Plan and Design Commission

PUBLIC NOTICE In accordance with the statutes of the State of Illinois and the ordinances of the City of Highland Park, the next regular meeting of the Plan & Design Commission of the City of Highland Park is scheduled to be held at the hour of 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at City Hall, 1707 St Johns Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois. Individuals with questions or feedback about an agenda item may email Karl Burhop, Senior Planner, with the Community Development Department, at kburhop@cityhpil.com. All emails and comments submitted for the Commission will be made public. The City, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe or participate in this hearing, or who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting facilities, contact the City’s ADA coordinator Emily Taub at etaub@cityhpil.com or 847.926.1005. The City encourages individuals to sign-up for its eNews for important information from the City and its government partners. The City updates its web site daily and also posts on social media daily. To sign-up for the eNews, visit www.cityhpil.com. At the meeting, it is anticipated that there will be a discussion of the following items: City of Highland Park Regular Meeting of the Plan and Design Commission Highland Park City Hall, 1707 St Johns Avenue January 6, 2026 7:00 P.M. MEETING AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes a. Consideration of Plan and Design Commission Minutes i. Regular Meeting on Dec. 16, 2025 IV. Scheduled Business a. Public Hearing #PUD-2025-00081 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Planned Development with Modifications from City Code; and a Plat of Re-Subdivision, with Variances from City Code (147 Central Ave.) V. Other Business a. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update b. Next Meeting – Jan. 20, 2026, A Regular Meeting at City Hall c. Case Briefing VI. Business from the Public VII. Adjournment Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 31  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, December 16, 2025 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 7:04 p.m., Chairperson Moore called the meeting to order. Staff was asked to call the roll. 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Moore; Commissioners, Henry, Ihnchak, Kerch, Mantis & Nanus 15 16 Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Fettner 17 18 Councilmember Absent: Ross 19 20 Student Council Absent: Fallas 21 22 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 23 24 Guests Present: Cal Bernstein, Attorney/Samuels & Bernstein 25 Nate Kipnis, Architect/ Kipnis Architecture & Planning 26 27 Staff Present: Fontane & Burhop 28 29 Others Present: Marcus Martinez, Corporation Counsel/Elrod Friedman LLP 30 31 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 Regular Meeting of the Plan and Design Commission – November 4, 2025 33 34 Commissioner Mantis moved to approve the November 4, 2025, PDC regular meeting minutes. 35 Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. 36 37 On a voice vote 38 Voting Yea Chairperson Moore; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, Kerch, Mantis & Nanus 39 Voting Nay: None 40 41 Chairperson Moore declared that the motion passed unanimously. 42 43 SCHEDULED BUSINESS 44 1. Public Hearing #PUD-2025-00079 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Final Planned Development, 45 with Modifications from City Code; and Design Review and Final Plat of Consolidation, with Variances from 46 City Code (734 Central Avenue) 47 Senior Planner Burhop reviewed the proposal: 48 • Recommendation Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 1 Page 2 of 31  1 • Project 2 o 11 residential units, 6 stories 3 o 1st floor parking garage 4 o 2nd-5th floors are residential 5 o 6th floor offers roof access and structures 6 o 1 inclusionary housing unit 7 • Background 8 o February 4, March 18, and April 15, 2025 – PDC recommended approval on April 15, 2025 9 o May 12 & 27, 2025 – City Council gave Preliminary Approval on May 27, 2025 10 • Changes 11 • Site Plans – May, 2025, & in December, 2025, shrubs were added 12 • Rooftop – May, 2025, & in December, 2025, 2 residential-penthouse units were expanded 13 • Elevations were compared from May to December, 2025 14 • Materials were discussed 15 • Other items (exterior lighting, etc.) 16 • Modifications (bulk on 6th floor) 17 • Public Benefit (cash donation of $15,000 toward downtown streetscape improvement fund) 18 • Parking Reduction Request (20 proposed vs. 19 per code) 19 • Inclusionary Zoning (includes $148, 320 payment-in-lieu; Housing Commission/HC approved) 20 • Recommendation (Findings of Fact included; Conditions Recommended) 21 22 Some PDC comments are….. 23 • Commissioner Mantis asked if additional bulk on the 6th story is considered additional relief. Senior 24 Planner Burhop concurred, and said this triggered a public hearing as larger structures are on the 6th 25 floor. He noted the applicant submitted updated renderings which were displayed and explained 26 along with materials. 27 • Chairperson Moore asked: 28 o if dimensions for the 6th floor were included. Senior Planner Burhop stated they were not. 29 o how the PDC/Staff would know if that would change between what’s approved until what’s 30 actually built. Senior Planner Burhop said Staff requested square-foot dimensions. More 31 detailed dimensions are on the various plans; percentage of increase has not been stated. 32 33 Chairperson Moore swore in Petitioners Cal Bernstein, Attorney with Samuels & Bernstein, & Nate Kipnis, 34 Architect with Kipnis Architecture & Planning. 35 36 Mr. Bernstein noted they are here to discuss the additional bulk on the 6th floor. Otherwise, the plan 37 essentially conforms. He offered context to the height relief and reminded this property is zoned in the B45 38 district which allows 5 stories. As a result of the lot being undersized, the B44 height requirements applied 39 which only allowed for 4 stories. City Council and the PDC approved the 5th story in May, 2025. After 40 reviewing engineering issues, this facilitated additional relief for the 6th story. 41 42 Mr. Kipnis explained the 11 items on the 6th story (rooftop mechanical units won’t be visible, there’s 43 accessibility/option for an elevator from the 5th to 6th floor rooftop, etc.). There is 1 handicapped-accessible 44 parking space; 1 space was omitted in the parking garage. Brick pavers will be installed on the sidewalk. 45 There are 13 spaces in the garage for bicycle parking. 46 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 2 Page 3 of 31  1 He stated originally there was stair access to the rooftop. Evolution of the plans facilitated 2 small rooms up 2 there (accommodating mechanicals and a closet). Trellises are placed on those decks. 3 4 Director Fontane: 5 • asked if the rooms on the 6th floor have a sufficient area for an elevator and staircase. Mr. Kipnis said 6 yes and will submit drawings to Senior Planner Burhop. He said the usable area is the size of a den 7 in a house (medium-size). 8 • said they want the pavers along Central & McGovern Avenues to complement and mirror what’s 9 across the street at McGovern House. Senior Planner Burhop noted he sent a link about pavers to 10 the Applicant today, so they haven’t had a chance to review that yet. He referenced Page 21 and 11 shared the design guidelines for pavers. 12 13 Mr. Kipnis continued and identified a change on the exterior of the renderings. He highlighted the corner 14 balconies with the glass railings and stated, capping that is a metal roof structure (metal band with white 15 underneath). Before that was the cornice/limestone that visually didn’t make sense. The only change on the 16 exterior is the upper canopy over the upper deck on each of the 3 sides. Lighting remains as approved; 17 nighttime rendering shows that well. Landscaping is the same with the addition of hydrangeas on the west 18 side. There will not be above-grade utilities. Everything is buried. 19 20 More PDC comments are….. 21 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked if the spaces on the roof are accessible to all residents. Mr. Kipnis said 22 these are only accessible to penthouse residents. If it were accessible to all, an elevator would be 23 required. In the event of a fire, the common stair that goes up could be used. 24 • Commissioner Nanus asked to identify where the bicycle parking is. Mr. Kipnis illustrated same. 25 • Chairperson Moore asked if that particular storage area also serves as extra storage for residential 26 units or only for bikes. Mr. Kipnis identified individual storage lockers and bike spaces. 27 • Commissioner Kerch said the added bulk created a larger variance which should be offset by a larger 28 public benefit. Chairperson Moore concurred. His suggestion is the brick pavers as an additional 29 public benefit. Chairperson Moore added that would be on the full sidewalk to match the full 30 sidewalk at McGovern House across the street. Director Fontane said the public benefit depends on 31 the impact of the relief. The technical change on the 6th story is larger but not actually visible. 32 33 Mr. Berstein stated the additional bulk cannot be seen from the street. However, they are fine with 34 placing additional pavers along Central Avenue to match what’s at McGovern House. That would be 35 offered as an additional public benefit. 36 37 Mr. Kipnis identified there is brick on the sidewalk and illustrated where that stops at McGovern 38 House. 39 40 Director Fontane and Chairperson Moore recommended stopping the brick at the same point on this 41 project as well. 42 43 • Commissioner Mantis has discomfort with the additional bulk. He wasn’t crazy about it when first 44 proposed. Originally it was proposed the elevator would go all the way up, and only the 5th floor 45 residents would have access. It was lowered to cap out below the parapet. Now that there is 46 additional bulk on the 6th floor, it’s a lot of relief. He is unsure if he is comfortable with more brick 47 pavers. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 3 Page 4 of 31  1 2 Chairperson Moore said the bulk can’t be seen on the roof; however, it’s there and is a step beyond 3 already-approved relief which doesn’t make some Commissioners feel comfortable. 4 5 Director Fontane stated brick pavers have always been required for this project; City standards. 6 Guidance can be provided to the Applicant. Pavers are desired and a Public Benefit. 7 8 Mr. Kipnis gave the percentage of the additional square footage on the 6th floor which is 687.7 square 9 feet in total for outside dimensions. The square footage of stairs for each unit was 125-150 square 10 feet. That equates to 400 extra square feet (200 per unit). 11 12 Chairperson Moore asked if this is increased roughly by 200%. Mr. Kipnis said the usable square feet 13 in those rooms is not that large as there are mechanicals and a closet. 14 15 Mr. Bernstein said the additional space in the penthouse is for ADA accessibility. Mr. Kipnis said 16 before there were just stairs going up. Mr. Bernstein reminded that is not all usable space. He said, 17 due to the additional relief, they would increase the Public Benefit from $15,000 to $20,000 as the 18 brick pavers were a requirement all along. 19 20 • Commissioner Mantis asked where the mechanicals were in the original plan. Mr. Kipnis said on the 21 5th floor and perhaps on the 6th floor. Senior Planner Burhop said the interior mechanicals are not 22 shown on the original plan. 23 24 Mr. Kipnis advised there were no mechanicals in the doghouses. Every mechanical system has 25 condensers which are all on the roof (there’s a set toward the front and a set toward the back). 26 Actual furnaces are in the units. In the duplexes, they are on the 5th floor and in the additional small 27 room on the 6th floor (mini splits). 28 29 Director Fontane reminded the equipment is screened by the parapet. Per code, sound cannot be an 30 issue up there. He suggested around those units a low-level screening wall be placed for sound 31 mitigation. Mr. Kipnis believes that is slated. 32 33 Chairperson Moore verified this is on the Conditions’ list. Senior Planner Burhop said the bicycle 34 Condition is already contained in the Findings of Fact. Brick pavers are included in the design 35 guidelines but should still be a Condition noted on the plans. He added the increase in Public Benefit 36 on the Conditions. 37 38 • Commissioner Henry discussed the Condition for the screening of rooftop mechanicals. 39 • Chairperson Moore verified the rooftop square-foot increase is 266%. She asked if there is an 40 additional closet besides the one that can be repurposed as an elevator. Mr. Kipnis illustrated the 41 closets where mechanical equipment is and the elevator box for each penthouse unit. 42 43 Commissioner Kerch moved to adopt the Findings of Fact recommending approval for a Special Use Permit 44 in the Nature of a Final Plat Development for a Multi-Family Development at 734 Central Avenue including 45 Modifications to City Code and a Final Plat of Resubdivision with 3 Conditions: 46 *that the Petitioner demonstrate the rooftop mechanical equipment be screened behind the parapet and 47 provide acoustical screening to comply with Article 6 performance standards. 48 *depict brick-paver sidewalks as required for the downtown streetscape program on an updated plan. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 4 Page 5 of 31  1 *a Public Benefit of $20,000 to the downtown streetscape improvement fund. 2 3 Commissioner Ihnchak seconded the motion. 4 5 Commissioner Mantis doesn’t think $20,000 is adequate for the increased relief; something larger is 6 appropriate like double the amount (from $15,000 to $30,000) since twice the amount of square footage is 7 requested for relief. 8 9 Director Fontane noted the volume of the height relief is the increased request – not the height. 10 Chairperson Moore reminded the extra bulk is not visible from the street. 11 12 Mr. Bernstein said, upon further review and to move this forward, they are willing to increase the Public 13 Benefit to $25,000. 14 15 Director Fontane read the standard for the triggered relief. 16 17 Commissioner Kerch amended his motion to strike the $20,000 Public Benefit and note an increase to 18 $25,000 for a Public Benefit. 19 20 Commissioner Ihnchak accepted the Amendment. 21 22 On a roll call vote 23 Voting Yea Chairperson Moore; Commissioners Ihnchak, Kerch, Mantis, & Nanus 24 Voting Nay: Commissioner Henry 25 26 Chairperson Moore raised concern about setting a precedent for a large amount of variations/relief. 27 28 Corporation Counsel Martinez noted each parcel is unique, so there is no precedent. What works for one 29 parcel doesn’t necessarily justify granting that on another parcel. 30 31 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed 5-1. 32 33 Commissioner Henry concurred with Corporation Counsel Martinez; though, expressed 34 attorneys/petitioners will remember what is granted to leverage a possible future case. 35 36 Director Fontane said similar parcels should be treated similarly in the same zoning district. While each 37 project should be considered on its own merits and context, what must be looked at are the particular facts 38 of the parcel in question. Staff does its best to advise Commissions. 39 40 Mr. Bernstein thanked everyone for their careful consideration tonight. He doesn’t often bring up other 41 projects when presenting. He doesn’t believe there’s a danger of that happening. There are a lot of unique 42 properties which create unique situations in Highland Park. 43 44 Commissioner Kerch said this is a good-looking project on a difficult site. It will be a good addition to 45 Highland Park. 46 47 Commissioner Kerch moved to approve the Design Review for 734 Central Avenue. Commissioner Nanus 48 seconded the motion. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 5 Page 6 of 31  1 2 On a roll call vote 3 Voting Yea Chairperson Moore; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, Kerch, Mantis, & Nanus 4 Voting Nay: None 5 6 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously. 7 8 OTHER BUSINESS 9 1. Approving an Amended Resolution Setting The Schedule Of Regular Meetings Of The Plan And 10 Design Commission Of The City Of Highland Park for 2026 11 Senior Planner Burhop noted there was updated law from the State that there can’t be a 12 municipal/government meeting when there’s an election. 13 14 Commissioner Henry moved to adopt a State-Compliant Meeting Resolution. Commissioner Mantis 15 seconded the motion. 16 17 On a voice vote 18 Voting Yea Chairperson Moore; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, Kerch, Mantis, & Nanus 19 Voting Nay: None 20 21 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously. 22 23 2. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update 24 There were no updates. 25 26 3. Next Regular Meeting – January 6, 2026 27 The next regular meeting will be January 6, 2026, in City Hall at 7 p.m. 28 29 4. Case Briefing 30 Director Fontane noted City Council approved/adopted: 31 • The Walton project. The Public Benefit was increased to $25,000 to the Place of Remembrance. 32 • a minor lighting Amendment at Park Sheridan, 1950 Sheridan Road. 33 • a Special Use Permit for a PUD at 932-942 Deerfield Road 34 • the KIA dealership at 250 Skokie Valley Road 35 • the Mayor’s appointment Schedule for Boards & Commissions. He noted Vice Chair Kerch will 36 become Chair & Commissioner Nanus will become Vice Chair of the PDC on January 1, 2026. 37 38 Chairperson Moore welcomed the two PDC Commissioners into their new roles. She looks forward to 39 working together as she will remain on the PDC. 40 41 Director Fontane said he appreciates Chairperson Moore’s chairmanship and really enjoyed working with 42 her in the role of Chair and looks forward to working together in the role of Commissioner again. He 43 welcomed Commissioners Kerch & Nanus to Chair & Vice Chair, respectively. 44 45 Commissioner Kerch said he enjoys the people on the PDC, and he’s learned so much even when he is 46 persuaded. 47 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 6 Page 7 of 31  1 Director Fontane advised Commissioner Fettner was reappointed to a new term with the PDC. 2 3 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 4 There was no Business from the Public. 5 6 Senior Planner Burhop noted there may be a Special Meeting on January 13, 2026. 7 8 ADJOURNMENT 9 Commissioner Kerch moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Commissioner Henry seconded the motion. 10 11 On a voice vote 12 Voting Yea Chairperson Moore; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, Kerch, Mantis & Nanus 13 Voting Nay: None 14 15 Chairperson Moore declared that the motion passed unanimously. 16 17 Respectfully Submitted, 18 19 20 Gale Cerabona 21 Recorder 22 23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 4, 2025, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes December 16, 2025 - Page 7 Page 8 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION DATE REFERRED: For the January 6, 2026 Plan and Design Commission (“Commission ”) ORIGINATED BY: Community Development SUBJECT: Consideration of a Planned Development and Plat of Subdivision with Variations for 147 Central Ave. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Commission consider the proposed Final Planned Development (“PUD”) and Plat of Re-Subdivision with one requested subdivision variation. The proposed plat of subdivision is attached as Attachment 4. SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATION: The property owner is the following: • Atied Associates, LLC and Gale Rothner, as trustee, Greg Moyer authorized representative The Petitioner: • Greg Moyer The Subject Property is the following: • 147 Central Avenue • The property is currently one buildable lot, Page 1 of 7 Page 9 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION • Two buildable lots are proposed (two separate and independent legal lots of record). • The Subdivision proposes to split the current property into two buildable lots. Proposed Re-subdivision. • The proposed two lots will each meet the minimum lot area, lot depth, and lot width requirements of both the R4 Low to Moderate Density Residential District and Lake Front Density & Character Overlay Zone (LFOZ). • The proposed two lots will each meet the established property width average per Section 151.004(A)(6). • The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 will require a variation to the lot shape requirement, Section 151.004(A)(1), for creating a lot with more than 4 sides. Lot 1 will have roughly 6 sides and Lot 2 will have roughly 4 sides, however the lots follow the shape of the ravine creating additional sides requiring a variation request. Also, the lots do not meet at right angles and the existing lot has more than 4 sides. Page 2 of 7 Page 10 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION • Other comments: o The applicant plans on creating a new driveway entrance removing one of the street trees along Central Ave. Please see Forestry comments for further information on tree removal. Staff provided comments to use the existing driveway as a shared driveway in order to maintain the existing street trees. o There is an existing walkway that will cross over the lot line necessitating a variation request or must be removed prior to the creation of the subdivision. o Applicant to respond on whether they plan on burying utilities lines as required per Section 150.008(B)(7). Section 151.004 Minimum Design Standards Standard Requirement Proposed Notes lot shape 4 sides Over 4 Sub. Variation lot depth 125' ~320 complies zoning density LFOZ 40,000 sq. ft. 89,204 SF & 89,312 SF complies zoning width LFOZ 100' 162' & 180' complies creation of nonconformities none allowed sidewalk Sub. Variation & Condition of Approval tableland 20% or more complies complies frontage on a public street frontage required Central & Park complies established property width average average width of block 121' complies streets and alleys and pedesterian ways ROW dedication not required in review other public access use areas and facilities no comments from PW in review utility and drainage easements new lots proposed easements proposed in review lot-in-depth standards not applicable not applicable noted Other Review Notes: flood plain none no flood plain on property noted required infrastructure improvements none noted The PDC is considering the application because the size of the property triggers the PUD requirement, Section 150.505(A)(1), as well as multiple variations are requested: Section 151.009. – Variations and Exceptions: “Variations from these regulations shall not be granted as a right. However, the Plan Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variations from the regulations contained in this Subdivision Code in specific cases which do not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Such recommendations shall be communicated to the City Council in writing.” A notice sign was placed on the Subject Property and property owners within 400’ of the subject property were noticed by certified US Mail, as required by the City Council for a Planned Development public hearing. Variation Review: The Applicant has requested a variation to Section 151.004(A)(1) which states thus: “Lot shapes. Every lot shall have four sides. Exceptions may be approved when the applicant demonstrates that a four-sided lot is not feasible because of peculiar topographical conditions, abutting lots of record or abutting parcels, or pre-existing buildings not owned directly or indirectly by the applicant. A lot of other than four sides will not be approved if it appears that such lot has been so formed solely to comply with the minimum area, depth and width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As nearly as practicable, intersecting lot lines shall form right angles with each other.” Page 3 of 7 Page 11 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION • The Applicant’s proposal is compliant with the R4 and LFOZ bulk requirements. However, the proposed Lot 1, containing the existing home, will have roughly 6 sides exceeding the allowed 4 sides per the Subdivision Code therefore requiring a variation request. The proposed Lot 2 will have roughly 4 sides, however due to the steep slope zone the lot will not have 4 flat sides requiring a variation request. Planned Development Review. Section 150.520 • (B) – no development is proposed within the SSZ. • (C) – This item will go before the Historic Preservation Commission on January 8, 2026, staff will provide comments for next PDC meeting. The HPC will also be reviewing the de-landmarking of the newly created lot. • No new structures are being proposed as a part of this PUD • The proposal is to create one additional lot for a single family home. By right construction of the single family will not require a PUD Minor Amendment. • No Section 150 Zoning Code variations are being requested, therefore no Public Benefit is required. The applicant has stated they will make a $2,500 donation to the City to help promote historic preservation in Highland Park. • The applicant is requesting to waive the Fiscal Impact Study, Market Study, and Traffic Study Zoning Review. Lot 1, existing residence – R4 Low to Moderate Density • Lot Area – 20,000 SF o 89,204 SF • Front Yard – 40’ • Side Yard – Total Depth of all side yards must be a min. of 30% of Lot Width, and in no event shall any side yard be less than 12 feet. o Lot Width of Lot 1 is 162.5’ – total side yard requirement 48.75’ • Rear Yard – 35’ or 20% Lot Depth o Requirement 35’ • FAR – 15,340 SF o Applicant to verify compliance Lot 2, new lot – R4 Low to Moderate Density • Lot Area – 20,000 SF o 89,319 SF • Front Yard – 40’ • Side Yard – Total Depth of all side yards must be a min. of 30% of Lot Width, and in no event shall any side yard be less than 12 feet. o Lot Width of Lot 2 is 261.88’ – total side yard requirement 78.56’ • Rear Yard – 35’ or 20% Lot Depth o Requirement 35’ • FAR – 15,352 SF Lake Front Density & Character Overlay Zone Page 4 of 7 Page 12 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION • Minimum Area for Single-Family Residence - no subdivision of any lot in the LFOZ Overlay Zone shall create any new lot that has a minimum area for a single- family residence of less than 40,000 square feet • Average Width - no subdivision of any lot in the LFOZ Overlay Zone shall create any new lot that has an average width of less than 100 feet. Steep Slope Zone Defined per Section 150.202 – “All land which lies between the bottom of a ravine steep slope and a line being farthest from the bottom of a ravine steep slope and ten (10) feet from the top edge of a ravine steep slope; and all land which lies between the bottom of a bluff steep slope and a line being farthest from the bottom of a bluff steep slope and forty (40) feet from the top edge of a bluff steep slope.” • SSZ surrounding the property is ravine, therefore requiring a 10’ setback from the top edge of the ravine. Lot Exhibit – Attachment 3 The lot exhibit submitted by the applicant has inconsistencies with the above Zoning/Setback review. • Lot Area shown is different than Proposed Plat of Subdivision • SSZ shown as 25’ on Lot 2 • Side Yard shown as 20’ and 30’ on the exhibit for Lot 1, but on the Plat of Subdivision the 30’ side yard is shown as 20’. NEIGBOR COMMENTS: No written comments have been submitted. City & Agency Review: The City Planning, Building, Engineering, Police, Fire, and Forestry Divisions / Departments reviewed the plat, and Utility and other County or State Agencies also reviewed, and the following is a summary of comments: 1. Planning Comments: Zoning review is included within this memo. 2. Engineering Comments: Please see Attachment 6. 3. Forestry: a. Heritage trees NOT highlighted in yellow (as described) b. Potential removals on Lot 2 should be shown & notated as such, see Attachment 5 for the submitted tree survey. c. Should this PUD be approved, and the application proceed to the permitting phase of development, the applicant will be required to submit a TREE permit alongside the construction of the new driveway. As part of that application, Forestry staff will review and administer any fees/mitigation planting as required by Chapter 94 of Highland Park City code. The applicant will also need to provide a comprehensive Tree Preservation Plan to outline what measures will be taken to prevent unnecessary damage to Protected, Key, and Heritage trees. Page 5 of 7 Page 13 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION d. Forestry staff will be looking for this plan to address how the applicant will be installing the new curb cut and driveway; while minimizing impacts to other trees in the vicinity. This includes private trees (#12, 13, & 35), Heritage tree (#8), as well as public-owned parkway trees along Central Ave. In particular, the proposed driveway apron is within the critical root zone of trees 154 & 152. This will need to be addressed as part of the preservation plan, or the trees should be included in the proposed removals; as their condition is likely to decline with significant excavation in the area. 4. North Shore Gas, Comcast, AT&T, and COMED: No Comment. 5. North Shore Water Reclamation District: In Review. 6. IDNR: In Review. 7. Lake County SMC: a. The topo exhibit identifies wetlands/waters, but the source of this information is not cited. It is unclear whether these boundaries are based on an on-site delineation performed by (or under the supervision of) a Lake County Certified Wetland Specialist (CWS) as required by Watershed Development Ordinance (WDO) §1000. Please provide a copy of the wetland report by a CWS documenting the wetland/ravine boundary shown on the plat for our file records – if such is available. b. Subdivision constitutes “development” under WDO §300 and therefore requires a Watershed Development Permit, with the City of Highland Park as the permitting authority and SMC reviewing wetland compliance. The proposed plat shows wetlands but does not reflect the associated buffers or restrictions to ensure long-term protection. These elements must be clearly defined. i. A Letter of No Wetland Impact (LONI) may be submitted in lieu of a full wetland report to confirm that buffer areas adequately protect onsite and adjacent aquatic resources. SMC estimates drainage areas of less than 5 acres for the north ravine and greater than 20 acres for the east ravine. ii. The applicant should provide draft restrictive language for the wetland and buffer areas for SMC review. SMC can provide example language upon request. c. SMC will need to review future development plans for the new lot (and any modifications affecting the existing lot near the wetland) to evaluate potential wetland impacts. If construction limits are clearly outside the wetland, SMC can issue a Letter of No Impact (LONI), if required by the City per WDO §1003. Page 6 of 7 Page 14 of 31  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION Comments from City entities and outside agencies are only for the proposed subdivision. Future construction / development, such as for a new home, must comply with all relevant local, county, state, and federal requirements. CONDITIONS FOR PLAT CONSIDERATIONS: Standards conditions of approval are recommended, only (as are standard on all resolutions for plats). ADDITIONAL CODE DEFINITIONS: Section 151.010(B): “Bonded Improvements. Privately owned improvements (e.g., retention ponds and other improvements which the City Engineer determines are nevertheless necessary for the public good and all public improvements.” “‘Minor Subdivision’ Any subdivision which does not involve the installation and/or construction of bonded improvements.” Per Section 151.008(B)(7) - Except as otherwise provided, all utility distribution lines for telephone, gas, electric, telecommunications, internet, or cable television services (collectively referred to in this Section as "Utility Lines") to be newly installed, or to be reinstalled from existing overhead facilities, shall be placed underground within easements or dedicated public rights-of-way. Specifically, and without limitation of the foregoing, all overhead Utility Lines located on property that is the subject of an application for subdivision approval pursuant to this Subdivision Code, or on a public right-of-way adjacent to such property, shall, as a condition of such subdivision approval, be placed underground within a dedicated easement or a public right-of-way. No Utility Lines shall be constructed within a storm or sanitary sewer easement, except for crossings, without the advance written approval of the City Engineer. Page 7 of 7 Page 15 of 31  Ravine Park Subdivision Applicant: Greg Moyer 1550 Hawthorne Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035 (773) 230-1081 gmoyer@moyerproperties.com LOCATION OF PROPERTY 147 Central is a single-family home located in east Highland Park. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP The title holder is the fee simple owner of the property. ZONING STATEMENT 147 Central is located in the R-4 LFOZ zoning district. The properties to the east, north south and west are also located in R-4 LFOZ zoning district. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 147 Central is also known as the Field House. 147 Central is a substantial property situated adjacent to a ravine, encompassing more than four acres of land. It was the home of Highland Park’s second mayor, Cornelius Field, and is believed to be the oldest residence in Highland Park. In addition to being mayor, Cornelius Field was a director of the Highland Park Building Company, and he built this home for himself in 1875. In 1985, the existing home was designated as landmark by the City of Highland Park. In the landmark application, the stated reason for the landmarking was due to the “eastern section Gothic Cottage, abutting it on the west is two story wing – second story contained within Mansard roof”. The property has been altered over the years, and it has been vacant for over 5 years. The current owners have been marketing the unsubdivided home and property for sale, without success, for over a year. In order to preserve the existing landmarked home, the applicant desires to subdivide the property into two very large lots. One containing the historic landmarked home and the second, the non-historical/landmark vacant area. This subdivision will allow the owner to properly market the home to allow a buyer the ability to purchase the landmark home while embracing the historical significance at a fair price. The two lots created by this subdivision are both very large and double the minimum lot size for R-4 LFOZ, however, each will contain more than four (4) sides. Due to the ravine location, it is impossible to create two lots with only four sides at this location. Thus, to subdivide, one variation is required to allow lots of more than 4 sides. Pursuant to the Subdivision Code, the Plan and Design Commission may recommend, and the City Council may grant variations so long as the variation does not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code (Section 151.009). The intent 1 Page 16 of 31 and purpose of the regulation set forth in the Subdivision Code is, in part, to protect neighborhood character and to provide quality neighborhoods by requiring minimum lot widths, depths and areas (Section 151.002(D)). In this case, the existing lot contains more than 4 sides, as will the newly created lots. It is important to note that many homes in this area, including 147 Central, have more than 4 sides, as these lots meander around the ravine. The newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character. The existing landmarked home will remain untouched and preserved for generations to come. Furthermore, the newly created lots comply with the regulations by meeting the minimum lot width, depth and area in the zoning district. Thus, the application herein meets the standards for a variation set forth in the Subdivision Code and but for the one issue, no variation will be required or needed. In sum, the proposed subdivided lots do not affect the general plan and are consistent with the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Thank you for considering this application. STATEMENT OF MODIFICATION OF ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS. To create lots that contain more than four (4) sides. OPEN SPACE STATEMENT The proposed development will have an excess of open space. WAIVERS The applicant hereby requests, pursuant to Section 150.525(E) of the Code, that the Director waive the submission of the following: 1. Fiscal Impact Study 2. Market Study. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT The applicant will make a donation in the amount of $2,500 to the City to help promote historical preservation in Highland Park AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT n/a. SUMMARY As set forth above, the proposal is consistent with the City’s Master Plan. The proposed project will satisfy all of the required standards of the Code, including but not limited to the following: 2 Page 17 of 31  - The planned development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the community. - Its location will be in harmony and consistent with the orderly development of the zoning district. - It will have no adverse impact on other property in the immediate vicinity nor will diminish or impair the value of the neighboring property. - Adequate utilities, driveways, drainage and other necessary facilities will be provided. - Finally, a genuine public benefit is provided so that the entire community can enjoy this project. We respectfully request that you consider this proposal. December 10, 2025 3 Page 18 of 31 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK Subdivision Application Letter of Situation Dated: October 7, 2025 RE: 147 Central Avenue Subdivision in Highland Park TO: Plan Commission and City Council 147 Central is also known as the Field House. 147 Central is a substantial property situated adjacent to a ravine, encompassing more than four acres of land. It was the home of Highland Park’s second mayor, Cornelius Field, and is believed to be the oldest residence in Highland Park. In addition to being mayor, Cornelius Field was a director of the Highland Park Building Company, and he built this home for himself in 1875. In 1985, the existing home was designated as landmark by the City of Highland Park. In the landmark application, the stated reason for the landmarking was due to the “eastern section Gothic Cottage, abutting it on the west is two story wing – second story contained within Mansard roof”. The property has been altered over the years, and it has been vacant for over 5 years. The current owners have been marketing the unsubdivided home and property for sale, without success, for over a year. In order to preserve the existing landmarked home, the applicant desires to subdivide the property into two very large lots. One containing the historic landmarked home and the second, the non-historical/landmark vacant area. This subdivision will allow the owner to properly market the home to allow a buyer the ability to purchase the landmark home while embracing the historical significance at a fair price. The two lots created by this subdivision are both very large and double the minimum lot size for R-4 LFOZ, however, each will contain more than four (4) sides. Due to the ravine location, it is impossible to create two lots with only four sides at this location. Thus, to subdivide, one variation is required to allow lots of more than 4 sides. Pursuant to the Subdivision Code, the Plan and Design Commission may recommend, and the City Council may grant variations so long as the variation does not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code (Section 151.009). The intent and purpose of the regulation set forth in the Subdivision Code is, in part, to protect neighborhood character and to provide quality neighborhoods by requiring minimum lot widths, depths and areas (Section 151.002(D)). In this case, the existing lot contains more than 4 sides, as will the newly created lots. It is important to note that many homes in this area, including 147 Central, have more than 4 sides, as these lots meander around the ravine. The newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character. The existing landmarked home will remain untouched and preserved for generations to come. Furthermore, the newly created lots comply with the regulations by meeting the minimum lot width, depth and area in the zoning district. Thus, the application herein meets the standards for a variation set forth in the Subdivision Code and but for the one issue, no variation will be required or needed. In sum, the proposed subdivided lots do not affect the general plan and are consistent with the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Thank you for considering this application. Page 19 of 31 Page 20 of 31 Page 21 of 31 Page 22 of 31 Page 23 of 31 Tree # DBH Species Condition Comments 1 29 White Oak 5 large mushrooms along the trunk, large deadwood 2 21 Red Maple 2 3 5,2,4 White Birch 3 4 3,5 White Birch 2 5 5,4,7 White Birch 3 Large crack, trunk damage in 4" lead 6 4,5 White Birch 3 7 19 White Oak 2 8 37 Red Oak 2 Heavy decay in large lead with light 9 22 Dawn Redwood 1 10 7 Cockspur Hawthorn 2 11 9 Cockspur Hawthorn 2 12 39 Hackberry 2 13 18 Red Maple 3 14 16 Katsura 1 15 12 Sugar Maple 2 16 18 Sugar Maple 4 dead top, heavy cicada damage 17 29, 14, 28 Silver Maple 4 heavy decay at union and large cavities on multiple large stems 18 9 Sugar Maple 4 60% dieback 19 8 Sugar Maple 2 20 9 Sugar Maple 2 21 8 Sugar Maple 2 22 9 Sugar Maple 2 23 11 Sugar Maple 2 24 7 Sugar Maple 2 25 9 Sugar Maple 2 26 7 Sugar Maple 2 27 8 Sugar Maple 3 Page 24 of 31 Tree # DBH Species Condition Comments 28 8 Sugar Maple 3 29 10 Sugar Maple 2 30 14 Sugar Maple 3 31 6 Sugar Maple 4 40% dieback 32 11 Sugar Maple 4 50% dieback 33 9 Sugar Maple 4 30% dieback 34 1/12/1900 Sugar Maple 2 35 31 Silver maple 4 30% dieback 36 25 at base Silver Maple 2 37 18 Norway maple 3 38 22 Norway Spruce 2 39 18 Norway Spruce 2 40 9 Magnolia 1 41 23 Norway Maple 2 42 15 Norway Maple 2 43 15 Norway Maple 1 44 7 Horsechestnut 2 45 12 at base Magnolia 2 46 11 Magnolia 4 47 14, 18 Norway Maple 2 48 24 Norway Maple 2 49 9 Sugar Maple 2 50 8 Sugar Maple 3 51 14 Boxelder 4 52 14 Sugar Maple 2 53 7 Sugar Maple 2 54 15 Sugar Maple 2 Page 25 of 31 Tree # DBH Species Condition Comments 55 11 Norway Maple 2 56 13 Norway Maple 2 57 7 Hophornbeam 2 58 10 Norway Maple 2 59 13 Norway Maple 2 60 9 Norway Maple 2 61 8 Norway Maple 2 62 7 Norway Maple 2 63 8 Norway Maple 2 64 9 Sugar Maple 4 65 10 Sugar Maple 4 66 6 Sugar Maple 2 67 9 Sugar Maple 2 68 7 Sugar Maple 3 69 7 Hophornbeam 2 70 24 Sugar Maple 4 71 10 Sugar Maple 2 72 7 Sugar Maple 3 73 15 Sugar Maple 2 74 13 Norway Maple 2 75 13 Basswood 2 76 18 Red Oak 2 77 25 Red Oak 1 78 8 Basswood 3 79 16 Red Oak 2 80 10 Sugar Maple 2 81 7 Sugar Maple 2 Page 26 of 31 Tree # DBH Species Condition Comments 82 10 Sugar Maple 2 83 9 Sugar Maple 2 84 30 N. Pin Oak 2 85 14 Ash 5 dead 86 15 Ash 5 dead, possibly weeping conk 87 9, 10 Basswood 2 Large cavity on trunk 88 11 Basswood 2 89 10 Red Oak 2 90 19 Ash 2 91 8 Basswood 2 Split in middle of trunk 92 7 Sugar maple 2 93 8,9 Redbud 4 Heavy lean, 30% dieback 94 18 Basswood 2 Large cavity at base 95 9 Sugar Maple 5 Dead and leaning, hung up next to Tree #94 96 8 Sugar Maple 2 97 6 Sugar Maple 2 98 10 Sugar Maple 2 99 7 Sugar Maple 2 100 11 Sugar Maple 2 101 11 Sugar Maple 2 102 13 Mulberry 2 103 10 at base Redbud 3 104 11 Norway Maple 2 105 10 Norway Maple 2 106 21 Norway Maple 2 107 9 Hackberry 2 108 7 Black Cherry 4 50% dieback Page 27 of 31 Tree # DBH Species Condition Comments 109 8 Sugar Maple 3 110 7 Ash 4 60% dieback 111 17 Elm 4 50% dieback 112 7 Sugar Maple 2 113 11 Sugar Maple 3 114 8 Sugar Maple 2 115 14 Sugar Maple 2 116 13 Sugar Maple 2 117 13 Red Oak 2 118 8 Norway Maple 2 119 12 Sugar Maple 3 120 10 Norway Maple 2 121 8 Red Oak 2 122 17 Norway Maple 4 30% dieback 123 8 Norway Maple 2 124 11 Norway Maple 2 125 23 White Oak 5 dead and hollow 126 7 Cornelian Cherry Dogwood 3 127 15 Norway Maple 2 128 20 Red Maple 2 129 11 Sugar Maple 3 130 21 Honey Locust 3 131 33 Silver Maple 3 132 23 Honey Locust 2 133 24 Honey Locust 2 134 19 Norway Maple 2 135 16 Red Maple 1 Page 28 of 31 Tree # DBH Species Condition Comments 136 24 N. Pin Oak 2 137 19 N. Pin Oak 3 138 25 Honey Locust 2 139 26 Honey Locust 2 140 13 Callery Pear 3 141 17 Sugar Maple 2 Large cavity on main lead 142 15 Norway Maple 3 hollow/cavity at root flare 143 20 Silver Maple 3 Large cavities on branch 144 2 Hybrid Elm 2 east most parkway tree 145 2 American Hophornbeam 2 146 4 Bald Cypress 1 147 14 Sugar Maple 2 148 10 Sugar Maple 2 149 13 Sugar Maple 2 150 9 Sugar Maple 2 151 11 Sugar Maple 2 152 11 Sugar Maple 2 153 2 Honey Locust 2 154 13 Sugar Maple 2 155 13 Sugar Maple 2 156 8 Sugar Maple 2 157 11 Sugar Maple 2 158 4 Freeman Maple 3 sparce, heavy lean, growth only on roadside of the tree 159 18 Sugar Maple 4 missing top, 40% dieback 160 18 Sugar Maple 4 missing top, 25% dieback (westmost parkway tree) Page 29 of 31  Memorandum 1150 Half Day Rd. Highland Park, Illinois 60035 847.432.0807 cityhpil.com DATE: October 28, 2025 TO: Karl Burhop, Planner FROM: Emmanuel Gomez, PE, City Engineer BY: Sam Hertel, PE, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: 147 Central Ave – Subdivision Application Plat Comments 1. Engineering has no comments regarding the proposed subdivision of the existing parcel Plan Comments 1. A new residence on the proposed parcel will require a Drainage & Grading permit a. Plans submitted with permit should include existing and proposed impervious area calculations 2. A new residence on the proposed parcel may require a Watershed Development Permit, due to hydrological disturbance a. Trigger for this requirement is 5000sqft+ disturbance b. This would be determined when Drainage & Grading plans are submitted to City for review 3. A new residence on the proposed parcel would meet threshold set forth in Residential Infill Ordinance (250sqft+ new impervious area) and would require applicant to capture stormwater runoff and route it to the City’s storm sewer system or directly to the ravine 4. Engineering may have further comments once plans are submitted to the City for review Page 30 of 31  Memorandum 1150 Half Day Rd. Highland Park, Illinois 60035 847.432.0807 cityhpil.com DATE: December 17, 2025 TO: Karl Burhop, Planner FROM: Emmanuel Gomez, PE, City Engineer BY: Alec Turkowski, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: 147 Central Ave – PUD-2025-00081 Plan Comments 1. Please revisit and address the comments provided by Sam Hertel in October 2025. 2. If the proposed work involves activities on or near the ravine, please ensure full with City Code Article XIX – Steep Slope Zone. 3. Engineering has no further comments regarding this permit. Engineering may have further comments once plans are submitted for a Drainage & Grading permit. Page 31 of 31