City Council Meeting 08/17/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmScrsUAkA
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[0:57] IL member Andres Tapia and I'm serving as presiding officer this evening in the absence of Mayor Roaring. I'm pleased to

[1:05] call to order the Highland Park City Council meeting on Monday, August 17th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role?

[1:13] Council member Center, present.

[1:15] Council member Buckman, here. Council member Ross here. Council member Little here.

[1:19] Council member Bloomberg here.

[1:21] Presiding officer Tapia present.

[1:24] Uh let's let's all rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of

[1:33] America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:48] Uh 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 13, 2026?

[1:59] So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Present.

[2:06] Okay. Uh the minutes are approved and 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.

[2:16] Second. Second.

[2:18] All right. Any questions or comments on the warrant list? Any from the public? Okay. Hearing none. Will the clerk, please call the vote.

[2:26] Council member center. Hi. Council member Brookman. Hi. Council member Ross. Hi. Council member Little. I. Council member Bloomberg. I. Presiding officer Tapia.

[2:34] I. So, the warrant list is approved. Next [snorts] is a report of the mayor.

[2:41] And um in terms of appointments uh we have no appointments this evening. And in terms of proclamations, it is

[2:48] National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. And I will read uh this uh the following proclamation. September is

[2:55] National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, an opportunity to reduce the stigma surrounding this important topic.

[3:02] 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

[3:10] support those around us who may be in crisis. Free and confidential help is available 24/7 via phone, text, or

[3:19] online services by dialing the National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 988.

[3:25] We'd also like to recognize the city's social workers who work very closely together and to support the community.

[3:32] The police social worker Ammy Bricker, LCSSW, senior services social services

[3:38] specialist Rachel Straaris, LCSSW, and resiliency social services specialist Jasmine Alejandro, LSW. So, we want to

[3:48] let's thank them for their services doing this important work. [applause]

[3:58] All right. Uh, under other under other business, we have two other items. Uh, this evening, the September 11th, 2001 25th anniversary.

[4:09] Next month, we will mark 25 years since the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington DC, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. remember those whose lives

[4:18] were senselessly cut short or forever changed on that day and honor everyone who responded to the call for aid, especially first responders from

[4:26] Highland Park and Highwood. The city in partnership with Verinia Festival, uh, Northshore School District 112, TSHD

[4:36] 113, the Highland Park Public Library, the Park District of Highland Park, and NSS represent the 25th anniversary

[4:44] observance. On Friday, September 11th, 9:00 am at Bennett Gordon Hall in Romania Festival. The Highland Park Fire

[4:52] Department will lead the last alarm bell bell ceremony as part of a program that will include remarks from Mayor Roing,

[4:59] Chief of Police Lou Jogman, Fire Chief Joe Shraggy, and Deputy Chief Fire Bill Brennan. Deputy Chief Brennan traveled

[5:07] to New York along with the other fire department employees to provide support.

[5:11] Tom Finnegan of the Shannon Rovers Pipe Band will perform. All community members are invited to join us to reflect on

[5:18] this watershed day in our history and remember all who were touched by that tragedy.

[5:24] Additionally, the city welcomes shared experiences, reflections, and memories from community members as part of a display plan for city hall in an online

[5:33] gallery on the city's website. Please take a few moments to share your memories with us. a city hpil.comseptember11.

[5:44] It is so important to keep this history alive by sharing our personal stories.

[5:51] Whether you would like to share what you remember of that day through writing, photography, or artwork, we invite you to sub to in your submissions to

[5:59] illustrate that Highland Park continues to remember and honor all those who were directly impacted on September 11th,

[6:07] 2001. So, for more information, be sure to visit the city's website.

[6:16] Transitioning to another item, uh there is a public hearing related to zoning relief for 1850 Green Bay Road.

[6:25] 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.

[6:35] Pursuant to chapter 150.306, 307E of the Highland Park Code. I hereby call to order. Do I do the gavvel this time?

[6:44] [laughter]

[6:45] Uh the public hearing on the proposed zoning relief of 1850 Green Bay Road.

[6:50] Notice of this public hearing was published July 31st, 2026 in the Lake County New Sun. Will the clerk please call the role?

[6:59] Council member Center.

[7:00] Council member Buckman here. Council member Ross here.

[7:03] Council member Little here. Council member Bloomberg here. Presiding officer Tapia present. All right. So with this I declare the public hearing on the

[7:11] proposed zoning relief for 1850 Green Bay Road open. And I will now turn the public hearing over to Joel Fontaine, director of community development for the staff presentation.

[7:25] Thank you.

[7:29] Council staff recommend approving the following to allow the installation of a sound mitigation fence on the north side

[7:36] of the property at 1850 Green Bay Road 18 1850 Green Bay Road Highland Park. Um one plan development amendment with

[7:45] variations from the fence code and design review and two second amendment to the development agreement

[7:52] [clears throat] related to this Albon at Highland Park development. And as uh presiding officer Tapia just mentioned

[8:00] for section 15307 settlement of litigation, this application comes directly to city council for consideration at a public

[8:08] hearing that you're holding now um without prior consideration or recommendation from the plan and design commission. [clears throat and cough]

[8:17] Okay. So site plan for the proposal. Um, here you can see 1850 Green Bay Road,

[8:24] the Albianet Highland Park, and you can see a red line to the north of that.

[8:29] That line depicts the proposed 100 ft long fence that will be 12 ft high. Um,

[8:36] [clears throat]

[8:37] and so that fence will serve as a sound buffer between 1815 Green Bay Road and

[8:44] the budding property to the north on Sheen Court 1853.

[8:51] relief request. So the amendments to the plan development and development agreement update uh the landscaping plan

[8:58] and I just want to make mention that no new landscaping is proposed and is and is not required. However, the updated

[9:05] landscaping onut plan does provide additional plantings that captures what has been planted out there over the last

[9:12] few years. Um and so we do think that that needs to be in there. Um in terms of modifications,

[9:19] um there's a there's a couple. So modification from the fence code um to allow a solid type fence that is not

[9:28] either masonry nor uh smooth finished wood and a modification from the fence code to grant 4.33

[9:36] feet of relief from a maximum height of 8 ft to allow the 12.33 foot high fence.

[9:44] uh and that fence will vary from 12 to 12.33 ft uh along that 100 foot stretch.

[9:50] And so that's that sound absorbed absorptive fence that uh has been proposed. [clears throat] So the background we have council approved the

[9:58] settlement agreement uh and covenant not to sue. Um uh these this matter stems from concerns

[10:06] from Jod and Peter Morini uh of 1853 Sheen Court about the level of noise that emanates from uh and is attributable to the Albon property. The

[10:15] city and Albon have undertaken extensive investigation into sound emanating from the property. The investigation as part

[10:22] of that investigation the city issued citations. The result of as a result the Alvon has implemented other sound mitigation including louvers and now

[10:31] proposes sound absorptive wall and as agreed as part of the settlement.

[10:37] That wall does need relief and this amendment.

[10:40] [clears throat] And so uh staff do recommend that the council consider approving uh the following uh the plan development amendment with variations

[10:48] from the fence code and the second amendment to the development agreement. Thank you presiding offici.

[10:55] All right. Well, any questions for Joel from city council? Any from the public?

[11:05] All right. So, with that, uh, I would entertain a motion to close this public hearing. So, moved. Second.

[11:12] All right. Uh, with that, um, uh, let's do the roll call vote. Council member center.

[11:17] Hi, Council Member Barkman.

[11:19] I, Council Member Ross. I council member Lberg I member Bloomberg I presiding officer Tapio I.

[11:27] So with that we're back to the city council meeting out of the the special public hearing and we will now go to business from the council. Is there any

[11:35] business from the council that anybody want to bring up?

[11:38] No. Okay with that business from city staff. Uh city manager Newkerk could you please provide the staff report? Great. Yes. Thank you presiding officer.

[11:46] Um so we have three items to report on on behalf of the staff. Um first is a slide as it pertains to um the city's

[11:54] plan to develop an accessible streets and sidewalk plan. Um the objective is this initiative is to review all of our sidewalk, shared use paths, accessible

[12:02] parking spaces, intersections, and other city-owned pedestrian facilities. Um our objective is to make Highland Park a more accessible community regardless of

[12:11] a uh regardless of ability. We have a steering committee that consists of representatives from throughout the

[12:18] community. Um, couple of those partner agencies include our school districts, park district, Keshett, um, the NSSR,

[12:28] uh, our transportation advisory group as well as others. Um, and so those individuals are serving on our steering committee. We are in the public

[12:35] 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

[12:43] 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

[12:52] education as well as public engagement um and reaching out through a variety of communication modalities to get public feedback. The survey closes on August

[13:01] 30th. So again, we're looking forward to um individual feedback. Second item we want to report on is an update on the

[13:09] 2026 major projects. We have a staff report in the packet that provides highlights of um second quarter uh

[13:17] initiatives as part of our work plan. So as um information for the public, we have 123 major projects. These projects

[13:25] 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

[13:34] 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

[13:42] individuals can review initiatives by topic by department and get a status report and each major initiative does

[13:50] align with one or more of our core priorities. And then um third uh we have 22 items on the omnibus agenda. I

[13:58] 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

[14:05] includes a uh a detailed uh report and recommendation. Just a couple of brief highlights. Um, so one is we do have the

[14:15] recommendation to increase the home rule sales tax from 1 to 1.5%.

[14:20] Um, and this was based on communication and discussion with the city council at our spring workshop. We are recommending

[14:28] that the increased revenue from that home rule sales tax um be directed towards our capital investment plan, our

[14:35] capital plan. Um we have $40 million in capital projects that we are undertaking this year and over our 10-year capital

[14:42] plan. Um we have $216 million of infrastructure investment that we're undertaking. Um we did talk to the city

[14:49] council and um our uh our plan is to implement this increased sales tax only

[14:56] for a 5-year period and then we will um review it at that time and the idea is to bring it back to that 1%. Um second

[15:04] there's number of capital projects on the omnibus agenda and just for public information if individuals go to our website um there is a link to all the

[15:13] capital projects so individuals can see um all the projects that are being undertaken throughout the community through an interactive map or by topic

[15:22] as well as an update on each of those initiatives. Um and lastly, uh item number 22 pertains to a recommendation

[15:31] to enter into an agreement with a consultant to update the city's comprehensive plan. So, we've been um working on this initiative for some

[15:38] time. So, following a comprehensive request for qualification as well as an request for a proposal um initiative, we

[15:47] sought um proposals. We conducted interviews. Um we've provided updates to the city council and then the recommended contract is on the agenda

[15:55] for your formal consideration. That concludes our staff report.

[15:58] Okay. Thank you, city manager. So now uh we will have business from the public

[16:05] and uh assistant to the city manager Pisca. Could you please introduce the next item and explain how this works?

[16:13] Thank you, presiding officer Tapia. The next item on the agenda is business from the public. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the

[16:21] city council on a topic that is within the council's purview and jurisdiction but is not listed in another location on

[16:28] 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

[16:36] 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

[16:44] 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.

[16:55] Rather, it is intended as an opportunity to make comments to the city council.

[16:59] Please do not expect a response from anyone tonight. If appropriate, we may direct the city directed to the city manager or other staff to respond to

[17:08] questions or issues raised at a later date. All comments should be directed to the city council. All speakers will be

[17:15] limited to 3 minutes. We request that the public not applaud or make other comments after any speaker. We ask that

[17:22] everyone be respectful, civil, and non-repetitive.

[17:25] Thank you. Um so with that, um let uh anybody from the public on an item not on the agenda.

[17:37] Okay, we're we're good. All right. So now let us proceed to tonight's scheduled business. Items one through 22

[17:45] have been grouped together for omnimous consideration.

[17:49] Um, is anybody want to pull any items out or?

[17:52] Yes. I I'd like to pull items one, four, and five. One, four, and five. I was going to say four and five. Four and five. Okay. Anybody else?

[18:00] Four, five, and 22.

[18:02] And 22. All right. So, um, let's [clears throat] do the omnivous first. So, um, I need a motion.

[18:09] I'm sorry. uh the presiding officer. If I could, I wanted to um raise awareness on item 21. There is are going to be

[18:18] changes as to this um amendment of an SUP for 1301cl. It is minor changes.

[18:26] It's essentially um changing the name of the applicant as well as um adding

[18:33] another sheet to the site plan. And so um I don't know if you wish to take that separately or if you wish to I'll pull it.

[18:41] You'll pull it. Okay. I'll pull it. So 21. All right. So um I need a motion to

[18:49] approve the ominous bill of one through Well, how do you do this? Minus. Do you minus the ones we Okay. One through Okay. No.

[18:58] Two through three and six through 20. Yeah. And that's all. That's it. There. There you go.

[19:06] All right. Can I have a motion? Motion. Motion. Second. Second.

[19:13] All right. So, uh, can you call the vote? [clears throat] Council member center. I. Council member Breckman. I. Council member Ross.

[19:21] I.

[19:22] Council member Little I. Council member Bloomberg. Hi. Presiding officer Tapia. Hi. All right. Nice job, everybody.

[19:30] That was good [laughter] teamwork. All right. So with that, we're going to take these five items one at a time. So with item one,

[19:37] um can you read item one for us? Uh city manager just what what what the topic is?

[19:44] Absolutely. Yes. Um so this is an exterior improvement grant for Beanbar and uh Messi for a 5-year consolidated

[19:51] grant. Um, so what we are recommending is based on the investment that is proposed to be made to the property that

[19:59] we combine the exterior improvement grants for a 5-year period into one proposed grant as part of the overall

[20:07] investment. Um, these are matching grants, but they are providing well certainly over the recommended um, $100,000 investment into the property.

[20:16] Okay. All right. So, let's discuss this.

[20:20] Um, I pulled this. Um, I I first of all, uh, I'm delighted that Bean Bar is coming to Highland Park. I I'm I welcome

[20:28] you with open arms. Uh, my issue has more to do with, um, some procedural issues that led to how we're handling

[20:36] this on the city council. We have a program um that Beanbar didn't really qualify for for a couple of reasons. One of which is that there's no money left in

[20:44] the program. Um, so my colleagues have decided to combine the annual total that

[20:53] would be available over a five-year period into a single year under a different program. Um, that's in my

[20:59] opinion not fiscally responsible and I and I'm opposing it for that reason. I am also opposing it with the comfort of

[21:07] knowing it is likely to pass, but I wanted this to be on the record. So, thank you. Any other comments?

[21:13] I do have a comment on that. I meant to pull that one, too. So, I'm very grateful to you for doing that. Um, I also don't like the idea of um bringing

[21:21] all that money in one year because it's an upfront cost and rather than seeing how the business is performing over those five years. But that's not what

[21:29] bothers me. What was in our packet said there there was a precedent set from the the prior business and that's why we

[21:36] were going to do it. This is not a precedent. It is a yearby-year exterior grant for $20,000. It is not a $100,000

[21:45] grant for one fell swoop over five years. So, I just want to clarify that it is not precedent. And I also agree

[21:55] we're very happy that Beam Bar 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

[22:02] others who are coming to us to apply for the exterior grant. It is a $20,000 one-year grant over a 5year period up to

[22:10] a hundred. It is not a one-time thing and it is not presidential.

[22:15] Yeah. The with a C.

[22:17] 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

[22:24] volume of investment into this specific property, we offered them basically this same deal for that other restaurant group. Um and so we felt in looking at

[22:34] this new restaurant group, they were making um comparable significant investment into the property. Um they're

[22:41] a well-established business. They're providing um you know, full service restaurant operations and it was for that reason that we recommended pretty

[22:50] much that same deal. But without a doubt, um Council Member Litter were this is not something that is available on the books that anyone would be able to take advantage of.

[22:59] Thank you. I 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?

[23:09] Yes, it would be correct. It would be based on submittal of receipts. Um and yes, then they would not be able to apply for that specific program for a

[23:17] 5-year period, but they they are getting this as a lump sum. So, I I would say that the reason they were treated in this way was the

[23:26] way that we had proceeded with the CRG group. Correct. I don't want it to be presidential. That's why I'm making this statement, but it certainly has that potential.

[23:35] That's right. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments?

[23:38] Uh, well, I have a comment. I um the reason I uh was in favor of what we're voting for is that that property has been vacant for how long?

[23:48] A long time. Like a couple decades. 15, 20 years.

[23:53] Yes. and you know at Ravenia right in the middle of the Revenia district that we're trying to revitalize and I felt that you know if somebody wants to do

[24:00] and do the work that has to be done that's why it hasn't been developed for almost 20 years that we could do uh

[24:08] support that effort otherwise we would face how many more years of a vacant lot so I for that reason I'm supportive of this

[24:16] I just also wanted to add as to reasons why this property um just to clarify it is also a site that BDAG um the business

[24:24] and economic development advisory group um earmarked as a priority catalyst site um in their discussions last year. So

[24:33] it's something that's been a high priority site and we do believe it to be a catalyst site in this district.

[24:38] 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?

[24:47] Before we do that, can we uh see if anyone in the public has Oh, thank you. Anybody in the public have something to say?

[24:56] All right. Can I'm going to call for a motion? So moved.

[25:02] Second. [laughter] All right. Can we please do the roll call? Council member Centtor. Hi. Council member Bman.

[25:10] Hi. Council member Ross. Hi. Council member Little. Hi. Council member Bloomberg. No. Presiding officer Tapio. I.

[25:18] All right. So with that that motion passes. So with that uh number four can you do the same uh city manager for four. What is four about?

[25:27] Absolutely. Um four and five are very similar. So these are food and beverage uh interior improvement and expansion

[25:35] grant programs. Um our grant programs for these initiatives for um full-ervice

[25:43] restaurants as well as limited service restaurants um require an application.

[25:48] Um 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

[25:57] and we talk about the work that's being undertaken the overall grant program and so forth.

[26:03] um we had a uh a practice in place as a staff that once we got um support from

[26:12] those two parties, we would put the agreement on a city council for approval. And so that was done, but then

[26:20] um after city council approval and after approval from the applicant, the property owner requested to be removed

[26:28] from being party to that agreement. Um, and that was one specific consideration that when this entire program was put in place, it was very important for the

[26:36] 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

[26:44] 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

[26:51] funds from the city. So, it's not that the city is giving grant funds that are not at the very minimum matched um by

[26:59] the business as well as an investment by the property owner. Um and so based on feedback from the property owner, we did

[27:06] 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

[27:14] not reach agreement. So based on the investment that the businesses have already made um and we have um uh the owner of Tamali's Jeff that's with us

[27:22] here this evening um we are recommending that we move forward um with an agreement just between us and the respective business owners. Um, again

[27:31] 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

[27:40] making um into the community. And so we are recommending approval of these two grants.

[27:45] All right. And for discussion? Uh, so again, I I pulled these. I think a couple of others of us want to discuss this, but you've addressed my concern.

[27:55] Um, the property owner in each of these is the same property owner. Um the programs are different programs than the

[28:03] one I addressed in the first matter that was pulled. These programs I think are excellent programs. They involve uh

[28:11] investment by the property owners uh or assistance from the owners of the property in addition to the business

[28:18] owners who are expanding or maintaining or improving and and investing their own money into the program. So it's matched.

[28:27] And in this instance, it appears that the property owner initially uh gave the impression of consenting to

[28:36] this and participating in this and then after the businesses had already invested a significant amount of money

[28:43] uh indicated they were not going to sign on. And I I have a problem with that. I wanted that illuminated. I don't want to

[28:49] penalize the business owners uh who one is new to the city and I'm I'm very excited about that and the other has

[28:57] been here for a long time and has been a significant contributor to our our business environment. But I I think that

[29:03] this was unfair. Uh it was not the kind of uh community participation that this program was designed to engender and uh

[29:13] I I wanted to make sure that that was of record. Yeah, thank you. Um, just to echo um what was

[29:21] 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 they

[29:29] were was we had already approved it on our end. It was unacceptable to me. Um, this incentive program was designed to help businesses in town thrive and and

[29:38] continue to succeed. And to say this is disappointing is an understatement. and we and that we should not disregard the unnecessary burden that this places on

[29:47] our community businesses. Um so I I will definitely be approving this and this should never have happened. Thank you. Thank you.

[29:54] So I'm I was a major proponent of this program and I think it is essential that we help our uh tenants and our

[30:02] businesses improve in various ways their establishments and it's really important. But in these particular

[30:10] programs, it is people coming together and all of us doing it because what the city's doing is using taxpayer dollars

[30:18] which we have a fiduciary responsibility for to help these businesses go forward.

[30:24] So if god forbid something happens, we have a clawback provision. What that means is if over five years you succeed

[30:32] and you're g getting us sales tax revenue, the city's making back its money both for its taxpayers and for the

[30:39] city. And if in fact they close after a certain period of time, but we've invested in that business, then we have

[30:46] a claw back 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.

[30:53] Well, now that we don't have an owner who's signing on to that, that's all falling on the tenant of those

[31:01] particular businesses. I am going to spa I am going to vote in favor of this because I'm not going to watch our tenants, our restaurant tours be

[31:09] penalized because this person decided to step back from doing what was right and what was formerly agreed to. And now,

[31:18] frankly, putting taxpayer dollars at risk in a business because we have no clawback other than ourselves. We take

[31:25] 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,

[31:34] excuse me. We're very grateful that they've made this investment in this community and in this business. But we

[31:40] really also want to thank the one property owner because what it made us do is tighten up our restrictions. So

[31:48] 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

[31:57] 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

[32:05] 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

[32:14] 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.

[32:23] Yeah. Anybody else?

[32:25] You know, I'll just echo what every everyone else has said. I I believe in in in the program. Um, I'm glad we're

[32:34] we're tightening it up and uh I I believe in, you know, very simply in supporting businesses as much as we can.

[32:45] Yeah. Um, and so I I'd like to provide my own comments to um, you know, the the business owner, I mean, I'm sorry, not

[32:54] the business owner, the property owner is not only a property owner from outside our community, uh, he is, uh, a

[33:02] resident of Highland Park and as a large property owner, uh, we consider him a community leader in the way that many

[33:11] property owners act as a community leaders that they are. is a property owners association that gets together by property owners that really care about

[33:18] the city and they, you know, they advocate for certain things, but they they do it in the spirit of wanting Highland Park to thrive. And I have to

[33:27] convey my very deep deep personal disappointment in this property owner who was not a community leader and

[33:35] abdicated a responsibility as a community leader to really participate in a program that as my council members

[33:42] have said is intended to be a true private public partnership. That's how it works. And when somebody who is in

[33:50] the private sector pulls away, not only does he hurt the tenants, but he hurts the effort that then could have a

[33:58] 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

[34:06] owner, the business owner, and the city to participate equally. And this is hugely disappointing and I think it's a

[34:14] failure of community leadership on someone that is beloved in many ways but this is a place where um there's been a failure of leadership and I just want to state that very clearly.

[34:23] Thank you.

[34:25] So with that 21 Oh yeah we we need to vote on this. Uh I call for Yes. Oh yes. Any comments from the

[34:34] public [laughter] as to one or both? Four. Four and five. Yeah.

[34:41] For four and five, tamali, zer kitty, and the butcher.

[34:45] You're good. Okay. All right. Um, a motion.

[34:49] I I would make a motion to approve items four and five on the um omnibus uh agenda.

[34:57] Second.

[34:58] All right. Well, you call the vote, please. Yeah. Next. Council member center. Hi. Council member Brockman. Hi. Council member Ross. Hi. Council member Little.

[35:06] Hi. Council member Bloomberg. Hi. Presiding officer Tapia. Hi.

[35:11] 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. Um just uh and we want

[35:19] we're glad that you're still here and going to contribute to a future of vibrancy. So, thank you. And for Katy the butcher, thank you for coming into

[35:27] our community and we support you as well. All right, with that, uh item 21, uh city manager, I can actually Oh, you're going to take that one? Okay.

[35:35] Yes. Um, this is an ordinance amending a special use permit for conditional use um at 1301 Clayby Road and 1377 Deer

[35:43] Creek Parkway. As I mentioned earlier, there's some um minor changes that have occurred uh

[35:51] since this was in your packets. First of all, the uh name of the applicant has changed from Sole Congregation to Mcome Salakeside.

[36:03] Uh second, there was an addition of a site plan. Um

[36:10] right, it is now a new exhibit C westside master plan. It's a single sheet. It's on a day. We have [clears throat] we've got them.

[36:19] So that's the sum total of the changes from what was in the packet.

[36:24] Oh, okay. Okay. All right. And is anybody have a discussion point here?

[36:30] The only 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

[36:38] synagogue. It's going to be more lovely from the street and it won't be as visible. So, I think it's wonderful.

[36:44] I'm going to say something, too, because in light of, you know, recent attacks on on synagogues, it feels particularly important to support this effort.

[36:53] All right, we're good. Yep. All right. I call a motion. So moved.

[36:58] Second. And before you um vote on it, just want to make sure no one has any uh comments on this one.

[37:04] Thank you, man. Thanks for [laughter] having my back. You got my back. That's good. I got your back.

[37:08] Any comments from this wonderful public of ours? [laughter] Thank you.

[37:12] Okay, we're good. All right. I would like to now call the vote. Council member center. Hi. Council member Brockman. Hi. Council member Ross. Hi.

[37:20] Council member Little. Hi. Council member Bloomberg. Hi. Presiding officer Tapio.

[37:24] I. Okay. The motion passes and 22 20. So I pulled 22. Can you explain it, please?

[37:32] Do you want me to do it? Yeah.

[37:34] Yeah. So 22 um has to do with the interface studio contract for professional consulting services for a

[37:40] comprehensive plan for our city. Um I'm very much in favor of the effort to do a comprehensive plan. We haven't done a

[37:47] 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

[37:55] comprehensive way. We've done many, many studies over the last few years on very small portions, individual neighborhoods, and it's wonderful, but

[38:03] it is not a visionary comprehensive plan. I reviewed this with a fine tooth home this time around because this is

[38:10] 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.

[38:20] It is so much higher than I ever imagined that we were going to spend that when we were looking at the next

[38:27] 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 and this is $450,000.

[38:40] So, as much as I really want to do this project, I feel that this should in some way have been negotiated either harder

[38:47] or greater or maybe we should have gone with a second our second choice because it's a lot of money. So, unfortunately,

[38:55] as much as I love this group, I I cannot support it at this dollar amount. There are other cities who actually do this inhouse. I'm not saying it doesn't take

[39:04] 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.

[39:12] Thank you.

[39:13] I had to pull it and not just let it go through.

[39:15] Yeah. City Manager Newkerk. Yeah. Do you want to talk about the dollar amounts?

[39:19] Please. Um just in terms of just a little brief history. So what we have done um over the last 15 years is do all

[39:28] significant amount of in-house work on comprehensive plan updates. And so basically what we've done is corridor or

[39:36] 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

[39:44] 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 segments and that is done using in-house resources.

[39:55] Um 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

[40:03] community that does it inhouse. This is a significant significant undertaking.

[40:07] It is going to require a significant amount of staff resource just in and of itself. Um when we developed the request for qualifications, which was the first

[40:15] step in that process, we took a look at everything that we wanted in that scope.

[40:20] And so that was based on feedback from our commissioners, our staff, the city council, the public. Um and we developed

[40:27] 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.

[40:36] Um, and then sought requests for proposals from a select group of consultants. Um, and then we ended up

[40:44] conducting interviews um, with a limited list of professionals and then narrowed it down to two professionals. Um so the

[40:52] two price differences are if you look at really kind of apples to apples to the greatest extent possible. Um one

[40:59] proposal had a base price but then you had to do all these other add-ons to get to a comparability to what um interfaces um which is recommended this evening.

[41:10] And so when you looked at really apples to apples it's 400,000 versus 475,000.

[41:17] But when you further looked at all the work that would be done in terms of for example um over 400 principal hours

[41:26] versus 56 to 80 and so there's significant amount of work that's a difference. The other important aspect was the public engagement and um that

[41:35] was another important factor that the mayor and city council um had wanted in the proposal and then we have itemized all the different community engagement.

[41:44] 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

[41:53] and gets us to where um what we've heard is the council and the public wants us to be. It is a 2-year initiative. Um and

[42:02] from a financial perspective, the dollars would be spread across three years. Um and so, um so that's what

[42:10] we're recommending this evening based on feedback. Yeah. Yes.

[42:16] City council member center. [laughter] Um, remind me the timeline for the other

[42:23] potential provider was a little shorter or or no.

[42:29] So, um, well, what they would do is they would basically do DIY kits and so they

[42:37] basically tell you what to do and then they have the staff go do it. Mhm.

[42:41] Um, this is the consultant working handinhand with staff and not necessarily just telling us what to do.

[42:48] 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 more collaborative approach

[42:57] working with the consultant where um it's a partnership moving forward. The timeline was not much different.

[43:03] I thought it was three years and two years and these guys brought it down from three. The current bid they brought it down.

[43:09] Maybe that's how 20 month. It's a 20-month engagement.

[43:13] A 20-month engagement, but the finances are spread across three fiscal years.

[43:19] Okay. And and even at a scaled up approach and the apples to apples comparison that you just described, that's still more of sort of a DIY type

[43:27] strategy versus a more comprehensive assistance strategy. Right. Okay.

[43:35] Yeah. Any other comments? Thanks. All right. Any comments from the public?

[43:42] Yeah, nailed it. It's easy. All right. All right. Good. All right. Uh uh let's I need a motion.

[43:50] Uh I would move to approve item 22. Second. A second.

[43:56] All right. So with that, let's do the roll call. Council member center. I. Council member Buckman. I. Council member Ross.

[44:05] I.

[44:06] Council member Littleworm. I with significant reservations.

[44:10] Council member Bloomberg I.

[44:12] Presiding officer Tapia I.

[44:14] The motion passes. And with that uh we have covered uh the items that were pulled from the agenda. So that now

[44:23] brings us to other business. And with other business, uh, the first two items under other business pertain to proposed

[44:33] zoning relief for 1850 Green Bay Road, which were previously discussed during the public hearing that happened just

[44:41] about 30 minutes ago. Um, are there any further questions or comments from the council?

[44:49] Are there any comments from the public? Wow.

[44:52] All right. May I have a motion to pass this item? So moved.

[44:56] And that says to uh both items, A and B. You can group them together.

[45:02] Okay. A and B. Can I Who's the mo? Who's the I'm moving it. And who's seconding it? Second.

[45:07] Okay. So with that, um let's uh call the vote. Council member center. Hi. Council member Buckman. Hi.

[45:16] Council member Ross. I.

[45:17] Council member Little I. Council member Bloomberg. I. Presiding officer Tapia.

[45:21] I. The motion passes and we now move on to the next item which is item C, the consideration of an ordinance amending

[45:29] the zoning code with respect to data centers. Director Fontaine, will you please provide the staff report?

[45:45] Thank you, presiding officer Tapia.

[45:47] [clears throat]

[45:48] staff recommend amending the zoning code to prohibit uh the land use data center within the city of Highland Park. Um this is a staffled proactive initiative.

[45:58] Um and we did some research and background on this matter and this use and we um respectfully recommend that

[46:07] the the impact of data centers has changed um since the 70s in a way that uh was not contemplated that warrant

[46:15] proactive zoning code changes to address this land use. Um since it was allowed in 1974, data centers have evolved into

[46:23] uses that have potential externalities related to noise and air pollution. high levels of water consumption and large and large facility size that make them

[46:32] incompatible with residential uses and impact on city services.

[46:38] Therefore, you know, staff has re is recommending through this uh petition that this land use not be allowed as it is not compat compatible with our built

[46:47] environment and the character of the city, particularly the residential uses within our zoning districts. Um on July

[46:54] 21st, 2026, the plan design commission held a public hearing on this matter and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed changes.

[47:03] Um just a little background, um this land use uh data processing uh was

[47:10] undefined uh and was allowed as a land use in the II industrial and service districts uh in November 1974.

[47:20] A lot's changed since then. Um, with regard to data centers, um, data centers, uh, are unde were were undefined and were permitted as land use

[47:30] in RORO, B3, B4, and B5 districts in the 1978 ordinance. And, uh, they were uh,

[47:38] undefined again and allowed permitted land use in the RO, B3, B4, and B5, and

[47:45] Izzoning districts of the 1997 zoning code. Um today uh data processing centers are still undefined and are

[47:54] permitted uses uh in ROB3, B44, B45, B46, B4 BG and B5N

[48:04] and the central district residential overlay.

[48:09] So that's the history of how data centers were regulated. Um the proposed amendment will add a definition uh of

[48:17] data center. finally hadn't been in the zoning code for ever. Um, and that's important because we want to make sure

[48:25] everyone knows what we're talking about when we're not permitting it. Um, we don't want to get into a semantic debate

[48:31] about what they are. Um, and so in addition to doing that, um, in section

[48:38] 15490, this is our use table, if you will, a collection of use tables. Um we're proposing to strike data

[48:45] processing centers and strike the use permissions uh essentially removing a row in that table. Uh we strike the row

[48:54] related to data processing centers from the off- streetet parking and loading requirements table and uh in section

[49:02] 15490m we're going to add the use data center as now defined above uh and leave

[49:09] 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.

[49:18] Joel just to help the public and us can you just out loud read the definition?

[49:23] Yes absolutely. Okay. So, we're proposing that data centers be defined and that their definition be that a data

[49:30] center means an establishment primarily engaged in the storage, management, processing, or transmission of digital

[49:37] data and housing computer and network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations.

[49:48] Important to note, we're talking about a principal use. There are data centers that are essentially accessory uses the

[49:56] hospital other institutions we have you know for our own service that's not what we're referring to businesses can do that it's the principal use being a data

[50:06] center for the sole purposes of doing that type of processing okay thank you staff recommend amending the zoning code

[50:14] to prohibit this land use data center within the city of Highland Park that's the end of my presentation officer topic yeah any questions for

[50:23] Joe. Just a comment. Thank you, uh, presiding chair. Uh, I, uh, just want to state for the record that I'm very glad

[50:32] staff decided to look at our policy. Um, that we're taking a proactive approach of clear language, that we do not want

[50:40] 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

[50:48] news about major companies working behind closed doors to secure rights to build them, I'm I'm glad we're taking the important step to protect our

[50:55] community. Um, and uh we just recently heard the Lake County board member stated that the county is placing a

[51:03] moratorum on data centers and is working to regulate them. So that was just wanted to share that. Okay. Okay.

[51:10] Anybody else? Anyone in the public? Yes.

[51:17] Come on up. Please state your name.

[51:21] I'm Danny Khan, 8/19 Sheridan, a uh now 74 year resident of Hound Park. I think it's great to get ahead of zoning

[51:28] problems, but I'm sort of wondering, was there an issue here? I mean, I don't know where anybody could possibly build

[51:35] a data center in Highland Park that we would care about other than a little data center that would be fine. And you

[51:43] 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.

[51:53] We don't have the kind of real estate that anybody would be interested. And I'm just wondering if there's something that happened that fermented this. city manager.

[52:03] Yes. Thank you. Thank you for your comment.

[52:05] Um thank you, Mr. Khan. Um this is a a proactive effort. We know other communities um some in the immediate area, the northwest suburbs that have

[52:14] data centers that have already been approved. Um and and although it is true that we don't have significant large

[52:21] parcels, um the Solo Cup property was just approved for redevelopment and so that was our largest parcel. Um but just

[52:28] thinking that there is the consideration that people could work um in some of the areas and start compiling different parcels together. That's always a

[52:37] 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.

[52:45] Yeah. Well, thank you. All right. Any other comments?

[52:49] So with that, I would entertain a motion. So moved. A second.

[52:57] Who's seconding? Seconding. Okay. All right. With that, uh, please do the role. Council member center. Hi. Council member Buckman. Hi.

[53:04] Council member Ross. Hi. Council member Little. Hi. Council member Bloomberg. Hi. Presiding officer Tapia. I.

[53:11] The motion passes. And with that, um, we will now go to the next item under other business.

[53:20] 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

[53:29] city cole and a plat a reubdivision with the variances from city code at 147 central avenue. We will begin with a

[53:37] staff presentation by director community development Joe Fontaine followed by questions from my city council uh

[53:44] colleagues either to staff or to the applicant. and we will then um welcome feedback from the public. Uh and when

[53:52] that happens, individuals will be given 3 minutes for public comment. Uh and we have received a number of public comments uh over the last few weeks via

[54:00] email. And we thank everyone for your input and your feedback. So uh director Fontaine, will you please provide the staff presentation?

[54:07] Presiding chair. Um I I do want to make one uh comment before we start this. Um

[54:14] I am liazison to the plan and design commission. Um, the two times that uh 140 central, 147 central was in front of

[54:22] PDC, I disclosed, as I do [clears throat] again, that I live on Central Avenue, Kitty Corner to 147 Central. Central Avenue as a whole is possibly High Park's widest.

[54:31] Wait, I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt.

[54:33] Just just a moment, but let's let's react to what the staff has to present and then we will have plenty of time to dialogue.

[54:41] Okay, this is what I did in PDC. I just started by a statement and this is this is what I did with PDC.

[54:51] So this is a a disclosure. A disclosure. Oh, it's a disclosure. Yeah. Okay.

[54:57] Yeah. Uh the the um I checked many times with corporation council Steve Lrod at every stage, including when it was going

[55:04] to be on city council's agenda. It was continued by the applicant two times.

[55:09] And each time uh uh uh Council Lrod said it was fine for me to participate in the discussion and vote, but we agreed that

[55:17] I would disclose that I live in the neighborhood uh and that I can be fair and impartial. My focus is on representing the city as best as I can.

[55:25] Okay. Thank you. All right. That's very clear. All right. With that, Director Fontaine.

[55:33] Thank you.

[55:34] Okay. So, this item here before you this evening [clears throat] was um continued to this date. Um the consideration and

[55:41] possible action on the application of a special use permit in the nature of a preliminary and final plan development

[55:48] with modifications from city code and a flat of subdivision with variances from city code for 147 central avenue. Staff

[55:56] recommend consideration of the plan and design commission and historic preservation commission's recommendations for a request for final

[56:04] plan development and plat subdivision with parents. If supported, staff would prepare appropriate documents for final action.

[56:14] Okay, quick background and summary on this item. Um, the petitioner is Greg Moyer. The proposals divide the property

[56:22] into two legal lots of record. The zoning district is an R4 with an overlay, the lakefront uh density and character overlay zone. Um the property

[56:31] is designated a local landmark by city council in 1985. Um there were several public hearings.

[56:39] Uh plan design commission had public hearings and the historic preservation had a public meeting uh to provide a recommendation that was provided to the

[56:48] pre to the planet design commission and to you as well through this packet.

[56:53] Okay. Okay, this is an aerial photo of 147 Central Avenue property with highlighted the delineation of uh the

[57:03] proposed subdivision. You could see there the dashed mark is the proposed uh lot line for lot two which will be to

[57:11] 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 uh lot two rather.

[57:22] Okay. So in terms of the plan development um per the section 15505A1

[57:30] uh this lot is larger than 3 acres uh in a single family district and consists of more than one residence. Um so no

[57:39] structure or 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

[57:47] 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

[57:55] lot two uh for a single family home that is yet to be specified.

[58:02] If approved, any new home on the proposed lot 2 would trigger a planned unit development or plan development

[58:08] amendment uh per section 15545 AC 1 C. Any regulated activity on either

[58:17] lot would require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. So, building a

[58:24] new home on that new lot would require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission

[58:32] [clears throat]

[58:34] and it would also require an amendment to this PUD if it were to be approved in its current form.

[58:41] Um so per the PUD ordinance you see there that any increase uh by more than 1% in floor area of building triggers an amendment.

[58:52] So if someone proposes a lot with nothing on it and decides to put anything on it that would trigger a PUD amendment.

[59:01] Um staff recommends that the applicant, if that were the process, would seek the um certificate of appropriateness from the housing uh from the historic

[59:09] preservation commission before the PUB amendment and that that would be fed into the uh packet for the PDC to consider.

[59:20] Okay. So, couple of recommendations has come forward. Um, the plan and design commission received the recommendation

[59:27] from the historic preservation commission and in considering that along with the totality of the application and the testimony provided after uh several

[59:37] public hearings, they voted 3 to two to recommend approval with the following conditions.

[59:43] One, that there be a 30foot sideyard setback and then a 25- ft sideyard setback toward the rear of the property.

[59:51] This is depicted on the subdivision plan at this time. The applicant has made that a part of it. Uh two, that the gate

[59:59] post, row 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.

[1:00:10] Three, that any new structure on the [clears throat] proposed vacant lot 2 not exceed the relative height of the

[1:00:18] Cornelius Fieldhouse or the underlying zoning district requirements for height, whichever is more restrictive.

[1:00:26] And lastly, for um that as a condition, there'd be a prohibition against additional zoning relief related to the proposed lot too.

[1:00:37] Okay. and staff have a further recommendation for consideration. Um that any approval, if any, uh include

[1:00:46] standard conditions of course and that the front yard setback of any new structure be aligned with the Cornelius

[1:00:52] Fieldhouse. Okay. So that's plan and design commission with that staff additional recommendations.

[1:01:01] Okay. Um so in terms of the plan to development and the historic pre preservation consideration

[1:01:09] in 1985 ordinance designated 147 central avenue local landmark staff reviewed the

[1:01:16] record totality and determined that the entire property is landmark.

[1:01:21] Um per the plan development code um there are site planning constraints and design

[1:01:29] standards that must be met. One of them uh per 520C is revol involves historic

[1:01:37] resources and I'll read as a direct quote from the code historic resources plan development shall preserve all one

[1:01:46] local locally designated landmarks and two properties structures areas objects and landscapes determined to be

[1:01:54] historically significant by the historic preservation commission in accordance with chapters 44 170 of the city code.

[1:02:04] Okay. So, as part of this plan development and as a city council and as the commissions

[1:02:12] before your consideration here this evening, these are very um rare considerations.

[1:02:19] We were asked at at commission, how come we're seeing this from a historic preservation perspective? because there

[1:02:25] are only 130 or so regulated property structures in our city. So the number of

[1:02:32] parcels in our city is about 14,000. So it is a very few properties would be subject to this particular standard with

[1:02:41] regard to a local landmark. Um so we don't see this very often. Um the historic preservation commission

[1:02:48] 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.

[1:03:00] So in terms of their recommendation, the historic preservation commission unanimously recommended denial with a subsidiary recommendation that address

[1:03:09] conditions should the plan and plan development be approved. So I just want to make this clear. They were not in favor of approving.

[1:03:20] Staff did say you might want to have some type of conditions that could be considered should the council consider

[1:03:29] approving. That's where these came from and there was some consternation about that amongst members. Okay. So what were

[1:03:36] those conditions? So again recommended denial the historic preservation commission but should this be approved

[1:03:44] the commission also said that west side that the west side of the proposed lot 2

[1:03:50] include an 80oot sideyard setback that any new structure on the proposed lot 2 not exceed the height of the Cornelius

[1:03:59] fieldhouse that the gate post the row iron fence heritage trees be preserved along with the driveway in its existing

[1:04:07] location and that no additional driveway be constructed. And then lastly, a prohibition uh a prohibit application

[1:04:16] for additional zoning relief related to lot two. So you can see that the plan and design commission considered some of those and brought them into their recommendation.

[1:04:25] Okay. So what's the proposal? Now you have the recommendations. So what is this proposal? um subdivide an existing

[1:04:32] single lot into two lots of legal record with variations from the subdivision code. Okay, on the right it shows the

[1:04:40] proposed lot one and lot two. Right now it's all one large lot and that's the proposed delineation.

[1:04:48] Both proposed lots are compliant with the R4 zoning district, the underlying zoning district and the overlay the lakefront overlay zoning district. Okay,

[1:04:56] lot one is 89,24 ft. Lot two is 89,319

[1:05:04] square feet. So, they're large lots. Uh the lakefront overlay district requires at least 40,000 square feet, okay? For any subdivision.

[1:05:14] All right. Uh in terms of the design standards and the code standards for subdivisions, you've seen tables like this before. there's a lot shape uh

[1:05:23] subdivision variation that's been applied for and um the creation of nonconformities aspect in terms of that standard um that's a condition of

[1:05:32] approval that a a a sidewalk path be removed. So that's actually not a request for variation but that would need to be removed to avoid that

[1:05:41] variation need otherwise you can see here as uh the compliance.

[1:05:48] Okay. So, lot shape. Um, the proposed uh the proposal is compliant with the R4 zoning district and the lakefront overlay uh district's bulk requirements.

[1:05:58] However, the proposed lot one with the Cornelius Fieldhouse, that's lot one, um contains the existing home and will have

[1:06:06] roughly six sides exceeding the maximum allowed four sides per the subdivision code and therefore requires a variation.

[1:06:14] The proposed lot two will have roughly four sides. However, due to the steep slope, uh the lot will not have four

[1:06:21] flat sides requiring a uh variation request.

[1:06:27] Okay. And so, um the setback as uh is shown as recommended by the PDC, which

[1:06:34] you recall I had said 30 ft and then goes back to 25 ft. So 30 ft along essentially the length that is abudding

[1:06:44] the fieldhouse and then it goes to 25 ft thereafter as you're going north. Um the

[1:06:51] 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

[1:07:00] need that variance that I talked about in that table. Um but they they they indicate that they're removing it. So they only need that one variance for the the lot the sides.

[1:07:10] Um just to to clarify and make everyone uh aware of um at one point there was

[1:07:19] identified a labeling error during the plan and design commission's consideration of this matter. on May 5th, uh you know, there was identified

[1:07:27] that there was a um a number indicated for a setback on lot one uh of the

[1:07:34] proposed subdivision that was labeled 20 ft, but it in fact measures 30 ft per scale. The error has since been

[1:07:42] corrected and it to show the label 30 feet.

[1:07:48] Terms of public benefit, um public benefit is not required for this plan.

[1:07:53] uh development. Um there are no uh chapter 150 zoning code [clears throat] modifications being requested. That's what public benefit is tied to those

[1:08:02] types of modifications and a particular set of those modifications. Bless you.

[1:08:10] The applicant, however, has voluntarily offered a $2,500 donation to the city to be used to help promote historic preservation.

[1:08:23] Okay. Um, tree impact survey.

[1:08:28] Wanted to draw the council attention to the proposed new driveway curb cut for lot one. Um, this will result in at a

[1:08:36] minimum the the the removal of one street tree. Um, the street trees on either side of that

[1:08:44] driveway might survive. They're not required to be removed by this driveway introduction, but they may be adversely

[1:08:50] affected. So, we just let you know that um staff suggested a shared driveway in order to better maintain the existing

[1:08:58] tree line along Central Avenue. It's quite quite nice the tree line and the plantings are are doing well and uh it

[1:09:06] has a particular look that that really does have an aesthetic value and so that's why staff had suggested that.

[1:09:13] Um, in terms of other staff comments, um, public works engineering division had no comments regarding the proposed,

[1:09:21] uh, subdivision, but provided comments for future development on lot two. Um, forestry unit, um, mentioned about the

[1:09:29] one tree uh, for the proposed new driveway um, but noted the two adjacent trees. As I mentioned, uh a the

[1:09:38] 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 uh

[1:09:46] proper fees paid for those removals for tree replacement.

[1:09:51] Lake County um comments focus on wetlands identified uh on the topographics exhibit and staff uh you

[1:09:59] can see the the report on that and they will need to uh satisfy the requirements Lake County with regard to that as well. Utilities

[1:10:08] had no comment, park district park have no comment.

[1:10:13] Okay. Public comment. All public comment received during commission meetings uh and hearings are found in the attachments in the council packet.

[1:10:22] Provided updates since then. We've received more. Um we did have a cut off for the posting of this packet, but

[1:10:29] council has received additional um public comment since then and has been sent directly to the council.

[1:10:38] [clears throat]

[1:10:40] Okay.

[1:10:41] Back to the recommendation staff recommend consideration of the plan and design commission's and the historic preservation commission's

[1:10:49] recommendations for request for a final plan development and plat of resubdivision with variation. Thank you presiding member.

[1:10:57] Yeah. Well, thank you Director Fontaine.

[1:10:59] A reminder to the public and to city council how we're going to do this.

[1:11:03] We're going to respond to comments and no questions. Just questions for Director Fontaine. Then we're going to

[1:11:11] 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.

[1:11:22] I think the applicant presiding officer if um I would just ask we may have some questions that we'll direct to the applicant if you don't

[1:11:30] mind. We can answer all [clears throat] the staff. Yeah, if the the council questions um if you have questions of our staff, certainly we'll answer them,

[1:11:37] but if you have questions of the project or the applicant, we would just defer to the applicant. Okay. Yeah. And are you representing the applicant?

[1:11:45] I will give a presentation also which come come to the podium. For the record, my name is Cal.

[1:11:52] represent the owner of the property. And just based on my experience presenting

[1:11:59] 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

[1:12:07] requesting that also. You didn't outline that when you gave your basically your scorecard how things were going to happen today.

[1:12:12] So we'll add that to the Okay. Thank you.

[1:12:15] Well, are you going to you can do that now?

[1:12:17] Do you have any questions for director Fontaine? Then we can make our presentation. It's better if we hear their presentation.

[1:12:21] Yeah. Why don't we hear your presentation first and then and then our questions will be either to staff or to you.

[1:12:30] [laughter]

[1:12:31] Bless you. No, we're kidding. Okay.

[1:12:34] Well, thank you, presiding officer and members of the city council. And I and it's um I don't think I've ever called you a presiding officer before, so it's

[1:12:42] nice nice to have you in that seat. Uh my name is Cal Bernstein. I'm the the attorney for the applicant. And before we d delve into what I was prepared to

[1:12:52] say tonight, I want to expand on two things that director Fontaine had mentioned. Um, number one, with regard

[1:13:00] to when we went in front of the plan design commission and they asked the question, why are we here? When we went

[1:13:08] 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

[1:13:16] because this propertyy's landmarked. Um we were in front of the historical preservation commission is because this

[1:13:24] matter was being brought as a plan unit development. If it was not a plan unit development, it did not require

[1:13:32] historical preservation review. And director Fontaine, is that correct?

[1:13:38] Under the plan unit development ordinance, it requires maybe corporation council can answer that question.

[1:13:45] Yeah, go ahead and answer it. Director Fonte, the plan unit development trigger, the

[1:13:54] standard is within the plan devel unit development standards. And so the requirement for the recommendation from

[1:14:01] the historic preservation commission is in that plan development standard. So, if this property is 4.3 acres in in

[1:14:11] size, if it was 2.99 acres and it would still meet the minimum threshold in the

[1:14:18] lakefront overlay zone to be subdivided under the subdivision code, this would

[1:14:24] not require a any review by the historical preservation commission. It would not require a report under that

[1:14:32] situation. The process would have been that we would have filed the application for a subdivision. It would have been heard by the plan design commission and

[1:14:41] 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

[1:14:50] reviewed all of the landmark properties in Highland Park. It took my Sunday afternoon to do that. And there's only

[1:14:59] two other properties in the lakefront overlay zone that could possibly have the same type of process that we're

[1:15:06] seeking here tonight. One is 405 Sheridan and another one is a property on Woodbridge. Both of those are over 3 acres in size. Those are the only two

[1:15:15] properties in the lakefront overlay zone that are currently landmarked. So this is a to say this is rare out of 14,000

[1:15:22] homes in Highland Park. What we're here is we're talking about something that could possibly happen to three homes and three properties.

[1:15:30] So, I want to introduce the the owners here tonight, the um the real estate agent who's here tonight who can discuss

[1:15:37] what she did to market the property. Um, as Director Fontaine mentioned, this property is in the R4 zoning district,

[1:15:45] which requires minimum 20,000 square foot lot sizes, but because there's an overlay zone that requires 1acre zoning.

[1:15:53] So, in order to subdivide this property, each lot must be a minimum of 40,000 square ft. Now, the lakefront overlay,

[1:16:02] I'm going to crawl through the lakefront density and character overlay zone was enacted over 25 years ago. And the idea

[1:16:09] behind that by this city council was to control the density, the character of the lakefront area. It was intended to

[1:16:19] to to control and manage potential development in East Highland Park to

[1:16:26] comply with some special lot sizes. The lakefront overlay zone was is consistent with the lakefront district neighborhood

[1:16:34] strategic plan, which is an element of your 15-year-old master plan. Um there was numerous public meetings and the

[1:16:42] city council eventually adopted the the lakefront overlay zone. The lakefront overlay zone provides some minimum requirements. I just want to compare

[1:16:50] what we're proposing tonight with the minimum requirements which are much more ownorous than the underlying zoning uh

[1:16:58] in the lakefront overlay zone. As I said before, the minimum lot size in the lakefront overlay zone is 40,000 square

[1:17:05] ft. The two lots that are proposed tonight are close to 90,000 square feet.

[1:17:10] So they're double the size of the minimum that is required in a lakefront overlay zone. The the average lot width

[1:17:17] in the lakefront overlay zone. The minimum is 100 ft. As proposed, one lot is 162 feet and the other lot is 180 ft.

[1:17:28] So those are both more than 160% more [clears throat] than the minimum. What we're requesting tonight is a plan

[1:17:36] development. We're not requesting any variances from the planning development statute or the zoning code. We surveyed

[1:17:44] the the the properties on the block. The new two proposed lots of close to 90,000

[1:17:51] square ft are more than twice the size of the next largest house or property on the block. And if you took the majority

[1:17:59] of the houses on the block, it's more than four times the size. So most of these houses are on the block on block are anywhere between 20 and 40,000

[1:18:09] square ft in lot sizes. This lot is going to be roughly about 90,000 square ft. The lots that we create here

[1:18:17] hopefully will protect the density and character of the lakefront area by creating two substantial lots that will

[1:18:25] comply with the spirit and the rules of the lakefront overlay zone. The size of the lots will promote the appearance of

[1:18:33] open space allowing the landmark home to feel uh to feel to retain its open feel.

[1:18:40] So in order to comp to try to comport with the landmarked home that the fieldhouse

[1:18:48] is which is in lot one the owner of the property and through this application is agreed to self-impose self-impose certain restrictions.

[1:18:58] One of them is that there would be a 123 foot front yard setback. So under no circumstance would any home built on lot

[1:19:07] two be be placed in front of the existing field home which is to the west. So what we're so so anything would

[1:19:17] line up or be set back further than the existing landmarked home. There'll be a substantial sideyard requirement to the

[1:19:25] west allowing more breathing room as the plan and design commission um in the recommendation made the condition. The

[1:19:32] height restriction. Uh we agreed to a height restriction that it will not exceed the relative relative height of the fieldhouse or the zoning district

[1:19:41] whichever is more restrictive. The applicant has agreed that they will request no variations to remove heritage trees or any variations from the zoning

[1:19:49] code and certain elements like the rot iron fence and the pineapple gate post will be preserved. So, I want to come back and address some of the public

[1:19:58] comment and some to try to correct the record and and but before we do that, I'm going to turn it over to the owner and the real estate broker so they can

[1:20:05] 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.

[1:20:15] Ricky, come on up and please introduce yourself.

[1:20:37] Good evening. My name is Eric Rothner and I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the esteemed members of

[1:20:46] this group for the opportunity to speak this evening.

[1:20:51] In October 2009, my late wife Gail and I purchased the exto ex historic home at

[1:21:00] 147 Central Avenue situated on more than four beautiful acres.

[1:21:08] Gail, whose talented and passion for historic preservation were extraordinary, dedicated herself to

[1:21:17] restoring this home. Over the course of several years at a cost of approximately

[1:21:24] $1,800,000, she transformed it to the magnificent residence

[1:21:32] we were proud to call home. We cherished both the property and the wonderful Hogland Park community.

[1:21:40] We also purchased the historic Frank Lloyd Wright home at 1689

[1:21:47] Lake Avenue. the George Madison Deard House. Once again, Gail led a remarkable

[1:21:56] restoration upon exploration, investing three years and approximately

[1:22:05] 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.

[1:22:16] Gail passed away in 2021 and my time as a resident of Highland Park came to an end.

[1:22:25] I have now received an the the fact is that both of these homes received rewards from the historic preservation

[1:22:34] committee for the years of uh the years that was during that time. I've now

[1:22:42] received an offer of $2.8 8 million to purchase a portion of the land at 147 Central Avenue. The historic home will

[1:22:52] remain on its existing parcel. The adjacent land itself is not historical

[1:22:59] and the proposed sale will not affect the historic home. I respectfully ask for your approval to confirm the sale of

[1:23:07] this portion of [clears throat] the property. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

[1:23:16] Um I would just note um at the the both homes both the house and the coach I believe is the coach house empty too.

[1:23:24] The coach house is vacant and the gardener's cottage I have a grandson that's living okay as a grandson but the ex but the

[1:23:32] house um the existing house landmark house has been empty for 5 years now.

[1:23:37] Now I'm going to turn over to the broker and she can um kind of up and Lisa and tell us what you've done to try to solve the problem.

[1:23:43] Thank you. My name is Lisa Rome. I am a real estate broker with Jameson Sabes International Realy.

[1:23:51] Sure. As the listing agent for 147 Central Avenue, I embrace the responsibility of not only marketing

[1:23:58] this extraordinary property, but telling and honoring its story. From the port kosher to the incredible custom mill

[1:24:06] work, there is craftsmanship in this home that simply cannot be replicated today. And I approached marketing it accordingly. We launched privately to create exclusivity before going public.

[1:24:18] Cranes featured the home and its remarkable story. We invested in professional videographer, drone photography, agent commentary, and an

[1:24:27] iconic video series. [clears throat] I hosted a one-of-a-kind broker open to a select 50 of the top Northshore agents

[1:24:36] who experienced the property by horse and carriage. A true tribute to the history of the home through Jameson Sues

[1:24:45] and modern luxury. The property received extraordinary exposure, including more than 50 million digital impressions along with targeted marketing campaigns that continued for months.

[1:24:56] But perhaps the most valuable part of that process was listening to the market.

[1:25:03] After roughly 10 private showings over the course of over a year, the feedback became increasingly clear and remarkably

[1:25:11] consistent. Buyers who loved historic architecture also recognized the challenges of adapting this particular

[1:25:19] property to modern living. For younger families that came through, the floor plan would require significant

[1:25:26] reconfiguration time and financial investment. On multiple occasion, buyers told us that regardless of the price, it simply felt

[1:25:35] like too much to take on. For older buyers, a different demographic, we still heard a different version of the

[1:25:43] same concern. The floor plan, the stairs, and the responsibility of maintaining a historic home combined

[1:25:51] with more than four acres of property felt overwhelming.

[1:25:56] And the data tells an important story as well. Of Highland Park's 74 local landmark homes, only three sit on more than 2 acres. 55 are on less than one.

[1:26:10] At over 4 acres, 147 Central Avenue is not simply a historic home. It's an extraordinary outlier in terms of the

[1:26:19] 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

[1:26:28] in Highland Park, showing multiple price adjustments and lengthy market times. Of course, we can simply continue to wait

[1:26:36] for the right buyer at the right time and ultimately at the right price. But I don't believe waiting indefinitely is

[1:26:43] necessarily the best strategy for preservation. I believe preservation also means creating an environment in which these homes can realistically

[1:26:52] continue to be owned, maintained, and loved. Subdividing the land does not change the legacy of 147 Central Avenue.

[1:27:02] 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

[1:27:11] parcels. We are proposing a thoughtful evolution of the property that creates a more manageable historic residence and

[1:27:19] opens an opportunity for another family to become part of the Highland Park community. To me, that's not choosing

[1:27:26] development over preservation. It's using thoughtful change as a means of preservation, honoring the history that

[1:27:33] makes 147 central so extraordinary while giving it a most more sustainable path forward for generations to come. Thanks for your time.

[1:27:45] So I to finish up there's a comment here from I apologize for the interruption. I must

[1:27:52] ask this question. A comment was made by the owner that there is currently an existing pending offer on the house. Is

[1:28:00] that He's mistaken. He's mistaken. Thank you. What? He's mistaken. There is no offer on the house.

[1:28:08] There was previously an offer, but there doesn't exist anymore. It's been withdrawn. Yes, he was mistaken.

[1:28:14] Um I just want to address um the some of the concerns. Excuse me. You have

[1:28:20] another question? Uh, I just that the person who made the offer is in the

[1:28:28] audience as as I understand or maybe I'm wrong. I I don't know because I I I I'm the real estate land use attorney. I'm I'm not handling any transactions so I don't

[1:28:36] know. um addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the historical preservation commission and also raised

[1:28:45] um frankly we read the not we read the letters and at least some of you know the letters that um that talked about

[1:28:54] certain things in there and we also read what's online and I just want to correct certain things number one um there is no

[1:29:01] intention of demolishing the landmarked home there is no proposal for a 15,000

[1:29:09] ft house on propos on the lot, the new lot too. Um those are completely erroneous um statements. Um I will note

[1:29:19] that other concerns been raised. Number one, that this would create a dangerous precedent. Um as I noted earlier, this

[1:29:27] property is unique. It's one of three properties in Highland Park. Um unlike a normal subdivision, even a landmark

[1:29:35] subdivision, this property required historical preservation commission review just due to the size of the

[1:29:42] property. Not because of the fact it was landmarked, but the fact that it was that it was over 3 acres in size, that

[1:29:50] it's actually 4.3 acres. Um so um again by approving the subdivision

[1:29:59] this council will not be creating a precedent that would effect that impact other landmark properties because there's only two other landmark

[1:30:07] 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

[1:30:15] or would would make development and subdivision of those properties much more complicated. Um, as I mentioned,

[1:30:21] the property will remain landmarked. We recognize the concerns of the HPC and we believe the plan that we submitted uh by

[1:30:30] creating these two vastly oversized substantial lots will preserve the environment, sensitive areas, open

[1:30:38] space, and the landmark home. Now, I want to talk about the landmark home. Um the um anything that's built on well

[1:30:47] before I get to land mark up anything that's built on this lot too would have to go through a whole another process.

[1:30:52] So, so if it if the subdivision is approved tonight, this is not the end of the process. This is the end of the

[1:30:59] beginning of the process to quote Winston Churchill. Um, what what what would we be talking about because what happened if the subdivision is created

[1:31:07] is that a proposal will have to go to the historical preservation commission under the form of a certificate of appropriateness.

[1:31:16] they will opine and make a determination and then it will go to the plan design commission and it'll eventually end up end end up in front of the city council.

[1:31:23] So nothing's going to ever be built on this proposed lot too without going through that second process. So what we're asking this council tonight is let

[1:31:32] us pursue that. Let's see if we can f we we can find a buyer for this proposed lot that he can they can design a home

[1:31:39] that would satisfy the historical preservation commission under under the standards of a certificate of appropriates that will satisfy the plan

[1:31:47] design commission so they can issue an amendment to the the underlying PUD that would possibly be approved in line that

[1:31:54] 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

[1:32:02] 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 chairman of the

[1:32:11] 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

[1:32:18] also note that the direct the neighbor directly to the west originally sent a letter objecting to this proposal and

[1:32:28] then once she realized that some of the information that received she received was incorrect she then sent another

[1:32:36] email recanting and then and indicating that she supports the application.

[1:32:43] Um, in summary, um, we're looking for the subdivision to allow a buyer to buy this

[1:32:51] historic home the ability to purchase it at an attainable price while embracing

[1:32:59] the historical significance and with a with with a more modest carrying cost.

[1:33:05] Let's talk about the carrying costs. Uh right now this property has um an $81,000

[1:33:12] a year tax bill. Over the last 5 years, I went back and calculated that the tax

[1:33:19] bill for this property has increased on an average of between five and 7% on an annual basis. So let's look into the future.

[1:33:27] I'm sorry. Could you repeat those numbers again?

[1:33:29] Okay. Currently the tax bill is $81,000 for the tax year 2026 2025 payable in 2026. So 2025's tax bill is $81,000.

[1:33:40] Going back 5 years, the taxes have increased on an annual basis of between five and 7%. So, if you put on your your

[1:33:50] your your forward thinking glasses and go into a time machine, this property within under under the similar increases

[1:33:59] within the next four years, this property will have a $100,000 a year tax bill. So, the property right now, the house is 4,500 square ft.

[1:34:11] It is on 4.3 acres of property. It has an $81,000 tax bill that's going up 5 to

[1:34:19] 7% per year. There isn't a market for a purchaser who is going to take that on and the carrying costs involved with

[1:34:28] maintaining 4.3 acres of property. So, we're looking for an opportunity to increase the market,

[1:34:36] 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

[1:34:44] to come. And by doing that is by lowering the carrying costs, lowering the tax bill on the property, lowering

[1:34:52] the the the maintenance of the yard work and everything that goes along with owning 40 4.3 acres of property. And as

[1:35:01] an applicant, we agree with the plan design commission's finding of fact when they recommended again remember the plan

[1:35:09] design commission recommended approval and we agree with the findings of fact that state number one that the application complies with the lakefront

[1:35:17] overlay zone subdivision requirements that it number two that the proposal is in harmony with the appropriate orderly

[1:35:24] development in the zoning district and the existing houses in the neighborhood.

[1:35:28] 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.

[1:35:36] Number four, the proposal conforms to the goals and objective of the lakefront district neighborhood master plan.

[1:35:43] Number five, and importantly, the proposal preserves historic resources.

[1:35:48] Again, that's not me saying it. That's the plan design commission saying the proposal preserves historical resources. Number

[1:35:56] six, the proposal provides enough space between the houses and the ravine area.

[1:36:01] Number seven, the newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character and are consistent with the master plan. And

[1:36:09] finally, number eight, the one variation requested again to the four lot size um does not change the character or density

[1:36:18] of the neighborhood. So, what we're looking for tonight is is to basically leave make this historical home untouched and have a greater chances of being preserved for generations to come.

[1:36:30] We are proposing lots that comply with the regulations that vastly exceeds the minimum lot width, depth, area in the

[1:36:38] zoning district and the variation that in the application, excuse me, that we're we proposed tonight meets the

[1:36:45] standards for the variations uh for the subdivision code and but for one issue we we we're only asking for there' be no

[1:36:53] excuse me no variations would be requested. So in some the proposal subdivided lots do not affect the general plan are consistent with the

[1:37:01] 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

[1:37:10] would satisfy the standards in the certificate in the historical preservation um standards of certificate of appropriateness. And so thank you.

[1:37:17] We're available for any questions you may have.

[1:37:19] All right. Thank you. All right. Now we will turn to council. Yes. I just wanted to make a clarification. This is before

[1:37:27] you tonight for consideration and possible action, which means that if the will of the council is to deny, this

[1:37:36] does not come back. However, this cannot be approved per our ordinance without an without an ordinance. And so, you'll

[1:37:43] notice in your packet there is no ordinance um presented tonight. And so, there are two options. Um the possible

[1:37:51] action final action being a denial would mean that this is not brought back. Um alternatively

[1:37:59] this could be um continued to a date certain and direction given to staff to prepare approval documents.

[1:38:08] So I just wanted to make clear this would there's no avenue at which this is approved tonight.

[1:38:13] Okay, understood. Thank you. Yes. Um, so now the questions for either staff or for council or for anybody else uh that

[1:38:23] spoke just now. So thank you. Um I I have a couple of questions. Uh I think principally for

[1:38:32] Joel uh Director Fontaine, I'm I apologize for the informality.

[1:38:37] Informality. Um, uh, Director Fontaine, you talked, uh, and I should say I'm the liaison to the

[1:38:45] Historic Preservation Commission. Um, I've followed this as it's worked its way through that commission. I'm familiar with, uh, its process with the

[1:38:55] uh, plan and design commission, which essentially worked with the recommendations of the historic preservation commission. You gave a list

[1:39:04] of limitations that the plan and design, the PDC

[1:39:11] wants us to include were we to approve a subdivision.

[1:39:17] Um, you also indicated the HPC, the Historic Preservation Commission, which I want to be very clear, they they are

[1:39:26] opposed to the subdivision. And the fact that they made certain recommendations, should there be a subdivision, limiting

[1:39:33] the use of the property, should not be seen in any way as their approval of for recommendation or support of a

[1:39:42] subdivision. I want to be very clear about that. you mentioned that, but I wanted to eliminate that. They also gave some limitations such as an 80ft

[1:39:51] sideyard setback. Um the similar limitation on height. Um they had a

[1:39:58] limitation regarding the driveway. Um similar to the PDC, no additional zoning relief. The PDC had a much longer list.

[1:40:07] The longest list, however, is the certificate of appropriateness, which occupies about eight pages in our

[1:40:16] code, uh, which grants to the HPC, um, extraordinary powers to limit any

[1:40:25] regulated structure, which would include both the house, the outuildings, and

[1:40:32] every aspect of both lots. Were there to be a subdivision including height, front

[1:40:40] facade, proportion of the openings, the scale of the structure, which specifically says they have the right as

[1:40:49] the HPC to regulate the size and mass of the proposed new structure in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings,

[1:40:58] porches, adjacent structures, and balconies.

[1:41:03] If we were to approve a subdivision with any of the limitations that are recommended by either the PDC or the

[1:41:12] HPC, would that limit the authority of the Historic Preservation Commission to

[1:41:19] regulate the structure as a COA, a certificate of appropriateness?

[1:41:26] Well, the ordinance that this council, if it were to adopt, if you included conditions, that that ordinance would be

[1:41:33] the land use regulation for that that from a zoning perspective. there would still be the HPC's consideration of the

[1:41:42] COA, but I don't know and I would defer to corporation council in in in this, but um you know, if it conflicts with

[1:41:49] the city council's conditions of approval in such a way that one can't have both at the same time, that that would be problematic and and I would

[1:41:58] argue it probably be the city councils that would would hold, but I defer to corp counsel. There's two different chapters, chapter 150 and then there's

[1:42:06] chapter 24 consideration which is the COA. So just to to clarify,

[1:42:14] would any restrictions that this body were to put on the property were we to subdivide and again I'm not saying that

[1:42:23] I would agree to subdivide the property, but if the property is subdivided [snorts] subject to the restrictions of

[1:42:30] say the PDC, would that limit the ability of the Historic Preservation Commission uh in terms of their powers to grant or

[1:42:39] deny a certificate of appropriateness or make any recommendations.

[1:42:42] I don't believe so. I think they live in two separate um parts of the code. They

[1:42:49] are separate standards that would have to be met um separately. So you have your

[1:42:57] conditions as part of the if I'm understanding what you're saying uh correctly, you have your conditions as part of the PUD. Um and that is specific

[1:43:07] to requests like an amendment to the planned use development. And then you have a certificate of appropriateness

[1:43:15] procedure which um is not in my understanding is not contingent upon any part of the peed

[1:43:23] process but stands apart from it. And so, uh, from my understanding of the code, those are two separate

[1:43:32] boxes, I guess, that the applicant would have to check at the appropriate time. Yes, Joel.

[1:43:40] But ultimately, this would travel back to the city council, right? So whether if there were conflict between the

[1:43:49] certificate of appropriateness decision and the council's conditions, ultimately you're the ultimate arbiter of that. And that's why I said what I said.

[1:43:58] Ultimately, I think that the zoning uh the the ordinance that you would adopt would carry because you're going to make the final decision on it because you you

[1:44:07] can't operationalize the COA uh if you don't have the approval from this body for the plan development and

[1:44:16] subdivision that plan development amendment. So having said that, if you had a situation uh where there

[1:44:23] was some conflict, again the uh this the certificate of appropriateness is something that can be appealable to city

[1:44:30] council and so that would be up to the applicant.

[1:44:33] Okay. Council member, just specific to that question before you move on. Yeah.

[1:44:38] Does that give us this body the authority and ability to set specific restrictions and requirements on this or

[1:44:46] does that have to be originated by either HPC or PDC?

[1:44:52] 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 a zoning matter before you and you're able

[1:45:00] to do that. how that influences the consideration of the COA. That that that may have some influence because the the

[1:45:06] HPC may say those are things that we're certainly not going to allow because the council had said that or they may

[1:45:14] disagree with you. But either way, it ultimately in this case will travel back to you because of the requirement that

[1:45:22] 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.

[1:45:31] So, Mr.

[1:45:33] I just um I did I omit this but just to direct answer your question um we had several meet hearings. I say these are public hearings. The the historical

[1:45:42] preservation commission those were public meetings. Those weren't noticed, but the the meetings with the the at the plan design commission were actually

[1:45:49] hearings. We sent out notice, certified mail and everything. Um the um we had, you know, after several hearings that the PDC came up with certain conditions

[1:45:58] and the applicant has agreed to every one of those conditions. Okay. So what I'm hearing is that the bottom line is

[1:46:06] that if there's a proposal, it would be heard by the HPC and the PDC and then by this

[1:46:16] body. So whatever happens in those commissions would be strictly advisory.

[1:46:22] That is correct. It would come before you just like it is here this evening.

[1:46:26] Um, with regard to the plan development, I I would defer to corporation council on the chapter 24 matter. That may live

[1:46:33] on its in its own world there as a decision that they've made that could be appealable.

[1:46:39] Well, you're talking about a COA, a certificate of correct.

[1:46:43] I thought the certificate of appropriateness was appealable to the city council.

[1:46:47] I'm just pointing out that that that's a a different layer of of things than merely a recommendation is all it would need to be appealed. It's my

[1:46:55] understanding if the certificate appropriateness is approved. Obviously, that's not appealable. But if it's only if it's denied, then it's appealable to the city council.

[1:47:03] I Okay.

[1:47:04] So, it's 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.

[1:47:13] Clear mind. Okay.

[1:47:15] But we're confident we'll be able to be able to make this the uh historical preservation committee happy so that uh that they will find those standards.

[1:47:22] Okay. Um, the next question is, if there's no application, why are we talking about a driveway and and removal of street trees?

[1:47:33] Is that directed to whoever can answer that?

[1:47:35] Um, I can answer that. Um, we had put that on the the original site plan and and I'll be frank, we had at the time we

[1:47:44] had a a buyer who was interested in in two separate driveways. That buyer does not exist anymore. So that's just a remnant from from the previous, you

[1:47:52] know, the previous iteration. At this point, we're okay just pushing that u punting that to the certificate appropriateness process. Um that's the

[1:48:00] 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.

[1:48:11] Okay. Um those are all the questions I had at this point. Thank you. Yeah. City.

[1:48:15] Thank you. Uh Director Fontaine, question. I have a question for you. you had um what was mentioned in the materials um and in your comments that

[1:48:23] PDC approved um 3 to two which suggests that two commissioners were absent. Is that correct?

[1:48:30] That's correct.

[1:48:31] Okay. Okay. And then um my other question which was actually just about the driveway that was just mentioned um

[1:48:38] that um the proposal said that um one condition was suggested for the proposal that there was like that there's no

[1:48:46] additional driveway that could be created on the property um if it was subdivided. Um so would that mean that

[1:48:53] there's no the one parcel went out of a driveway or would would the partial share the driveway or is that just the rendering? And

[1:49:01] it it was the the delineation of the driveway currently would span both parcels currently would span these these

[1:49:09] both these parcels. And so instead of creating another driveway entrance having a shared drive through an easement arrangement was what was

[1:49:17] thought of in that way. Doesn't mean that there couldn't be a stem to that to get to a a different part of the property for a garage or or some other

[1:49:25] parking area. It just meant how you're entering into Central Avenue would be by the existing driveway entrance and that would be shared.

[1:49:35] Okay. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions for now.

[1:49:39] And cross ask us cross access easements would be all part of the PUD process. Okay. Thanks.

[1:49:45] Yes. Council member Ross point to make, but I don't know if we're we're just in the question.

[1:49:50] We're still in the question question mode. And um uh it it is my understanding though that

[1:49:58] the um this is just a not terribly hugely important point, but that the uh

[1:50:06] the um property taxes um less than 80,000 uh based on uh something that

[1:50:16] people can find in two seconds on the Lake County Clerk's Office website. Um, it's listed. So, it it it was my

[1:50:23] understanding it's less than the number that you quoted.

[1:50:26] Um, no, actually the 20 the first installment of 2025 was 40,528. So, you times that by two.

[1:50:33] Okay. And that that equals 81 is 36,000.

[1:50:37] No, no, if I'm looking Thank you, Director Fontaine. The 2024 taxes were $77,43 and the and the 2023 taxes were $72,42.

[1:50:49] 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.

[1:50:57] I I'm also going to I guess point out that um you you site you know 4.3 acres

[1:51:04] but um and especially when you look at the um uh the topographic uh map it's you know each each lot is significantly

[1:51:12] less than that because there's ravine um so I mean ravine takes up part of part of the lot right? Yeah, that's correct.

[1:51:20] But that's just we're not talking it's not buildable. It's not buildable area. We're not talking about the table land.

[1:51:24] We're not We're talking about the lot area. Sure. I I'm referring to the table land.

[1:51:29] Oh, yeah. I I didn't calculate the table land, but table is significantly less.

[1:51:32] Well, yeah, that that would limit by based on the based on the constraints that the applicant has agreed to with regard to

[1:51:39] 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

[1:51:48] built there, right? uh not by practical just that it so it's it's I'm just saying that the buildable area is a is

[1:51:56] is not you know too it's not two acres but but that's not really we're here for zoning issues not

[1:52:04] really I I'm just clarifying that yeah that's correct any other questions for you no I have points to make but

[1:52:12] yeah council member war oh John John went ahead oh yeah oh that was just a followup follow. Well, go ahead.

[1:52:20] Sure. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:52:22] Um, Director Fontaine, couple for you real quick. Um, [clears throat]

[1:52:29] any potential restrictions that are a requirement for a certificate of appropriateness to be issued? Do do

[1:52:38] those then carry on with the land into perpetuity?

[1:52:43] Um, 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.

[1:52:50] Okay, perfect. Do you have a sense um if I'm thinking back to the slide that you

[1:52:56] put up where you had indicated that HPC had come up with some

[1:53:04] potential acceptable, you know, conditions. Say it again.

[1:53:12] Conditions.

[1:53:13] Conditions. Thank you for conditions for the subdivision, right? I think I saw 80 80 square or 80 uh 80 foot step back for example.

[1:53:22] Do we have a sense for you know if we were to apply their requirements is it tenable to

[1:53:29] actually build a home with that or or no because of the steep slope and the amount of flat land to to Ros's point.

[1:53:36] It's a great question and so real quickly um bear with me just for a second here.

[1:53:46] Okay, so we did have um yeah there there's two things here. So

[1:53:54] if you if you look at the setbacks that are there now um as proposed if you will

[1:54:02] by the applicant the 30 foot and then the 25 ft and then you look at the 80 foot. What winds up happening is the

[1:54:10] staff estimated that the buildable lot area um for lot 2 would be over 30,000 square ft um with the 30 and the 25.

[1:54:21] Okay. And then [clears throat] with an 80 foot setback on the west, um that would drop that down to about over 20,000 square feet of buildable area.

[1:54:32] And then what does that mean from an from an F perspective?

[1:54:36] The F would not change in this case. It would not be limited by that. Okay.

[1:54:41] There's allowance of 15,352 ft. So if you have 20,000 square ft of

[1:54:48] of land or buildable area, you could build a singlestory 15,352

[1:54:56] ft home. Yes. So um that would not be the limiting factor there. And of course that's that's a singlestory home. I mean

[1:55:05] you you could choose to use that 15,000 ft in a twostory home provided you have the height you know uh under the height limitation. Can I can I answer that question now?

[1:55:12] Yeah. um that was um you know discussed at the historical preservation commission meeting and one of the

[1:55:19] members wanted 150 ft sideyard setback and they kind of just settled at 80 ft and that frankly was a poison pill so to

[1:55:27] speak to make it make it undesirable to try to build a house on this property.

[1:55:32] Um the the HPC was a recommending body to the PDC. The PDC considered that 80

[1:55:39] feet realized frankly it wasn't serious and they came back with what they actually changed what we proposed and made it more ownorous by and and so the

[1:55:47] PDC heard that 80 ft and came back with what what they recommended today.

[1:55:52] I want to make a slight correction because I'm I'm PDC liaison that that the the the applicant stated that that

[1:56:00] was untenable for them and that's what PDC responded to. It's not that they recommended.

[1:56:06] Well, they made the recommendation they but I'm just saying I'm just being, you know, utterly clear that the applicant said that is an 80 foot

[1:56:13] setback is is is not workable for us and and the PDC agreed with that by because they they recommended something different. Yeah.

[1:56:20] They didn't the PDC didn't recommend the 80 ft, right? Well, or or yeah, the 30 ft either. Okay. Council member center, keep going.

[1:56:28] Okay. Thank you for that. That's super helpful. Um Nicole, can I ask you some questions? Is that your name, Nicole? Sorry.

[1:56:35] Yeah, close.

[1:56:37] Really close. Lisa, can I ask you some questions? [laughter] I wrote Nicole. It's fine.

[1:56:46] Sorry about that. [laughter] Um, just some like market data questions that I have for you because I think it's

[1:56:54] really important for what we're talking about here. Um, obviously we're talking about preservation,

[1:57:01] but the reality is there's an economic consideration to this, um, you know, relative to how feasible, you know, a

[1:57:10] potential transaction is and and and the ongoing um the the ongoing economics of

[1:57:16] of of the parcel. You mentioned 50 million impressions and then you also mentioned that you had

[1:57:24] 10 private showings. That sounds like a pretty low conversion rate. Like what with that number, 50 million,

[1:57:32] extrapolate out other marketing efforts that you've made into what you would typically expect in terms of the traffic

[1:57:39] coming through the home. I think that the fact that it's a a historic home, the taxes are what they are, the caring

[1:57:47] costs are what they are, um I think are a hindrance to getting those actual live showings

[1:57:56] usually, I use that term loosely, but usually, yes, getting 50 million impressions

[1:58:03] throughout social media and articles and videos and and all of those things would translate to far more showings and far

[1:58:10] more activity and far more interest and offers.

[1:58:15] Unfortunately, the historic home appeals to a

[1:58:22] tighter audience in part with the list price, the carrying costs, and all that come along with it. So,

[1:58:30] understood. So, it but on a on a normal property, if you had 50 million impressions, how many showings would you expect that to translate to?

[1:58:40] It's I mean it's it's hard to say. I mean different price points yield different results. I mean it's it's hard to quantify that.

[1:58:48] Okay. Um what's your experience with like estate type properties like this?

[1:58:54] I mean I am part of a luxury brand. My average sale price is pretty high. You know I I represent the luxury market

[1:59:03] often more often than not. Um and my and and my uh brokerage with Jameson Sabbeast provides that elite expertise and and exposure as well.

[1:59:14] Okay.

[1:59:16] during your time of representation, right? It was about a year agoish, little year plus, right?

[1:59:25] What what would you estimate? And I'm sorry I'm asking you like some specific data questions that I understand you can't necessarily answer, but like what would you what would you estimate was

[1:59:33] the average days on market for your, you know, $2 million plus homes that you were representing?

[1:59:46] I don't I I would say three months.

[1:59:50] Okay. And on average, so three months and right if you I think correct me if I'm wrong, but like if you look at today like this market where we

[1:59:58] are today, granted it's every property out there, but 6135 is like 30 days, right? It's like things are just flying off the shelf. So we're not talking

[2:00:06] about just to make clear like we're not talking about a distressed real estate market.

[2:00:09] 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.

[2:00:19] 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.

[2:00:31] With your work in 6035 in Highland Park, your typical buyers that are looking for

[2:00:38] a fourbedroom house, what is their most normal expected tax bill? I know a price

[2:00:46] point matters, but like what is a number that is they would be looking for a little bit more attainable? Yes. 35.

[2:00:54] Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's it. Thanks. Yeah, council member.

[2:01:00] I I [clears throat] 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.

[2:01:11] And I want to defend that commission.

[2:01:13] That number was made based on an analysis of how far the existing home,

[2:01:20] the fieldhouse is from the home immediately to the west. That was the number that was decided on.

[2:01:28] 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 I want to

[2:01:36] make it very clear that the considerations that the HPC made were a they don't want a subdivision.

[2:01:42] But if there's going to be a subdivision, they came up with a carefully considered number that was serious. All right. Thank you.

[2:01:51] 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

[2:01:59] with the suggestion that it was not serious. Okay.

[2:02:02] I know you didn't mean that, but I wanted to be clear about that. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:02:06] Yeah. Well, I'm going to go next. Uh, Council Member Lore is going to go last and then we'll we'll go to the public.

[2:02:13] Can you come back up again? Yes, you. Yeah.

[2:02:19] I I want to follow up on council member Sanders's uh line of of questioning and I know we're asking you to kind of

[2:02:26] speculate a little bit but you know when it comes to um strategy which is what you do for sales you know if you were to

[2:02:33] do a a best [clears throat] you know and worst case scenario for for the property you know I mean you came in enthusiastic

[2:02:42] I'm sure great property you know you're you're good at what you do you know you you're present ing a case here that it's

[2:02:50] a very difficult property to sell. But if you were to project out like another year, you know, what are the options for

[2:02:59] you to try to, you know, let's say there's no decision here to, you know, divide the property and you're you you got to still, you know, you're on on the

[2:03:08] hook to sell it. What's your best and worst case scenario for your prospects for this property?

[2:03:18] in terms of in terms of in terms of selling it. I I we we need to restrategize. I mean, you

[2:03:25] know, obviously we've listened to the market over a year a and we've seen how the market has responded to our original list price.

[2:03:34] I think that we would, you know, myself along with the the property owner and his business advisor, I think we would need to sit down and come up with an

[2:03:43] appropriate, you know, price in terms of where we want to hit the market and and how we want to relaunch that. Um, it it

[2:03:53] it's I'm up for a challenge and and I love a historic home and I love telling its story and bringing it to life and I

[2:04:02] truly believe I did a wonderful job in doing that. At what we were offering, the market wasn't buying. So, at this

[2:04:10] point, it's asking a lot of a buyer to preserve, to maintain, and to carry. and

[2:04:19] 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.

[2:04:30] 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

[2:04:38] a tough ask for them to carry and preserve and not be able to transform it in a way that meets their modern

[2:04:46] lifestyle. If it's an older demographic that appreciates the history of the home that doesn't have younger children to

[2:04:55] look after, again, it presents some significant challenges. How do we overcome those? Is it waiting? Is it

[2:05:04] hoping and waiting and continuing to adjust the price? I don't believe that that's a the best benefit for Highland Park. I don't believe that's the best

[2:05:12] benefit for the history of the home. And I would also just mention that it that changing the price will not materially

[2:05:22] change the carrying cost for the property. Currently, the property with the $81,000 tax bill has a fair market

[2:05:29] value under the assessor's based on the assessor's website of $2.8 million. So, there would have to be a significant

[2:05:39] 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

[2:05:46] and the other things that goes with owning 4.3 acres of property in 2026. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Ross.

[2:05:54] Thank you. Um I I want to push back on some of this. Um first of all that that

[2:06:01] uh as as I recall it, it was offered for significantly more than the assessor's

[2:06:10] value. Um, and secondly, um, my, uh, my husband and I are are are architects.

[2:06:19] He's in he's in real estate. He reads absolutely everything having to do with the real estate market, every listing, everything. uh

[2:06:27] both with all due respect to the to the to the broker um it it must have been a a really you know

[2:06:35] I don't know what to say because most people I spoke to did did not see the did not see the um advertising for it um

[2:06:44] and it was it was listed pretty high um for it it it seemed like what it was so uh

[2:06:53] can I respond yes please to I believe in the price of the home. I believe in our original list price. I

[2:07:01] don't know where your audience is looking, but I have data in front of me that shows that it was visible and it

[2:07:10] was seen and I truly believe in the price. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's only worth what somebody's

[2:07:17] willing to pay. And we need to listen to that.

[2:07:24] It was 55 I think something.

[2:07:28] Thank you. I just have a few questions because my comments and I really want to hear from people in the audience. Um I do have one question for you for Lisa.

[2:07:35] I'm sorry you're on the hot seat [clears throat] right now but um have you sold other historic homes? Nothing that was landmarked.

[2:07:43] Okay. So, but I will also note that Jameson Sues has SE International Realy has a

[2:07:51] historic home committee who provided a multitude of input and services in

[2:07:58] exposure globally. Okay. for the landmark property. This is just it's just a question because frankly there

[2:08:05] 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

[2:08:12] do tonight is dispel a lot of the rumors so that we can get on with the substance of this and so of course I just I mean you've made mountain

[2:08:21] effort and irregardless of whether or not I have a statistic sale of a landmarked home. I have a background in fine art

[2:08:30] and architecture and art history. And as soon as I met Ricky and he walked me through the house and he shared every

[2:08:38] bit of what Gail has done to preserve and restore the home, I knew that I was the appropriate one to market the home.

[2:08:46] I appreciate their trust in me. And I I I think regardless of if I have another address to put on my resume that is

[2:08:53] landmark status is irrelevant. It's it's just a question because it does go to the fact that this is not just a straight sale.

[2:09:01] Of course, I didn't treat it as such. I know, right? And I clearly you've shown your efforts, but I just wanted to clear that up.

[2:09:08] Secondly, and this is not you. I I think it's perhaps to the applicant.

[2:09:13] I guess my question is when there was a proposal before the PDC or the HPC, um there was something tangible there.

[2:09:23] And I 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.

[2:09:32] Well, you have to remember we started this process 8 months ago and we had, you know, we listened to the market and

[2:09:39] the market was telling us that there wasn't a buyer for a 4,500 ft house with

[2:09:45] an $81,000 tax bill on 4.3 acres. And um so they explored other things and they talked about this this the possible

[2:09:54] subdivision of the pro property. We had a buyer under contract. Um the process was taking too long. That person terminated. Um so what we're trying to

[2:10:03] do is again this is a legacy from the process that started 8 months ago. Uh you know we've been through several meetings with the HBC, the PDC. We've

[2:10:11] had two continuence. Nothing against the council that was on us the continuences.

[2:10:14] We realize that. But the um uh it's it's what what we're how we're pivoting at

[2:10:21] this point to try to make this so you know. So this is this is something that's not going to lieow. I mean the property has been empty for 5 years. I shouldn't be publicizing that because

[2:10:30] it'll be a rage there next week. Now notice now I'm think but but the the the property's been empty for 5 years and

[2:10:37] 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.

[2:10:44] Great. The only other questions I have are really for corporation council and they're actually legal count questions

[2:10:50] that I had and in making this decision at some point. One of the reasons I want to hear I wanted to hear from my other council members and from [clears throat]

[2:10:59] the public is because I think it's very complex. We have two of our premier commissions.

[2:11:06] You know, HPC and PDC are are the people who do the deep dives. When we review a property, we go through it. We go through this once and this is really

[2:11:15] only our second time of looking at this versus the plan and design first time. Um, yeah, because it was continued.

[2:11:21] You're correct. Versus the plan and design commission or the HPC that's been through the thick packet in every tree to find out where everything is on a

[2:11:30] really deep level. As a former commissioner with PDC and liaison and and sat sitting in on HBC, I know the yman's job that these two commissions

[2:11:38] 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

[2:11:46] there and I'd like corporation council to clarify them for us. So, one of the things um that we were told um for

[2:11:55] example was that um after a year's period in theory um if this owner said I

[2:12:02] don't want to carry this property anymore and tried selling it for another year and couldn't sell it um and decided they wanted to demolish it, they could just knock down the house.

[2:12:13] And so the question is with a landmarked [clears throat] property, is that possible or isn't it further protected

[2:12:20] than simply being able to knock it down because you waited the requisite 365 days, which you could do with a normal

[2:12:28] property, but with a landmark house, you can't do it with No, you wouldn't be able to do that.

[2:12:33] Okay. Okay. So, there's no threat right now that it's going to be knocked down, right?

[2:12:38] To my knowledge, no. So secondarily, there were a lot of questions and I read all the minutes from the PDC and HPC in

[2:12:46] 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 tried to

[2:12:55] clarify the houses on the property are landmarked. Correct. Right. Yes. The full property is landmarked.

[2:13:04] Correct.

[2:13:04] That is correct. And if we subdivided at some point this property, both parcels will still be landmarked irrespective of

[2:13:14] 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

[2:13:22] god, they're going to knock it down tomorrow if you don't change this." You get worried, right? So in any event, if

[2:13:29] we if there was a subdivision, the parcel that does not have a house on it would still be landmarked. Correct.

[2:13:37] And therefore, the process which someone outlined is very ownorous certificate of appropriateness and everything else would have to be gone through. That's correct.

[2:13:46] In addition to the plan development uh amendment if any changes were to be made.

[2:13:51] 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

[2:13:59] 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 ownorous process.

[2:14:09] I would agree with that.

[2:14:10] Okay. So, with that, I'd like to hear from the public if that's okay with you.

[2:14:13] [clears throat]

[2:14:13] Yeah. Now, let's listen to the 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.

[2:14:30] Yeah, and thank you for your patience.

[2:14:31] Um, we have to really get a grasp on the staff and the presentation over the owners.

[2:14:36] It's fine. Patience I don't have usually, but I appreciate that you have to go through the effort. Um, I'm [clears throat] David Brint. I live

[2:14:44] at 1985 Dale. and my wife Betsy and I were the contract buyers for this property of the land next to the star at

[2:14:53] 147 central. We lived uh we lived in uh near it and we raised our families in Highland Park and developed deep roots

[2:15:01] 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

[2:15:09] grandchildren live around the corner of Laurel and we're not going anywhere. HP is our home. were committed to and invested in Highland Park and we we

[2:15:18] 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 old older and remain in Highland

[2:15:27] Park near our families. Uh we knew the Mlouds who landmarked the property.

[2:15:34] Martha delivered us an apple pie the day we moved into 74 Central. Um and I often talked to Al as he labored to keep up

[2:15:41] his property. Um his What? You can keep going, please. Please.

[2:15:50] As he labored to keep up his yard and work and house um keep his maintain his home, he loved his home and he tolerated

[2:15:58] the maintenance. Um we terminated the purchase contract because we didn't want to be involved in the vitriol, the misinformation, and the level of

[2:16:06] unreasonleness demonstrated by members of our community.

[2:16:13] For the record, we didn't intend to tear down the historic structure or build a 15,000 foot home. In fact, we'd hire Jim

[2:16:20] Ferman, who's I think in the audience, as an architect because Jim spent nine years as a member of the historic commission and two of which was the

[2:16:29] chairman. We had designed a home that was set far back, farther back than actually is required

[2:16:36] um and couldn't really be seen by the neighbors windows or from the street and preserve the historic elements of the entrance that drive in this dark home.

[2:16:46] I'm a real estate developer by trade. We specialize in affordable housing.

[2:16:52] I've seen all kinds of nimi expressions and were saddened by the reaction of the Star Commission and some of the neighbors.

[2:16:59] All we expected was a reasonable discussion of the merits of subdividing the property and possibly of building a

[2:17:06] home on it. What we received was a closed door in a campaign throughout the community that did not reflect facts.

[2:17:14] My wife and I live without um my wife and I can live without building the home. Um but what resulted from this

[2:17:22] 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

[2:17:30] that you need to think about that if you really love historic homes. And it'll hurt an owner who's been a stalwork of historic preservation.

[2:17:39] Most of you have never been inside the three homes on this land. The home on the park is in need of a complete reserv renovation and the historic home. Okay.

[2:17:49] Okay. I heard you. Just one last one.

[2:17:51] One one last thing. I have done historic reserva preservation. I've done five historic preservations for landmark properties. I know what it takes to preserve property.

[2:18:01] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:18:10] Good evening. I'm Robin Nanin and I live at 200 Vine Avenue. I'm here tonight to

[2:18:17] express my support for the proposed subdivision of 147 Central Avenue. My

[2:18:23] husband David and I purchased a historic Howard Van Doran Shaw House on Vine Avenue and spent years restoring this

[2:18:32] home. I understand the responsibility, expense, and long-term commitment required to properly maintain and restore these properties.

[2:18:43] This experience taught me that successful preservation depends on making these homes both desirable and

[2:18:50] financially sustainable for future owners.

[2:18:54] I believe 147 Central Avenue is an important part of our community's heritage and should be preserved. We

[2:19:02] share that same goal. Where we differ is how best to accomplish it.

[2:19:08] Like 147 Central Avenue, we learned our home was part of a much larger estate.

[2:19:15] If it hadn't been previously subdivided, we wouldn't have been able to afford to renovate it. I believe restoring

[2:19:23] preserving a historic home does not require preserving every acre that it has historically surrounding it. The

[2:19:31] purpose of historic preservation is to protect the historic resource itself, not to permanently freeze every acre

[2:19:40] that's been associated with it. If the home setting and character are preserved, then its historic significance remains intact.

[2:19:49] [snorts] Placing this home on a more manageable parcel may improve it long-term prospect. A historic home requires significant financial

[2:19:58] commitment, requiring ownership of four and a half four plus acres and only narrows the pool of potential buyers.

[2:20:07] A smaller parcel is more likely to attract an owner who will invest in the substantial time and resources needed to

[2:20:14] restore and maintain this remarkable home.

[2:20:18] This proposal represents thoughtful planning because the properties located along the lake. Very few neighboring properties will be affected. The

[2:20:26] subdivision will allow for one additional home in a community with a limited housing supply while modestly

[2:20:34] expanding the city's tax base. Those are meaningful public benefits achieved without sacrificing the historic

[2:20:40] character of this home. This is not a choice between preservation and progress. It's an opportunity to accomplish both to protect an important

[2:20:50] historic home while allowing reasonable and responsible use of the surrounding land.

[2:20:56] Thank you. And I respectfully ask that you approve this subdivision. Thank you.

[2:21:08] Hi, my name is Kelsey Gonzalez. I'm at 126 Central. Um,

[2:21:16] so there's there's several things here, but I'm just going to keep to what my statement is. Um, I'm asking you to do one thing tonight, and that's to follow

[2:21:24] your Historic Preservation Commission and deny this application.

[2:21:29] Um, this isn't about whether an owner can do what they want with their property. Uh, it's about whether a

[2:21:36] 40-year landmark designation can be undone once someone has a development deal and asks hard enough.

[2:21:43] Um, that designation was never limited to the house. And I've heard a lot of conversation referring to just the house. Um, the owner bought this estate.

[2:21:54] Yes.

[2:21:57] 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.

[2:22:09] whether that can be undone once someone has a development deal and makes and asks hard enough. That designation was never limited to the house. The owner

[2:22:18] bought this estate knowing it was protected. Your own staff HBC determined uh determination says the entire parcel

[2:22:26] quote was always and continues to be a local historic landmark. Not one of your nine landmark criteria turns on acreage.

[2:22:36] whether whatever standard you apply tonight applies to every landmark in this city. Uh this application is cycled

[2:22:44] through three justifications since the beginning of it in January when it started out at the HPC.

[2:22:50] Um the the first move was to an attempt to delandmark half of the um the portion

[2:22:59] of the state that that that is proposed for lot 2. that was unanimously rejected 7 to zero by the HPC. So the fact that

[2:23:08] this second portion would remain landmarked isn't you know that anyway. So that's that's

[2:23:16] the point there. Uh the generous setback you know that they're talking about and I appreciate um Council Member Blumberg

[2:23:24] bringing it up. Yeah, the HPC did say 80 foot setback and the PDC is coming back

[2:23:30] now with a 30 foot setback. Um, and again to reiterate that point as well,

[2:23:37] not only did they deny the landmarking the delandmark it, but they uh said no, we don't recommend that you you

[2:23:45] subdivide this at all because what you're doing is you're destroying the actual landmark that was landmarked 40

[2:23:52] years ago. Um I I you know I have a difficult time with the hardship. I think uh selling at a preferred price is

[2:24:01] not legal hardship. Uh particularly when you have income value from some of the uh places like the coach house. It

[2:24:08] doesn't appear that there's any um preservation easements that have been

[2:24:14] offered. Um I need to go. So I let me just finish. Mr. Brent had the

[2:24:22] 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

[2:24:30] challenge is approval that overrides those findings for a building with no solid architectural or environmental plan. Sorry.

[2:24:44] Good evening.

[2:24:46] I'm Jeff Annenburgg. I live at 144 Ravine Drive and I'm in strong support of the proposed subdivision of 147

[2:24:55] 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.

[2:25:08] Given my long history in the community, I care about preservation and the character of our community.

[2:25:17] which is exactly why I support this proposal. The historic home itself will remain fully intact on a large piece of

[2:25:25] land and the subdivision does not impact the existing structure in any way. The

[2:25:33] property owner should have the ability to subdivide the property and continue to protect the historic

[2:25:41] nature of the home, which is exactly what they're requesting. I urge the council to support this and I appreciate it. Thank you.

[2:25:51] Thank you.

[2:25:56] [snorts]

[2:25:59] Good evening. I'm Jim Fairman and uh uh I was chairman of the historic

[2:26:07] preservation commission. Um I was on the commission for some years from I believe 2001 to 2009 two in two years of that I

[2:26:16] was chairman of the commission. I've also won several historic preservation awards in the city of Highland Park and

[2:26:23] all and number of other communities on the northshore. uh I was retained uh for

[2:26:31] so I'm also an architect and I was retained to look at this property uh and on a preliminary basis

[2:26:39] um regarding a subdivision and what's what's extraordinary here is that u I I

[2:26:47] don't the the historic nature the the historic structures

[2:26:53] uh would not be impacted at all by uh having a new house there. Uh there still

[2:27:00] will be there still would be a front yard uh on this property that would be 400 ft long and 123 ft deep, which is

[2:27:10] almost 50,000 around 50,000 square ft, which is actually bigger than most lots on the block. and uh you know so that so

[2:27:20] the look and the and the uh of what is there now I would think would be largely

[2:27:26] unchanged and it was our intention to actually move further back and the 80oot thing by the way makes no sense to me

[2:27:35] whatsoever. It actually pushes the house towards the ravine and it has impact then on the ecology of the ravine and

[2:27:43] skews would skew the house in another direction. it it was it and to Mr. one

[2:27:50] more comment that I'm sure that it was reasoned out and it was happened to be dealt with with you know saying it was

[2:27:58] the other side but on this side the real the real important thing is this porch of the house and if the house for

[2:28:07] example set back another 40 ft which would be a more logical thing to do you'd have you'd have a couple hundred foot setback [laughter] in effect from

[2:28:16] the s and you'd see the whole porch of the house and uh I think there are ways

[2:28:22] to do it to sensitively place a house on this site and another very important

[2:28:29] 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

[2:28:38] 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

[2:28:46] a rise and no no house that would end up there uh would tower above the other

[2:28:54] house in any way, shape, or form because it's going to start with a first floor that's probably at least 10 ft lower

[2:29:00] than the existing house. So, I got that's that's it in a nutshell. Could say more, but thank you.

[2:29:08] And so, I'm in support of the subdivision. Hey, just a little traffic cop thing.

[2:29:14] Whenever you're done, just go this way and down the middle, and that way we can just have everybody come through faster. That'd be great.

[2:29:21] Uh, members of the city council, pardon me.

[2:29:26] Yeah, I will. My name is Jim Turman and I'm here tonight on behalf of my wife

[2:29:32] Wendy Coleman and myself to express our strong opposition to the proposed

[2:29:40] special use permit at 147 Central Avenue. We've both lived in Highland

[2:29:47] Park for more than 50 years. And for the past 33 years, we've called 101 Bell

[2:29:56] Avenue home, one of the city's historic preservation districts. We understand

[2:30:03] firsthand what these districts mean to people who live in them and why they

[2:30:10] matter to our community. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property and

[2:30:16] construct a new residence adjacent to the existing landmarked home. The Planning and Design Commission

[2:30:25] recommended approval, but the Historic Preservation Commission, the body specifically charged with protecting

[2:30:34] properties like this one, opposed it, concluding that the proposal would

[2:30:40] quote, irreversibly alter the property's historic setting. We agree with that

[2:30:48] conclusion. Historic preservation districts protect the architectural

[2:30:54] integrity and character that define the city's identity, but only if applied consistently.

[2:31:03] Every exception becomes precedent for the next. Approve this and you make it

[2:31:10] harder to deny future requests at any landmark property in Highland Park.

[2:31:18] That's how preservation ordinances erode, not through one dramatic repeal,

[2:31:25] but through a series of reasonably sounding exceptions. Recently, the city

[2:31:32] offered us a free bronze plaque for preserving our historic property. Tonight, we're not asking for a plaque.

[2:31:40] We're asking for your vote. We respectfully urge the city council to

[2:31:47] deny this reubdivision request. Denying it preserves the integrity of Highland

[2:31:53] Parks historic preservation program and it protects historic districts

[2:32:00] throughout our city from a precedent with consequences far beyond this one

[2:32:07] address. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and thank you for your service. We appreciate it.

[2:32:20] Hi, good evening, city council members.

[2:32:23] My name is Samara Striker. I live at 142 Central A directly across the street

[2:32:30] from the property. I'm speaking tonight in strong opposition to the proposed

[2:32:36] plan development and reubdivision of 147 Central A.

[2:32:42] While this matter has been outstanding for a while, the facts have not changed.

[2:32:49] The current owners voluntarily bought this property knowing it was designated as a local landmark. the entire

[2:32:58] property. Failing to sell it at a current price is a failed real estate

[2:33:05] strategy, not a reason to erase local protection.

[2:33:11] The market isn't always kind, but it doesn't lie. as the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously

[2:33:20] found in their vote to deny this landmark's value because it relies on the entire estate setting, the house and

[2:33:28] the land. Carving up the grounds to create a second buildable lot will irreversibly alter its historical

[2:33:37] integrity. That is exactly what the HPC said.

[2:33:42] Granting subdivision variances just to help sell a property sets a dangerous precedent that our preservation ordinances can be outweighed for profit.

[2:33:55] Please follow the HPC's recommendation and vote no.

[2:34:00] Thank you. Next, I'm Danny Khan. I also served on

[2:34:07] historic preservation for nine or 10 years and I chaired it for three. Um, I was the one who uh shephered the

[2:34:16] landmarking of 405 Sheridan, which was the only time we landmarked without owner consent. That bold preservation

[2:34:23] effort resulted in retaining one of the Northshore's last remaining grand estates, and I'm delighted that we were

[2:34:29] able to make that happen. That said, I support letting this subdivision go through. um it will ensure the survival

[2:34:38] of the house and uh maintain what is important in the landscaping.

[2:34:45] A little known fact about the the uh land the landmarking of 405. Um this was where Orin Pel wanted to put 17 houses

[2:34:54] on it. Um we we worked with uh Orin for a while and we were actually willing

[2:35:01] that house was not landmarked. It was a uh well we landmarked it but it was not before. Um we were willing to let him

[2:35:10] build six or seven houses not 14. But the important point was we were willing

[2:35:17] to let him tear the house down. And that's Howard Van Doren Shaw. Um we felt the landscape was more important than

[2:35:26] the house. And although we could keep the whole thing, we felt we were trying to be cooperative

[2:35:33] and supportive and come up with a reasonable solution. And I think that's what needs to happen here. This process,

[2:35:42] I'm overwhelmed listening to the complexity of what these people are going to have to go through even if you approve this. And then you wonder why

[2:35:50] nobody's landmarking properties. Um, I can't understand how anybody would want to landmark a property in Highland Park

[2:35:59] when they've got to go through this. The certificate of appropriateness thing is ownorous enough, but that's that is a

[2:36:05] constructive process that ensures an an appropriate um an appropriate construction. But all of these

[2:36:12] regulations that that have to be jumped through the these hoops that people have to jump through, I'm completely um

[2:36:20] overwhelmed by this. So, I would encourage uh although I'm very disappointed in the uh city council's

[2:36:28] actions over the last years in diluting uh the historic preservation ordinances,

[2:36:34] I I'd like you to to take the initiative to be supportive of people that have landmarked houses or who are dealing

[2:36:43] with landmarked houses and try to come up with workable solutions, not restrictions that that just kill the

[2:36:52] concept. I mean, I agree that not being able to sell at whatever price you think you could get if it wasn't landmarked, that's not a hardship, but I think that

[2:37:00] what this person has been asking is a very reasonable uh price for this property, but no one wants to do it. So, I urge you to support it.

[2:37:18] Good evening. My name is Tom Corning and I'm an interested neighbor. I live at 261 Laurel. Um I've come to I think most

[2:37:27] of the hearings on this particular property, but it may have slipped past me. Um staff, can you answer a question

[2:37:34] for me? The last time that I heard this proponent uh discuss their proposed division. I thought that they were

[2:37:42] trying to excuse parcel 2 from historic preservation. Has that been waved? questions.

[2:37:47] Please continue your comments and and then we'll defer to the chair.

[2:37:51] Okay. I'm sorry. So, that was a uh consideration that I had um because I I'm a single issue voter. I simply wish

[2:38:00] that any property that's developed next to this historic lot have a complimentary home. And I know that we

[2:38:09] do not have an appearance review commission here in this community. I understand that that's a problem. Um, so

[2:38:17] my single issue is that I would like not to see a white and black box sit next to this historic house. And I I think that

[2:38:24] 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

[2:38:32] 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

[2:38:40] the property, the property tax uh burden that's being put on the current owner is real and it continues to grow and that

[2:38:49] for a 4bedroom 4 bath 4,500 ft house um the amount of money required to support the sale is a problem. So I understand

[2:38:57] and appreciate all those issues and yet in my um purest mind I would like to support those who say let's maintain the

[2:39:05] 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

[2:39:13] practicalities are allowed to intervene and we make a compromise as a community, then in that compromise, I would like to

[2:39:20] see the sale of parcel number two constricted in the same historic manner as parcel number one, meaning that it

[2:39:28] has to have a house built upon it that is complimentary architecturally to the existing facility. And I don't have a

[2:39:36] 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

[2:39:44] 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 are

[2:39:53] recommendations. So, they are a starting point and I'd encourage you to look at them from that perspective. And again,

[2:40:00] thank you for the time here tonight. And of course, thank you council members for your service in in our community. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

[2:40:08] Very nice.

[2:40:19] Uh, I'm Lisa Tenkin. I live at 660 Damble Avenue. Um, I'm going to talk about the code. Um, and and some

[2:40:28] information that maybe the the uh council isn't aware of. In the mid 1970s, long before we had a preservation

[2:40:36] ordinance or commission, this property was identified by Dr. Paul Sprag in the Illinois Historic Structure Survey as a

[2:40:45] significant resource. This like in 1974, I want to say um that was long before we

[2:40:52] ever had any ordinance. Um, in the 80s is when the city adopted their first preservation ordinance, formed a

[2:40:59] commission, and became a certified local government. Um, a certified local government is a status that that a

[2:41:08] municipality can get that provides grants. Um, but there's also ongoing responsibilities for being a CLG is what

[2:41:15] we call it. Um, the HPC must continue to survey. This is requirement of the CLG.

[2:41:22] Continue to survey and identify properties for local and national register designation. And most importantly, this is the language in the

[2:41:30] CLG, protect the existing landmarks. So the HPC's work is governed by both the ordinances and the CLG obligations.

[2:41:40] The historic resources, historic resources benefit the whole community.

[2:41:45] As the National Park Service notes, they contribute to the culture and identity of a community and give us a shared

[2:41:52] sense of history. The Cornelius Field Estate exemplifies this. The subject property is locally landmarked, so any

[2:42:00] alteration requires a COA under chapter 24. The HPC, we're all clear that they

[2:42:06] don't want this to happen. Um, and in chapter 33 of the code, the HPC's

[2:42:14] responsibility is prot protect the distinctive visual characteristics of landmarks, identify significant properties, etc.

[2:42:24] 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

[2:42:32] freeze, which if you don't know about that, and they also an easement, which can both reduce your property taxes. All

[2:42:39] current HPC members were appointed by Mayor Roering and vetted for their expertise. The council supported those

[2:42:47] appointments. Maybe not you specific people, but your body. Um, but you can trust the HPC has taken this application

[2:42:56] very seriously. Tonight's packet was over a thousand pages. As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, the HPC is equipped to make sound community

[2:43:04] centered decisions and have they have done just that. Subdividing the field estate would seriously harm this landmark. The Department of the Interior

[2:43:13] standards for treatment of historic property speaks directly to this impact and I think I gave a link in my email.

[2:43:20] The applicant has said that their project will benefit the community. Hope you'll support the HBC. And if you

[2:43:28] support the HBC, all those other problems aren't the problem. Thank you.

[2:43:40] Ken Tempmpkin reside in the same house as the previous speaker.

[2:43:44] Uh we are here today to consider the property alter alteration at 147 Central Avenue, the oldest intact structure in Highland Park and one of the top

[2:43:53] historic properties in Illinois. All properties are valued not only on the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and cars that fit in a garage, but in on the

[2:44:02] neighborhood, the sighting of structures, the resulting visual setting. The modifications you are reviewing tonight will destroy the

[2:44:11] sighting and historic visuals of this property and the neighborhood. Highland Park has some beautiful old war pre-w

[2:44:19] old pre-war neighborhoods where you can drive blocks and never see the same house twice. New homes in historic areas

[2:44:26] degrade the visual appearance of a neighborhood. If someone were to build a modern house on a double lot in

[2:44:33] Hiburnia, no one would notice and there would not be an issue. The East Central Avenue neighborhood is not Hiburnia and

[2:44:42] the character of the East Central Avenue area should be preserved by denying this alteration.

[2:44:50] As commissioners, your responsibility should not be to ensure the extraction of the maximum value from this property

[2:44:59] to the sole benefit of the property owner. Rather, you have a responsibility to preserve the heritage of your

[2:45:07] community through the preservation of its cultural assets, which are exactly what landmarking and preservation of landmark property encourages.

[2:45:17] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:45:23] Good evening, [sighs] dear Highland Park City Council. My name is Steven Weinberg and I oppose the

[2:45:30] subdivision of 147 Central Avenue. As the owner of the DW Lamour House with my wife Courtney at 2360 Sheridan Road, one

[2:45:40] of [clears throat] one of Highland Park's designated historic landmarks. I urge the city council to reject the proposed

[2:45:47] subdivision of 147 central. I do not make this request lightly. I understand the expense, responsibility, and sacrifice that comes with owning and

[2:45:56] maintaining a historic property. Those of us who choose to become stewards of these extraordinary homes know that preservation often requires significant

[2:46:04] financial commitment and that landmark designation carries obligations as well as privileges. Those obligations exist

[2:46:11] because these properties are not simply private assets. They are irreplaceable pieces of Highland Park's history. The Cornelius Field The Cornelius Field

[2:46:20] Estate is not merely an old house. It is an intact historic estate whose significance derives from the relationship between the residents and

[2:46:29] its surrounding grounds. The landscape, carriage drive, open space, historic approach, fencing, and estate setting

[2:46:37] are integral components of what has survived for 150 years. To suggest that the estate can be preserved while

[2:46:45] permanently severing a substantial portion of the property is historically and logically indefensible. A landmark

[2:46:52] designation must mean something if the city is willing to permit the subdivision of arguably the most historically significant estate in

[2:46:59] Highland Park over the unanimous objection of its own historic preservation commission. Then every landmark designation in this community,

[2:47:08] not just three houses, every landmark designation in this community becomes conditional rather than permanent. The president would be unmistakable.

[2:47:17] Preservation protections may be set aside whenever ownership becomes financially inconvenient. That is not

[2:47:25] preservation. It is incremental demolition by legal process. Historic preservation is not simply about preventing the destruction of walls and

[2:47:33] roofs. It is about protecting the historic context that gives these buildings meaning. Remove enough of that context and eventually the landmark

[2:47:41] exists only as an isolated artifact, stripped of the very setting that justified its designation.

[2:47:48] Owners of designated landmark structures invest enormous time and effort and financial resources restoring them

[2:47:57] because they believe these buildings belong not only to those fortunate enough to own them, but also to the future generations of Highland Park

[2:48:04] residents. Every owner of a landmark accepts that stewardship. None of us should expect the city to rewrite preservation rules simply because

[2:48:12] preserving history becomes costly. If financial hardship, limited marketing time, or diminished investment returns

[2:48:20] become sufficient reasons to dismantle landmark estates. Then every protected property in Highland Park becomes vulnerable. Owners throughout the city

[2:48:28] will understandably ask why they should continue bearing these burdens. We ask that you deny these subdivisions.

[2:48:35] Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you. Hi, my name is Julie Erlick

[2:48:46] and I've lived in Island Park for about 30 years. I'm kind of stymied as to how we got here. Many [clears throat] years

[2:48:55] ago, city council created the HPC and they created the ordinances that the HPC runs by.

[2:49:05] And the ordinance says that once a property has been designated a landmark, it can never be undesated as long as the

[2:49:14] 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.

[2:49:26] I feel like the city in this instance is is basically the victim here because they're ignoring their own long-standing

[2:49:35] law and decades of tradition

[2:49:42] because somebody wants to make a better profit on their property. And I feel like that is it's an embarrassment to

[2:49:50] me. I mean, I moved here with my husband because of the beautiful historic architecture. I was on the HPC for over

[2:49:58] 10 years, and I can tell you every time we landmark something, it was torturous cuz we know it's a burden. But it's a

[2:50:06] valid burden because that's what makes HBC different from Buffalo Grove or many other communities. And I am just very I

[2:50:15] will be extremely disappointed if city council goes ahead and ignores everything the HPC has recommended and voted on. Thank you.

[2:50:35] Thank you.

[2:50:38] I'm Mary Ciphart. I'm third generation Highland Parker. I served on the HPC appointed by Dan Pierce for nine years.

[2:50:48] Danny and I were on there for a while. This is a dicey situation.

[2:50:53] I think the keystone is that the owner goes into this buying this property

[2:51:00] knowingly and willfully knowing the situation.

[2:51:05] um taking down historical I'm not to say that I did not know I won't mention I did not know Martha and

[2:51:13] Al Mloud that who owned the house and Martha bought it in 1956 she was Martha

[2:51:19] Patton at the time then married Al Mloud who served on this council from 1986

[2:51:26] 1987 1988 and 1989 and 1990 councilman it is a beautiful property and

[2:51:35] The open space is huge. Remember it was once a military academy. So it had a

[2:51:41] public multiple use service. There are three properties on this now. The main house Italian multiple kinds of Italian8 architecture.

[2:51:54] 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

[2:52:02] lake. three income producing possible properties. It's dicey because I understand the condition now of taxes.

[2:52:14] It's a beautiful piece of property to live on. My grandfather built 70 houses in this house in this town. There are

[2:52:21] now 50. Some are landmarked. The one I grew up in 1442 forest is landmarked.

[2:52:30] I say it's [clears throat] I emphasize the diceiness of that that lawn is huge.

[2:52:37] Also when you cut this down that would makes the existing property dense

[2:52:44] compared to whatever idea when you have a subdivision is a subdivision one house two houses three houses or Lincoln

[2:52:52] school you get my under the content. I don't understand what that is, but I'm trying to be generous in my mind that I

[2:53:00] understand 21st century economics somehow. But the owner walks into this willfully.

[2:53:10] This is, oh, this is not a letter that comes down. By the way, this is your situation.

[2:53:18] It eliminates a historical precedent of a design from 70 houses to 50 houses.

[2:53:25] You lose you lose a you lose design. You lose a a thought pattern. You lose a history.

[2:53:34] We've talked about that. So I remain dicey on this.

[2:53:41] Rethink the situation. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:53:50] Hi, my name is Tom Hiller. I live at 818 Hill Street. Um I I guess in terms of longevity, I'm at the other end of the

[2:53:58] curve. I've been here four years. Uh I recently successfully nominated uh the property I live in uh for landmark. So

[2:54:07] um I became quite familiar with uh the various criterion.

[2:54:11] So, you know, based on having done this thing and being aware of 147, um I think

[2:54:19] that uh criteria 4 is on the original resolution to make this a landmark uh

[2:54:28] property. And it seems to me clear that that the that the owner who voluntarily landmarked this intended to save the

[2:54:35] entire context of the property, house, ravine, bridges, open green space.

[2:54:40] They're all inseparable. Subdividing clutters the historic uh vista, eliminates the landscape style and integrity as it originally landmarked.

[2:54:50] So from my point of view, um subdividing this basically is to some degree or an

[2:54:58] entire degree uh cancelling or revoking one of the criterion that was agreed to back whenever this happened. Um many

[2:55:07] other uh comments have already been made so and it's getting late but uh you know it's it's a death by a thousand small

[2:55:16] cuts and um uh it sets a precedent that uh a criterion can be uh watered down

[2:55:25] reduced etc downstream in time. It also puts people that have to make a decision uh whether or not to landmark it to have

[2:55:32] to start to play a game theory in their head about which g which which criterion downstream in time might be reduced or

[2:55:40] or cancelled or revoked etc. And it it it really is not part of the the intended process anyway. So, I urge you

[2:55:48] to not um subdivide this or at least uh given the fact that once it's subdivided, it can't be taken back. Uh

[2:55:58] you know, I I would I I this is the last thing you'd want to make any kind of a rash decision on it. I guess this has dragged on for a while, but some of

[2:56:06] that's due to continuences as I understand. Anyway, thank you very much for your time.

[2:56:18] Good evening. I'm Greg Moyer. Um I am friends in uh with the petitioner and I've been helping him as he doesn't live

[2:56:27] in the area. Um I've been through multiple HPC meetings. I've been through PDC multiple times. This is the first

[2:56:34] 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 was moved here in 1969. So, I'm

[2:56:43] relatively new. Um, I'm in the real estate business. I've been through these meetings. I

[2:56:51] understand the importance of historic homes and the nature and the character of Highland Park. I've watched Mr.

[2:56:59] Rothner renovate and his late wife renovate and care for other historic homes in a very loving and important

[2:57:07] way. The home has been taken care of historically. I can't speak to landmarking land. I can speak to

[2:57:16] historic I don't know as much as all of you, but historically landmarking the property and it's been maintained.

[2:57:21] 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

[2:57:30] the process is there's been a lot of con really on the different committees there's been conflicts. people that

[2:57:37] neighbors that live across the street or people that have really strong opinions that have louder voices than others.

[2:57:43] That's just really not appropriate to a really a fair hearing. But, you know, I I urge you to approve this. You've heard from other people that have maintained

[2:57:51] other historic homes lovingly and carefully. And this this town was built on large often a lot of this town was

[2:57:59] 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

[2:58:08] with with um 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.

[2:58:17] 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

[2:58:25] of appropriateness and it's going to make it so that this house can live on and and continue to be maintained in its

[2:58:32] nature. This property has been marketed very widely. The fact I don't remember who mentioned that they didn't see it.

[2:58:39] 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

[2:58:48] beautiful home, but no one the only people that came were developers. And you know, and and it if if you really got a chance to walk through the house

[2:58:56] and to see how very difficult it is to really live in the house and the livability of it, it's it's challenging.

[2:59:02] So, I encourage you guys to approve this and thank you for your time and your service. All right. Thank you. Anybody else?

[2:59:10] Okay. So, now we're going to hear comments from the city council. Yes, sir.

[2:59:14] First, I'd like to make a motion to close the public comment portion of the public meeting. Okay. Do we need to move?

[2:59:23] Okay.

[2:59:23] Second. Have we to take a vote on that? Let's take a vote then.

[2:59:27] Do we need Well, you know what? We don't we don't we don't [clears throat] do that. Yeah, this is just consideration.

[2:59:33] [laughter] Um, we generally don't close the public uh comment portion. Um, okay.

[2:59:40] Just in terms of our our normal procedure. Your colleague often asks to do that. So, that's why I did that.

[2:59:45] Okay. We're going to proceed. We're going to proceed. All right. Uh, you want to speak now? Sure. All right.

[2:59:51] Um, I I think the first thing I want to say overall is I I understand the passion on both sides of this. What is

[3:00:01] always hard to absorb from up here, as it must be out there, is the occasional absence of charity towards your

[3:00:08] neighbors. Um, this request is a legitimate request. This is not a money grab. This is not a big-time developer

[3:00:17] looking to squeeze every last dollar out of a piece of land.

[3:00:21] The people who would like this preserved and feel that the entire piece of property should be preserved also have

[3:00:30] legitimate concerns. They're talking about a context in which the house is viewed. And I think it is very important

[3:00:38] that we understand we're going to make a decision tonight.

[3:00:44] about half the people here are going to be very unhappy with that decision and about half the people here are going to feel it's the right decision.

[3:00:52] That's our job. But I think it's important to understand that we're all neighbors. We do ultimately want what's

[3:00:58] best for the city. Those of us whom you have elected are going to try to navigate that as best we can. The second

[3:01:06] thing I want to say is that we are not being asked to delmark anything.

[3:01:11] Our ordinance allows for this consideration as a part of the law. This is part of a certificate of appropriateness. This requires approval.

[3:01:24] This came before the commission in the normal process that this should happen.

[3:01:30] This is not the first property involving historic designation that is asked to be subdivided. It's different because it's

[3:01:39] large enough to require a PUD and it's different because instead of just the structure being designated as a as a uh

[3:01:48] protected structure, the entire plat has been designated as historic and that's somewhat unusual. So that's what we're

[3:01:56] dealing with. We are not being asked to change our law. We are not being asked to ignore the law. Um, I would say that

[3:02:05] the decision that we make tonight should be a decision that understands historic

[3:02:11] preservation, the value of the integrity of preservation, the value of historic

[3:02:18] structures within our community that remind us of the past that we come from and at the same time accommodating the reality of life.

[3:02:28] and I would like to try to negotiate that in the best way possible for everybody. Um

[3:02:35] to me um the the integrity of the property to some degree has been altered over the

[3:02:43] years. When this property was originally designated, some of the accessory structures were not there.

[3:02:51] They were placed there through the same process of a certificate of appropriateness and that's how this

[3:02:58] entire parcel became viewed as an entire parcel that is protected.

[3:03:05] I have no idea what anybody would want to build, but I've been through the certificate of appropriateness standards

[3:03:12] that I mentioned before, and they're extremely limiting, and they give the Historic Preservation Commission a tremendous

[3:03:21] 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

[3:03:28] not interfere with the existing properties, with the enjoyment or impact of that property on our community. Um,

[3:03:37] 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

[3:03:44] are the facts. These are the laws that this council is being tasked with following. Nobody's being asked to

[3:03:52] change the law. Nobody's being asked to wave the law or to grant some variance from the law. We're being asked to

[3:03:59] determine whether this subdivision should be granted within our authority that already exists.

[3:04:08] All right. Thank you, Council Member Center.

[3:04:10] Thank you. Um, I want to acknowledge the residents, everybody who wrote in and showed up tonight. I read all your

[3:04:17] emails and I hear you all both in support and of those expressing concern.

[3:04:23] And I actually thought hearing the facts tonight u provided me with a ton of clarity and dispelled a lot of the

[3:04:32] rumors that were um going around in in various facets. So appreciate everybody for taking their time and being so thoughtful. It's not

[3:04:41] 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

[3:04:50] protect historically significant properties. We also need to understand that these issues are not black and

[3:04:57] white. Sometimes the more difficult decision is what needs to be done in in in in protection for the long term. I

[3:05:06] also from my perspective want to be clear that should we approve this from it does not set precedent. Every case

[3:05:13] 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

[3:05:21] situation that none of us are likely to see again based on the the set the set of facts and circumstances that are that are that we're that we're dealing with.

[3:05:30] The things that I think sort of moved me tonight um are as follows. And I think the facts again are really what's

[3:05:38] critical. This is not a a neglected property with a disengaged owner. We heard from the owner, the current owner

[3:05:45] himself, who has cared deeply for the property, who has a passion for preservation,

[3:05:52] who supports this path forward, who put $1.8 million of his own money into this property. They hired an experienced

[3:06:00] luxury agent who marketed it to 50 of the top brokers in the area. The listing generated 50 million impressions and it

[3:06:08] produced 10 private showings, many of which were developers as asserted by Mr. Moyer. That's not a marketing problem.

[3:06:17] That's the market speaking loudly and clearly that the property as currently configured does not and will not produce

[3:06:26] a viable buyer and steward of this critical property. the 2025 tax bill of

[3:06:33] $81,000 payable in the current year projected to be $100,000 within the next 5 years. That is not a carrying cost that any reasonable buyer can absorb.

[3:06:43] It's a barrier that we cannot realistically ignore and that is cannot be broken from a reasonable rational market participant.

[3:06:52] We also had two former HPC commission commissioners speak out of their support of the project.

[3:06:59] Um, I thought that was really telling.

[3:07:02] 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

[3:07:10] under the lakefront overlay zone. It's not a cramped subdivision. It's not overdevelopment. It's a thoughtful proposal that works within the

[3:07:18] constraints of a very unique piece of property. It allows for a realistic market transaction for a new buyer to

[3:07:26] purchase the fieldhouse with the ability to give it the care and attention it needs and deserves without an unsustainable burden of carry costs.

[3:07:35] 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

[3:07:43] one at street level. This makes this potential structure that's 160 ft

[3:07:50] set back fairly disguised particularly with the height restrictions that are being proposed and and and that will be required uh for the certificate of appropriateness as outlined by the PDC.

[3:08:01] When you add that all together, the investment, the marketing effort, the market's response, the tax burden, the scale of what's being proposed, the

[3:08:08] nature of the property, I think our choice tonight becomes very clear. And it's not a decision between subdividing

[3:08:15] and preserving. It's about allowing a controlled subdivision with the right guard rails to ensure the ongoing protection of both lots one and lot two

[3:08:24] 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

[3:08:31] elements as design described by the PDC, the driveway, the gate posts, and potentially anything else that is described moving forward in that

[3:08:38] process. And I'd also like the council to consider the comments made by Tom around complimentary architecture. I think that's really a great comment. Um,

[3:08:46] and I and I think the the the process that we have in the future with the guardrails in place will make sure that we're taking good good care of this property moving forward.

[3:08:56] Yeah. All right. Thank you, Council Member Ro.

[3:08:59] Thank you. Um, in answer to one of the public comments, uh, this is a very unique property and the first house

[3:09:07] built in, uh, our city was it it is built is on that property. So, uh, comparing it to other smaller historic

[3:09:15] properties doesn't quite feel appropriate. Um, when one person said the house would be saved by subdividing, I I don't see how selling uh the

[3:09:24] existing historic house on a smaller property would uh sell any easier. Um, and uh, nowhere is there an indication

[3:09:32] 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

[3:09:39] for the market. Um the property tax per acre is is quite low. Uh consider your own taxes. Um it is the improvements

[3:09:48] that matter. Um you know to tax tax increases, not the acreage. Um also I I

[3:09:55] want to speak to the description of people who oppose this as somehow mean-spirited. Um I I I I believe that

[3:10:03] it it came the the these comments and and uh you know speaking up came from a desire honestly to help Highland Park.

[3:10:13] Um in answer to the COA I as far as I know it does not limit the scale of the project. We know for a fact uh that the that it can be up to 15,300 square feet.

[3:10:25] Not that that that somebody is planning to build that. the last buyer who we heard uh and who may still buy it if

[3:10:32] this passes wanted to build 9600 square feet. Um and as far as I know, if it passes tonight, they can eventually do

[3:10:40] that. I will say again, I didn't see marketing. Nobody we know saw the marketing and it it sounds like it

[3:10:48] should be listed on a site for landmark properties. Um and you know, other efforts made. Um, I informed PDC of this

[3:10:56] and I want to remind council and by the way I really let PDC do its its own work. Uh, I said virtually nothing

[3:11:04] except this comment that I was about about to say that I will I'll remind council we're in the midst of working on

[3:11:10] strengthening incentives to landmark and keep properties from being changed or destroyed in part by offering

[3:11:17] significant grants to renovate. at that committee of the whole uh meeting where we discussed larger landmark incentives and I hope outside it. We agree as a

[3:11:25] council that we highly highly value treasured landmarks in in in Highland Park that we know our residents do as well. Um because these landmarks make us

[3:11:33] uniquely beautiful and special as a city. Um, a big part of why I wanted to serve on council was to push for better decision makingaking for the sake of

[3:11:42] 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

[3:11:49] 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

[3:11:57] 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

[3:12:06] 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

[3:12:14] to west is a popular route for walkers, cyclists, and motorists. Um the the uh

[3:12:22] and obviously this isn't any just any piece of land. if it was the applicant might not have continued after HPC rejected it. Um, and I truly understand

[3:12:31] how tempting it is, but it remains substantial, beautiful, and unique only because it was protected for decades by multiple past preservationist owners.

[3:12:40] Staff has been asked, well, you we all know, I think we've all accepted that the entire site is landmarked. Um, in my opinion, appropriately so, because you

[3:12:48] cannot simply pick up the house and move it to another site. uh we we would I'm sure agree that that would be absurd.

[3:12:55] The house divorced from its unique site will lose much of its beauty, significance, and meaning. The the building exists in in beautiful harmony

[3:13:04] with this entire site. You cannot simply subdivide and build on one half. Um, and I I will mention again that the site and

[3:13:12] it was on on a topographic map that staff showed uh has

[3:13:20] significant um unbuildable, you know, ravine. It it it's not all buildable table land. Um, and there'll have to be

[3:13:26] a setback from the ravine uh for the building. When PDC voted on this project, the chair and the immediate past chair were both traveling. So, the

[3:13:34] newest member presided over that very important meeting. The vote was split three to two. Half were deeply concerned that HPC had unanimously rejected

[3:13:43] 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

[3:13:51] that the architect had started attending meetings when the process started many months earlier with HPC and director Fontaine. Uh sorry to put you on the

[3:13:59] spot, but you can confirm that uh as you did uh in a conversation. In light of the enormous um importance of this entire site and building, in light of

[3:14:07] how the neighborhood and community at large has been put through the ringer and we hear the stress and frustration from them, I I will share that I'm concerned that the mayor is out of town.

[3:14:16] I I wish um she were here to opine and vote on this. the applicant uh the applicant and their buyer, past,

[3:14:23] 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

[3:14:32] built, it is lost forever. Unlike other things we vote on, such as rules we establish for ebikes, we can't reconsider a subdivision. While there

[3:14:39] are other steps the applicant will have to take that has been spoken of to approve subdivision. The biggest by far the biggest hurdle will have been cleared. The biggest protection removed.

[3:14:50] Council will have to take responsibility for that. A vote to allow the dividing of the site into two parcels. We'll have

[3:14:57] the entire preservation community angry against those who vote for it. We know this proposal to subdivide is is is

[3:15:04] widely unpopular in Highland Park. Um, most residents deeply deeply cherish our history and beauty. Uh, they will be

[3:15:11] angry. They they are angry about how powerless they our community feels when it comes to protecting landmarks. Um, I've heard comments that council doesn't

[3:15:19] 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 and

[3:15:28] and how residents view us, but that doesn't change how the community at large feels. It doesn't change the mounting frustration.

[3:15:35] 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

[3:15:42] can be split into two for the sake of a large, you know, luxury home development because zoning will allow construction of up to 15,000 ft on the land that

[3:15:51] 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

[3:15:58] challenge our other landmark marks by our actions here. We open ourselves up to future litigation from speculators and properties where we didn't allow a

[3:16:07] 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

[3:16:14] le 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

[3:16:22] 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

[3:16:29] the most important sites in Highland Park history. And I I will add to I have known the applicant for years and I'm

[3:16:36] I'm talking uh about well a representative for the applicant and I respect greatly respect his success with many large real estate developments and

[3:16:45] I say the same for his recent buyers um one of whom I see in the saw in the audience. But I but I hope that he chooses a different site that is

[3:16:53] actually and truly available for development. I hope you turn your attention to making something great happen for the entire city. For the

[3:17:00] entire city, not splitting up this landmark gem. To the owners of the property, I understand them. Yeah. Uh

[3:17:08] well, I understand that Gail Roth was a a passionate preservationist. I hope that they will market this lot, you

[3:17:15] know, differently. Uh again, since I have haven't seen a ton in the way of marketing, um to buyers who care about

[3:17:22] and love the entire site, there is so much to love and ways for buyers to work with the original house to preserve it,

[3:17:30] 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

[3:17:38] meantime, although we hear the potential buyer pulled out, but could be back if this is approved without without an actual buyer, without seeing if it is a

[3:17:47] 15,000 square footprint or not, I'm against speculative development. I I repeat that, speculative development on

[3:17:54] 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.

[3:18:04] All right. Thank you, Council Member Rman. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you. Um first first off I want to say

[3:18:11] thank you to the applicant both the um HPC and the PDC for their work and especially to all the residents who have

[3:18:19] engaged on this one and tonight's hearing uh provided great uh clarity to me and was very eyeopening. Um I want to

[3:18:27] say that support in this application should not be interpreted as diminishing the importance of the his of historic preservation and my commitment to

[3:18:35] historic preservation. To the contrary, one of the key factors in my decision is that the landmark structure remains

[3:18:42] protected and the home remains protected and that really in my mind makes it to me feel comfortable in my decision. Uh

[3:18:51] my vote reflects my judgment on that balance. This proposal allows for preservation [clears throat] of the historic home while also recognizing the

[3:18:59] practical realities associated with maintaining and transferring a unique property of of scale. With that said,

[3:19:06] I'm comfortable that this proposal does satisfy all of that and in in that case, I will be voting um in favor of this proposal tonight. Thank you.

[3:19:15] Thank you, Council Member Leour.

[3:19:17] Thank you. Um I I really want to thank especially our residents here. Um and the HPC and PDC for what they've done.

[3:19:26] Um, but it it's very difficult because when two commissions that I deeply respect are split, it's very very

[3:19:34] 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

[3:19:43] important to note that the people who've spoken tonight all seem to care about preservation and

[3:19:51] about keeping our older homes as as much protected as we possibly can. And I

[3:19:59] really don't want to demonize people because in fact they are saying we want to subdivide it. If anything, they're

[3:20:06] 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

[3:20:14] 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

[3:20:22] 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."

[3:20:31] 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

[3:20:39] 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,

[3:20:48] but I also want to be practical about this. And I have to say that I I I really would still like to weigh in

[3:20:56] because I want every protection in there should we decide to subdivide. Every mention, whether it's the gate, whether

[3:21:05] it's the single driveway, I I only want to see this so fully restricted that we know that this home and the land that it

[3:21:14] sits on is 100% protected. And frankly, I would be much more comfortable if I was looking at plans of a second home

[3:21:23] 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

[3:21:29] through. And we have some of the processes in place. Frankly, I wish there were additional protections that

[3:21:36] we could offer, but we do have to offer the certificate of appropriateness, which is an

[3:21:44] incredibly ownorous 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

[3:21:53] 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 is

[3:22:02] going to be in there to make it work in perpetuity. And what worries me is that at some point whether it is hardship and

[3:22:10] I don't know the circumstances of the individuals but that that could impact on this too. So, um, as much as I really

[3:22:18] 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

[3:22:27] specifications, and frankly, I'd like it to go back to preservation to get more restrictions on it to make sure that

[3:22:34] every fence, the driveway is shared, that there's no additional cutout, that there's no difference in the frontage. I

[3:22:42] 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 sightelines were hard

[3:22:50] 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

[3:22:57] whatever they do is really going to go the right way. So all I would ask of all of you is to sounds contrary, but love

[3:23:05] 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 um as far as I'm concerned, the more

[3:23:13] information, the more restrictions we can put on the better. But that's only because we want the process to be smooth. So I I really thank you all for your input.

[3:23:23] Yeah. Thank you. Uh yeah, as for me um I mean the whole process over the last few months and then even the buildup to

[3:23:30] today reading all the emails uh from all the sides and uh getting clarification from staff on the different questions

[3:23:38] that came up, listening to our different uh council member opinions and then to hear you tonight uh was very important

[3:23:46] and and you know the word wrenching has been used as one of the adjectives and that's how it feels because uh this is

[3:23:53] really a dilemma. You know, it's uh you know, there's um you know, the desire to preserve this

[3:24:01] beautiful piece of property is is you know, beautiful and wonderful and there was a a reason for um you know, why it

[3:24:08] was designated historically. Uh but the the thing that has really worked its way into tipping me to where I'm going to land is what will preserve the property.

[3:24:21] will it be holding on to, you know, the whole thing as it was designated? Um, will that preserve it? And that's the

[3:24:30] argument that we want to preserve as it was originally intended. But, you know, I keep looking at the economics and uh,

[3:24:38] you know, I fear that the house will go into disrepair and that the very thing we try to save and trying to save the

[3:24:45] land, we lose the house. And uh and I believe that there is a a a way to

[3:24:51] manage the the paradox here that both lots will preserve the historical designation. it will have, you know, lot

[3:24:59] two will have the protections um that then HPC and PDC will then be accountable for and that we do have the

[3:25:07] safeguards in place already, you know, with the certificate of appropriateness and the process that that requires plus some

[3:25:15] other things that already been put on the on the on the map about things that would be conditions uh to allow any

[3:25:22] building of anything. So I in the spirit of what I believe will be the sustainable thing for the better chance

[3:25:30] 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 you know over a million dollars

[3:25:39] into the house preserve it and until they couldn't sustain it anymore. I want to see another owner that loves that house in the same way that can keep

[3:25:46] investing. And if we can't get an owner, then that house will continue moving into disrepair. And so we lose, you

[3:25:54] know, ironically, we lose the very thing that we is the most built, which is the historic nature of the building and we

[3:26:02] open up the land to another house that can be comparable in look and and feel and spirit. And that could be part of

[3:26:10] what we ask, you know, make sure that the HBC and PDC and us, you know, hold ourselves accountable to. So, it's not the clean decision, but I think in the

[3:26:19] spirit of preservation of that particular house, um, I'm going to vote in favor of uh, you know, allowing this the division of the lot.

[3:26:29] Yes, please. I I I think, you know, I I don't believe,

[3:26:36] you know, anything um should should be built. I think it's, you know, fairly simple. HPC denied it repeatedly. Um,

[3:26:46] but I'm I'm also I guess a little confused because it seems as far as any conversation

[3:26:54] I've had, anything I heard in PDC, this is somewhat automatically

[3:27:02] allowed up to Joel, I'm using your words, up to 15,300

[3:27:09] square ft. that that's pretty much by right by zoning if this is subdivided.

[3:27:15] So we can talk about preservation, you know, as much as we want here and I'm glad, you know, everybody speaks to it,

[3:27:22] but this this is the reality. And um you know and and I again I'm going to state

[3:27:30] that there is nothing in the plan that is actually going to you know preser dividing the site doesn't preserve or

[3:27:39] help a make the the property you know the half with the house on it any more

[3:27:45] sellable uh than it was before. I I don't see any I I I I highly doubt that actually. Um but also isn't that by by

[3:27:55] right uh they can build up to sub once subdivided they can build the zoning

[3:28:02] allows up to 15,000 ft and the plan is for the zoning does allow that but there's

[3:28:10] also a certificate of appropriateness process as well which are two separate codes as we talked about earlier

[3:28:17] 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

[3:28:26] separate code that has to be met as well. In this case, this will all come back to you through a plan development

[3:28:32] amendment with the COA for your final decision on the plan development and the um the house that may be proposed.

[3:28:46] Um because previously the house, you know, that was proposed and and

[3:28:54] I I've heard that through a grape vine, I guess, or what?

[3:29:00] Well, yeah. I mean, well, but we this isn't conjecture. I it it is actual fact that the the previous house was near

[3:29:08] nearly 10,000 square feet and and one story. And there there's and Joel, I mean, I know you heard that as well, the

[3:29:16] the um you know, and and this obviously just makes it a whole lot easier to to

[3:29:23] to do that. Um it it there would still be steps, but this is by far the most um important step that we're taking. The

[3:29:31] biggest hurdle um will have been crossed.

[3:29:34] All right, council member center. Yeah, just just for clarity, I think if the applicant

[3:29:42] [clears throat] proposes a 14,000 foot home, we still need to approve that.

[3:29:48] Yes, there's guard rails that say, try again.

[3:29:53] Thank you, Council Member Bloomberg.

[3:29:55] So, um, I'm going to make a motion that hopefully will accommodate a lot of this. Um,

[3:30:03] and again, I I want to stress that the the issue with, as I hear it with the subdivision is the issue of context.

[3:30:12] 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 if the land

[3:30:20] is subdivided and something is built, the context will not be precisely what it has been. Um that is true for uh the

[3:30:29] vast majority of historically preserved landmark houses in the city of Highland Park.

[3:30:36] Um we subdivided the property of an historic house on central uh a number of years ago where the property itself was

[3:30:44] not landmark. But the argument regarding context was the principal issue that was discussed at that time of a farmhouse

[3:30:53] that used to belong to the historical society. Well, the context of that house had been lost since the eastern part of

[3:31:01] Highland Parks used to be a farm. Um, the little blue house that was referred to um that we have protected is in no

[3:31:09] 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

[3:31:19] were designed to be preserved in that house.

[3:31:22] With that being said, and wanting to preserve the sense of place that we have, I would move to permit a

[3:31:30] subdivision of the property subject to the limitations suggested by the PDC,

[3:31:37] which include most of the historic preservation restrictions except for the 80oot setback.

[3:31:44] um provided that in granting a COA, the Historic Preservation Commission may

[3:31:53] be more restrictive than that. And I think that helps set guard rails that these limitations. The the PDC has said

[3:32:02] that the home, anything that is built cannot be higher than the existing house and that it must be set back at least as

[3:32:10] far as the existing house. Am am I correct about that?

[3:32:14] Um, yeah, that that was and I think that was also consistent with what staff recommended staff had.

[3:32:19] But if the PDC if if the Historic Preservation Commission is faced with an application

[3:32:27] 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.

[3:32:38] So before anyone seconds the motion, I want to [clears throat] remind the council there's really two paths. Um the

[3:32:47] path to approval requires a continuence to a date certain and um direction to staff to put together the approval

[3:32:54] documents just because um the code doesn't allow approval of a special use permit in the nature of a plan

[3:33:02] development without an ordinance. So we'd 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

[3:33:11] those two motions. So it be an ordinance in support of Yeah.

[3:33:17] those limitations. I I would move to direct corporation council to prepare an ordinance in support of those

[3:33:25] limitations to allow a subdivision subject to those limitations. May I add one thing um council member?

[3:33:35] The one thing that um HPC also added that was not in PDC's had to do actually with the driveway. So in addition to

[3:33:43] fence and trees and uh um the raw iron uh it it's specifically said to preserve

[3:33:50] 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

[3:33:59] that would other than the 80 foot that was the only other limitation. So you would want to see that limitation. I'd like that limitation in there too. I I would agree to that.

[3:34:08] Can I can I ask for clarity on on something from council which is in that motion

[3:34:16] does that allow HPC to require for example

[3:34:25] greater than 30 foot setback because that's more ownorous than what PDC is requiring. They could as I is what I'm

[3:34:32] proposing. Now, let me add to that and correct me if I'm wrong. Corporation

[3:34:39] council, I don't think the HPC can deny something irrationally. They they

[3:34:46] have to uh consider what's put before them and they can't deny an application out of hand. So they can't say, you

[3:34:55] know, we want a setback that's for instance half the entire piece of property.

[3:35:00] Does it need to pass HPC to go to PDC or are those two separate bodies that will

[3:35:08] make their own assessments of whatever proposal is put forth to them.

[3:35:14] So my understanding of the process and Joel, let me know if I'm [clears throat] getting any of this wrong. the certificate appropriate of appropriateness passes through the HPC.

[3:35:24] Um the amendment to a planned development um and this is where I'm I'm a little

[3:35:31] bit more shaky uh would require of course PDC recommendation of approval.

[3:35:37] The original um PDC plan development process required a input required input from the um HPC.

[3:35:51] 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

[3:35:59] further whether this would have to go back before the HPC to make a recommendation to the plan uh plan and design

[3:36:07] commission or whether that's only for the initial plan development consideration.

[3:36:13] Am I am I being clear if we're amending the the plan development in the future?

[3:36:18] Um, I'm unsure of whether or not, and I can look into this, that would have to pass through the uh historic preservation for

[3:36:26] recommendation to the PDC or whether whether they've already accomplished that through their initial HPC uh recommendation.

[3:36:35] I I would guess that you would have to have the HPC here at first and then the plan development commission would

[3:36:44] determine if the existing PUD would accept those amendments. It's I I would think somewhat proforma, but the PUD

[3:36:52] process is to make sure essentially that it does not impair community standards.

[3:36:58] I would Andre, how about asking somebody who knows? So,

[3:37:02] [laughter]

[3:37:02] so, so what we had we had suggested in in in our presentation report was that

[3:37:09] the uh HPC consider the COA matter and that feed into the PDC consideration.

[3:37:16] And here's why. So, it would be a substantial um change amendment for the for the plan development because it's

[3:37:25] the addition of more than 1%. uh the the square footage is is a larger change than uh is allowed. And so by that then

[3:37:34] you have your consideration of the special use criteria associated with that including the standards that are in

[3:37:43] the plan development which include consideration of historic resources.

[3:37:47] 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

[3:37:56] COA process. The plan and design commission have the benefit of that process and and the outcome of it when considering the amendment to the plan

[3:38:04] development. I think that pretty much can cover all bases in this matter and keep it orderly.

[3:38:11] 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

[3:38:20] agreement by everybody, but not to impair the HPC from protecting the historic nature of the property as much as possible.

[3:38:29] Sure. But just a question, does that does that impair the the ability to move forward in the process from an unintended perspective?

[3:38:38] I don't know the answer to that, but I would start with that.

[3:38:43] How would you what would you like to I would prefer the the controls to be on the back end where we ultimately can

[3:38:51] push back if we're feeling like the the application did not appropriately take into consideration all the feedback

[3:39:00] we're hearing from the stakeholders involved community HPC PDC but not to restrict the process upfront

[3:39:09] here's the problem we only get it if it's an approval, right?

[3:39:13] Yeah. Well, then they should take care up front to make sure that they're putting forth a reasonable solution that they think will get approved so they're

[3:39:21] not expending resources in something that is not likely to get passed. We can always turn it down.

[3:39:28] I mean, we can turn it down if it's approved. We cannot say you shouldn't have disapproved of that.

[3:39:37] [laughter]

[3:39:38] We cannot they can't vote against something and then the applicant bring it to us in in the usual course of events at for

[3:39:46] instance the plan commission if they refuse for instance um a change to a PUD

[3:39:54] 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

[3:40:02] should rule in our favor anyway with a COA denial If I'm correct, that can't happen, is it?

[3:40:10] Yes, if I may. So, with a COA denial, the applicant can appeal.

[3:40:16] Oh, we can to the city council. Correct. Oh.

[3:40:19] So, I would 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 an

[3:40:26] approval. I'm more comfortable with what I suggested that we put on some specific guard rails, but let the Historic

[3:40:35] Preservation Commission really have the controlling hand.

[3:40:38] And then ultimately, the applicant could still say come to us, come directly to us with a plea to say that HBC was being unreasonable,

[3:40:47] etc., etc., right? They could and they could ask that we're going to be able to provide those guard rails to try to incent them

[3:40:55] Yes. to accommodate everything we're discussing. Right. Okay. Understood.

[3:41:01] 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

[3:41:07] pre-application come at the city council level to start. So that way you would see the application, be able to provide

[3:41:14] some guidance and your policy insight to the HPC and PDC before they go through that process. That's another I don't like that. I I really want Can they do that of their own accord?

[3:41:26] Even if we don't put that into an ordinance, can the applicant still say, "I'd like to have a precession." Generally, we don't. Yeah. Okay.

[3:41:37] But I wouldn't give um the applicant, I guess, that level of discretion. I would

[3:41:45] be more comfortable with that sort of thing coming from the council electing to hear this. uh initially I

[3:41:53] I don't have a strong feeling either way.

[3:41:55] It's one thing if it's on appeal, but again they're the preservationists.

[3:41:59] They're the experts on that. I agree with that.

[3:42:01] So I'd really like to see the preservationists see it first and put as many limitations as that's why we're not getting into the process.

[3:42:09] 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

[3:42:17] just reiterating again? So the motion is to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in favor of subdividing the property

[3:42:26] subject to the limitations suggested by the plan uh plan and design commission plus the driveway limitations suggest suggested by the HPC.

[3:42:38] Great.

[3:42:40] um you with those li with the authority of the historic preservation commission to be more restrictive.

[3:42:50] Council member Bloomberg, you also indicated an exception of the 80 foot setback initially.

[3:42:54] Well, the the recommendation of the setback is from the plan design commission which is less than 80 ft which is 30.

[3:43:01] So I'm taking all the recommendations from the plan design commission which include height setback except etc.

[3:43:11] And the one condition from the HPC regarding the driveway. Exactly.

[3:43:16] The other conditions that were imposed by the HPC mirror what the PDC and staff recommended, right? Regarding height and setback.

[3:43:25] Yeah, I think there's there is one or there are one or two from staff that had not been included that we might want to include.

[3:43:31] So, does 30 ft get set in doesn't get set in stone?

[3:43:35] No. the the Historic Preservation Commission and say we want the starting point of the restrictions yes are PDC plus the driveway.

[3:43:44] Yes.

[3:43:44] Allowing HPC to potentially become more preser but no the question is I do think there

[3:43:52] were a couple of things from staff and I may be wrong if and if not then we're fine with exactly what you just said but

[3:44:00] I think there were one or two from staff also. I I I tried to incorporate that, but staff also suggested a setback of at

[3:44:07] 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.

[3:44:17] You know what I mean? That was already in the plan, wasn't it?

[3:44:19] Um I thought that was a plan. It may be, but I I guess I don't know.

[3:44:23] There's Joel, can you clarify that?

[3:44:25] Can you clarify what staff's recommendations were, please?

[3:44:29] I mean, that's the only one. All right, we'll just pull back up the presentation. Just hold on.

[3:44:41] Thank you.

[3:44:44] So,

[3:44:46] [clears throat]

[3:44:47] first I can't.

[3:44:50] All right. Got to go back to the It's in the very beginning where staff adds to it. Staff recommend approval.

[3:44:59] Yeah, front yard set back of any new structure be aligned with cranial field.

[3:45:04] When I looked at it, that was and of course standard conditions for the subdivision and such that that's the only other Tony council.

[3:45:12] I I do have one one question. I just want to make sure from the council um with regard to

[3:45:20] you're talking about setbacks and you're talking about those various things being able to be um [clears throat] um

[3:45:27] more restrictive terms of the scale of the structure in the COA process. There is a standard regarding scale of

[3:45:34] structures. I just want to be clarify for the record that the scale of the home is something that the HPC is going

[3:45:42] to be looking at because as part of a zoning consideration process which which this is the F can be discussed you know

[3:45:51] so I just if you're saying not right now but we're going to hear back from the COA process and then the scale of the

[3:45:57] home is something that is is to be considered right so I was going to say number 10 under the COA process is scale of

[3:46:07] structure and it says the size and mass of the proposed new structure in relation to open spaces windows door openings porches as adjacent structures

[3:46:16] and balconies shall be visually compatible with the property, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. That's pretty broad.

[3:46:26] Yeah.

[3:46:26] And I I want the commission to have the [clears throat] discretion to employ that as they see fit. Parameters. Exactly. That's really good.

[3:46:34] That's already within their authority.

[3:46:36] So that goes to the interplay of what council member Ross was saying that there is a by zoning there's up to 15,32

[3:46:44] ft but then there's the COA process that is represented limits it right all right I think we're good

[3:46:52] so I I I do want to get some clarification on the 30 foot versus 80 foot sideyard setback the 30ft is the

[3:47:00] floor and we're saying that there's the possibility of an 80ft sideyard setback fact that the HPC may

[3:47:07] No, what what I'm saying is the council is saying there shall be at least a 30 foot sideyard setback. If the HPC is

[3:47:16] faced with a house that can be situated in a certain way and they want it to have a 70 or 80 foot setback and that

[3:47:23] can be done, they have the authority to do that. But the the initial limitation is only going to be 30 ft.

[3:47:30] Be a boat. You mean so it's it's a minimum but minimum but but but I'm I would say surely it has to be larger than that or it's really close.

[3:47:40] We'll leave it to them. Yeah. The HPC will determine that.

[3:47:44] Yeah. They have the authority to do. I I Let's just move on. Yes.

[3:47:48] We need a second if if we Are you clear, Marcus? Because you got to draft this. Yeah. Second.

[3:47:55] All right. Okay. Okay. We call the vote.

[3:48:00] Council member Center, I.

[3:48:02] Council member Buckman, I.

[3:48:03] Council member Ross, nay.

[3:48:06] Council member Little, I.

[3:48:09] Council member Bloomberg, hi. Presiding officer Tapia.

[3:48:13] I uh 6 to one. Uh the Oh, 5 to1. Sorry, I'm used to seven. [laughter] 5 to one. The motion passes.

[3:48:22] So, we do also need a motion to continue this to a date certain. How much time do you need?

[3:48:29] How much time do you guys want to give me?

[3:48:32] Go to the next one. I think September meeting, right?

[3:48:34] Yeah. September 17th, I believe, is our next meeting. September 17th. Motion to continue. I'm sorry. September 14th. Motion to continue to September 14th.

[3:48:43] Second.

[3:48:46] All right. Call the vote. Council member. Council member Buckman. Hi. Council member Ross.

[3:48:52] Do you want to continue it?

[3:48:56] I'll come back. I'll come back. Council member Little. I council member Bloomberg.

[3:49:00] Hi, Council Member Rost.

[3:49:01] I I mean just continuing it right there, right? Presiding officer Tapia.

[3:49:06] I Okay. 7 6 The continuence passes.

[3:49:12] All right. Okay. So, we're going to u I need a motion to close our city council meeting. So, second.

[3:49:20] Okay. All in favor? I I If that's a German. Yeah.