Plan and Design Commission

1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION 3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 4 5 6 MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 7 p.m., Acting Chair Nanus called the meeting to order. Staff was asked to call the roll. 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 Commissioners Present: Acting (Vice) Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 15 16 Commissioner Absent: Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner & Moore 17 18 Councilmember Present: Ross 19 20 Student Council Present: Pielet 21 22 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 23 24 Guests Present: Cal Bernstein, Attorney/Samuels & Bernstein 25 Michael Ezgur, Attorney/Acosta Ezgur, LLC 26 David Goldman, Founder/Structa LLC 27 Jeff Goulette, Founding Partner & Design Principal/SGW Architecture & Design 28 29 Staff Present: Fontane, Burhop, Hoffmann, & Markle 30 31 Others Present: Marcus Martinez, Corporation Counsel/Elrod Friedman LLP 32 Gale Cerabona/Recorder 33 34 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35 Regular Meeting of the Plan and Design Commission – April 7, 2026 36 37 Commissioner Henry moved to approve the April 7, 2026, PDC regular meeting minutes. Commissioner 38 Ihnchak seconded the motion. 39 40 On a voice vote 41 Voting Yea Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 42 Voting Nay: None 43 Abstain: Acting Chair Nanus 44 45 Acting Chair Nanus declared that the motion passed 3-0. 46 47 Corporation Counsel Martinez advised for any approvals, 3 of 4 Commissioners must be in favor. 48 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 1  1 SCHEDULED BUSINESS 2 1. PUD-2025-00081 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final Planned Development 3 with Modifications from City Code; and a Plat of Re-Subdivision, with Variances from City Code (147 Central 4 Avenue) 5 6 Councilperson Ross reminded she lives across the street form 147 Central Avenue. She will be fair and has 7 checked with Corporation Counsel & City Manager, Ghida Neukirch. 8 9 Planner Hoffmann reviewed the proposal: 10 • Recommendation 11 • Project Summary 12 • Aerial View was shown 13 o create 2 lots 14 • Planned Development 15 o landmarked 16 • Public Benefit 17 o $2,500 donation 18 • Proposal 19 o Lot 1 & Lot 2 20 • Heritage trees on Lot 2 21 • Review 22 • Public Comment 23 o 3 public comments (1 piece of correspondence was distributed) 24 • City Comments 25 o Forestry will review 26 o Engineering provided comments of Lot 2 27 • Recommendation 28 o Applicant submitted edits and has asked for a continuance 29 30 Corporation Counsel Martinez stated this is regarding the PUD & Plat of Subdivision. This is an Application as 31 presented (no structures proposed at this time). 32 33 Planner Markle offered a presentation from the HPC: 34 • HPC Written Recommendation & Report 35 • HPC Consideration Required 36 • 147 Central Avenue Landmark Status 37 • Prior HPD Consideration – January 8, 2026 38 o HPC voted to deny the PUD 39 o Continued to February, March, then April, 2026 40 o HPC unanimously still recommends denial 41 • Historic Resource Standard 42 • Previous Landmark Removal Consideration (Concurrent Application) 43 o HPC doesn’t recommend landmark removal 44 o Lot 2 meets criteria 45 o a structure on Lot 2 requires a Certificate of Appropriateness/COA 46 o Lot 2 meets Integrity of Design 47 • Cornelius Field House Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 2  1 o second Mayor of Highland Park lived there; President of Highland Park Building Company 2 o is on Lot 1 3 o Gardener’s Cottage, Historic Greenhouse (remnants) 4 o new driveway 5 o Lot 2 (wooded area, ravine, trees, driveway) 6 o Lots 1&2 7 ▪ historic wrought-iron fence 8 ▪ historic gatepost (on City right-of-way) 9 ▪ fence was restored 10 • HPC Findings 11 o fence would be damaged with newly-constructed driveway 12 o HPC is opposed to damaging existing driveway 13 o would damage estate setting 14 • HPC Recommendations 15 o denial 16 o Conditions if approved 17 ▪ Site Plan was illustrated & explained 18 19 Some PDC comments are….. 20 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked: 21 o where the 80’ setback would be. Planner Markle said – to the proposed lot line. 22 o what the potential maximum would be if building on Lot 2. Director Fontane reminded there 23 is no proposed structure on Lot 2. Planner Hoffmann identified the Plat of Subdivision and 24 explained required setbacks, buildable area. 25 • Acting Chair Nanus asked: 26 o what the square footage of the buildable area is. Senior Planner Burhop and Planner Markle 27 will review. 28 o if only a single-family home can be placed. Planner Hoffmann said yes. 29 • Commissioner Mantis asked, regarding the estate setting, if landscaping is included. Planner Markle 30 said it’s just the estate setting. She expounded (on 1980 landscape survey, etc.). Out buildings, etc. 31 on the National Register were mentioned. 32 • Acting Chair Nanus asked: 33 o about the carriages. Planner Markle said, presumably, they would go around the house. 34 35 Senior Planner Burhop provided information about the FAR. If approved on Lot 2, 15,352 square 36 feet would be the buildable area not withstanding trees. Planner Hoffmann said it would be 32’ 37 in height; average grade. 38 39 o if there is a legal definition that deems an estate. Planner Markle said no. Director Fontane 40 noted the historic setting and whole landmarking is important. 41 42 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked what the home would be (with setback included) if 80’ is included. 43 Senior Planner Burhop said something could be built. Planner Hoffmann said the existing home has 44 5,000 square feet of livable area. Lot width is 258’. Buildable area would be 170’ with an 80’ setback. 45 46 Mr. Cal Bernstein said, due to the size, historic preservation is relevant. They are seeking 2 lots. The 4 acres 47 is triggering the PUD. There was confusion as to what was landmarked. The house was all that was discussed Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 3  1 in the ordinance as well as Stupey Log Cabin. The City extended landmarking to the whole property (which 2 included Lot 2). A COA was subsequently requested. All historic elements were noted on Lot 1. Based on the 3 HPC’s determination, anything that’s built would have to be presented to the HPC with a COA process. This 4 proposal is not seeking to remove anything on Lot 1. They are seeking to build on Lot 2 (two 2-acre 5 properties). The real estate taxes are $80,000 not including the care of the property, etc.; purchasing of this 6 house is limited. If subdivided, Lot 1 would have a lower tax bill (and increase purchase options). This has 7 been on the market for 1 year. This could be a problematic property in Highland Park. 8 9 He gave history on the overlay zone; limits density. Both proposed lots are double the size in this overlay 10 zone; consistent with the Lakefront Strategic Plan and the City’s Master Plan. It was not a surprise that the 11 HPC is not in favor of a subdivision. Many of the HPC’s conditions are acceptable (fence, gateposts 12 remaining). There is a challenge with 1 driveway serving 2 houses. They would propose a 20’ setback along 13 the west side along the Field House and 12’ in the rear. There’s a significant drop-off between Lot 1 & Lot 2; 14 grade change. There are a lot of factors to consider regarding height. The Heritage trees would not be 15 removed. 16 17 A Public Benefit is not required. They want to preserve what is there. There is a large empty lot. A donation 18 of $2,500 would go to historic preservation. 19 20 This proposal would fit the neighborhood. The landmark would not be touched. This meets all the standards 21 except the 4 acres. This looks at practicality. There are no landmark structures on Lot 2. Mr. Bernstein noted 22 prospective buyers are present. 23 24 Commissioner Mantis asked why a driveway is being requested for a new home on Lot 2 that meets 14 25 standards. Mr. Bernstein said the driveway is for Lot 1. 26 27 Acting Chair Nanus asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. He swore in the following: 28 • Ms. Kelsey Gonzalez advised she lives across the street. She noted the HPC recommended denial 29 regarding the entire estate setting. This has status. Conditions change the character. Once it’s 30 destroyed, it can’t come back. Ms. Gonzalez doesn’t know how this could be delandmarked. Director 31 Fontane stated the HPC’s position is not binding. City Council has the final say. 32 • Tom Corning lives 1 block away. He commends the Staff for its presentation. He has the same 33 position. His wish, if allowed, is that the construction be respectful regarding architecture; property 34 should be honored. A contemporary home next to this is unacceptable. Mr. Corning is sympathetic 35 to the Applicant’s economic burden. If subdivided, he would like to see the HPC Conditions imposed; 36 should be complementary. Director Fontane reminded the PDC of its purview. Lot 2 is still 37 landmarked whether the PDC is in favor of subdividing or not. Applicable standards (14) could apply. 38 39 Councilperson Ross said, as indicated before, the owners of a 6-7,000 square-foot house on a 1-acre 40 property on this block pay $80,000 in taxes due to improvements not lot size. 41 42 More PDC comments are….. 43 • Commissioner Henry clarified, and Director Fontane verified if anything is built on Lot 2, that would 44 have to be presented. There is no home proposed. 45 • Commissioner Ihnchak said the 1985 structure was landmarked rather than the estate. She asked for 46 further clarification. Director Fontane said City Staff believes the entire estate is landmarked. De- 47 landmarking Lot 2 was denied (by the HPC who has the final authority). Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 4  1 2 Director Fontane said amendments, by the Petitioner, have not yet been reviewed by Staff. 3 4 Mr. Bernsein said they are willing to continue this matter. He would like to learn the PDC’s position on what 5 the HPC provided. Director Fontane identified the dates of May 5 or June 2, 2026, for a continuance. 6 7 Mr. Bernstein encourages the 3 Commissioners who aren’t present to review tonight’s video. 8 9 Commissioner Henry said this is complex. An owner has a right to do what he/she would like on his/her 10 property. The HPC doesn’t see things like the PDC does. This is troubling. The PDC’s job is different. He is 11 comforted that both lots are landmarked. 12 13 Commissioner Henry moved to continue this matter to the May 5, 2026, PDC meeting. He stated notice is 14 actual. Commissioner Mantis seconded the motion. 15 16 On a roll call vote 17 Voting Yea Acting Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 18 Voting Nay: None 19 20 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously, there would be no notice, and the next 21 meeting would take place at City Hall in Highland Park, at 7 p.m. 22 23 2. PUD-2026-00083 & PUD-2026-00084 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone from RM1A to RO, a 24 Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Concurrent Preliminary and Final Planned Development, and Design 25 Review, with Modifications & Variations from City Code, for Multiple-Family Developments (1696-1704 26 McGovern St. & 793 Laurel Avenue) 27 28 Senior Planner Burhop said there are multiple requests; 1 project. Corporation Counsel Martinez concurred 29 there are 2 applications. 30 31 Planner Hoffmann reviewed the proposal: 32 • Project Summary 33 o 20-unit development on McGovern, 6 stories 34 o 14-unit development on Laurel, 5 stories 35 • Rezoning, Zoning, & Design Review Summary 36 • Existing Conditions 37 o vacant church and classroom wing 38 o vacant church and residents’ lot 39 • Property Photos 40 o grade change; McGovern sits higher 41 o Senior Planner Burhop expounded on heights and elevations 42 • Neighborhood Context 43 • PUD Request 44 o 1 zoning lot 45 • All Elevations were shown 46 • Zoning Analysis – Setbacks 1696 McGovern Street 47 o south and east; 2 frontages Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 5  1 o corner lot; 2 side-yard requirements 2 • Zoning Analysis – Setbacks 793 Laurel Avenue 3 o south, west, and north 4 • Site Plans were displayed 5 • Zoning Analysis – Article 23 6 • Zoning Analysis 7 o height 8 o lot coverage 9 o lot area and density 10 • Parking 11 o garages 12 • Off-Street Parking & Loading 13 • Zoning Analysis – Height & Coverage Exhibit 14 o comparables (provided by Applicant) 15 • Landscaping (some areas may not get sunlight) 16 • Materials 17 • Renderings 18 • Public Benefit 19 o bury utility lines, etc. 20 • Design Review 21 • Housing Commission/HC Review 22 • Other Comments 23 o Traffic-Impact Study 24 o Interdepartmental Comments 25 o Public Comments 26 • Recommendation 27 28 Some PDC comments are….. 29 • Commissioner Henry: 30 o said the buildings are not connected; unify zoning. Planner Hoffmann concurred. Amenities 31 will be shared. 32 o asked if the alley has public parking. Planner Hoffmann said it is private. Director Fontane 33 noted the alley is important for fire, safety, general traffic, etc. He noted other buildings’ 34 residents access this alley. This is 1 zoning lot; 1 development agreement. 35 • Commissioner Mantis: 36 o asked what the average unit size is. Planner Hoffmann said 1,700 square feet. 37 o said the zoning change is for height not density; gateway site; more dense. Planner 38 Hoffmann said 34 units are proposed; with the zoning change, 53 units could be there 39 (base). 40 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked how this fits in regarding height and context. Planner Hoffmann 41 referenced other properties that received height variations. The Laurel site is 64’; average grade. He 42 illustrated a step map provided by the Petitioner. 43 44 Acting Chair Nanus swore in Mr. Ezgur who introduced his team, and noted they met with Staff 1 year ago. 45 He noted this proposal was revised. A presentation followed: 46 • Process Timeline 47 • Site Plan Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 6  1 o grade conditions 2 • Height Comparisons were shown 3 • Contextual Photos were illustrated 4 • Aerial View was displayed 5 • Site Plan was shown 6 • Modifications were identified 7 o meet and exceed standards 8 o 2 step backs 9 o combined Applications; 1 development 10 11 Acting Chair Nanus swore in Mr. Goldman who said they are not seeking to vacate the alley. He touched on 12 5 stories vs. 6 stories. The average unit size is 2,000 square feet. Regarding the Public Benefit, they will 13 extend the paved surface. They are working with Com Ed regarding transformers, relocating equipment, etc. 14 15 Acting Chair Nanus swore in Mr. Goulette who noted height on stepbacks, increased green space, etc. 16 17 Councilperson Ross said it’s helpful to have context which wasn’t in the packet. She asked about a green 18 roof and how to access it. Mr. Goldman said the renderings, etc. were included. He stated the green roof is 19 for storm-water management. There is a roof hatch atop stairs. There is no access for residents. 20 21 Mr. Ezgur discussed materials. 22 23 Acting Chair Nanus asked: 24 • why 1 building has a green roof and the other doesn’t. Mr. Goldman said it’s due to lot size and 25 requirements for detention. 26 • if it was considered to acquire another property. Mr. Goldman said they had discussions and are not 27 acquiring that property. Director Fontane noted mechanical equipment is yet to be determined. 28 29 Acting Chair Nanus asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. He swore in the following: 30 • Mr. Peter (son) and Anne (mother) Mordini said this is a residential neighborhood. The citizens 31 never receive relief. Air-conditioning units are loud. There are impacts when buildings are close. 32 They suffered from the Albion development. There is a gigantic wall feet from their windows. His 33 parents spent time making a garden that residents see. Mr. Mordini wants relief and tiering. When 34 light and air is blocked, there are impacts. He would like to see depictions. Their home is cut-off 35 from the plan. Director Fontane referenced Page 219. Senior Planner Burhop illustrated same. 36 37 Some PDC comments are….. 38 • Commissioner Mantis said: 39 o regarding units per acre of other developments, breaking these into smaller units that are 40 more attainable/affordable is desirable. Mr. Goldman said these are for sale, not rental 41 units. 42 o 2 and 3-bedrooms could be 1,400-1,500 square feet. 43 o he prefers a higher unit count with more units. 44 • Commissioner Ihnchak concurred. She appreciates the sculpting; though, is concerned about the 45 bulk. It feels high on this street. 46 • Commissioner Henry said this could be going from mid-density to high-density. 47 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 7  1 Acting Chair Nanus swore in another audience member: 2 • Ted Pickus, Realtor for @Properties, said the reality is people are coming from a large home, and 3 they need space when they downsize; there is a need. Homeowners have children, caregivers 4 staying with them. Director Fontane reminded the inclusionary housing plan hasn’t been received 5 yet. Acting Chair Nanus wants to be sure all of the developments are in the traffic study. Mr. 6 Goldman said they are included. 7 8 Commissioner Mantis moved to continue this matter to the June 16, 2026, PDC meeting. Commissioner 9 Henry seconded the motion. 10 11 On a roll call vote 12 Voting Yea Acting Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 13 Voting Nay: None 14 15 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously, there would be no notice, and the next 16 meeting would take place at City Hall in Highland Park, at 7 p.m. 17 18 OTHER BUSINESS 19 1. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update 20 There were no updates. 21 22 2. Next Regular Meeting – May 5, 2026 23 The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2026. 24 25 3. Case Briefing 26 There was no Case Briefing. 27 28 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 29 There was no Business from the Public. 30 31 ADJOURNMENT 32 Commissioner Henry moved to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Ihnchak seconded the motion. 33 34 On a voice vote 35 Voting Yea Acting Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 36 Voting Nay: None 37 38 Acting Chair Nanus declared that the motion passed unanimously. 39 40 Respectfully Submitted, 41 42 43 Gale Cerabona 44 Recorder 45 46 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 7, 2026, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. 47 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 8