to reasons why this property, just to clarify, it is also a site that BDAG, the Business and Economic Development Advisory Group, earmarked as a priority catalyst site in their discussions last year. So it's something that's been a high priority site, and we do believe it to be a catalyst site in this district.

Yeah, so it's very strategic play, right? It's not just a particular restaurant, but the whole district could benefit from it. All right, anybody else? Anybody want to make a motion?

Before we do that, can we see if anyone in the public has a... Oh, thank you.

Anybody in the public have something to say? All right. I'm going to call for a motion.

So moved.

Second.

All right. Can we please do the roll call?

Council Member Senter.

Aye.

Council Member Bruckman. Aye. Council Member Ross. Aye. Council Member Littler. Aye. Council Member Bloomberg. No. Presiding Officer Tapia.

Aye. All right. So with that, that motion passes. So with that, number four, can you do the same, City Manager, for four? What is four about?

Absolutely. Four and five are very similar. So these are food and beverage, interior improvement, and expansion grant programs. Our grant programs for these initiatives for full service restaurants as well as limited service restaurants require an application. An application has been signed, was signed by the applicant, which is the business owner as well as the property owner. And at that time, then we negotiate and we talk about the work that's being undertaken, the overall grant program and so forth. We had a, a practice in place as a staff that once we got support from those two parties, we would put the agreement on a city council for approval. And so that was done, but then After City Council approval and after approval from the applicant, the property owner requested to be removed from being party to that agreement. And that was one specific consideration that when this entire program was put in place, it was very important for the City Council that property owners have a stake in these grant programs. that it's not just the city investing into the business and investing into the property, but that it be a three-party agreement between the property owner, the business, and the city. And also very important is these are matching funds from the city. So it's not that the city is giving grant funds that are not at the very minimum matched by the business as well as an investment by the property owner. And so based on feedback from the property owner, we did try to negotiate just a different strategy in terms of getting them to a comfort level, but also supporting the business. And unfortunately, we could not reach agreement. So based on the investment that the businesses have already made, and we have... the owner of Tamale's, Jeff, that's with us here this evening. We are recommending that we move forward with an agreement just between us and the respective business owners. Again, making very clear that this is atypical and this is not how these programs work, but we want to be supportive to the businesses, the investment that they're making into the community. And so we are recommending approval of these two grants.

All right. And for discussion? So again, I pulled these. I think a couple of others of us want to discuss this, but you've addressed my concern. The property owner in each of these is the same property owner. The programs are different programs than the one I addressed in the first matter that was pulled. These programs I think are excellent programs. They involve investment by the property owners or assistance from the owners of the property in addition to the business owners who are expanding or maintaining or improving and investing their own money into the program. So it's matched. And in this instance, it appears that the property owner initially gave the impression of consenting to this and participating in this. And then after the businesses have already invested a significant amount of money, indicated they were not going to sign on. And I have a problem with that. I wanted that illuminated. I don't want to penalize the business owners who, one is new to the city and I'm very excited about that. And the other has been here for a long time and has been a significant contributor to our business environment. But I think that this was unfair. It was not the kind of community participation that this program was designed to engender. And I wanted to make sure that that was of record.

Thank you. Just to echo what was previously said, the fact that there was an established, loved restaurant in town and a new business that just opened, had to wait months to get paid after we had already approved it on our end, it was unacceptable to me. This incentive program was designed to help businesses in town thriving and continue to succeed. And to say this is disappointing is an understatement. and that we should not disregard the unnecessary burden that this places on our community businesses. So I will definitely be approving this and this should never have happened.

Thank you.

So I was a major proponent of this program. And I think it is essential that we help our tenants and our businesses improve in various ways their establishments. And it's really important. But in these particular programs, it is people coming together and all of us doing it. Because what the city is doing is using taxpayer dollars. which we have a fiduciary responsibility for, to help these businesses go forward. So if God forbid something happens, we have a clawback provision. What that means is if over five years you succeed and you're getting a sales tax revenue, the city's making back its money, both for its taxpayers and for the city. And if, in fact, they close after a certain period of time, but we've invested in that business, then we have a clawback saying, you got to give back 80% if it's after two years. You got to give back 60% if it's after three years. Well, now that we don't have an owner who's signing on to that, That's all falling on the tenant of those particular businesses. I am gonna vote in favor of this because I'm not gonna watch our tenants, our restauranteurs be penalized because this person decided to step back from doing what was right and what was formally agreed to. And now, frankly, putting taxpayer dollars at risk in a business because we have no clawback other than ourselves. We take the loss on directly because there's no one else there to be the big pocket behind it. So we have faith in these business owners, in these tenants, excuse me. We're very grateful that they've made this investment in this community and in this business. But we really also want to thank the one property owner because what it made us do is tighten up our restrictions. So that's not going to happen again. There will be no promise of money until everybody has bought into it. And that's kind of stepping back from it isn't going to happen again. But when a tenant, a restaurant relies on that money from the city or from the property owner, we're not going to let them have to wait. And I do apologize that you had to wait for your money, but it wasn't our fault. And so what we want to do is make sure you succeed with your beautiful restaurant and all the improvements you've made. But this is a great program and everybody has to participate as well as take responsibility.

Anybody else?

I'll just echo what everyone else has said. I believe in the program. I'm glad we're tightening it up. And I believe in, you know, very simply in supporting businesses as much as we can.

Yeah. And so I'd like to provide my own comments, too. You know, the business owner, I mean, I'm sorry, not the business owner, the property owner is not only a property owner from outside our community, he is a resident of Highland Park. And as a large property owner, we consider him a community leader. in the way that many property owners act as a community leaders that they are. There's a property owners association that gets together by property owners that really care about the city. And they advocate for certain things, but they do it in the spirit of wanting Highland Park to thrive. And I have to convey my very deep, deep personal disappointment in this property owner who was not a community leader. and abdicated a responsibility as a community leader to really participate in a program that, as my council members have said, is intended to be a true private public partnership. That's how it works. And when somebody who is in the private sector pulls away, not only does he hurt the tenants, BUT HE HEARTS THE EFFORT THAT THEN COULD HAVE A REPERCUSSION EFFECT ON MANY OTHERS WHO ARE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A PROGRAM THAT WE BELIEVE IN AND WE REALLY HONOR, BUT IT REQUIRES THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE BUSINESS OWNER, AND THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE EQUALLY, AND THIS IS HUGELY DISAPPOINTING, AND I THINK IT'S A FAILURE OF COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP ON SOMEONE THAT IS BELOVED IN MANY WAYS, BUT THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THERE'S BEEN A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP, AND I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT VERY So with that, we need to vote on this. I call for, yes. Oh, yes. Any comments from the public?

As to one or both. Four and five, yeah.

For four and five.

Tamales or kitty in the butcher.

YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. A MOTION?

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE ON THE OMNIBUS AGENDA. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.

COUNCILMEMBER CENTER? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER BROCKMAN? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER ROSS? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER LITTLEWARE? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOMBERG? AYE.

All right, thank you with that, and glad we were able to support you, and thank you for how much you've done for our community, Jeff. And we're glad that you're still here, and gonna contribute to a future of vibrancy, so thank you. And for Kitty the Butcher, thank you for coming to our community, and we support you as well. All right, with that, item 21, city manager.

I can actually.

Oh, you're gonna take that one? Okay.

Yes. This is an ordinance amending a special use permit for conditional use at 1301 Clavey Road and 1377 Deer Creek Parkway. As I mentioned earlier, there's some minor changes that have occurred since this was in your packets. First of all, the name of the applicant has changed from Sollell Congregation to McCombs-Sollell Lakeside. Second, there was an addition of a site plan right it is now a new exhibit sea west side master plan it's a single sheet it's on a dance so that's the sum total of the changes from what was in the package

Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Does anybody have a discussion point here?

The only thing I'll say is the changes are great from security purposes and everything else, so I was really thrilled to see that this is going to go through. It's better security for the synagogue. It's going to be more lovely from the street, and it won't be as visible, so I think it's wonderful.

I'm going to say something, too, because in light of recent attacks on synagogues, it feels particularly important to support

All right. We're good? Yep. All right. I call that a motion.

So moved. Second.

And before you vote on it, just want to make sure no one has any comments on this one. Thank you, man. You got my back. That's good. I got your back.

Any comments from this wonderful public of ours? OKAY, WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO NOW CALL THE VOTE. Okay, the motion passes, and 22.

So I pulled 22.

Can you explain it, please? Do you want me to?

Yeah. So 22 has to do with the Interface Studio contract for professional consulting services for a comprehensive plan for our city. I'm very much in favor of the effort to do a comprehensive plan. We haven't done a comprehensive plan in 25 years. Our plan is currently 15 years out of date. And I think it is crucial that we do it in a comprehensive way. We've done many, many studies over the last few years on very small portions, individual neighborhoods, and it's wonderful. But it is not a visionary comprehensive plan. I reviewed this with a fine-toothed home this time around because this is the bid and recommendation from staff. And it's an excellent, excellent program. And I think we could do a wonderful study. But the price tag is staggering. It is so much higher than I ever imagined that we were going to spend, that when we were looking at the next highest competitor, which was $270,000, and to do everything we wanted, it was going the bare minimum of what we wanted. It was $300,000. And this is $450,000. So as much as I really want to do this project, I feel that this should in some way have been negotiated either harder or greater, or maybe we should have gone with our second choice because it's a lot of money. So unfortunately, as much as I love this group, I cannot support it at this dollar amount. There are other cities who actually do this in-house. I'm not saying it doesn't take a lot of staff time or perhaps in conjunction with them, which we'll end up doing anyhow, but it's a lot of taxpayer dollars. So I had to pull it and not just let it go through.

City Manager Newkirk, you want to talk about the dollar amounts?

Just in terms of just a little brief history. So what we have done over the last 15 years is do all significant amount of in-house work on comprehensive plan updates. And so basically what we've done is corridor or business district reviews. So if you recall several years ago, we look at the central business district. We ended up modifying the zoning in the central business district. We look at other corridors as well. And so that's one way that we have updated the comprehensive plan doing small segments, and that is done using in-house resources. Generally, in terms of comprehensive plan updates, such as the scope and scale of what is being recommended this evening, I honestly don't know any community that does it in-house. This is a significant, significant undertaking. it is gonna require a significant amount of staff resource just in and of itself. When we developed the request for qualifications, which was the first step in that process, we took a look at everything that we wanted in that scope. And so that was based on feedback from our commissioners, our staff, the city council, the public, and we developed a request for qualifications. We sent that out to the open markets, to experts in this area nationwide. And then we came back, we narrowed down that list, and then sought requests for proposals from a select group of consultants. And then we ended up conducting interviews with a limited list of professionals and then narrowed it down to two professionals. So the two price differences are, if you look at really kind of apples to apples to the greatest extent possible, one proposal had a base price, but then you have to do all these other add-ons to get to a comparability to what interfaces, which is recommended this evening. And so when you looked at really apples to apples, it's 400,000 versus 475,000. But when you further looked at all the work that would be done in terms of, for example, over 400 principal hours versus 56 to 80, AND SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S A DIFFERENCE. THE OTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT WAS THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AND THAT WAS ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAD WANTED IN THE PROPOSAL. AND THEN WE HAVE ITEMIZED ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS. SO TWO OPEN HOUSES, A COMMUNITY SURVEY, STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS, MEETING WITH OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND SO FORTH. SO WE DO FEEL THAT THIS IS COMPREHENSIVE AND GETS US TO WHERE What we've heard is the council and the public wants us to be. It is a two-year initiative. And from a financial perspective, the dollars would be spread across three years. And so that's what we're recommending this evening based on feedback.

Yes. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CENTER.

REMIND ME, THE TIMELINE FOR THE OTHER POTENTIAL PROVIDER WAS A LITTLE SHORTER? OR NO?

Well, what they would do is they would basically do DIY kits. And so they basically tell you what to do and then they have the staff go do it. This is the consultant working hand in hand with staff and not necessarily just telling us what to do. I mean, could we do it? Yes. We've got experts. A lot of our planning staff have been consultants. They worked in the private industry as consultants. But this is a more collaborative approach working with the consultant where it's a partnership moving forward. The timeline was not much different.

I thought it was three years and two years, and these guys brought it down from three. The current bid, they brought it down to two.

It's a 20-month engagement, but the finances are spread across three fiscal years.

Okay, and even at a scaled-up approach in the apples-to-apples comparison that you just described, that's still more of sort of a DIY-type strategy versus a more comprehensive assistance strategy? Right. Okay.

Any other comments? All right. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD. I NEED A MOTION.

I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 22. SECOND?

I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, LET'S DO THE ROLL CALL.

COUNCILMEMBER CENTER?

AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER BROOKMAN? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER ROSS? AYE. Councilmember Littleworth?

Aye, with significant reservations.

Councilmember Bloomberg?

Aye.

Presiding Officer Tapia?

Aye. The motion passes. And with that, we have covered the items that were pulled from the agenda. So that now brings us to Other Business. And with Other Business, the first two items under Other Business pertain to propose zoning relief for 1850 Green Bay Road which were previously discussed during the public hearing that happened just about 30 minutes ago. Are there any further questions or comments from the council? Are there any comments from the public? All right, may I have a motion to pass this item?

So moved. And that's us to both items. A and B. You can group them together.

Okay, A and B. Who's the?

I'm moving it.

And who's seconding it?

Second.

Okay. So with that, let's call the vote.

Councilmember Center?

Aye.

Councilmember Bruckman? Aye. Councilmember Ross? Aye. Councilmember Littler? Aye. Councilmember Bloomberg?

Aye.

Presiding Officer Tapia?

Aye. The motion passes and we now move on to the next item, which is item C, the consideration of an ordinance amending the zoning code with respect to data centers. Director Fontaine, will you please provide the staff report?

Thank you, Presiding Officer Tapia. Staff recommend amending the zoning code to prohibit the land use data center within the City of Highland Park. This is a staff led proactive initiative and we did some research and background on this matter and this use and we I respectfully recommend that the impact of data centers has changed since the 70s in a way that was not contemplated, that warrant proactive zoning code changes to address this land use. Since it was 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 large facility size that make them incompatible with residential uses and impact on city services. Therefore, staff is recommending through this petition that this land use not be allowed as it is not compatible with our built environment and the character of the city, particularly the residential uses within our zoning districts. On July 21st, 2026, the Plan and Design Commission held a public hearing on this matter and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed changes. Just a little background, this land use data processing was undefined and was allowed as a land use in the I Industrial and Service Districts in November 1974. Lots changed since then with regard to data centers. Data centers were undefined and were permitted as land use in RO, B3, B4, and B5 districts in the 1978 ordinance. And they were undefined again and allowed permitted land use in the RO, B3, B4, and B5 and I zoning districts in the 1997 zoning code. Today, data processing standards are still undefined and are permitted uses in RO B3, B4-4, B4-5, B4-6, B4-BG, and B5-NI and the Central District Residential Overlay. So that's the history of how data centers were regulated. The proposed amendment will add a definition of data center, finally. Hadn't been in the zoning code forever. And that's important because we want to make sure everyone knows what we're talking about when we're not permitting it. We don't want to get into a semantic debate about what they are. And so, in addition to doing that, in Section 150.490, this is our use table, if you will, a collection of use tables, proposing to strike data processing centers and strike the use permissions, essentially removing a row in that table. We strike the row related to data processing centers from the off-street parking and loading requirements table. And in section 150.490M, we're going to add the use data center as now defined above and leave all use permissions blank. Meaning in that table, that means that data centers are not allowed. So they get listed, but there's a blanks by zoning district going across.

Hey, Joel, just to help the public and us, can you just out loud read the definition?

Yes, absolutely. Okay, so we're proposing that data centers be defined and that their definition be that a data center means an establishment primarily engaged in the storage, management, processing, or transmission of digital data and housing, computer, and network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations. Important to note, we're talking about a principal use. There are data centers that are essentially accessory uses. The hospital, other institutions, we have for our own service. That's not what we're referring to. Businesses can do that. It's the principal use being a data center for the sole purposes of doing that type of process. Thank you. Staff recommend amending the zoning code to prohibit this land use data center within the City of Highland Park. That's the end of my presentation, Presiding Officer Toppen.

Yeah, any questions for Joe?

Just a comment. Thank you, Presiding Chair. I just want to stay for the record that I'm very glad staff decided to look at our policy that we're taking a proactive approach of clear language that we do not want them in our community. They consume a truly massive amount of water and energy, create noise and pollution. are very unpopular and in light of recent news about major companies working behind closed doors to secure rights to build them and I'm glad we're taking important steps to protect our community. And we just recently heard the Lake County board member stated the county is placing a moratorium on data centers is working to regulate them. So that was just want to share that anybody else.

Anyone in the public. Yes. Come on up. Please state your name.

I'm Danny Khan, 819 Sheridan, a now 74-year resident of Highland Park. I think it's great to get ahead of zoning problems, but I'm sort of wondering, was there an issue here? I mean, I don't know where anybody could possibly build a data center in Highland Park that we would care about other than a little data center that would be fine. And you guys are blocking them all if it's a primary use. I don't know why anybody would want to build a little data center here either. But data centers are huge. We don't have the kind of real estate that anybody would be interested in. I'm just wondering if there's something that happened that fomented this.

City Manager?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you, Mr. Kahn. This is a proactive effort. We know other communities, some in the immediate area, the northwest suburbs, that have data centers that have already been approved. And although it is true that we don't have significant large parcels, the Solo Cup property was just approved for redevelopment, and so that was our largest parcel. But just thinking that there is a consideration that people could work in some of the areas and start compiling different parcels together. That's always a consideration. We wanted to just get ahead of it from a zoning perspective and just make it clear in terms of the village's intent on that zoning classification.

Yeah. Well, thank you. All right, any other comments? So with that, I would entertain a motion.

So moved.

A second? Second. Okay. All right, with that, Please do the roll.

Council Member Senter. Aye. Council Member Bruckman. Aye. Council Member Ross. Aye. Council Member Littleworth.

Aye.

Council Member Bloomberg.

Aye.

Presiding Officer Tapia.

Aye. The motion passes. And with that, we will now go to the next item under other business. It's consideration and possible action and application of a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final plan development with modifications from City Call and a plat of re-subdivision with the variances from City Code at 147 Central Avenue. We will begin with a staff presentation by Director of Community Development, Joel Fontaine, followed by questions from my city council colleagues, either to staff or to the applicant. And we will then welcome feedback from the public. And when that happens, individuals will be given three minutes for public comment. And we have received a number of public comments over the last few weeks via email. And we thank everyone for your input and your feedback. So, Director Fontaine, will you please provide the staff presentation?

I do want to make one comment before we start this. I am liaison to the Plan and Design Commission The two times that 147 Central was in front of PDC, I disclosed, as I do again, that I live on Central Avenue, Kitty Corner to 147 Central. Central Avenue as a whole is possibly Highland Park's widest.

Wait, I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt. Just a moment. Let's react to what the staff has to present, and then we will have plenty of time to dialogue.

Okay, this is what I did in PDC. I just started by a statement, and this is, this is what i did with pdc so this is a disclosure a disclosure. disclosure okay yeah the the i checked many times with corporation council steve elrod at every stage including when it was going to be on city council's agenda it was continued by the applicant two times and each time. Council Elrod said it was fine for me to participate in the discussion and vote, but we agreed that I would disclose that I live in the neighborhood and that I can be fair and impartial. My focus is on representing the city as best as I can.

Okay, thank you. All right, that's very clear. All right, with that, Director Fontaine.

Okay, so this item here before you this evening was continued to this date. The consideration and possible action on the application of a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final land development with modifications from City Code and a flat every subdivision with variances from City Code for 147 Central Avenue. Staff recommend consideration of the Plan and Design Commission and Historic Preservation Commission's recommendations for a request for final plan development and plat of resubdivision with bearings. If supported, staff would prepare appropriate documents for final action. Okay, quick background and summary on this item. As petitioner is Greg Moyer, the proposal is divide the property into two legal lots of record. The zoning district is an R4 with an overlay, the lakefront density and character overlay zone. The property is designated a local landmark by city council in 1985. There were several public hearings. The Plan and Design Commission had public hearings, and the Historic Preservation had a public meeting to provide a recommendation that was provided to the Plan and Design Commission and to you as well through this packet. Okay, this is an aerial photo of 147 Central Avenue property with highlighted the delineation of the proposed subdivision. You can see there the dashed mark is the proposed lot line for lot two, which will be to the right in this or to the east. And lot one would be the one to the west and include that area in the back of lot one, lot two rather. Okay, so in terms of the plan development for this section 150.505.A.1, this lot is larger than three acres, a single family district, and consists of more than one residence. So no structure of building is proposed at this sign. Okay. And so this is the trigger is that and so it does need to do a plan needs to go through a plan development process. But at this time, the applicant has not proposed any building or structure. The applicant seeks to create a new lot referred to as lot two for a single family home that is yet to be specified. If approved, any new home on the proposed lot two would trigger a planned unit development or planned development amendment per section 150.545.1c. Any regulated activity on either lot would require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. So building a new home on that new lot would require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. And it would also require an amendment to this PUD if it were to be approved in its current form. Per the PUD ordinance, you see there that any increase by more than 1% in floor area of building triggers an amendment. So if someone proposes a lot with nothing on it and decides to put anything on it, that would trigger a PUD amendment. Staff recommends that the applicant, if that were the process, would seek the certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission before the PUD amendment and that that would be fed into the packet for the PDC to consider. Okay, so a couple of recommendations has come forward. The Plan and Design Commission received the recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, and in considering that, along with the totality of the application and the testimony provided after several public hearings, they voted three to two to recommend approval with the following conditions. One, that there be a 30-foot side yard setback and then a 25-foot side yard setback toward the rear of the property. This is depicted on the subdivision plan at this time.

The applicant has made that a part of it.

Two, that the gate post, wrought iron fence, and heritage trees be preserved. There are two heritage trees on the property to our knowledge at this point based on the information that we've been provided. Three, that any new structure on the proposed vacant lot two not exceed the relative height of the Cornelius Field House or the underlying zoning district requirements for height, whichever is more restrictive. And lastly, for that as a condition, there'd be a prohibition against additional zoning relief related to the proposed lot two. Okay, and staff have a further recommendation for consideration that any approval, if any, includes standard conditions, of course, and that the front yard setback of any new structure be aligned with the Cornelius Fieldhouse. Okay. So that's plan and design commission with that staff additional recommendations. Okay, so in terms of the plan to development and the historic preservation consideration, 1985 ordinance designated 147 Central Avenue a local landmark. Staff reviewed the record totality and determined that the entire property is landmark. Per the plan development code, there are site planning constraints and design standards that must be met. One of them, per 520C, involves historic resources. And I'll read as a direct quote from the code, historic resources. Plan development shall preserve all, one, locally designated landmarks, and two, properties, structures, areas, objects, and landscapes determined to be historically significant by the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with chapters 24 or 170 of the City Code. Okay, so... As part of this plan development, and as a city council, and as the commissions before your consideration here this evening, these are very rare considerations. We were asked that at commission, how come we're seeing this? from a historic preservation perspective, because there are only 130 or so regulated property structures in our city. So the number of parcels in our city is about 14,000. So it is a very few properties would be subject to this particular standard with regard to a local landmark. So we don't see this very often. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and provided a recommendation to city council which was also provided to the Plan Design Commission for their consideration prior to their vote on their recommendation to you as well. So in terms of their recommendation, the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously recommended denial with a subsidiary recommendation that addressed conditions should the plan and plan development be approved. So I just want to make this clear. They were not in favor of approving. Staff did say you might want to have some type of conditions that could be considered should the council consider approving. That's where these came from. And there was some consternation about that amongst members. So what were those conditions? So again, recommended denial, the Historic Preservation Commission. But should this be approved? The commission also said that the west side of the proposed lot 2 include an 80-foot side yard setback. That any new structure on the proposed lot 2 not exceed the height of the Cornelius Fieldhouse. That the gate post, the wrought iron fence, heritage trees be preserved along with the driveway in its existing location. And that no additional driveway be constructed. And then lastly, a prohibition, a prohibit application for additional zoning relief related to Lot 2. So you can see that the Planning and Design Commission considered some of those and brought them into their recommendation. Okay, so what's the proposal? Now you have the recommendation, so what is this proposal? Subdivide an existing single lot into two lots of legal record with variations from the subdivision code. On the right, it shows the proposed lot one and lot two. Right now, it's all one large lot, and that's the proposed delineation. Both proposed lots are compliant with the R4 zoning district, the underlying zoning district, and the overlay, the lakefront overlay zoning district. Okay, lot one is 89,204 square feet. Lot two is 89,319 square feet. So they're large lots. The lakefront overlay district requires at least 40,000 square feet, okay, for any subdivision. All right. In terms of the design standards and the code standards for subdivisions, you've seen tables like this before. There's a lot shape subdivision variation that's been applied for. And the creation of nonconformities aspect in terms of that standard, that's a condition of approval that a sidewalk path be removed. So that's actually not a request for variation, but that would need to be removed to avoid that variation need. Otherwise, you can see here as the compliance. Okay, so lot shape. The proposal is compliant with the R4 zoning district and the lakefront overlay district's bulk requirements. However, the proposed lot one with the Cornelius Fieldhouse, that's lot one, contains the existing home and will have roughly six sides exceeding the maximum allowed four sides per the subdivision code and therefore requires a variation. The proposed lot two will have roughly four sides. However, due to the steep slope, the lot will not have four flat sides requiring a variation request. Okay, and so the setback as shown is recommended by the PDC, which you recall I had said 30 feet, and then goes back to 25 feet. So 30 feet along essentially the length that is abutting the field house, and then it goes to 25 feet thereafter as you're going north. The orange box identifies the concrete walkway crossing the proposed lot line, and the applicant stated they would remove it, and if they didn't, they would need that variance that I talked about in that table, but they indicate that they're removing it, so they only need that one variance for the sides. Just to To clarify and make everyone aware of, at one point there was identified a labeling error during the Plan and Design Commission's consideration of this matter. On May 5th, there was identified that there was a number indicated for a setback on lot one of the proposed subdivision that was labeled 20 feet, but in fact measures 30 feet per scale. The error has since been corrected to show the label 30 feet. In terms of public benefit, public benefit is not required for this plan development. There are no Chapter 150 zoning code modifications being requested. That's what public benefit is tied to, those types of modifications and a particular set of those modifications. Questions? Questions? The applicant, however, has voluntarily offered a $2,500 donation to the city to be used to help promote historic preservation. Okay. Tree impact survey. I wanted to draw the council's attention to the proposed new driveway curb cut for Lot 1. This will result in, at a minimum, the removal of one street tree. The tree trees on either side of that driveway might survive. They're not required to be removed by this driveway introduction, but they may be adversely affected. So we just let you know that. Staff suggested a shared driveway in order to better maintain the existing tree line along Central Avenue. It's quite nice, the tree line. The plantings are doing well, and it has a particular look that really does have an aesthetic value, and so that's why staff had suggested that. In terms of other staff comments, Public Works Engineering Division had no comments regarding the proposed subdivision, but provided comments for future development on Lot 2. Forestry Unit mentioned about the one tree for the proposed new driveway, but noted the two adjacent trees, as I mentioned. The applicant needs to provide a tree preservation plan during the permitting phase of this development, and all trees will be protected and or, if removed, proper fees paid for those removals for tree replacement. Lake County comments focus on wetlands identified on the topographics exhibit, and staff, you can see the report on that, and they will need to... satisfy the requirements of Lake County with regard to that as well. Utilities had no comment. Park District of Highland Park had no comment. Okay, public comment. All public comment received during Commission meetings and hearings are found in the attachments in the Council packet. Friday updates since then, we've received more. We did have a cutoff for the posting of this packet, but Council has received additional public comments since then and has been sent directly to the Council. Okay. Back to the recommendation. Staff recommending consideration of the Plan and Design Commission's and the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendations for a request for a final plan development and flat of re-subdivision with variation. Thank you, Presiding Member Toffey.

Yeah. Well, thank you, Director Fontaine. A reminder to the public and to City Council how we're going to do this. We're going to respond through comments, no, questions, just questions for Director Fontaine. Then we're going to turn to the public and hear from you so that we can take into account what you have to say, and then we will then comment with our point of view before there is a vote.

Presiding Officer, I would just ask, we may have some questions that we'll direct to the applicant, if you don't mind. We can answer all the- You as staff? Yeah, the council questions. If you have questions of our staff, certainly we'll answer them. But if you have questions of the project or the applicant, we would just defer to the applicant.

Okay. Yeah. And you're representing the applicants?

but come come to the represent the owner of the property and just based on my experience presenting in front of the city council is that the applicant is given an opportunity to make a presentation before you turn it over to public comment and we're requesting that also you didn't outline that when you gave your basically your scorecard how things were going to happen okay so we'll add that to the okay thank you

ARE YOU GOING TO, YOU CAN DO THAT NOW.

NEW SPEAKER I THINK IT'S BETTER IF WE HEAR THEIR PRESENTATION. NEW SPEAKER I AGREE.

NEW SPEAKER WHY DON'T WE HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION FIRST. AND THEN OUR QUESTIONS WILL BE EITHER TO STAFF OR TO YOU.

NEW SPEAKER BLESS YOU.

NEW SPEAKER NO, WE'RE KIDDING. WELL, THANK YOU, PRESIDING OFFICER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I don't think I've ever called you a residing officer before, so it's nice to have you in that seat. My name is Cal Bernstein. I'm the attorney for the applicant. And before we delve into what I was prepared to say tonight, I want to expand on two things that Director Fontaine had mentioned. Number one, with regard to WHEN WE WENT IN FRONT OF THE PLAN DESIGN COMMISSION AND THEY ASKED THE QUESTION, WHY ARE WE HERE? WHEN WE WENT IN FRONT OF THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THEY ASKED, WHY IS THIS HERE? AND WE WERE NOT THERE IN FRONT OF THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS LANDMARKED. um we were in front of the historical preservation commission is because this matter was being brought as a plan unit development if it was not a plan unit development it did not require historical preservation review and director fontaine is that correct under the plan unit development ordinance it requires it maybe the corporation council can answer that question yeah go ahead and answer it director fontaine

The plan unit development trigger, the standard is within the plan unit development standards. And so the requirement for the recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission is in that plan development standard.

So if this property is 4.3 acres in size, if it was 2.99 acres and it would still meet the minimum threshold in the lakefront overlay zone to be subdivided, Under the subdivision code, this would not require any review by the Historical Preservation Commission. It would not require a report. Under that situation, the process would have been that we would have filed the application for subdivision. It would have been heard by the Plan Design Commission and gone to the City Council. It would never have gone to the Historical Preservation Commission. that is why this is such a rare situation because i went back and i reviewed all of the landmark properties in highland park it took my sunday afternoon to do that and there's only two other properties in the lakefront overlay zone that could possibly have the same type of process that we're seeking here tonight. One is 405 Sheridan and another one is a property on Woodbridge. Both of those are over three acres in size. Those are the only two properties in the lakefront overlay zone that are currently landmarked. So this is a to say this is rare out of 14,000 homes in Highland Park. What we're here is we're talking about something could possibly happen to three homes and three properties. So I want to introduce the owners here tonight, the real estate agent who's here tonight, who can discuss what she did to market the property. As Director Fontaine mentioned, this property is in the R4 zoning district, which requires minimum 20,000 square foot lot sizes, but because there's an overlay zone, That requires one acre zoning. So in order to subdivide this property, each lot must be a minimum of 40,000 square feet. Now the lakefront overlay, I'm going to call it the lakefront density and character overlay zone was enacted over 25 years ago. And the idea behind that by this city council was to control the density, the character of the lakefront area. It was intended to to control and manage potential development in East Highland Park to comply with some special lot sizes. The lakefront overlay zone is consistent with the lakefront district neighborhood strategic plan, which is an element of your 15 year old master plan. There was numerous public meetings and the city council eventually adopted the lakefront overlay zone. The lakefront overlay zone provides some minimum requirements. And I just want to compare what we're proposing tonight with the minimum requirements, which are much more onerous than the underlying zoning in the lakefront overlay zone. As I said before, the minimum lot size in the lakefront overlay zone is 40,000 square feet. The two lots that are proposed tonight are close to 90,000 square feet. So they're double the size of the minimum that is required in a lakefront overlay zone. The average lot width in the lakefront overlay zone, the minimum is 100 feet. As proposed, one lot is 162 feet and the other lot is 180 feet. So those are both more than 160% more than the minimum. What we're requesting tonight is a planning development. We're not requesting any variances from the planning development statute or the zoning code. We surveyed the properties on the block. The new two proposed lots of close to 90,000 square feet are more than twice the size of the next largest house or property on the block. And if you took the majority of the houses on the block, it's more than four times the size. So most of these houses on the block are anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000 square feet in lot sizes. This lot is going to be roughly about 90,000 square feet. The lots that we create here hopefully will protect the density and character. OF THE LAKEFRONT AREA BY CREATING TWO SUBSTANTIAL LOTS THAT WILL COMPLY WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE RULES OF THE LAKEFRONT OVERLAY ZONE THE SIZE OF THE LOTS WILL PROMOTE THE APPEARANCE OF OPEN SPACE ALLOWING THE LANDMARK HOME TO FEEL TO FEEL TO RETAIN ITS OPEN FEEL SO In order to try to comport with the landmark home that the field house is, which is in lot one, the owner of the property and through this application is agreed to self-imposed certain restrictions. One of them is that there would be a 123-foot front yard setback. So under no circumstance would any home built on lot two be placed in front of the existing field home, which is to the west. So anything would line up or be set back further than the existing landmarked home. There'll be a substantial side yard requirement to the west, allowing more breathing room as the plan and design commission in the recommendation made the condition. The height restriction, we agreed to a height restriction that it will not exceed the relative height of the field house or the zoning district, whichever is more restrictive. The applicant has agreed that they will request no variations to remove heritage trees or any variations from the zoning code. And certain elements like the wrought iron fence and the pineapple gate post will be preserved. So I want to come back and address some of the public comments and some to try to correct the record. But before we do that, I'm going to turn it over to the owner and the real estate broker so they can describe what their efforts have been, what they've done to this house over the last several years they've owned it. And for the real estate broker, What happened when she tried to sell it? So I'm going to turn over to Ricky first. Ricky, come on up. Please introduce yourself.

Good evening. My name is Eric Roffner. and I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the esteemed members of this group for the opportunity to speak this evening. In October 2009, my late wife Gail and I purchased the historic home at 147 Central Avenue, situated on more than four beautiful acres. Gail, who's talented, and passion for historic preservation were extraordinary, dedicated herself to restoring this home. Over the course of several years, at a cost of approximately $1,800,000, she transformed it to the magnificent residence we were proud to call home. We cherish both the property and the wonderful Hollyland Park community. We also purchased the historic Frank Lloyd Wright Home at 1689 Lake Avenue, the George Madison Millard House. Once again, Gale led a remarkable restoration upon exploration, investing three years and approximately a million and a half dollars into the project. Upon its completion, we donated the home to the Council of Jewish Elderly of Metropolitan Chicago. Gail passed away in 2021, and my time as a resident of Highland Park came to an end. The fact is that both of these homes received rewards from the Historic Preservation Committee for the years that was during that time. I've now received an offer of $2.8 million to purchase a portion of the land at 147 Central Avenue. The historic home will remain on its existing parcel. The adjacent land itself is not historical and the proposed sale will not affect the historic home. I respectfully ask for your approval to confirm the sale of this portion of the property. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

I would just note that both homes, both the house and the coach house, is the coach house empty too?

The coach house is vacant. And the gardener's cottage, I have a grandson that's living there.

Okay, has a grandson living there. But the house, the existing house, landmark house, has been empty for five years. Now I'm going to turn it over to the broker, and she can kind of, at least, tell us what you've done to try to solve the problem.

Thank you. My name is Lisa Rome. I am a real estate broker with Jameson Sotheby's International Realty. Sure. As the listing agent for 147 Central Avenue, I embrace the responsibility of not only marketing this extraordinary property, but telling and honoring its story. FROM THE PORT COCHERE TO THE INCREDIBLE CUSTOM MILL WORK, THERE IS CRAFTMANSHIP IN THIS HOME THAT SIMPLY CANNOT BE REPLICATED TODAY. AND I APPROACHED MARKETING IT ACCORDINGLY. WE LAUNCHED PRIVATELY TO CREATE EXCLUSIVITY BEFORE GOING PUBLIC. CRANES FEATURED THE HOME AND ITS REMARKABLE STORY. WE INVESTED IN PROFESSIONAL VIDEOGRAPHER, DRONE PHOTOGRAPHY, AGENT COMMENTARY AND AN ICONIC VIDEO SERIES. I HOSTED A ONE-OF-A-KIND BROKER OPEN TO A SELECT 50 OF THE TOP NORTHSHORE AGENTS WHO EXPERIENCED THE PROPERTY BY HORSE AND CARRIAGE, A TRUE TRIBUTE TO THE HISTORY OF THE HOME. THROUGH JAMISON SOTHEBY'S AND MODERN LUXURY THE PROPERTY RECEIVED EXTRAORDINARY EXPOSURE INCLUDING MORE THAN 50 MILLION DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS ALONG WITH TARGETED MARKETING CAMPAIGNS THAT CONTINUED FOR MONTHS. but perhaps the most valuable part of that process was listening to the market After roughly 10 private showings over the course of over a year, the feedback became increasingly clear and remarkably consistent. Buyers who loved historic architecture also recognized the challenges of adapting this particular property to modern living. For younger families that came through, the floor plan will require significant reconfiguration, time, and financial investment. On multiple occasion, buyers told us that regardless of the price, it simply felt like too much to take on. For older buyers, a different demographic, we still heard a different version of the same concern. The floor plan, the stairs, and the responsibility of maintaining a historic home combined with more than four acres of property felt overwhelming. And the data tells an important story as well. Of Highland Park's 74 local landmark homes, only three sit on more than two acres. 55 are on less than one. AT OVER FOUR ACRES 147 CENTRAL AVENUE IS NOT SIMPLY A HISTORIC HOME, IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY OUTLIER IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF LAND A FUTURE OWNER IS BEING ASKED TO MAINTAIN. WE CAN SEE THE CHALLENGES FACING THIS BUYER POOL ELSEWHERE WITH OTHER LANDMARK PROPERTIES IN HIGHLAND PARK SHOWING MULTIPLE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS AND LENGTHY MARKET TIMES. Of course, we can simply continue to wait for the right buyer at the right time and ultimately at the right price. But I don't believe waiting indefinitely is necessarily the best strategy for preservation. I believe preservation also means creating an environment in which these homes can realistically continue to be owned, maintained, and loved. Subdividing the land does not change the legacy of 147 Central Avenue. We are not proposing to remove any elements or designations that make this home significant, and it will still continue to be one of the largest parcels. WE ARE PROPOSING A THOUGHTFUL EVOLUTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT CREATES A MORE MANAGEABLE HISTORIC RESIDENCE AND OPENS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER FAMILY TO BECOME PART OF THE HIGHLAND PARK COMMUNITY. TO ME THAT'S NOT CHOOSING DEVELOPMENT OVER PRESERVATION. IT'S USING THOUGHTFUL CHANGE AS A MEANS OF PRESERVATION, HONORING THE HISTORY THAT MAKES 147 CENTRAL SO EXTRAORDINARY WHILE GIVING IT A MORE SUSTAINABLE PATH FORWARD FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.

SO TO FINISH UP, HOLD ON, THERE'S A COMMENT HERE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE INTERRUPTION. I MUST ASK THIS QUESTION. A COMMENT WAS MADE BY THE OWNER THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY AN EXISTING PENDING OFFER ON THE HOUSE. HE'S MISTAKEN. THANK YOU.

HE'S MISTAKEN. THERE IS NO OFFER ON THE HOUSE. THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY AN OFFER BUT THERE DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

THAT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN.

YES. HE WAS MISTAKEN. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS. EXCUSE ME, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?

NEW SPEAKER Just that the person who made the offer is in the audience, as I understand

I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I'M THE REAL ESTATE LAND USE ATTORNEY. I'M NOT HANDLING ANY TRANSACTIONS SO I DON'T KNOW. ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND ALSO RAISED FRANKLY WE READ THE LETTERS AND AT LEAST SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT TALKED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS IN THERE AND WE ALSO READ WHAT'S ONLINE. I JUST WANT TO CORRECT CERTAIN THINGS. NUMBER ONE, THERE IS NO INTENTION OF DEMOLISHING THE LANDMARKED HOME. THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON THE NEW LOT TWO. THOSE ARE COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS. I WILL NOTE THAT OTHER CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED. NUMBER ONE, THAT THIS WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. As I noted earlier, this property is unique. It's one of three properties in Highland Park. Unlike a normal subdivision, even a landmark subdivision, this property required historical preservation commission review just due to the size of the property. Not because of the fact it was landmarked, but the fact that it was over three acres in size, that it's actually 4.3 acres. so again by approving the subdivision this council will not be creating a precedent that would affect that impact other landmark properties because there's only two other landmark properties that this could possibly apply to and those two properties which i'm very familiar with have all sets of other issues with it that would prohibit or would would make development and subdivision those properties much more complicated As I mentioned, the property will remain landmarked. We recognize the concerns of the HPC and we believe the plan that we submitted by creating these two vastly oversized substantial lots will preserve the environment, sensitive areas, open space, and the landmark home. Now I want to talk about the landmark home. the um anything that's built on before i get to landmark up anything that's built on this lot too would have to go through a whole other process so if if the subdivision is approved tonight this is not the end of the process this is the end of the beginning of the process to quote winston churchill um what what will we be talking about because what happened if the subdivision is created is that also have to go to the Historical Preservation Commission under the form of a certificate of appropriateness, They will opine and make a determination, and then it will go to the plan design commission, and it will eventually end up in front of the city council. So nothing's going to ever be built on this proposed law two without going through that second process. So what we're asking this council tonight is let us pursue that. Let's see if we can find a buyer for this proposed law two, that they could design a home that would satisfy the Historical Preservation Commission under the standards of a certificate of appropriateness. that will satisfy the plan design commission so they can issue an amendment to the underlying PUD that would possibly be approved tonight. That would satisfy the council because the council will eventually make that determination on the plan unit development. We're asking you for the opportunity. We're not saying tonight that this is going to happen. We're asking for the opportunity to let us try to make it happen. I will note that there are two former chairmen of the Historical Preservation Commission here tonight. I'll let them speak for themselves, but I believe they are in favor and support this project. I will also note that the neighbor directly to the west originally sent a letter objecting to this proposal. And then once she realized that some of the information that she received was incorrect, she then sent another email recanting and indicating that she supports the application. In summary, we're looking for the subdivision to allow a buyer to buy this historic home, the ability to purchase it at an attainable price while embracing the historical significance with a more modest carrying costs. Let's talk about the carrying costs. Right now, this property has an $81,000 a year tax bill. Over the last five years, I went back and calculated that the tax bill for this property has increased on an average of between 5% and 7% on an annual basis. So let's look into the future.

I'm sorry, could you repeat those numbers again?

Okay, currently the tax bill is $81,000. For the tax year 2025, payable in 2026. So 2025's tax bill is $81,000. Going back five years, the taxes have increased on an annual basis of between 5% and 7%. SO IF YOU PUT ON YOUR FORWARD THINKING GLASSES AND GO INTO A TIME MACHINE, THIS PROPERTY WITHIN UNDER THE SIMILAR INCREASES WITHIN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, THIS PROPERTY WILL HAVE $100,000 A YEAR TAX BILL. SO THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, THE HOUSE IS 4500 SQUARE FEET. IT IS ON 4.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY. It has an $81,000 tax bill that's going up five to 7% per year. There isn't a market for a purchaser who is going to take that on and the carrying costs involved with maintaining 4.3 acres of property. So we're looking for an opportunity to increase the market, to increase the number of purchasers that may come in and actually love this historic home, improve this historic home, make it relevant for generations to come. And by doing that is by lowering the carrying costs. lowering the tax bill on the property, lowering the maintenance of the yard work and everything that goes along with owning 44.3 acres of property. And As an applicant, we agree with the Plan Design Commission's finding of fact when they recommended, again, remember, the Plan Design Commission recommended approval. And we agree with the findings of fact that state number one, that the application complies with the lakefront overlay zone subdivision requirements. That number two, that the proposal is in harmony with the appropriate orderly development in the zoning district and the existing houses in the neighborhood. Number three, the proposal is not injurious to other properties. Again, this is not my words. This is the Plan Design Commission's findings of fact. Number four, the proposal conforms to the goals and objective of the Lakefront District Neighborhood Master Plan. Number five, and importantly, the proposal preserves historic resources. Again, that's not me saying it. That's the Plan Design Commission saying the proposal preserves historical resources. Number six, the proposal provides enough space between the houses and the ravine area. Number seven, the newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character and are consistent with the master plan. And finally number eight, the one variation requested again to the four lot size does not change the character or density of the neighborhood. So what we're looking for tonight is to basically make this historical home untouched and have a greater chances of being preserved for generations to come. We are proposing lots that comply with the regulations that vastly exceeds the minimum lot width depth area in the zoning district. AND THE VARIATION IN THE APPLICATION, EXCUSE ME, THAT WE PROPOSED TONIGHT MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR THE VARIATIONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION CODE, BUT FOR ONE ISSUE, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR NO VARIATIONS WOULD BE REQUESTED. So in sum, the proposal subdivided lots do not affect the general plan, are consistent with the spirit of the subdivision code. And we're requesting that, again, you let us end the beginning of this process so we can move forward and try to design a home that would satisfy the standards in the historical preservation standards of certificate of appropriateness. And so thank you. We're available for any questions you may have.

All right, thank you. All right, now we will turn to council, yes.

I just want to make a clarification. This is before you tonight for consideration and possible action, which means that if the will of the council is to deny, this does not come back. However, this cannot be approved per our ordinance without an ordinance. And so you'll notice in your packet there is no ordinance presented tonight. And so there are two options. The possible action, final action being a denial would mean that this is not brought back. Alternatively, this could be continued to a date certain and direction given to staff to prepare approval documents. So I just want to make clear this would, there is no avenue at which this is approved tonight.

Okay, understood. Thank you.

yes so now the questions for either staff or for council or for anybody else that spoke just now so thank you um i have a couple of questions uh i think principally for joel uh director fontaine i'm i apologize for the informality Director Fontaine, you talked, and I should say I'm the liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission. I've followed this as it's worked its way through that commission. I'm familiar with its process with the Plan and Design Commission, which essentially worked with the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission. You gave a list of limitations that the plan and design the PDC wants us to include were we to approve a subdivision. You also indicated the HPC, the Historic Preservation Commission, which... I want to be very clear. They are opposed to the subdivision. And the fact that they made certain recommendations, should there be a subdivision limiting the use of the property, should not be seen in any way as their approval for recommendation or support of a subdivision. I want to be very clear about that. You mentioned that, but I wanted to illuminate that. They also gave some limitations such as an 80 foot side yard setback, the similar limitation on height. They had a limitation regarding the driveway, similar to the PDC, no additional zoning relief. The PDC had a much longer list. The longest list, however, is the certificate of appropriateness, which occupies about eight pages in our code, which grants to the HPC extraordinary powers to limit any regulated structure which would include both the house the outbuildings and every aspect of both lots were there to be a subdivision including height front facade proportion of the openings the scale of the structure which specifically says they have the right as the HPC to regulate the size and mass of the proposed new structure in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches, adjacent structures and balconies. If we were to approve a subdivision with any of the limitations that are recommended by either the PDC or the HPC, would that limit the authority of the Historic Preservation Commission to regulate the structure as a COA, a certificate of appropriateness.

Well, the ordinance that this council, if it were to adopt, if you included conditions, that ordinance would be the land use regulation for that from a zoning perspective. There would still be the HPC's consideration of the COA. BUT I DON'T KNOW AND I WOULD DEFER TO CORPORATION COUNCIL IN THIS, BUT IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN SUCH A WAY THAT ONE CAN'T HAVE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC AND I WOULD ARGUE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE CITY COUNCILS THAT WOULD HOLD, BUT I DEFER TO CORP COUNCIL. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT CHAPTERS, CHAPTER 150 AND THEN THERE'S CHAPTER 24 CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS THE COA. NEW SPEAKER SO JUST TO CLARIFY

would any restrictions that this body were to put on the property were we to subdivide and again i'm not saying that i would agree to subdivide the property but if the property is subdivided subject to the restrictions of say the pdc would that limit the ability of the historic preservation commission in terms of their powers to grant or deny a certificate of appropriateness or make any recommendations?

I don't believe so. I think they live in two separate parts of the code. They are separate standards that would have to be met Separately so you have your conditions as part of the if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly you have your conditions as part of the PUD and that is specific to requests like an amendment to the planned use development and then you have a certificate of appropriateness procedure which is not, in my understanding, is not contingent upon any part of the PUD process, but stands apart from it. And so from my understanding of the code, those are two separate boxes, I guess, that the applicant would have to check at the appropriate time.

BUT ULTIMATELY THIS WOULD TRAVEL BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL, RIGHT? SO WHETHER IF THERE WERE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DECISION AND THE COUNCIL'S CONDITIONS, ULTIMATELY YOU'RE THE ULTIMATE ARBORER OF THAT AND THAT'S WHY I SAID WHAT I SAID ULTIMATELY. zoning the the ordinance that you would adopt would carry because you're going to make the final decision on it because you can't operationalize the COA if you don't have the approval from this body for the plan development and subdivision that plan development amendment so having said that IF YOU HAD A SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS SOME CONFLICT, AGAIN, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE APPAILABLE TO CITY COUNCIL, AND SO THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT.

NEW SPEAKER Okay. NEW SPEAKER JUST SPECIFIC TO THAT QUESTION BEFORE YOU MOVE ON. DOES THAT GIVE US, THIS BODY, THE AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO SET SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON THIS? OR DOES THAT HAVE TO BE ORIGINATED BY EITHER HPC OR PDC?

Do you have full reign to do any and all conditions you'd like to do as part of this consideration? Because it is a zoning matter before you and you're able to do that. How that influences the consideration of the COA, that may have some influence because the HPC may say those are things that we're certainly not going to allow because the council had said that. They may disagree with you, but either way, it ultimately, in this case, will travel back to you because of the requirement that any plan development approved for a vacant lot, once someone proposes something to be put on that lot, would need an amendment to the plan development.

I just omit this, but just to direct answer your question. We had several hearings. I would say these are public hearings. The Historical Preservation Commission, those were public meetings. Those weren't noticed. But the meetings at the Plan Design Commission were actually hearings. We sent out notice, certified mail and everything. After several hearings, the PDC came up with certain conditions, and the applicant has agreed to every one of those conditions.

So what I'm hearing is that the bottom line is that if there's a proposal, it would be heard by the HPC and the PDC and then by this body. So whatever happens in those commissions would be strictly advisory.

That is correct. It would come before you just like it is here this evening. With regard to the plan development, I would defer to Corporation Council on the Chapter 24 matter. That may live in its own world there as a decision that they've made that could be appealable to you.

You're talking about a COA, a certificate of appropriateness?

Correct.

I thought the certificate of appropriateness was appealable to the City Council.

I'm just pointing out that that's a different layer of things than merely a recommendation is all. It would need to be appealed.

It's my understanding that the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Obviously, that's not appealable. But if it's only been denied, then it's appealable to the city council. I see.

Oh, okay. So it's a technicality, but it's an important difference. It's not just a recommendation to deny. It's rather an appeal from the applicant of a denial as part of this process.

Clear as mud. Okay. But we're confident we'll be able to make the Historical Preservation Committee happy so that they will find those standards.

Okay. The next question is, if there's no application, why are we talking about a driveway and removal of street trees?

Is that directed to me?

Whoever can answer that.

I can answer that.

We had put that on the original site plan, and I'll be frank, at the time we had a buyer who was interested in two separate driveways. That buyer does not exist anymore, so that's just a remnant from the previous iteration. At this point, we're okay just pushing that, punting that to the certificate of appropriateness process. That's the reason why we brought it to the PDC, and the PDC issued their recommendation regarding the driveway, but again, That situation doesn't exist anymore because that buyer terminated.

Okay. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Director Fontaine, I have a question for you. You had what was mentioned in the materials and in your comments that PDC approved three to two, which suggests that two commissioners were absent. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. And then my other question, which was actually just about the driveway that was just mentioned, that the proposal said that one condition was suggested for the proposal that there was like, that there's no additional driveway that could be created on the property if it was subdivided. So would that mean that there's no, the one parcel went out of a driveway or would the partial share the driveway or just the rendering and...

It was the delineation of the driveway currently would span both parcels, currently would span both these parcels. And so instead of creating another driveway entrance, having a shared drive through an easement arrangement was what was thought of in that way. It doesn't mean that there couldn't be a stem to that to get to a different part of the property for a garage or some other parking area. It just meant how you're entering into Central Avenue would be by the existing driveway entrance, and that would be shared.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions for now.

AND CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENTS WOULD BE ALL PART OF THE P.U.D. PROCESS.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY THANKS.

NEW SPEAKER YES COUNCILMEMBER ROSS.

NEW SPEAKER I HAVE A POINT TO MAKE BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE JUST IN THE QUESTION MODE AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THOUGH THAT THE THIS IS JUST A NOT TERRIBLY hugely important point but that the property taxes less than eighty thousand based on something that people can find in two seconds on the lake county clerk's office website it's listed so it was my understanding it's less than the number that you quoted

NO, ACTUALLY, THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF 2025 WAS 40,528. SO YOU TIMES THAT BY TWO, AND THAT EQUALS 81,000. I SAW IT AS 36,000. NO, NO.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR FONTAINE. THE 2024 TAXES WERE $77,043.

AND THE 2023 TAXES WERE 72,402. AND IF YOU GO BACK ALL THE WAY TO 2020, THE TAXES WERE 59,000. SO BETWEEN 2020 And now the taxes have gone up $20,000.

I'm also going to, I guess, point out that you cite 4.3 acres, but especially when you look at the topographic map, each lot is significantly less than that because there's ravine. So, I mean, ravine takes up part of... part of the lot, right?

Yeah, that's correct, but that's just...

It's not buildable area.

We're not talking about the table land. We're talking about the lot area. Sure.

I'm referring to the table land.

Oh, yeah. I didn't calculate the table land.

Yeah, the table land is significantly less.

Well, yeah, that would limit by... Based on the... based on the constraints that the applicant has agreed to with regard to the setbacks and the fact that that a lot of the property is Ravine it would then significantly reduce the area where the house can be built and what can be built right by practical just that the so it's it's I'm just saying that the buildable area is a is is not You know

TWO POINT POINT.

BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY, WE'RE HERE FOR ZONING ISSUES, NOT REALLY.

I'M JUST CLARIFYING THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO.

I HAVE POINTS TO MAKE.

COUNCIL MEMBER LITTLEWARE. JOHN WENT. THAT WAS JUST A FOLLOW-UP.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR FONTAINE, COUPLE FOR YOU REAL QUICK. ANY POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE A REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BE ISSUED DO THOSE THEN CARRY ON WITH THE LAND INTO PERPETUITY

THEY'RE PART OF AN APPROVAL, AND SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO CHANGE THEM, THEY'D HAVE TO GO TO THE HPC AND SEEK AN AMENDMENT. OKAY.

PERFECT. DO YOU HAVE A SENSE, IF I'M THINKING BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT YOU PUT UP, WHERE YOU HAD INDICATED THAT HPC HAD COME UP WITH SOME POTENTIAL ACCEPTABLE You know, conditions. Say it again. Conditions. Conditions, thank you. Conditions for the subdivision, right? I think I saw 80 foot step back, for example. Do we have a sense for, you know, if we were to apply... their requirements, is it tenable to actually build a home with that or no, because of the steep slope and the amount of flat land to come to the point?

It's a great question. And so real quickly, bear with me just for a second here. Okay. So we did have Yeah, there's two things here. So if you look at, the setbacks that are there now as proposed if you will by the applicant the 30 foot and then the 25 foot and then you look at the 80 foot what winds up happening is the staff estimated that the buildable lot area for lot two would be over 30 000 square feet with the 30 and the 25 Okay, and then with an 80 foot setback on the west, that would drop that down to about over 20,000 square feet of buildable area.

And then what does that mean from an FAR perspective?

The FAR would not change in this case. It would not be limited by that, okay? There's allowance of 15,352 square feet. So if you have 20,000 square feet of land or buildable area, you could build a single story, 15,352 square foot home. Yes. So that would not be the limiting factor there. And of course, that's a single-story home. I mean, you could choose to use that 15,000 square feet in a two-story home, provided you have the height, you know, under the height limitation. Can I answer that question now? Yeah.

THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING. AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS WANTED 150-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THEY KIND OF JUST SETTLED AT 80 FEET AND THAT FRANKLY WAS A POISON PILL, SO TO SPEAK, TO MAKE IT UNDESIRABLE TO TRY TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY. The HPC was a recommending body to the PDC. The PDC considered that 80 feet, realized, frankly, it wasn't serious. And they came back with, well, they actually changed what we proposed and made it more onerous. And so the PDC heard that 80 feet and came back with what they recommended today.

I want to make a slight correction because I'm PDC liaison that the applicant stated that that was untenable for them. And that's what PDC responded to. It's not that they recommended 30 feet. Well, they made the recommendation. But I'm just saying, I'm just being utterly clear that the applicant said that an 80 foot setback is not workable for us.

And the PDC agreed with that because they recommended something different. The PDC didn't recommend the 80 feet.

Right. Thank you. Or, yeah, the 30 feet.

OK, council member, center, keep going.

OK, thank you for that. That's super helpful. Nicole, can I ask you some questions? Is that your name, Nicole? Sorry. Yeah. Close. Really close. Lisa, can I ask you some questions? I wrote that, Nicole. Sorry about that. Just some market data questions that I have for you, because I think it's really important for what we're talking about here. Obviously, we're talking about preservation, but the reality is there's an economic consideration to this. relative to how feasible a potential transaction is and the ongoing economics of the parcel. You mentioned 50 million impressions. And then you also mentioned that you had 10 private showings. That sounds like a pretty low conversion rate. With that number, 50 million, extrapolate out other marketing efforts that you've made into what you would typically expect in terms of the traffic coming through the home?

I think that the fact that it's a historic home, the taxes are what they are, the carrying costs are what they are, I think are a hindrance to getting those actual live showings. Usually, I USE THAT TERM LOOSELY, BUT USUALLY, YES, GETTING 50 MILLION IMPRESSIONS THROUGHOUT SOCIAL MEDIA AND ARTICLES AND VIDEOS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD TRANSLATE TO FAR MORE SHOWINGS AND FAR MORE ACTIVITY AND FAR MORE INTEREST AND OFFERS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE HISTORIC HOME APPEALS TO A TIGHTER AUDIENCE. in part with the list price, the carrying costs, and all that come along with it.

Understood. But on a normal property, if you had 50 million impressions, how many showings would you expect that to translate to?

I mean, it's hard to say. I mean, different price points yield different results. I mean, it's hard to quantify that.

Okay. What's your experience with estate-type properties like this?

I MEAN, I AM PART OF A LUXURY BRAND. MY AVERAGE SALE PRICE IS PRETTY HIGH. I REPRESENT THE LUXURY MARKET OFTEN, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. AND MY BROKERAGE WITH JAMISON SUTHERBY'S PROVIDES THAT ELITE EXPERTISE AND EXPOSURE AS WELL.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. DURING YOUR TIME OF REPRESENTATION, IT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO-ISH, A LITTLE YEAR PLUS, RIGHT? What would you estimate? And I'm sorry, I'm asking you like some specific data questions. I understand you can't answer. But what would you estimate was the average days on market for your $2 million plus homes that you were representing?

I would say three months.

Okay. On average. So three months. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look at this market where we are today, granted it's every property out there, but 6-0-0-3-5 is like 30 days, right? It's like things are just flying off the shelf. So we're not talking about, just to make clear, we're not talking about a distressed real estate market. of course yeah of course right and and when you take that into consideration given the climate of today's market you would expect to have more activity than what we've had yeah okay and then last question for you um we've talked about the tax burden of this property being 80 and about to get up to 100 right with your work in 60035 in highland park YOUR TYPICAL BUYERS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR A FOUR-BEDROOM HOUSE, WHAT IS THEIR MOST NORMAL EXPECTED TAX BILL? I KNOW PRICE POINT MATTERS, BUT LIKE WHAT IS A NUMBER THAT IS, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR? A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTAINABLE? YES.

35? YEAH, OKAY.

OKAY, THANK YOU. That's it, thanks.

Yeah, Council Member. I wanted to just respond to one thing. I know we're asking questions. There was a comment made that the 80 foot setback proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission was not serious. And I want to defend that commission. That number was made based on an analysis of how far the existing home, the field house is from the home immediately to the west. that was the number that was decided on. Whether it can be built or not is a separate question. How the Plan and Design Commission reached their decision, I don't know. But I want to make it very clear that the considerations that the HPC made were A, they don't want a subdivision. But if there's going to be a subdivision, they came up with a carefully considered number that was serious. all right thank you that was rejected by the pdc it was rejected by the pdc but i the process was i'm sorry to use the word denigrated with the suggestion that it was not serious okay i know you didn't mean that but i wanted to be clear about that thank you yeah well i want to go next council member the war is going to go last and then we'll we'll go to the public can you come back up again yes you

I want to follow up on Council Member Sender's line of questioning. And I know we're asking you to kind of speculate a little bit, but you know, when it comes to strategy, which is what you do for sales, you know, if you were to do a best, you know, and worst case scenario for the property, you know, I mean, you came in enthusiastic, I'm sure, great property, you know, you're good at what you do. You know, you're presenting a case here that it's a very difficult property to sell. But if you were to project out like another year, you know, what are the options for you to try to, you know, let's say there's no decision here to, you know, divide the property and you got to still, you know, you're on the hook to sell it. What's your best and worst case scenario for your prospects for this property?

In terms of selling it? We need to re-strategize. I mean, you know, obviously we've listened to the market over a year and we've seen how the market has responded to our original list price. I THINK THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, MYSELF ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS BUSINESS ADVISOR, I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO SIT DOWN AND COME UP WITH AN APPROPRIATE PRICE IN TERMS OF WHERE WE WANT TO HIT THE MARKET AND HOW WE WANT TO RELAUNCH THAT. I'M UP FOR A CHALLENGE, AND I LOVE A HISTORIC HOME AND I LOVE TELLING ITS STORY AND BRINGING IT TO LIFE, AND I TRULY BELIEVE I DID A WONDERFUL JOB IN DOING THAT. AT WHAT WE WERE OFFERING, THE MARKET WASN'T BUYING. SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S ASKING A LOT OF A BUYER TO PRESERVE, TO MAINTAIN, AND TO CARRY. And it doesn't change all of the feedback that we got, which granted wasn't a ton, but from the pool that we could pull from, it presents its challenges. Whether it's a young family that wants to move their family into Highland Park and loves the historic nature of the home and the land that it provides, it's a tough ask for them to carry and preserve and not be able to transform it in a way that meets their modern lifestyle. IF IT'S AN OLDER DEMOGRAPHIC THAT APPRECIATES THE HISTORY OF THE HOME THAT DOESN'T HAVE YOUNGER CHILDREN TO LOOK AFTER, AGAIN, IT PRESENTS SOME SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES. HOW DO WE OVERCOME THOSE? IS IT WAITING? Is it hoping and waiting and continuing to adjust the price? I don't believe that that's the best benefit for Highland Park. I don't believe that's the best benefit for the history of the home. And I would also just mention that it did

Changing the price will not materially change the carrying costs for the property. Currently, the property with the $81,000 tax bill has a fair market value under the assessor's website, based on the assessor's website of $2.8 million. So there would have to be a significant uh reduction in the purchase price to impact the actual carrying cost of the property which is the taxes and it doesn't even talk about the landscaping and the other things that goes with owning 4.3 acres of property in 2026. okay thank you thank you thank you um i i want to push back on some of this um first of all that that uh

AS I RECALL IT, IT WAS OFFERED FOR SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE ASSESSOR'S VALUE. SECONDLY, My husband and I are architects. He's in real estate. He reads absolutely everything having to do with the real estate market, every listing, everything. Both, with all due respect to the broker, it must have been a really, you know, I don't know what to say because most people I spoke to did not see the advertising for it. And it was listed pretty high for it seemed like what it was. Can I respond?

Yes, please. To that? I believe in the price of the home. I believe in our original list price. I don't know where your audience is looking, but I have data in front of me that shows that it was visible and it was seen. And I truly believe in the price. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's only worth what somebody is willing to pay. And we need to listen to that.

It was 5-5, I think. Thank you.

I just have a few questions because my comments, and I really want to hear from people in the audience. I do have one question for you. Lisa, I'm sorry, you're on the hot seat right now. That's okay. Have you sold other historic homes?

Nothing that was landmarked. But I will also note that Jamison Sotheby's International Realty has a historic home committee who provided a multitude of input and services in exposure globally. Okay. for the landmark property.

This is just, it's just a question because, frankly, there have been an awful lot of rumors out there that have, that I'd really, one of the things I'd like to see the council do tonight is dispel a lot of the rumors so that we can get on with the substance of this. Of course, of course.

I just, I mean, you've made a mountain of effort. And regardless of whether or not I have a statistic sale of a landmarked home, I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN FINE ART AND ARCHITECTURE AND ART HISTORY, AND AS SOON AS I MET RICKY AND HE WALKED ME THROUGH THE HOUSE AND HE SHARED EVERY BIT OF WHAT GAIL HAS DONE TO PRESERVE AND RESTORE THE HOME, I KNEW THAT I WAS THE APPROPRIATE ONE TO MARKET THE HOME. I APPRECIATE THEIR TRUST IN ME, AND I THINK REGARDLESS OF IF I HAVE ANOTHER ADDRESS TO PUT ON MY RESUME THAT IS LANDMARK STATUS. Irrelevant.

It's just a question because it does go to the fact that this is not just a straight sale.

Of course. I didn't treat it as such.

Right. Of course. Clearly you've shown your efforts, but I just wanted to clear that up. Secondly, and this is not to you, I think it's perhaps to the applicant. I guess my question is when there was a proposal before the PDC or the HPC, did there was something tangible there. And I guess what I'm curious about in terms of subdivision is why now, if in fact there is no proposal for anybody to go through?

YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER WE STARTED THIS PROCESS EIGHT MONTHS AGO. AND WE HAD WE LISTENED TO THE MARKET AND THE MARKET WAS TELLING US THAT THERE WASN'T A BUYER FOR A 4500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WITH AN $81,000 TAX BILL AND 4.3 ACRES. AND SO THEY EXPLORED OTHER THINGS AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THIS POSSIBLE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAD A BUYER UNDER CONTRACT. THE PROCESS WAS TAKING TOO LONG. THAT PERSON TERMINATED. SO what we're trying to do is we're again this is a legacy from the process that started eight months ago you know we've been through several meetings with the hbc the pdc we've had two continuance nothing against the council that was on us the continuances we realized that but the um uh it's it's what what we're how we're pivoting at this point to try to make this so you know so this is this is something that's not going to lie fallow i mean the property's been empty for five years i shouldn't be publicizing that because we'll be arranged there next week now notice that now it's on i think but but the the the property's been empty for five years and the longer it goes You know, the longer it's on the market, the less valuable it is and the less opportunity to sell it.

Great. The only other questions I have are really for Corporation Counsel. And they're actually legal questions that I had in making this decision at some point. One of the reasons I wanted to hear from my other council members and from the public is because I think it's very complex decision. We have two of our premier commissions. You know, HPC and PDC are the people who do the deep dives. When we review a property, we go through it, we go through it this once, and this is really only our second time of looking at this versus the plan and design. First time. Yeah, because it was continued, you're correct. Versus the Plan and Design Commission or the HPC that's been through the thick packet and every tree to find out where everything is on a really deep level. As a former commissioner with PDC and liaison and sitting in on HPC, I know the yeoman's job that these two commissions do, but we need to get up to speed. So some of my questions are really to dispel some of the rumors that are out there. and I'd like corporation counsel to clarify them for us. So one of the things that we were told, for example, was that after a year's period, in theory, if this owner said, I don't want to carry this property anymore and tried selling it for another year and couldn't sell it and decided they wanted to demolish it, they could just knock down the house. And so the question is, with a landmarked property, is that possible or isn't it further protected than simply being able to knock it down because you waited the requisite 365 days, which you could do with a normal property. But with a landmarked house?

No, you wouldn't be able to do that.

Okay. Okay. So there's no threat right now that it's going to be knocked down, right? Right. To my knowledge, no. Okay. So secondarily, there were a lot of questions, and I read all the minutes from the PDC and HPC in every single meeting, and there were a lot of questions as to whether or not, and our liaison tried to clarify, and I think others did on staff try to clarify, the houses on the property are landmarked, correct? Right. The full property is landmark, correct? That is correct. And if we subdivided at some point this property, both parcels will still be landmark irrespective of whether, I'm just trying to dispel the rumors that are out there because when you're getting hundreds of phone calls or emails and people are saying, oh my God, they're going to knock it down tomorrow. If you don't change this, you get worried, right? So in any event, if we, If there was a subdivision, the parcel that does not have a house on it would still be landmarked, correct?

That is correct.

And therefore, the process which someone outlined is very onerous. Certificate of appropriateness and everything else would have to be gone through, correct?

That's correct. In addition to the plan development amendment, if any changes were to be made. Okay, okay.

So those are some of the bare bones basics in terms of protections. I just wanted to make sure that the council didn't have to go and make some sort of a statement tonight to clarify to people that this is protected, that anything that comes out of this will still have to go through this huge onerous process.

I would agree with that.

Okay, so with that, I'd like to hear from the public, if that's okay with you.

Yeah, now let's listen from the public. You have three minutes, you'll be kind. If you could just line up against the wall so we can just go through this relatively quickly. And thank you for your patience. We have to really get a grasp on the staff and the presentation of the owners.

It's fine. Patience I don't have usually, but I appreciate that you have to go through the effort. I'm David Brint. I live at 1985 Dale. And my wife Betsy and I were the contract buyers for this property of the land next to the Staracoma at 147 Central. We lived near it. We raised our families in Highland Park and developed deep roots here on Central Avenue for more than 30 years. Betsy was born in Highland Park and has lived in Highland Park her whole life. Our daughter, son-in-law, and two grandchildren live around the corner of Laurel. We're not going anywhere. HP is our home. We're committed to and invested in Highland Park. We purchased or we tried to purchase the land and design a home so we could create a safe place for Betsy and me to grow older. and remain in Highland Park near our families. We knew the McClouds who landmarked the property. Martha delivered us an apple pie the day we moved into 74 Central. And I often talked to Al as he labored to keep up his property. What?

You can keep going, please, please.

as he labored to keep up his yard and work and maintain his home. He loved his home, and he tolerated the maintenance. We terminated the purchase contract because we didn't want to be involved in the vitriol, the misinformation, and the level of unreasonableness demonstrated by members of our community. For the record, we didn't intend to tear down the historic structure or build a 15,000 square foot home. In fact, we'd hired Jim Frerman, who's I think in the audience, as our architect because Jim spent nine years as a member of the historic commission, and two of which was the chairman. We had designed a home that was set far back, farther back than actually is required, and couldn't really be seen by the neighbors' windows or from the street, and preserved the historic elements of the entrance, the drive, and the historic home. I'M A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER BY TRADE. WE SPECIALIZE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I'VE SEEN ALL KINDS OF NIMBY EXPRESSIONS AND WE'RE SADDENED BY THE REACTION OF THE STAR COMMISSION AND SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. ALL WE EXPECTED WAS A REASONABLE DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY AND POSSIBLY OF BUILDING A HOME ON IT. WHAT WE RECEIVED WAS A CLOSED DOOR AND A CAMPAIGN THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY THAT DID NOT REFLECT FACTS. MY WIFE AND I LIVE WITHOUT MY LIFE AND I CAN LIVE WITHOUT BUILDING THE HOME. BUT WHAT RESULTED FROM THIS PROCESS WILL DO TWO THINGS. IT WILL MAKE IT EVEN LESS LIKELY THAT FUTURE OWNERS WILL LANDMARK HOMES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND I REALLY THINK THAT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT IF YOU REALLY LOVE HISTORIC HOMES. AND IT WILL HURT AN OWNER WHO'S BEEN A STALLWORK OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN INSIDE THE THREE HOMES on this land. The home on the park is in need of a complete renovation. Okay, okay, I heard you. Just one last thing. I have done historic preservation. I've done five historic preservations for landmark properties. I know what it takes to preserve property.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Robin Nankin and I live at 200 Vine Avenue. I'm here tonight to express my support for the proposed subdivision of 147 Central Avenue. My husband David and I purchased a historic Howard Van Doren Shaw House on Vine Avenue and spent years restoring this home. I understand the responsibility, expense, and long-term commitment required to properly maintain and restore these properties. This experience taught me that successful preservation depends on making these homes both desirable and financially sustainable for future owners. I believe 147 Central Avenue is an important part of our community's heritage and should be preserved. We share that same goal. Where we differ is how best to accomplish it. Like 147 Central Avenue, we learned our home was part of a much larger estate.

If it hadn't been previously subdivided, we wouldn't have been able to afford to renovate it.

I believe preserving a historic home does not require preserving every acre that it has historically surrounding it. The purpose of historic preservation is to protect the historic resource itself, not to permanently freeze every acre that's been associated with it. If the home setting and character are preserved, then its historic significance remains intact. Placing this home on a more manageable parcel may improve it long-term prospects. A historic home requires significant financial commitment, requiring ownership of four plus acres and only narrows the pool of potential buyers. A smaller parcel is more likely to attract an owner who will invest in the substantial time and resources needed to restore and maintain this remarkable home. This proposal represents thoughtful planning because the properties located along the lake, very few neighboring properties will be affected. The subdivision will allow for one additional home in a community with a limited housing supply while modestly expanding the city's tax base. Those are meaningful public benefits achieved without sacrificing the historic character of this home. This is not a choice between preservation and progress. It's an opportunity to accomplish both, to protect an important historic home while allowing reasonable and responsible use of the surrounding land. Thank you, and I respectfully ask that you approve this subdivision. Thank you.

MY NAME IS KELSEY GONZALEZ, I'M AT 126 CENTRAL. SO THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS HERE, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP TO WHAT MY STATEMENT IS. I'M ASKING YOU TO DO ONE THING TONIGHT, AND THAT'S TO FOLLOW YOUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND DENY THIS APPLICATION. This isn't about whether an owner can do what they want with their property. It's about whether a 40-year landmark designation can be undone once someone has a development deal and asks hard enough. That designation was never limited to the house, and I've heard a lot of conversation referring to just the house. The owner bought this estate. Okay, this isn't about what an owner can do, whether an owner can do what they want with their property. It's about a 40-year landmark designation WHETHER THAT CAN BE UNDONE ONCE SOMEONE HAS A DEVELOPMENT DEAL AND ASKS HARD ENOUGH. THAT DESIGNATION WAS NEVER LIMITED TO THE HOUSE. THE OWNER BOUGHT THIS ESTATE KNOWING IT WAS PROTECTED. YOUR OWN STAFF HBC DETERMINATION SAYS THE ENTIRE PARTIAL, QUOTE, WAS ALWAYS AND CONTINUES TO BE A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK. NOT ONE OF YOUR NINE LANDMARK CRITERIA TURNS ON ACREAGE. whatever standard you apply tonight applies to every landmark in this city. This application is cycled through three justifications since the beginning of it in January when it started out at the HPC. The first move was to an attempt to de-landmark half of the portion of the state that is proposed for lot two. That was unanimously rejected seven to zero by the HPC. So the fact that this second portion would remain landmarked isn't Anyway, so that's the point there. The generous setback that they're talking about, and I appreciate Council Member Blumberg bringing it up. Yeah, the HPC did say 80 foot setback, and the PDC is coming back now with a 30 foot setback. And again, to reiterate that point as well, not only did they deny the landmarking to de-landmark it, but they said, no, we don't recommend that you subdivide this at all, because what you're doing is you're destroying the actual landmark that was landmarked 40 years ago. YOU KNOW, I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME WITH THE HARDSHIP. I THINK SELLING AT A PREFERRED PRICE IS NOT LEGAL HARDSHIP, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE INCOME VALUE FROM SOME OF THE PLACES LIKE THE COACH HOUSE. IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THERE'S ANY PRESERVATION EASEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED. I NEED TO GO. LET ME JUST FINISH. MR. BRANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. A DENIAL GRANTED IN YOUR OWN COMMISSION'S RECORD IS THE MOST DEFENSIBLE VOTE AVAILABLE TO YOU GIVEN ALL THIS. THE VOTE THAT INVITES CHALLENGE IS APPROVAL THAT OVERRIDES THOSE FINDINGS. FOR A BUILDING WITH NO SOLID ARCHITECTURE OR ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN.

NEW TIME'S UP. SORRY.

NEW SPEAKER GOOD EVENING. I'M JEFF ANNENBERG. I LIVE AT 144 RAVENE DRIVE. and I'm in strong support of the proposed subdivision of 147 Central Avenue. I've lived in Highland Park for over 50 years. Currently, as I mentioned, residing at 144 Ravine Drive, which is a house that was built in 1906. Given my long history in the community, I care about preservation and the character of our community. which is exactly why I support this proposal. The historic home itself will remain fully intact on a large piece of land. And the subdivision does not impact the existing structure in any way. The property owner should have the ability to subdivide the property and continue to protect the historic nature of the home, which is exactly what they're requesting. I urge the council to support this and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Jim Fairman and I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. I WAS ON THE COMMISSION FOR SOME YEARS FROM I BELIEVE 2001 TO 2009. IN TWO YEARS OF THAT I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE Commission. I've also won several historic preservation awards in the City of Highland Park and all and a number of other communities on the North Shore. I was retained for, so I'm also an architect and I was retained to look at this property on a preliminary basis regarding a subdivision. And what's extraordinary here is that the historic nature, the historic structures would not be impacted at all by having a new house there. There still will be, there still would be a front yard on this property that would be 400 feet long and 123 feet deep, which is almost 50,000, around 50,000 square feet, which is actually bigger than most lots on the block. So the look and what is there now, I would think would be largely unchanged. And it was our intention to actually move further back And the 80 foot thing, by the way, makes no sense to me whatsoever. It actually pushes the house towards the ravine and has impact then on the ecology of the ravine and skews, it would skew the house in another direction. It was, and to Mr. Plumber's comment that I'm sure that it was reasoned out and it was having to be dealt with, you know, just saying it was the other side, but on this side, The real important thing is this porch of the house. And if the house, for example, is set back another 40 feet, which would be a more logical thing to do, you'd have a couple 100-foot setback effect from the sod, and you'd see the whole porch of the house. And I think there are ways to do it to sensitively place a house on this site and another very important factor is that the section of the land that you know we're talking about which by the way is not which is beautiful but is i don't see it as historic but In any case, that land is lower than the existing house. This existing house is on a rise, and no house that would end up there would tower above the other house in any way, shape, or form, because it's gonna start with a first floor that's probably at least 10 feet lower than the existing house. So I got, that's it in a nutshell. Could say more, but thank you.

And so I'm in support of the subdivision. Hey, just a little traffic cop thing. Whenever you're done, just go this way and down the middle. That way we can just have everybody come through faster. That'd be great.

Members of the city council. Yeah, I will. My name is Jim Terman and I'm here tonight on behalf of my wife Wendy Coleman and myself to express our strong opposition to the proposed special use permit at 147 Central Avenue We've both lived in Highland Park for more than 50 years and for the past 33 years we've called 101 Bell Avenue home, one of the city's historic preservation districts. We understand firsthand what these districts mean to people who live in them and why they matter to our community. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property and construct a new residence adjacent to the existing landmark home. The Planning and Design Commission recommended approval, but the Historic Preservation Commission, the body specifically charged with protecting properties like this one, opposed it concluding that the proposal would quote, irreversibly alter the property's historic setting. We agree with that conclusion. historic preservation districts protect the architectural integrity and character that define the city's identity but only if applied consistently every exception becomes precedent for the next approve this and you make it harder to deny future requests at any landmark property in Highland Park That's how preservation ordinances erode, not through one dramatic repeal, but through a series of reasonably sounding exceptions. Recently, the city offered us a free bronze plaque for preserving our historic property. Tonight, we're not asking for a plaque, we're asking for your vote. We respectfully urge the city council to deny this resubdivision request, denying it preserves the integrity of Highland Park's historic preservation program, and it protects historic districts throughout our city from a precedent with consequences far beyond this one address. Thank you for your time, your consideration, And thank you for your service. We appreciate it.

Hi, good evening, city council members. My name is Samara Stryker. I live at 142 Central Ave directly across the street from the property. I'm speaking tonight in strong opposition to the proposed plan development and resubdivision of 147 Central Ave. While this matter has been outstanding for a while, the facts have not changed. The current owners voluntarily bought this property knowing it was designated as a local landmark, the entire property. Failing to sell it at a current price is a failed real estate strategy, not a reason to erase local protection. The market isn't always kind, but it doesn't lie. As a historic preservation commission unanimously found in their vote to deny this landmark's value because it relies on the entire estate setting, the house and the land. Carving up the grounds to create a second buildable lot will irreversibly alter its historical integrity. That is exactly what the HPC said. Granting subdivision variances just to help sell a property sets a dangerous precedent that our preservation ordinances can be outweighed for profit. Please follow the HPC's recommendation and vote no.

Thank you. Next.

I'm Danny Kahn. I also served on historic preservation for nine or 10 years, and I chaired it for three. I was the one who shepherded the landmarking of 405 Sheridan, which was the only time we landmarked without owner consent. That bold preservation effort resulted in retaining one of the North Shore's last remaining grand estates, and I'm delighted that we were able to make that happen. that said I support letting this subdivision go through it will ensure the survival of the house and maintain what is important in the landscaping A little known fact about the landmarking of 405, this was where Oren Pickell wanted to put 17 houses on it. We worked with Oren for a while and we were actually willing, that house was not landmarked. Well, we landmarked it, but it was not before. We were willing to let him build six or seven houses. not 14. But the important point was we were willing to let him tear the house down. And that's Howard Van Doren Shaw. We felt the landscape was more important than the house. And although we could keep the whole thing, we felt we were trying to be cooperative and supportive and come up with a reasonable solution. And I think that's what needs to happen here. This process, I'm overwhelmed listening to the complexity of what these people are gonna have to go through, even if you approve this. And then you wonder why nobody's landmarking properties. I can't understand how anybody would want to landmark a property in Highland Park when they've got to go through this. The certificate of appropriateness thing is onerous enough, but that is a constructive process that ensures an appropriate construction. But all of these regulations that have to be jumped, these hoops that people have to jump through, I'm completely overwhelmed by this. So I would encourage, although I'm very disappointed in the city council's actions over the last years in diluting the historic preservation ordinances I'd like you to take the initiative to be supportive of people that have landmarked houses or who are dealing with landmarked houses and try to come up with workable solutions, not restrictions that just kill the whole concept. I mean, I agree that not being able to sell at whatever price you think you could get if it wasn't landmark, that's not a hardship. But I think that what this person has been asking is a very reasonable price for this property, but no one wants to do it. So I urge you to support it.

Good evening. My name is Tom Corning and I'm an interested neighbor. I live at 261 Laurel. I've come to, I think, most of the hearings on this particular property, but it may have slipped past me. Staff, can you answer a question for me? The last time that I heard this proponent discuss their proposed division, I thought that they were trying to excuse parcel two from historic preservation. Has that been waived?

Please continue your comments and then we'll defer to the chair.

Okay, I'm sorry. So that was a consideration that I had because I'm a single issue voter. I simply wish that any property that's developed next to this historic lot have a complimentary home. And I know that we do not have an appearance review commission here in this community. I understand that that's a problem. So my single issue is that I would like not to see a white and black box sit next to this historic house. And I think that all the people who have spoken here tonight have made valid points, those both in support of and denial of, they've all made valid points. And I think that the most compelling issue that Mr. Bernstein has made is that they're really up against a rock and a hard place because of the magnitude of the property, the property tax burden that's being put on the current owner is real and it continues to grow. And that for a four bedroom, four bath, 4,500 square foot house, the amount of money required to support the sale is a problem. So I understand and appreciate all those issues and yet in my purest mind, I would like to support those who say let's maintain the entire acreage the way it is. This is the way it was designed and it should stay that way. but the practicalities intervene in this. And so if those practicalities are allowed to intervene and we make a compromise as a community, then in that compromise, I would like to see the sale of parcel number two constricted in the same historic manner as parcel number one, meaning that it has to have a house built upon it that is complementary architecturally to the existing facility. i don't have a leg to stand on here because we don't have that kind of restriction here in this community so i offer that challenge to you as council members to think of a way to make this happen i heard staff suggest to you that all the things that HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PDC HAVE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU OUR RECOMMENDATIONS SO THEY'RE A STARTING POINT AND I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THEM FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. AND AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THE TIME HERE TONIGHT AND OF COURSE THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR YOUR SERVICE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

I'm Lisa Tenken. I live at 660 D. Temple Avenue. I'm going to talk about the code and some information that maybe the council isn't aware of. In the mid-1970s, long before we had a preservation ordinance or commission, this property was identified by Dr. Paul Sprague in the Illinois Historic Structures Survey as a significant resource. This is like in 1974, I want to say. That was long before we ever had any ordinance. In the 80s is when the city adopted their first preservation ordinance, formed a commission, and became a certified local government. A certified local government is a status that a municipality can get that provides grants, but there's also ongoing responsibilities for being a CLG, as we call it. The HPC must continue to survey, this is requirement of the CLG, continue to survey and identify properties for local and national register designation, and most importantly, this is the language in the CLG, protect the existing landmarks. So the HPC's work is governed by both the ordinances and the CLG obligations. The historic resources benefit the whole community. As the National Park Service notes, they contribute to the culture and identity of a community and give us a shared sense of history. The Cornelius Field Estate exemplifies this. The subject property is locally landmarked, so any alteration requires a COA under Chapter 24. The HPC, we're all clear that they don't want this to happen. And in chapter 33 of the code, the HPC's responsibility is to protect the distinctive visual characteristics of landmarks, identify significant properties, et cetera. The HBC's goal to use the historic resource survey is to work proactively with owners to research and landmark their homes. And they can get the tax freeze, which if you don't know about that, and also an easement, which can both reduce your property taxes. All current HPC members were appointed by Mayor Rotering and vetted for their expertise. The council supported those appointments, maybe not you specific people, but your body. But you can trust the HPC has taken this application very seriously. Tonight's packet was over 1,000 pages. I'm sure I don't have to tell you. The HPC is equipped to make sound community-centered decisions, and they have done just that. Subdividing the field estate would seriously harm this landmark. The Department of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Property speaks directly to this impact. And I think I gave a link in my email. The applicant has said that their project will benefit the community. Hope you'll support the HPC. And if you support the HPC, all those other problems aren't the problem.

Thank you.

Ken Temkin resided in the same house as the previous speaker. We are here today to consider the property alteration at 147 Central Avenue, the oldest intact structure in Highland Park and one of the top historic properties in Illinois. all properties are valued not only on the number of bedrooms bathrooms and cars that fit in the garage but in on the neighborhood the sighting of structures the resulting visual setting the modifications you are reviewing tonight will destroy the sighting and historic visuals of this property and the neighborhood Highland Park has some beautiful old pre-war neighborhoods where you can drive blocks and never see the same house twice. New homes in historic areas degrade the visual appearance of a neighborhood. If someone were to build a modern house on a double lot in Hibernia, no one would notice and there would not be an issue. The East Central Avenue neighborhood is not Hibernia and the character of the East Central Avenue area should be preserved by denying this alteration. As commissioners, your responsibility should not be to ensure the extraction of the maximum value from this property to the sole benefit of the property owner. Rather, you have a responsibility to preserve the heritage of your community through the preservation of its cultural assets, which are exactly what landmarking and preservation of landmark property encourages. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. DEAR HIGHLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS STEVEN WEINBERG AND I OPPOSE THE SUBDIVISION OF 147 CENTRAL AVENUE. AS THE OWNER OF THE DW LAMBORN HOUSE WITH MY WIFE COURTNEY AT 2360 SHERIDAN ROAD, ONE OF one of Highland Park's designated historic landmarks, I urge the City Council to reject the proposed subdivision of 147 Central. I do not make this request lightly. I understand the expense, responsibility, and sacrifice that comes with owning and maintaining a historic property. Those of us who choose to become stewards of these extraordinary homes Know that preservation often requires significant financial commitment, and that landmark designation carries obligations as well as privileges. Those obligations exist because these properties are not simply private assets. They are irreplaceable pieces of Highland Park's history. The Cornelius Field estate is not merely an old house, it is an intact historic estate whose significance derives from the relationship between the residence and its surrounding grounds. The landscape, carriage drive, open space, historic approach, fencing, and estate setting are integral components of what has survived for 150 years. To suggest that the estate can be preserved while permanently severing a substantial portion of the property is historically and logically indefensible. A landmark designation must mean something. If the city is willing to permit the subdivision of arguably the most historically significant estate in Highland Park over the unanimous objection of its own historic preservation commission, then every landmark designation in this community, not just three houses, every landmark designation in this community becomes conditional rather than permanent. The precedent would be unmistakable. Preservation protections may be set aside whenever ownership becomes financially inconvenient. That is not preservation. It is incremental demolition by legal process. Historic preservation is not simply about preventing the destruction of walls and roofs. It is about protecting the historic context that gives these buildings meaning. Remove enough of that context and eventually the landmark exists only as an isolated artifact, stripped of the very setting that justified its designation. Owners of designated landmark structures invest enormous time and effort and financial resources restoring them because they believe these buildings belong not only to those fortunate enough to own them, but also to the future generations of Highland Park residents. Every owner of a landmark accepts that stewardship. None of us should expect the city to rewrite preservation rules simply because preserving history becomes costly. If financial hardship, limited marketing time, or diminished investment returns become sufficient reasons to dismantle landmark estates, then every protected property in Highland Park becomes vulnerable. Owners throughout the city will understandably ask why they should continue bearing these burdens. We ask that you deny these... Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Julie Ehrlich and I've lived in Island Park for about 30 years. I'm kind of stymied as to how we got here. Many years ago, city council created the HPC and they created the ordinances that the HPC runs by. And the ordinance says that once a property has been designated a landmark, it can never be undesignated as long as the reasons for which the designations are still present. In this case, we don't have a tornado, we don't have a fire, we don't have a flood. We have people that can make more money if it's subdivided. I feel like the city in this instance is basically the victim here because they're ignoring their own long-standing law and decades of tradition because somebody wants to make a better profit on their property. And I feel like that is, it's an embarrassment to me. I mean, I moved here with my husband because of the beautiful historic architecture. I was on the HPC for over 10 years. And I can tell you every time we landmark something, it was torturous because we know it's a burden. but it's a valid burden because that's what makes HPC different from Buffalo Grove or many other communities. And I am just very, I will be extremely disappointed if city council goes ahead and ignores everything that HPC has recommended and voted on. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Mary Seifarth. I'm third generation Highland Parker. I served on the HPC appointed by Dan Pierce for nine years. Danny and I were on there for a while. This is a dicey situation. I think the keystone is that the owner goes into buying this property knowingly and willfully, knowing the situation. taking down historical, I'm not to say that I did not know, I won't mention I did not know Martha and Al McLeod, who owned the house and Martha bought it in 1956. She was Martha Patton at the time, then married Al McLeod, who served on this council from 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, councilman. It is a beautiful property and the open space is huge. Remember, it was once a military academy. So it had a public multiple use service. There are three properties on this now. The main house, Italianate, multiple kinds of Italianate architecture. There is the greenhouse, a good friend of my mother's lived in that for a while. And then there's the other house on Vine Avenue that goes down to the lake. Three income producing possible properties. It's dicey because I understand the condition now of taxes. It's a beautiful piece of property to live on. My grandfather built 70 houses in this town. There are now 50. Some are landmarked. The one I grew up in, 1442 Forest, is landmarked. I emphasize the diciness of that. That lawn is huge. Also, when you cut this, down, that makes the existing property dense compared to whatever idea when you have a subdivision. Is a subdivision one house, two houses, three houses, or Lincoln School? You get my under the . I don't understand what that is. But I'm trying to be generous in my mind that I understand 21st century economics somehow but the owner walks into this willfully this is all this is not a letter that comes down by the way this is your situation it eliminates historical precedent of a design from 70 houses to 50 houses you lose you lose a You lose design. You lose a thought pattern. You lose a history. We've talked about that. So I remain dicey on this. Rethink the situation. Thank you.

hi my name is tom hiller i live at 818 hill street i guess in terms of longevity at the other end of the curve i've been here four years i recently successfully nominated the property i live in for landmark so i became quite familiar with the various criterion So based on having done this thing and being aware of 147, I think that criteria four is on the original resolution to make this a landmark property and it seems to be clear that that the that the owner who voluntarily landmarked this intended to save the entire context of the property house ravine bridges open green space they're all inseparable subdividing clutters the historic vista eliminates the landscape style and integrity as originally landmarked so from my point of view subdividing this basically is to some degree or an entire degree canceling or revoking one of the criterion that was agreed to back whatever this happened many other comments have already been made so and it's getting late but you know, it's death by a thousand small cuts. And it sets a precedent that a criterion can be watered down, reduced, et cetera, downstream in time. It also puts people that have to make a decision whether or not to landmark it, to have to start to play a game theory in their head about which criterion downstream in time might be reduced or canceled or revoked, et cetera. It really is not part of the intended process. Anyway, so I urge you to not subdivide this, or at least, given the fact that once it's subdivided, it can't be taken back. This is the last thing you'd want to make any kind of a rash decision on. I guess this has dragged on for a while, but some of that's due to continuances, as I understand. Anyway, thank you very much for your time.

Good evening. I'm Greg Moyer. I am friends with the petitioner, and I've been helping him as he doesn't live in the area. I've been through multiple HPC meetings. I've been through PDC multiple times. This is the first time I'm in front of the council. I've lived in Highland Park at 1550 Hawthorne Lane. Now I've lived in Highland Park. I moved here in 1969, so I'm relatively new. I'M IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. I'VE BEEN THROUGH THESE MEETINGS. I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORIC HOMES AND THE NATURE AND THE CHARACTER OF HIGHLAND PARK. I'VE WATCHED MR. ROTHNER RENOVATE AND HIS LATE WIFE RENOVATE AND CARE FOR OTHER HISTORIC HOMES IN A VERY LOVING AND IMPORTANT WAY. THE HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF HISTORICALLY. I can't speak to landmarking land. I can speak to historic, I don't know as much as all of you, but historically landmarking the property and it's been maintained. There's been a million rumors surrounding this and there's been a lot of social media that people have been absorbing that it's been inaccurate. The other thing that I've witnessed through the process is there's been a lot of really on the different committees, there's been conflicts. People that neighbors that live across the street or people that have really strong opinions that have louder voices than others. That's just really not appropriate to a really a fair hearing. But I urge you to approve this. You've heard from other people that have maintained other historic homes lovingly and carefully. And this town was built on large, Often a lot of this town was built on other historic structures and properties that were subdivided to allow for other people to move in. So I encourage you all to consider this with the certificate of appropriateness governing what gets built there. There's not going to be anything obnoxious. You're barely going to be able to see it from the street. We've talked about setbacks. We've talked about, you know, a house that's going to be through that process. I think it was eight pages of certificate of appropriateness. and it's going to make it so that this house can live on and and continue to be maintained in its nature this property has been marketed very widely the fact i don't remember who mentioned that they didn't see it it's one of the most widely marketed properties i've ever seen from being in cranes in luxury homes to videos all over social media and it's it's a beautiful home but The only people that came were developers. And if you really got a chance to walk through the house and to see how very difficult it is to really live in the house and the livability of it, it's challenging. So I encourage you guys to approve this and thank you for your time and your service.

All right, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, so now we're going to hear comments from the city council.

First, I'd like to make a motion to close the public comment portion of the public meeting.

Do we have to take a vote on that?

Yeah, let's take a vote then. Do we need to vote? Well, you know what?

We don't do that. This is just consideration. We generally don't close the public comment portion. Okay. Just in terms of our normal procedure.

Your colleague often asks to do that, so that's why I did that. Okay. We're going to proceed.

We're going to proceed. All right. Do you want to speak now? Sure. All right.

I think the first thing I want to say overall is I understand the passion on both sides of this. What is always hard to absorb from up here, as it must be out there, is the occasional absence of charity towards your neighbors. This request is a legitimate request. This is not a money grab. This is not a big-time developer looking to squeeze every last dollar out of a piece of land. The people who would like this preserved and feel that the entire piece of property should be preserved also have legitimate concerns. They're talking about a context in which the house is viewed. And I think it is very important that we understand we're gonna make a decision tonight. About half the people here are gonna be very unhappy with that decision. And about half the people here are gonna feel it's the right decision. That's our job. But I think it's important to understand that we're all neighbors. We do ultimately want what's best for the city. Those of us whom you have elected are gonna try to navigate that as best we can. The second thing I wanna say is that we are not being asked to de-landmark anything. Our ordinance allows for this consideration as a part of the law. This is part of a certificate of appropriateness. This requires approval. This came before the commission in the normal process that this should happen. This is not the first property involving historic designation that is asked to be subdivided. It's different because it's large enough to require a PUD, and it's different because instead of just the structure being designated as a PUD, protected structure, the entire plat has been designated as historic and that's somewhat unusual. So that's what we're dealing with. We are not being asked to change our law. We are not being asked to ignore the law. I would say that the decision that we make tonight should be a decision that understands historic preservation, the value of the integrity of preservation, the value of historic structures within our community that remind us of the past that we come from, and at the same time accommodating the reality of life. And I would like to try to negotiate that in the best way possible for everybody. To me, the integrity of the property to some degree had been altered over the years. When this property was originally designated, some of the accessory structures were not there. they were placed there through the same process of a certificate of appropriateness. And that's how this entire parcel became viewed as an entire parcel that is protected. I have no idea what anybody would want to build, but I've been through the certificate of appropriateness standards that I mentioned before, and they're extremely limiting, and they give the Historic Preservation Commission a tremendous amount of authority to make sure that we don't have a black and white box, to make sure that whatever is built here does not interfere with the existing properties, with the enjoyment or impact of that property on our community. To me, that's sort of where I am right now. I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say, but these are the... These are the facts. These are the laws that this council is being tasked with following. Nobody's being asked to change the law. Nobody's being asked to waive the law or to grant some variance from the law. We're being asked to determine whether this subdivision should be granted within our authority that already exists.

All right, thank you.

Council Member Senter. Thank you. I want to acknowledge the residents, everybody who wrote in and showed up tonight. I read all your emails and I hear you all. BOTH IN SUPPORT AND OF THOSE EXPRESSING CONCERN. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT HEARING THE FACTS TONIGHT PROVIDED ME WITH A TON OF CLARITY AND DISPELLED A LOT OF THE RUMORS THAT WERE GOING AROUND IN VARIOUS FACETS. SO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY FOR TAKING THEIR TIME AND BEING SO THOUGHTFUL. IT'S NOT AN EASY ISSUE AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY up here takes it lightly. I think we all feel like we should do what we can to protect historically significant properties. We also need to understand that these issues are not black and white. Sometimes the more difficult decision is what needs to be done in protection for the long term. I also, from my perspective, want to be clear that should we approve this, it does not set precedent. Every case that is evaluated on whatever matter has its own facts and circumstances. And as we heard tonight about this specific lot and property, it's a very unique situation that none of us are likely to see again based on the set of facts and circumstances that we're dealing with. The things that I think sort of moved me tonight are as follows, and I think the facts, again, are really what's critical. This is not a neglected property with a disengaged owner. We heard from the owner, the current owner himself, who has cared deeply for the property, who has a passion for preservation, who supports this path forward, who put $1.8 million of his own money into this property. They hired an experienced luxury agent who marketed it to 50 of the top brokers in the area. The listing generated 50 million impressions. and it produced 10 private showings, many of which were developers as asserted by Mr. Moyer. That's not a marketing problem. That's the market speaking loudly and clearly that the property as currently configured does not and will not produce a viable buyer and steward of this critical property. THE 2025 TAX BILL OF $81,000 PAYABLE IN THE CURRENT YEAR PROJECTED TO BE $100,000 WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THAT IS NOT A CARRYING COST THAT ANY REASONABLE BUYER CAN ABSORB. IT'S A BARRIER THAT WE CANNOT REALISTICALLY IGNORE AND THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN FROM A REASONABLE RATIONAL MARKET PARTICIPANT. WE ALSO HAD TWO FORMER HPC COMMISSIONERS SPEAK OUT OF THEIR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. I thought that was really telling. And let's also consider what the petitioner is actually proposing. The subdivided parcels would still be more than twice the minimum lot size required under the lakefront overlay zone. It's not a cramped subdivision. It's not over development. It's a thoughtful proposal that works within the constraints of a very unique piece of property. It allows for a realistic market transaction for a new buyer to purchase the field house with the ability to give it the care and attention it needs and deserves without an unsustainable burden of carry costs. I've personally walked the property, and as one of the former HPC commissioners stated, the topography is such that lot two sits lower than lot one. At street level, this makes the potential structure that's 160 feet, step back fairly disguised, particularly with the height restrictions that are being proposed, and that will be required for the certificate of appropriateness as outlined by the PDC. WHEN YOU ADD THAT ALL TOGETHER, THE INVESTMENT, THE MARKETING EFFORT, THE MARKETS RESPONSE, THE TAX BURDEN, THE SCALE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, I THINK OUR CHOICE TONIGHT BECOMES VERY CLEAR, AND IT'S NOT A DECISION BETWEEN SUBDIVIDING AND PRESERVING. IT'S ABOUT ALLOWING A CONTROLLED SUBDIVISION WITH THE RIGHT GUARD RAILS TO ENSURE THE ONGOING PROTECTION OF BOTH LOT 1 AND LOT 2 INTO THE FUTURE. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE YES IN SUPPORT OF THIS WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS PROTECTS THE ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED BY THE PDC, THE DRIVEWAY, THE GATE POSTS, AND POTENTIALLY ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS DESCRIBED MOVING FORWARD IN THAT PROCESS. AND I'D ALSO LIKE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE COMMENTS MADE BY TOM AROUND COMPLEMENTARY ARCHITECTURE. I THINK THAT'S REALLY A GREAT COMMENT. AND I THINK THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN THE FUTURE WITH THE GUARD RAILS IN PLACE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING GOOD, GREAT CARE OF THIS PROCESS. property moving forward.

Thank you. Council Member Roth.

Thank you. In answer to one of the public comments, this is a very unique property and the first house built in our city is on that property. So comparing it to other smaller historic properties doesn't quite feel appropriate. When one person said the house would be saved by subdividing, I don't see how selling the existing historic house on a smaller property would sell any easier. And nowhere is there an indication of how the existing house would be saved. $5.5 million was what this property was listed for. The reaction from most was that that was way too high for the market. The property tax per acre is quite low. Consider your own taxes. It is the improvements that matter to tax increases, not the acreage. Also, I want to speak to the description of people who oppose this as somehow mean-spirited. I believe that it came, these comments and speaking up came from a desire, honestly, to help Highland Park. In answer to the COA, as far as I know, it does not limit the scale of the project. We know for a fact that it can be up to 15,300 square feet. Not that somebody is planning to build that. The last buyer who we heard... and who may still buy it if this passes, wanted to build 9,600 square feet. And as far as I know, if it passes tonight, they can eventually do that. I will say again, I didn't see marketing. Nobody we know saw the marketing. And it sounds like it should be listed on a site for landmark properties. and other efforts made. I informed PDC of this, and I want to remind council, and by the way, I really let PDC do its own work. I said virtually nothing except this comment that I was about to say, that I'll remind council, we're in the midst of working on strengthening incentives to landmark and keep properties from being changed or destroyed, in part by offering significant grants to renovate. At that committee of the whole meeting where we discussed larger landmark incentives, and I hope outside it, we agree as a council that we highly, highly value treasured landmarks in Highland Park that we know our residents do as well, because these landmarks make us uniquely beautiful and special as a city. A big part of why I wanted to serve on council was to push for better decision-making for the sake of better design, including protection of Highland Park's treasures, and to listen as much as I could to residents and neighborhoods all over the city. The demolition of a different Highland Park historic structure was among the tipping points in my decision to run for city council. Now, to my dismay, we're facing the loss of yet another beautiful piece of Highland Park containing the very first house ever built in our city on a truly gorgeous piece of land that remains pristine literally only because it was protected by landmarking. It is greatly enjoyed by so many Highland Park residents since Central Avenue from east to west is a popular route for walkers, cyclists, and motorists. And obviously, this isn't just any piece of land. If it was, the applicant might not have continued after HPC rejected it. And I truly understand how tempting it is, but it remains substantial, beautiful, and unique only because it was protected for decades by multiple past preservationist owners. Staff has been asked, well, we all know, I think we've all accepted that the entire site is landmarked. In my opinion, appropriately so, because you cannot simply pick up the house and move it to another site. We would, I'm sure, agree that that would be absurd. The house divorced from its unique site will lose much of its beauty, significance, and meaning. The building exists in beautiful harmony with this entire site. You cannot simply subdivide and build on one half. And I will mention again that the site and it was on a topographic map that staff showed, has significant unbuildable ravine. It's not all buildable table land. and there'll have to be a setback from the ravine for the building. When PDC voted on this project, the chair and the immediate past chair were both traveling. So the newest member presided over that very important meeting. The vote was split three to two. Half were deeply concerned that HPC had unanimously rejected dividing the property multiple times. And PDC repeatedly asked the buyer at their last meeting for the site plan, which they declined to share despite the fact that the architect had started attending meetings when the process started many months earlier with HPC and Director Fontaine. Sorry to put you on the spot, but you can confirm that as you did in a conversation. In light of the enormous importance of this entire site and building, in light of how the neighborhood and community at large has been put through the wringer, and we hear the stress and frustration from them, I will share that I'm concerned that the mayor is out of town. I wish she were here to opine and vote on this. The applicant and their buyer, past, present, or future, can find another beautiful site. But sadly for our city, subdivision is irreversible. No way to take that back. And once a structure is built, it is lost forever. Unlike other things we vote on, such as rules we establish for e-bikes, we can't reconsider subdivision. While there are other steps the applicant will have to take that have been spoken of to approve subdivision, the biggest, by far the biggest hurdle will have been cleared, the biggest protection removed. Council will have to take responsibility for that. A vote to allow the dividing of the site into two parcels will have the entire... preservation community angry against those who vote for it. We know this proposal to subdivide is widely unpopular in Highland Park. Most residents deeply, deeply cherish our history and beauty. They will be angry, they are angry, about how powerless they, our community, feels when it comes to protecting landmarks. I've heard comments that council doesn't care. This vote will be a litmus test for how we treat historic landmarks in Highland Park. My colleagues and staff may object to the word precedent and how residents view us, but that doesn't change how the community at large feels. It doesn't change the mounting frustration. If this is allowed, landmark properties in Highland Park will forever have a bullseye on them. If one of the most beautiful and long landmark properties can be split into two for the sake of a large luxury home development because zoning will allow construction of up to 15,000 feet on the land that surrounds it, then any landmark is fair game. Any other real estate speculator who wants to buy a landmark for the land or for the house might be emboldened to challenge our other landmarks by our actions here. We open ourselves up to future litigation from speculators and properties where we didn't allow a change in the past. People could reasonably ask, why not? They could argue they were mistreated. We could invite lawsuits over past properties, which are far lesser historic value, but where the city fought to save it. People have brought up the little blue house next to the senior living development on Central Avenue. It is sweet, but not as much of a landmark, major landmark, but council fought for it. Hopefully we can muster the strength to fight for truly one of the most important sites in Highland Park history. And I will add too, I have known the applicant for years, and I'm talking about, well, a representative for the applicant, and I greatly respect his success with many large real estate developments, and I say the same for his recent buyers. one of whom I saw in the audience, but I hope that he chooses a different site that is actually and truly available for development. I hope you turn your attention to making something great happen for the entire city, not splitting up this landmark gem. To the owners of the property, I understand that Gail Rothner was a passionate preservationist. I hope that they will market this lot differently, again, since I haven't seen a ton in the way of marketing. to buyers who care about and love the entire site. There is so much to love and ways for buyers to work with the original house to preserve it, but update it for 2026 and beyond. As I said, the city is working on financial means to help you and other landmark owners, historic landmark owners. In the meantime, Although we hear the potential buyer pulled out, but could be back if this is approved without an actual buyer, without seeing if it is a 15,000 square foot footprint or not, I'm against speculative development. I repeat that, speculative development on a Highland Park landmark treasure. I believe there's no good way to explain allowing this, explain this away to our constituents. We must, and I hope we can do better here. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Ruffin.

Thank you. Thank you. First off, I want to say thank you to the applicant, both the HPC and the PDC for their work, and especially to all the residents who have engaged on this one. And tonight's hearing provided great clarity to me and was very eye-opening. I want to say that support in this application should not be interpreted as diminishing the importance of historic preservation and my commitment to historic preservation. To the contrary, one of the key factors in my decision is that the landmark structure remains protected. and the home remains protected and that really, in my mind, makes it, to me, feel comfortable in my decision. My vote reflects my judgment on that balance. This proposal allows for preservation of the historic home while also recognizing the practical realities associated with maintaining and transferring a unique property of scale. With that said, I am comfortable that this proposal does satisfy all of that In that case, I will be voting in favor of this proposal tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

I really want to thank especially our residents here and the HPC and PDC for what they've done. But it's very difficult because when two commissions that I deeply respect are split, it's very, very difficult to do this. And frankly, I think it sort of mirrors our community in terms of the way people are viewing it. But I also think it's really important to know that the people who have spoken tonight all seem to care about preservation and about keeping our older homes as much protected as we possibly can. And I really don't want to demonize people because, in fact, they are saying we want to subdivide it. If anything, they're trying to say this is a different way of preserving our land and our homes. And I'm very, very torn on this. In many ways, what I really want to do is send it back to HPC and to PDC with the full knowledge because when I went through those minutes, I was shocked at how many people thought, oh, my God, they're going to tear it down. Oh, my God. This is the end of the designation. Now that may have to do with the fact that there was a request at one point to de-landmark. That is not the case. That I know we have the full support of this council and I don't mean to speak for all my other members. But the bottom line is what we want is the home protected and all of the land protected. But I also want to be practical about this and I have to say that I really would still like to weigh in because I want every protection in there should we decide to subdivide. Every mention, whether it's the gate, whether it's the single driveway, I only want to see this so fully restricted that we know that this home and the land that it sits on is 100% protected. And frankly, I would be much more comfortable if I was looking at plans of a second home that I know was in the taste and that wasn't this black and white box, but I know HPC and PDC would never let that go through. And we have some of the processes in place. Frankly, I wish there were additional protections that we could offer, but we do have to offer the certificate of appropriateness, which is an incredibly onerous process to say nothing of the PDC. All of them are. One is looking more from a preservation aesthetic. And frankly, this isn't about dollars and cents. If it was about dollars and cents, we would turn it down and that would be the end of it. It's about what's going to preserve the property. and the home and whatever's going to be in there to make it work into perpetuity. And what worries me is that at some point, whether it is hardship, and I don't know the circumstances of the individuals, but that that could impact on this too. So as much as I really wanted to send it back to these two groups to see if knowing all the full protections that the council was willing to agree to, which is every one of their specifications. And frankly, I'd like it to go back to preservation to get more restrictions on it, to make sure that every fence, the driveway is shared, that there's no additional cutout, that there's no difference in the frontage. i did walk the property too i agree with you john it slopes down it slopes down so much so that i stood there for a long time and the sight lines were hard to see over too but again without a proposal for a second house i'm going to rely on hpc and pdc to make sure that whatever they do is really going to go the right way So all I would ask of all of you is to, sounds kind of trite, but love your neighbor because I do think we all have the same goal here. It's just a question of how we look at it. And as far as I'm concerned, the more information, the more restrictions we can put on, the better. But that's only because we want the process to be smooth. So I really thank you all for your input.

Thank you. Yeah, as for me, I mean, the whole process of the last few months and then even the build up to today, reading all the emails from all the sides and getting clarification from staff on the different questions that came up. listening to our different council member opinions and then to hear you tonight was very important and you know the word wrenching has been used as one of the adjectives and that's how it feels because this is really a dilemma you know it's you know there's you know, the desire to preserve this beautiful piece of property is, you know, beautiful and wonderful and there was a reason for, you know, why it was designated historically. But the thing that has really worked its way into tipping me to where I'm going to land is what will preserve the property? Will it be holding on to the whole thing as it was designated? Will that preserve it? And that's the argument that we want to preserve as it was originally intended. But I keep looking at the economics and I fear that the house will go into disrepair and that the very thing we try to save and trying to save the land, we lose the house. AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A WAY TO MANAGE THE PARADOX HERE THAT BOTH LOTS WILL PRESERVE THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION. LOT TWO WILL HAVE THE PROTECTIONS THAT THEN HPC AND PDC WILL THEN BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR AND THAT WE DO HAVE THE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE ALREADY. with the certificate of appropriateness and the process that that requires, plus some other things that have already been put on the map about things that would be conditions to allow any building of anything. So in the spirit of what I believe will be the sustainable thing for the better chance of preserving this house, that we can get an owner that will love this house like the previous owners loved the house and put in over a million dollars into the house to preserve it until they couldn't sustain it anymore. I want to see another owner that loves that house in the same way that can keep investing. And if we can't get an owner, then that house will continue moving into disrepair. And so we lose, ironically, we lose the very thing that is the most BUILT, WHICH IS THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE BUILDING, AND WE OPENED UP THE LAND TO ANOTHER HOUSE THAT CAN BE COMPARABLE IN LOOK AND FEEL AND SPIRIT, AND THAT COULD BE PART OF WHAT WE ASKED, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT THE HBC AND PDC AND US, YOU KNOW, HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TOO. SO IT'S NOT THE CLEAN DECISION, BUT I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF PRESERVATION OF THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE, I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THIS, THE DIVISION OF THE LOT. Yes, please.

I think, you know, I don't believe, you know, anything should be built. I think it's, you know, fairly simple. HPC denied it repeatedly. But I'm also, I guess, a little confused because it seems, as far as any conversation I've had, anything I heard in PDC, this is somewhat automatically allowed up to, Joel, I'm using your words, up to 15,300 square feet. That's pretty much by right, by zoning, if this is subdivided. So we can talk about preservation as much as we want here, and I'm glad everybody speaks to it, but this is the reality. And And again, I'm going to state that there is nothing in the plan that is actually going to, dividing the site doesn't preserve or help A, make the property, you know, the half with the house on it any more sellable than it was before. I don't see any, I highly doubt that actually, but also isn't that by right, they can build up to, once subdivided, they can build, the zoning allows up to 15,000 feet. And the plan is for,

The zoning does allow that, but there's also a certificate of appropriateness process as well, which are two separate codes, as we talked about earlier, Corporation Council. So you have the Chapter 150 zoning code where you're allowed up to 15,000 square feet and you have a certificate of appropriateness, a separate code that has to be met as well. In this case, this will all come back to you through a plan development amendment with the COA for your final

decision on the plan development and the house that may be proposed because previously the house you know that was proposed and and I've heard that through a grapevine I guess or what Well, yeah, I mean, well, but we this is in conjecture. It is actual fact that the previous house was nearly 10,000 square feet and one story. And there's and Joel, I mean, I know you heard that as well. The the. And this obviously just makes it a whole lot easier to do that. There'd still be steps, but this is by far the most important step that we're taking. The biggest hurdle will have been crossed.

All right, Council Member Senter.

Yeah, just for clarity, I think if the applicant proposes a 14,000 square foot home, we still need to approve that. There's guardrails that say, eh, try again.

Thank you.

Council Member Bloomberg. So I'm going to make a motion that hopefully will accommodate a lot of this. And again, I want to stress that the issue with, as I hear it, with the subdivision is the issue of context. are we going to be able to continue to see this house within the context that it currently exists? And ultimately, if something is built, if the land is subdivided and something is built, the context will not be precisely what it has been. That is true for the vast majority of historically preserved landmark houses in the city of Highland Park. We subdivided the property of an historic house on Central a number of years ago, where the property itself was not landmark, but the argument regarding context was the principal issue that was discussed at that time of a farmhouse that used to belong to the historical society. Well, the context of that house had been lost since the Eastern part of Highland parks used to be a farm. The little blue house that was referred to that we have protected is in no way in anything like the context it used to be in, but it still represents a significant and important element of history and preserves the elements that were designed to be preserved in that house. With that being said and wanting to preserve the sense of place that we have, I would move to permit a subdivision of the property subject to the limitations suggested by the PDC, which include most of the historic preservation restrictions except for the 80 foot setback. Provided that in granting a COA, the Historic Preservation Commission may be more restrictive than that. And I think that helps set guardrails that these limitations, the PDC has said that the home, anything that is built cannot be higher than the existing house and that it must be set back at least as far as the existing house. Am I correct about that? And I think that was also consistent with what staff recommended. But if the PDC, if the Historic Preservation Commission is faced with an application that meets those limitations but is still not satisfactory to them in some way, they may be more restrictive if they feel that serves the purpose of historic preservation.

So before anyone seconds the motion, I want to remind the council There's really two paths the path to approval requires a continuance to a date certain and direction to staff to put together the approval documents just because the code doesn't allow approval of a special use permit. in the nature of a plan development without an ordinance so we need to put that ordinance together the other path would be denial denial can happen tonight and so the motion would have to be one of those two motions so it would be an ordinance in support of those limitations

I would move to direct Corporation Council to prepare an ordinance in support of those limitations to allow a subdivision subject to those limitations.

May I add one thing, council member? The one thing that HPC also added that was not in PECs had to do actually with the driveway. So in addition to fence and trees and the wrought iron, it specifically said to preserve the driveway with not permitting the addition of a new curb cut and another driveway, that there could be an extension. So it's a shared driveway. and that was other than the eighty foot that was the only other limitation so you want to see that limit I would like that limitation in there too I would agree to that can I can ask for clarity on something from council which is in that motion.

Does that allow HPC to require for example greater than thirty foot setback. because that's more onerous than what PDC is requiring?

They could, as what I'm proposing. Now, let me add to that, and correct me if I'm wrong, Corporation Counsel. I don't think the HPC can deny something irrationally. They have to consider what's put before them, and they can't deny an application out of hand. So they can't say you know we want a setback that's for instance half the entire piece of property.

Does it need to pass HPC to go to PDC or those two separate bodies that will make their own assessments of whatever proposal is put forth to them.

So my understanding of the process and Joel, let me know if I'm getting any of this wrong. The certificate of appropriateness passes through the HPC. The amendment to a planned development, and this is where I'm a little bit more shaky, would require, of course, PDC recommendation of approval. The original um pdc plan development process required a input required input from the um hpc uh what i from reading the materials i'm uncertain and i'm sure we would be able to iron this out you know once it gets further whether this would have to go back before the hpc to make a recommendation to the plan uh plan and design commission or whether THAT'S ONLY FOR THE INITIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION. AM I BEING CLEAR? IF WE'RE AMENDING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE, I'M UNSURE OF WHETHER OR NOT, AND I CAN LOOK INTO THIS, THAT WOULD HAVE TO PASS THROUGH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE PDC OR WHETHER THEY'VE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED THAT THROUGH THEIR INITIAL HPC RECOMMENDATION.

I would guess that you would have to have the HPC here at first. And then the Plan Development Commission would determine if the existing PUD would accept those amendments. I would think somewhat pro forma, but the PUD process is to make sure essentially that it does not impair community standards. How about asking somebody who knows?

So what we had suggested in our presentation report was that the HPC consider the COA matter and that feed into the PDC consideration, and here's why. So it would be a substantial change amendment for the plan development because it's the addition of more than 1%. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS A LARGER CHANGE THAN IS ALLOWED. AND SO BY THAT THEN YOU HAVE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, INCLUDING THE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. That's different than a COA. That's two different things. But nonetheless, what we thought would make sense is that we say that the applicant go through the COA process, the Plan Design Commission have the benefit of that process and the outcome of it when considering the amendments to the plan development. I think that pretty much can cover all bases in this matter and keep it orderly.

That makes sense. And the purpose of the way I phrased My proposal is to put up some basic guardrails that seem to be in agreement by everybody, but not to impair the HPC from protecting the historic nature of the property as much as possible.

Sure, but just a question. Does that impair the ability to move forward in the process from an unintended perspective?

I don't know the answer to that, but I would start with that.

How would you, would you like to?

I would prefer the controls to be on the back end, where we ultimately can push back if we're feeling like the application did not appropriately take into consideration all of the feedback we're hearing from the stakeholders involved, community, HPC, PDC, but not to restrict the process up front.

Here's the problem. We only get it if it's an approval. Right.

Yeah. Well, then they should take care to make sure that they're putting forth a reasonable solution that they think will get approved. So they're not expending resources in something that is not likely to get passed.

We can always turn it down.

We can turn it down if it's approved. We cannot say you shouldn't have disapproved of that. We cannot, they can't vote against something and then the applicant bring it to us. In the usual course of events at, for instance, the plan commission, if they refuse, for instance, a change to a PUD, the applicant can say, well, you've recommended against us. We're still going to the city council, and we're going to argue why the council should rule in our favor anyway. With a COA denial, if I'm correct, that can't happen, is it?

If I may, so with a COA denial, the applicant can appeal. Oh, he can? To the city council, correct. Oh. So I would hazard to say that, you know, unless if it's a bridge too far, then they will appeal. If it's not, then they'll come back and try to get approval.

I'm more comfortable with what I suggested, that we put on some specific guardrails, but let the Historic Preservation Commission really have the controlling hand.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT COULD STILL SAY, COME DIRECTLY TO US WITH A PLEA TO SAY THAT HPC WAS BEING UNREASONABLE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

RIGHT. AND THEY COULD ASK THE PDC.

WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE GUARD RAILS TO TRY TO INCENT THEM TO accommodate everything we're discussing. Right. Okay. Understood.

If I could just add one other suggestion, if I may, and it's up to you, but if you want, you can also identify that a pre-application come at the city council level to start. So that way you would see the application, be able to provide some guidance and your policy insights to the HPC and PDC before they go through that process. That's another option.

I don't like that.

Can they do that of their own accord? even if we don't put that into an ordinance? Can the applicant still say, I'd like to have a pre-session?

Generally, we don't, yeah. Okay.

I wouldn't give the applicant I guess that level of discretion I would be more comfortable with that sort of thing coming from the council electing to hear this initially I don't have a strong feeling either it's one thing if it's on appeal but again.

They're the preservationists. They're the experts on that. I agree with that. So I'd really like to see the preservationists see it first and put as many limitations as... That's why we're adapting their limitations.

Yeah, the problem, I guess, with coming to us first is it becomes heavy-handed with the... Yeah, I don't think that's a good way to go.

So why don't you try just reiterating again.

So the motion is direct staff... TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE IN FAVOR OF SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS SUGGESTED BY THE PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION PLUS THE DRIVEWAY LIMITATION SUGGESTED BY THE HPC. WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE

Council Member Bloomberg, you also indicated an exception of the 80-foot setback initially?

Well, the recommendation of the setback is from the Plan Design Commission, which is less than 80 feet. Which is 30. So I'm taking all the recommendations from the Plan Design Commission, which include height, setback, etc.

Trees.

and the one condition from the HPC regarding the driveway.

Exactly.

The other conditions that were imposed by the HPC mirror what the PDC and staff recommended regarding height and setback.

Yeah, I think there are one or two from staff that had not been included that we might want to include.

So does 30 feet get set in, doesn't get set in stone? No.

No, the Historic Preservation Commission can say we want to. The starting point of the restrictions are PDC plus the driveway. Yes. allowing HPC to potentially become more restrictive. Exactly.

Period. But, no, the question is, I do think there were a couple of things from staff, and I may be wrong, and if not, then we're fine with exactly what you just said, but I think there were one or two from staff also.

I tried to incorporate that, but staff also suggested a setback of at least what the current house is set back and a limitation of height, no taller than the existing house.

And the setback at the corner of the porch. You know what I mean?

That was already in the plan, wasn't it? I thought that was a plan.

It may be, but I guess, I don't know. Joel, can you clarify that? Can you clarify what staff's recommendations were, please?

All right, we'll just pull back up the presentation just a moment.

It's in the very beginning, where staff adds to it. Staff recommended approval. Front yard setback of any new structure be aligned with Cornelius Field. Correct. When I looked at it, that was at the bottom.

And of course, standard conditions for this operation and such. That's what we were saying. That was the only other point, Tony. I'm sorry, Councilman. I do have one question. I just want to make sure. from the council with regard to, you're talking about setbacks and you're talking about those various things being able to be more restrictive. In terms of the scale of the structure, in the COA process there is a standard regarding scale of structures. I just want to clarify for the record that the scale of the home is something that the HPC is going to be looking at. As part of a zoning consideration process, which this is, the FAR can be discussed. So I just, if you're saying not right now, but we're going to hear back from the COA process and then a scale of the home is something that is to be considered.

Right. So I was going to say number 10 under the COA process. is scale of structure, and it says the size and mass of the proposed new structure in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches, adjacent structures, and balconies shall be visually compatible with the property structure sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. That's pretty broad.

Yeah.

And I want the commission to have the discretion to employ that as they see fit. Parameters, exactly. That's really good. That's already within their authority.

So that goes to the interplay of what Council Member Ross was saying, that there is a, by zoning, there's up to 15,352 feet. But then there's the COA process that limits it. Right. All right.

I think we're good.

So I do want to get some clarification on the 30-foot versus 80-foot side yard setback. The 30-foot is the floor, and we're saying that there's the possibility of an 80-foot side yard setback that the HPC may... No, what I'm saying is...

The council is saying there shall be at least a 30 foot side yard setback. If the HPC is faced with a house that can be situated in a certain way and they wanted to have a 70 or 80 foot setback and that can be done, they have the authority to do that. But the initial limitation is only going to be 30 feet.

It's a minimum, but I would say surely it has to be larger than that or it's really close to that. We'll leave it to them.

Yeah, the HPC will determine that. Yeah, they have the authority to do it. Let's just move on. Yes. We need a second.

Are you clear, Marcus? Because you've got to draft this. Yeah, second.

Okay.

All right. Okay. Okay. We call the vote.

Council Member Center.

Aye.

Council Member Bruckman. Aye. Council Member Ross. Nay. Council Member Littleworth.

Aye.

Council Member Bloomberg.

Aye.

Presiding Officer Tapia.

Aye. Six to one. Oh, five to one. Sorry. I'm so used to seven. Five to one. The motion passes.

So we do also need a motion to continue this to a date certain. How much time do you need? How much time do you guys want to give me? Well, we can go to the next one. I think September, yeah, September 17th, I believe, is our next meeting.

September 17th.

Motion to continue. Oh, I'm sorry, September 14th.

Motion to continue to September 14th. Second.

All right, I'll call the vote.

Council Member Bruchman. Aye. Council Member Ross. Aye. I'll come back. I'll come back. Council Member Littler? Aye. Council Member Bloomberg? Aye. Council Member Ross?

Aye. I mean, just continuing it.

Right.

Presiding Officer Tapia? Aye.

Okay. Six zero. The continuous passes. All right. Okay. So, I need a motion to close our City Council meeting.

Second.

Second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. If that's adjourned, yeah.