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, June 2, 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 June 2, 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 May 19, 2026 IV. Scheduled Business a. DES-2026-00096, Design Review Amendment, Sign Package Amendment, and Variations from the City Code (791-799 Central Ave.) b. Final Plat of Re-Subdivision with Variations (0 Meadow Ln., a vacant lot with the PIN 1616310002 that is adjacent to 1700 Meadow Ln.) V. Other Business a. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update b. Next Meeting – June 16, 2026, A Regular Meeting at City Hall c. Case Briefing VI. Business from the Public VII. Adjournment Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 78  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, May 19, 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., Chairperson Kerch called the meeting to order. Staff was asked to call the roll. 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner, Henry, Ihnchak, Mantis, Moore, & 15 Nanus 16 17 Councilmember Present: Ross 18 19 Student Council Absent: Pielet 20 21 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 22 23 Guests Present: Russ Whitaker, Partner/Rosanova & Whitaker Ltd. 24 Scott Borstein, Attorney/Neal & Leroy 25 Jacob Dodds, Architect/Dirk Denison Architects 26 Steve Gregory, Director of Land Planning & Landscape Architecture; Alex Eppert, 27 Project Manager/Eriksson Engineering Associates, Ltd. 28 29 Staff Present: Fontane, Burhop, & Mistretta 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 – May 5, 2026 36 37 Chairperson Kerch thanked Vice Chair Nanus, the PDC, and Staff for their hard work during his absence. 38 39 Commissioner Nanus moved to approve the May 5, 2026, PDC regular meeting minutes. Commissioner 40 Mantis seconded the motion. 41 42 On a voice vote 43 Voting Yea Commissioners Fettner, Henry, Ihnchak, Mantis, & Nanus 44 Voting Nay: None 45 Abstain: Chairperson Kerch; Commissioner Moore 46 47 Chairperson Kerch declared that the motion passed 5-0. 48 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 1 Page 2 of 78  1 SCHEDULED BUSINESS 2 1. Public Hearing #PUD-2025-00087 to amend the following: (1) O11-2026, an ordinance approving a Special 3 Use Permit for a Planned Development for 227 residential-units (townhomes) with garages, parking 4 clubhouse amenity, landscaping, other related improvements, and a Special Use Permit for an Off-Street 5 Parking Lot; including modifications from City Code; (2) a Plat of Re-Subdivision approved by Resolution R22- 6 2026, with variations, and (3) Design Review, with variations (1660 and 1700 Old Deerfield Road) 7 8 Senior Planner Burhop reviewed the proposal: 9 • Recommendation 10 o will be presented to the HC 11 • Site – 28.6-Acre Site 12 o subdivide into 2 lots 13 • Changes to Modifications – Height 14 o reduced by 2’ 15 • New Modification – Temporary Marketing Signage 16 • New Modification – due to “for-sale” units 17 • Plat of Re-Subdivision Changes 18 • Floor & Elevation Plan Changes 19 • Inclusionary Housing 20 • Phasing & Construction Logistics 21 • Other Staff Comments 22 • Recommendation 23 24 Some PDC comments for Staff are….. 25 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked, and Senior Planner Burhop confirmed an access easement at 26 Devonshire & Ridge is being removed. 27 • Commissioner Mantis said the easement is no longer necessary. The trail easement will still be there. 28 Senior Planner Burhop concurred. 29 • Commissioner Moore asked, and Senior Planner Burhop said Staff recommends Bluegrass Restaurant 30 be in the landscape buffer. Director Fontane said this would be 1 contiguous buffer instead of 2. 31 • Commissioner Fettner asked: 32 o and Director Fontane said the Applicant would maintain the buffer. 33 o if there would be a new traffic study. Senior Planner Burhop said yes, when occupancy 34 reaches 90%. 35 • Commissioner Henry asked, and Senior Planner Burhop confirmed the HC will hear this case on 36 June 3, 2026. 37 • Commissioner Nanus asked about signs and flagpole. Senior Planner Burhop illustrated same – 11 38 signs on interior, 6 signs on property line, and 1 flagpole. 39 • Commissioner Moore asked how long the signs would be out. Senior Planner Burhop replied during 40 construction. Director Fontane said a timeframe could be set. 41 • Commissioner Henry asked if there could be signage up now. Senior Planner Burhop said yes, 42 pertaining to code. 43 44 Chairperson Kerch swore in Petitioner, Russ Whitaker, Partner at Rosanova & Whitaker Ltd., who gave a 45 presentation on M/I Homes: 46 • About M/I Homes 47 o joint venture with Habitat Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 2 Page 3 of 78  1 • Lake County Communities 2 • Recent M/I Townhome Communities 3 • Subject Property 4 • Updated – Rear/Side Elevations 5 o bump-out is continuous at the back of the building 6 • Exterior Marketing Signage 7 • Interior Model Area 8 • Interior Marketing Signage 9 10 Commissioner Moore stated a lot of time was spent to reach an approval, and now items are being taken 11 away; feel their time was wasted. 12 13 Corporation Counsel Marcus said, regarding the code, construction signs are taken down once a Certification 14 of Occupancy is issued. Temporary signs can remain up for 30 days. 15 16 Chairperson Kerch asked about 50 lots and 227 townhomes. Mr. Whitaker said building pads will be placed 17 (in non-easement area); re-subdivision of the lot. 18 19 Councilperson Ross asked about 16x9 signs rather than 8x8 signs. Mr. Whitaker said this is what markets 20 well. To not disturb the community, they hope to sell the townhomes as soon as possible; robust signage 21 helps that. 22 23 Commissioner Moore asked, since this is going from 3 phases to 2, how that affects the end point. Mr. 24 Whitaker said they are phasing down. There is a shortage of homes in Illinois. The infrastructure will be 25 completed in Phase II. The original Habitat plan was to be completed in 24 months. This will also be 26 completed in 24 months. 27 28 Director Fontane said Phase I is public improvements, 75 units, and the clubhouse. City Council/Staff are not 29 concerned about the two Phases. Senior Planner Burhop clarified that 2-bedroom units will now be 3- 30 bedroom units. 31 32 Chairperson Kerch asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. He swore in the following: 33 • Lisa Radin said the storm sewer should not connect with existing lines – residents would like a 34 guarantee. She stated a new traffic study should be conducted. Ms. Radin asked how the railroad 35 will be made safe. She discussed school busses. Signage will be overkill and impact visibility. 36 37 Chairperson Kerch said Engineering Staff will approve all sewer requirements. Senior Planner Burhop 38 concurred. 39 40 • Sandy Lurie said she hopes this developer is totally successful. A 16’ sign is too big to have on Ridge 41 Road. She asked: 42 o when the EPA makes its report 43 o when an HOA would be formed 44 o how the landlord would be responsible for critters 45 o what would be screened on Ridge Road 46 47 Ms. Lurie said, regarding the Devonshire crosswalk, it never should have been there; a danger to the Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 3 Page 4 of 78  1 community. Residents are heartened City Council removed it. 2 3 • Jim Lederer, owner of Bluegrass, said they would like a berm, 4’ screening since they are giving up 4 dirt. He noted the speed limit on their road is 25 mph. 5 6 Councilperson Ross said there was a lot of discussion at City Council about the crosswalk. Concern was 7 expressed by neighbors. She noted the PDC was not disrespected. 8 9 Some PDC comments are….. 10 • Commissioner Nanus said he is not a fan of a lot of signage; 1, not 2, signs would be okay on Old 11 Deerfield Road; well above what’s permitted in Highland Park. He is against this and is okay with 12 internal and wayfinding signage. 13 • Commissioner Moore concurred. 14 • Commissioner Fettner concurred, and noted other modifications are improvements. 15 • Commissioner Ihnchak: 16 o concurred, and stated people know this development is here, as there is a housing shortage. 17 o would like to see a bigger buffer between the homes and industrial properties to the north. 18 • Commissioner Mantis is generally okay with this proposal. 19 20 Mr. Whitaker said he has no objection to adding landscaping as long as residents confirm this. He asked 21 about signage, and noted Sign “S” would be placed. Other signs could be removed. Regarding screening 22 along Ridge Road, that won’t change. Regarding EPA, that information has been submitted (there are heavy 23 metals, soils which will be taken off-site); pending EPA approval. 24 25 Corporation Counsel Martinez reminded the Amendments are before the PDC. The development was 26 already approved. 27 28 Councilperson Ross asked about the landscape strip. Director Fontane expounded this is regarding the area 29 at the Bluegrass Restaurant. 30 31 Chairperson Kerch swore in the following audience member: 32 • Dan Wagner said he likes the lighting and suggested the flagpole not be lit. 33 34 Commissioner Mantis moved to direct Staff to draft Findings of Fact recommending approval with the 35 Condition there is: 36 • No more than one 16x9 foot sign on Old Deerfield Road 37 • No more than one 8x8 foot sign on Ridge Road 38 39 Commissioner Nanus seconded the motion. 40 41 On a roll call vote 42 Voting Yea Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner, Henry, Ihnchak, Mantis, Moore, & 43 Nanus 44 Voting Nay: None 45 46 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously. 47 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 4 Page 5 of 78  1 Commissioner Nanus moved to continue this matter to the June 16, 2026, PDC meeting. Commissioner 2 Moore seconded the motion. 3 4 On a roll call vote 5 Voting Yea Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner, Henry, Ihnchak, Mantis, Moore, & 6 Nanus 7 Voting Nay: None 8 9 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously, there would be no new notice, and the 10 next meeting would take place at City Hall in Highland Park, at 7 p.m. 11 12 2. Public Hearing #PUD-2025-00086 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final 13 Planned Development; Design Review; variations and modifications from City Codes; and to amend the 14 Planned Development approval O29-98 for property commonly known as “Town of Fort Sheridan” including 15 the Town of Fort Sheridan Master Redevelopment Plan (0 Patten Road.; a vacant parcel with PIN 16 1611301063 adjacent to the property 3535 Patten Road) 17 18 Senior Planner Burhop reviewed the proposal: 19 • Recommendation 20 • Site 21 o 1.33 acres 22 o RM1 zoning 23 • Background 24 o approved in 1998 25 o designated setbacks 26 o driveway access along Patten Road 27 • Neighborhood 28 • Site Plan 29 o 10 detached single-family homes 30 o private cul-de-sac 31 • Modifications – Setbacks 32 • Modifications – Other 33 • The Ravines Open Space Plan 34 • Landscaping Plan 35 • Renderings 36 • Elevations 37 • Inclusionary Zoning 38 o cash payment-in-lieu of $370,800 39 • Other Comments 40 o storm water management 41 o air-conditioning mechanical units, screening 42 o fencing 43 o exterior lighting 44 o pedestrian movement 45 • Recommendation 46 47 Some PDC comments are….. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 5 Page 6 of 78  1 • Commissioner Fettner said: 2 o if the previously-slated tower was built, the Applicant would not have to come to the PDC. 3 Senior Planner Burhop and Director Fontane concurred. 4 o there would not be a traffic study. Senior Planner Burhop advised that Staff concurs, as it is 5 a 10-unit plan. 6 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked: 7 o about common open space. Senior Planner Burhop said the MPP supersedes this; over 20%. 8 o where the open space is. Senior Planner Burhop illustrated same, and said there is no 9 subdividing requested. 10 • Commissioner Mantis asked why the second tower wasn’t built. Director Fontane said it is unknown. 11 • Chairperson Kerch said, due to the MRP never changing, that’s why this needs so much relief. 12 13 Director Fontane added, regarding homes off of Bradley Ct., those are the rear homes on the cul-de- 14 sac. Senior Planner Burhop displayed same and said, access would have to be amended. 15 16 • Commissioner Henry asked for clarification regarding setbacks for each house for RM1 standards. 17 Senior Planner Burhop said setbacks are 25’ in the front yard, 10’ in the side yard. 18 • Commissioner Ihnchak concurred and identified the east single-family dwellings. 19 • Commissioner Moore: 20 o asked if this is under the Lake County Zoning District. Senior Planner Burhop said no, this 21 refers to the MRP. 22 o concurred with Commissioners Henry and Ihnchak. 23 24 Senior Planner Burhop noted these are 2 acres per unit. 25 26 Chairperson Kerch swore in Petitioner Scott Borstein, Attorney with Neal & Leroy, who advised this is the 27 culmination of a year of thoughts and planning. This is a PUD. Based on the market, this is the best use. 28 There are 25’ front-yard setbacks, and 9’ side-yard setbacks. 29 30 Chairperson Kerch swore in Jacob Dodds, Architect with Dirk Denison Architects, who shared the setting of 31 Fort Sheridan was the inspiration. A cluster of homes is envisioned around a courtyard. The site has irregular 32 geometry. A PowerPoint presentation was given: 33 • Renderings 34 o pitched roofs 35 o fenced landscaping (no actual fence) 36 o clear-story windows 37 o natural materials from Fort Sheridan (stucco, masonry, zinc roofs, stained wood) 38 • Conceptual photos were shown 39 • Materials were displayed 40 • Site Plan 41 • Elevations 42 • Homes are 2,300 square feet on the first floor with a half second floor and basement 43 o 2 types 44 45 Chairperson Kerch swore in Steve Gregory, Director of Land Planning & Landscape Architecture with 46 Eriksson Engineering Associates, Ltd., who advised there will be: 47 • native, adaptive plants Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 6 Page 7 of 78  1 • arborvitae 2 • a lot of green in the interior, perimeter 3 • Oak tree will remain; will work with Staff and Forestry 4 5 Chairperson Kerch swore in Alex Eppert, Project Manager with Eriksson Engineering Associates, Ltd., who 6 stated there will be: 7 • a natural highpoint on the north traveling south 8 • drainage to the west, south, and east into the ravine 9 • discharge and funnels in a concrete trough 10 • access from Patten Road 11 • 2 exit points. A lift station is proposed. 12 • water tapped from Patten Rd. and looped to Bradley Ct.; existing hydrant will be relocated up the hill. 13 • grading and erosion control; some steep slopes 14 15 Mr. Borstein said this is intended as a condominium development. Individual lots won’t be subdivided. A 16 common area will be the private yard, patio, and courtyard. 17 18 More PDC comments are….. 19 • Commissioner Nanus asked if Fire Staff was consulted due to turning radius. Mr. Dodds said yes, this 20 is a Preliminary Plan. Fire Staff had no issues. The center element may be an issue and is negotiable. 21 Director Fontane said all PUDs are sent to the Fire Department. 22 • Commissioner Mantis asked what the public benefit is. Mr. Borstein said the site has been vacant for 23 almost 30 years. This plan is a public benefit; market demand. Significant landscaping and 24 beautification will be added as well as Heritage trees. 25 26 Chairperson Kerch stated all those items are not a public benefit. They are standard for a PUD. 27 28 Mr. Borstein noted possible preservation of a monument sign may occur. 29 30 Director Fontane corrected they are going to plant the same species of Heritage trees. 31 32 • Commissioner Fettner asked if any Heritage trees are being removed. Senior Planner Burhop said no. 33 It was noted the plan was reviewed by the City Forester, and there were no concerns. 34 35 Mr. Gregory said there are some Key trees. Heritage trees will be replaced per code. 36 37 • Commissioner Moore said 3’ of relief is being asked for side yards. There is a concern that would be 38 too small. Mr. Dodds said the typical space is 5’ between buildings. There are no issues. 39 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked, and Mr. Dodds said it would be 5’ total. 40 41 Chairperson Kerch asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. He swore in the following: 42 • Lisa Rosenberg said Fort Sheridan is a historic environment. She has concerns about: 43 o density and site plan 44 o spatial character 45 o architecture and materials are a departure 46 47 She urges the PDC to have this revised; not violate setbacks; have consistent and historic character. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 7 Page 8 of 78  1 2 • Philip West who lives adjacent (and serves on nearby Boards) noted he sent a letter. He is not 3 opposed, as this needs to be developed. What he opposes is the site plan; should be consistent; 4 place homes on Bradley Ct. or across the street; would blend into the neighborhood. Variances 5 should only be for extenuating circumstances. 6 • Steve Kanter lives in the home that borders this property. He sent a letter and is upset, as he moved 7 here to have homeowners’ rights, setbacks protected. Open space will be removed. Three or more 8 trees are proposed to be removed. 9 • Anthony Rizzato represents himself and some neighbors from Bradley Ct. Issues are: 10 o variance exceeds square footage of single-family homes 11 o proper notification wasn’t received 12 o regarding the MRP, this development doesn’t reflect neighborhood character, compatibility 13 with existing fabric 14 o wants quality design not quantity 15 o green space is minimized 16 o control impacts of new subdivisions 17 18 In closing, a smaller, non-encroaching project would decrease impacts; expanding ravines. Slopes 19 are part of the ravines. 20 21 • Sarah Appel noted she is a resident of the Ravines Condominiums and stated this project: 22 o is too dense 23 o homes are supposed to face the street; not consistent 24 o original Fort buildings were made of clay. Stucco bothers her. 25 o arched entryways are currently present 26 o brick wall faces Patten Road 27 28 Ms. Appel believes this would be a big mistake. Putting RM1 homes would enhance the 29 neighborhood and preserve property values. She is concerned about traffic, parking, and sewers. The 30 run-off from the bridge goes into the ravine. 31 32 • Cindy Zarcone has lived in Fort Sheridan, which is a sanctuary, for 5 years. The density proposed is 33 extreme. A condo community is a lovely idea, but it takes away green space; inconsistent. Tree 34 preservation, traffic, parking are significant. The original tower is being extended. She is against this. 35 Ms. Zarcone doesn’t like removing the entrance from the south side of Patten Road, as it is 36 historical. A large MHA entertainment facility has been approved; will increase water flow and 37 impact water run-off into the ravine. 38 39 Final PDC comments are….. 40 • Commissioner Moore said the houses are too big. Size of gangways between buildings is small. 41 Smaller houses would help the housing stock. There needs to be more setbacks. 42 • Commissioner Mantis said the brick element missing is foundational. There isn’t a shortage of 43 townhouses. 44 • Commissioner Ihnchak agrees; would like fewer homes and more green space. The pillar is iconic for 45 the area. 46 • Commissioner Fettner said it seems denser than a tall building. The design is nice; should be more 47 consistent with Fort Sheridan; would like to see a different plan. Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 8 Page 9 of 78  1 • Commissioner Henry said everyone wants to see this property developed. Building materials aren’t 2 consistent; small spaces between homes. There are traffic, storm water issues; challenging plan. 3 • Commissioner Nanus said it’s a challenging lot. He commends the Petitioner for trying to make it 4 viable. He would like to see a different housing plan. 5 • Chairperson Kerch wants to defend the Master Plan. He doesn’t want to change that. This plan has 6 double the density. The public benefit is non-existent. Chairperson Kerch is worried about the trees; 7 not consistent with any other products at Fort Sheridan. 8 9 Commissioner Mantis moved to continue this matter to the June 16, 2026, PDC meeting. Commissioner 10 Nanus seconded the motion. 11 12 On a voice vote 13 Voting Yea Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner, Henry, Ihnchak, Mantis, Moore, & 14 Nanus 15 Voting Nay: None 16 17 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously, there would be no new notice, and the 18 next meeting would take place at City Hall in Highland Park, at 7 p.m. 19 20 OTHER BUSINESS 21 1. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update 22 Senior Planner Burhop noted an Administrative Design Review approved: 23 • a utility pad at 636 Ridge Road 24 • an item at the Woodhouse Spa, 1850 Second Street 25 • a temporary trailer at Kia McGrath, 250 Skokie Valley Road 26 27 2. Next Regular Meeting – June 2, 2026 28 The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 2, 2026. 29 30 3. Case Briefing 31 There was no Case Briefing. 32 33 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 34 There was no Business from the Public. 35 36 ADJOURNMENT 37 Commissioner Nanus moved to adjourn at 10 p.m. Commissioner Fettner seconded the motion. 38 39 On a voice vote 40 Voting Yea Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner, Henry, Ihnchak, Mantis, Moore, & 41 Nanus 42 Voting Nay: None 43 44 Chairperson Kerch declared that the motion passed unanimously. 45 46 Respectfully Submitted, Gale Cerabona/Recorder 47 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON MAY 5, 2026, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. 48 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2026 - Page 9 Page 10 of 78  MEMORANDUM – PLAN & DESIGN COMMISSION TO: Plan and Design Commission (“Commission”) FROM: Community Development Department DATE: for the June 2nd, 2026 Commission meeting RE: DES-2026-00096, Design Review, Sign Package, and Variations from the City Code (791-799 Central Ave.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Commission carefully review the revised materials and discuss the proposed design changes. A Cert. of Approval is included as Attachment 6, that adopts the Design Review and Sign Package as proposed. PROJECT SUMMARY: Alec Thornton (the “Applicant”), acting as an agent for Keshet (the “Property Owner”), proposes an amendment to approved Design Review for exterior changed to the existing structure located at 799 Central Ave. (the “Property”). The Applicant proposes the following amendments:  Change the exterior material and color for the gym addition and monument sign from Copper Patina ACM to Blue Fiber Cement Board.  A new proposed thermoplastic color design will be installed on the asphalt on the east side of the building, along the internal drive aisle.  The approved Knee Wall installed around the pedestrian walkway will not be installed.  Change the dimensions of the previously approved canopy.  Reduce the amount of openings 1 on the west façade from 6 to 5.  Reduce the amount of openings on the north façade from 2 to 1. The site is one tax parcel with frontage on Central Ave, and is located just west of the intersection of Green Bay Road & Central Ave. There are multiple tenants, each with their own principal use within the commercial shopping center. In addition, there is an existing onsite two story parking garage, which provides 182 parking spaces. There is no change of principal use proposed. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to previously approved design review. The sign package, landscaping plan, parking, and height will all remain the same; with no amendments requested. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION & CHANGES: The Commission originally approved Design Review at the October 21, 2025 Meeting. The applicant now wishes to amend the approved Design Review. 1 The term ‘openings’ refers to windows, doors, storefronts, etc. Page 11 of 78   The following considerations are before the Commission: 1. Design Review for the proposed amendments, including design, materials, layout, and exterior lighting – see Attachment 3. a. Change the exterior material for the gym addition and monument sign from Copper Patina ACM to Blue Fiber Cement Board – See Attachments 4 & 5 b. A new proposed thermoplastic color design will be installed on the asphalt – See Attachments 4 & 5 c. Change the dimensions of the previously approved canopy – See Attachment 6 d. Reduce the overall number façade openings from 8 to 6 along the north and west – See Attachment 6 STANDARDS OF APPROVAL: The applicant has submitted an application for Design Review. The following provide the standard of review for this consideration. The Commission must consider all the standards and all standards must be met, as appropriate and indicated in the below sections of City Code. Chapter 176, ARTICLE II. - DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS DESIGN REVIEW – CHAPTER 176 STANDARDS OF REVIEW: This project is subject to the provisions in Chapter 176 of the City Code, “Design Review.” These include the following: (A) Site Plan. (1) The site shall be planned to (a) provide a desirable transition from the streetscape, (b) meet the parking design requirements of Article VIII of Chapter 150 of this Code, and (c) meet the landscape planting and screening requirements of Article XXII of Chapter 150 of this Code. (2) Buildings shall be oriented so that the principal entry is visible and accessible from the primary street frontage. (3) Building configurations that tend to catch and accumulate debris, leaves, dirt, trash and rubbish shall be avoided. (4) Service yards, storage yards, exterior work areas, and utility meters shall either be (i) screened from view from public rights-of-way with dense planting or other materials harmonious with the building, or (ii) otherwise be located so as not to be visible from any public rights-of-way. Staff Comment & Review: • Landscaping plan was approved on 10.21.25. The applicant is not proposing any amendment to the landscape plan. The Certificate of Approval from the PDC is still in effect with respect to the landscaping. The changes to the canopy will not affect the accessibility of the principal entrance. (B) Site Treatment. (1) Where natural or existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they shall be preserved and enhanced, subject to the requirements set forth in Article XVIII of Chapter 150 of this Code. 2 12 of 78 Page  (2) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall provide a safe and stable surface for walking. (3) Sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian pathways shall be distinguished from Vehicular Use Areas through the use of materials, such as curbs, pavers, and brick or brushed or scored concrete, in order to ensure pedestrian safety and comfort. (4) Newly installed utility services and service revisions necessitated by a modification to an Exterior Design Feature shall be place underground. Staff Comment & Review: • The proposed concrete walkways for pedestrians are separated from the vehicular use area by 12 safety bollards and 5 ground planters. The previously approved knee wall will no longer be installed. (C) Building Design. (1) Building mass, scale, and lines, including roof forms, shall be designed to be harmonious with the design of adjacent buildings. (2) Buildings shall be designed to avoid monotony with respect to roof line, windows, location and size of principal entry, location and orientation of garage entries, and cladding material and color. (3) Building materials shall be durable and conducive to easy maintenance and upkeep. (4) Mechanical or other utility equipment. (a) Mechanical and utility equipment located on the roof or exterior of a building shall either be: (i) screened from view from public rights-of-way with materials harmonious to the building; or (ii) located as to not be visible from public rights-of- way or residential zoning districts. (b) Ground-mounted mechanical or utility equipment shall comply with the screening requirements set forth in Article XXII of Chapter 150 of this Code. (5) Building additions and modifications shall maintain safe access and pathways, and allow for the functional use of spaces between buildings. Staff Comment & Review: • The Applicant is not proposing any new mechanical or utility equipment. (D) Lighting. (1) Lighting fixtures shall be of a scale and finish, and shall be mounted at a height, that are appropriate to the building design and lighting function. (2) Light sources shall be shielded from view from public rights-of-way and residential districts. (3) Light poles located within a Vehicular Use Area shall be located between parking spaces. (4) Lighting levels and light fixture design shall meet the standards of Article VI of Chapter 150 of this Code. Staff Comment & Review: • Applicant has indicated no changes, and all existing lighting shall remain as is. (D) Awnings. 3 13 of 78 Page  (1) Awnings are encouraged to be mounted with respect to the design of the building bays and windows, and so as to not detract from the window trim or other architectural features of the building. (2) Awning design and construction shall meet the standards set forth in Article XX of Chapter 150 of this Code and in Chapter 170 of this Code. Staff Comment & Review: • The proposed amendment to the canopy above the principal entry way makes the design more uniform to the building, while also providing the same visibility to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. (F) Fences. Fences shall be constructed to meet the requirements of Article XXII of Chapter 150 of this Code and of Chapter 173 of this Code. Staff Comment& Review: • Applicant has indicated no changes to existing fencing. CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The following provides summary comments from City staff.  Public Works – No comments  Public Works - Engineering Division: No comments.  Fire Department and Building Division: Permit required. STAFF COMMENTS: • The applicant has indicated that no change shall be made to the existing approved sign package • The applicant has indicated that no change shall be made to the existing approved landscape plan • The applicant has indicated that no change shall be made to the approved height increase • The applicant has indicated that no change shall be made to parking. THE SECTIONS BELOW ARE A RECAP OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PROJECT. BUILDING, USE, & SITE DESIGN: The Applicant proposed a change in the overall height of the principal structure by 9’. A rendering and elevations have been provided in Attachment 4. The overall footprint of the structure did not change, and the majority of the work will take place on the interior of the property. • The existing use is a multi-tenant building with different principal uses. • The facility has the following components o Six existing tenant spaces (sizes vary). o Existing two story parking garage. 4 14 of 78 Page  • The Applicant has previously confirmed that the majority of customer and tenant employee parking shall be in the existing parking garage. All ADA parking will be located outside of the parking garage and closer to the principal structure. ZONING ANALYSIS: The Property is zoned “B4-5 Service/Commercial”. There are multiple principal uses within the shopping center. Land Use. Per Section 150.490 the land use Community and Recreation Center is listed with a “P” for a permitted and is an allowed use at this location, pursuant to appropriate regulations. The petitioner’s current use is “Community and Recreation Center”. The Applicant has indicated they may amend the use to “Institute for Special Education”. That is also a permitted use in this district. Height. The maximum allowed height in the B4-5 district for a principal structure is 51 feet. The proposed height after the addition will be 43 feet.  Staff Comment: The proposal complies with B4-5 height requirements. 5 15 of 78 Page 799 Central Narrative for Highland Park Design Review Application | 06.02.26 799 Central Avenue is an existing 2-story steel framed building with brick, stone, and ACM cladding built in 2003 as a mixed-use development with mercantile spaces on the first floor, office space on the second floor and a 2-story with basement health club anchoring the rear of the building. The building is unique in that the front of all the tenant spaces are turned perpendicular to the street frontage leaving only the short side of the structure facing Central Ave. The building was bought by Keshet in 2023, which is a non-profit organization that provides services & activities to participants with disabilities, with the goal of becoming the marquee tenant repurposing a portion of the building to serve as their special education facility. The repurposing of the building will enable Keshet to consolidate their services and provide dedicated activity spaces that they currently do not have as renters in several locations and as a secondary entity that occupies spaces at some local schools. This renovation & addition will occupy the former health club space which has been vacant since the pandemic as well as an adjacent vacant mercantile space. This project is meant to serve as a first phase to Keshet’s occupancy of the building, which may eventually encompass other areas of the building. The scope of the project is an interior gut renovation to reconfigure the space to Keshet’s needs by providing classrooms, specialized spaces for Keshet programs, offices, & social spaces. The most visible exterior scope of the project is the increase in height of a space on the second floor to create a gym. This gym will essentially raise a portion of the existing roof 9 feet with new walls clad in fiber cement board (FCB) in a similar style to the existing ACM design language established by the building. This height increase still allows the building to conform to the massing requirements for its zone, B4-5. The remainder of the exterior scope on the building are some new windows & doors in existing walls and a new canopy for Keshet’s entry. The site will also be modified in order to better divide the traffic between existing tenant spaces and Keshet as well as addressing site security concerns for Keshet’s population. Page 16 of 78  EXISTING US POST SURFACE PARKING LOT OFFICE SUNSET WOODS 26'-3 5/8" SMALL EXISTING GROUND SIGN, SEE FOWARD FOCUS SIGN DRAWINGS & EXISTING 2-STORY OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING W/ PARTIAL BASEMENT 799 CENTRAL AVE. 6 SPACES APPLICATION (CENTRAL PARKWAY) EXTENT OF NEW GYM ROOF ABOVE 4 SPACES FOWARD FOCUS ENTRY 2ND IVY SOUL 2 SOLE SOUL 2 SOLE SOUL 2 CENTRAL T&T FUTURE KESHET FLOOR REHAB EMG. EXIT EMG. EXIT SOLE ENTRY BLOW NAILS ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY CENTRAL AVE Y WA 8% SP ATH OD ACCESSIBLE RAMP BOLLARDS WO 25'-7 7/8" W/ HANDRAILS (5' SPACING & 4' TALL) ET 25'-11 5/8" 17'-0 3/4" 124'-0" 19'-11 7/8" 6 SPACES NS SU 9'-0" PLANTER CONCRETE BALL BOLLARD CANOPY ABOVE BOLLARD 25'-7 7/8" 18'-0" 18'-0" 13 SPACES THERMOPLASTIC " '-0 25'-0" PAVEMENT MARKING 24 R LARGE SUV TURNING CIRCLE 16'-6" 30'-7 7/8" FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADII ENTRY 8 SPACES ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN EXISTING LIGHTPOLES TO REMAIN, TYP. 26'-3" EXIT 38'-2 1/4" EXIT SUNSET WOODS EXISTING 2-STORY PARKING GARAGE W/ BASEMENT 182 SPACES EXISTING 2-STORY OFFICE BUILDING 777 CENTRAL AVE. (CORBE BUILDING) PARKING LOT RIV E ED EXISTING 5-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING RV IC 1850 GREEN BAY RD. SE (ALBION HIGHLAND PARK) SITE LEGEND NEW STRIPED LOADING ZONES & CROSSWALKS NOTES: 1. NEW ADDITION WILL NOT INCREASE GSF OF THE BUILDING. NEW SIDEWALK ONSITE PARKING • 182 GARAGE PARKING SPACES • 36 SURFACE PARKING SPACES • 218 PARKING SPACES TOTAL (INCLUDING 11 ADA SPACES) NEW GRASS • TOTAL PARKING COUNT IS LESS THAN 3.33 SPACES PER 1,000 SF AS OUTLINED BY 150.505(B)(4) AS ((72,000 SF/1,000 SF)*3.33=240 SPACES) 0 10' 20' 40' SITE PLAN N THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 17 of 78  PROJECT LOCATION ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA SUMMARY STRIPED PARKING DATA LEVEL 1 (BELOW GROUND) = 59 LEVEL 2 = 59 VISIBLE SPACES = 101 ACCESSIBLE SPACES = 7 TOTAL SPACES = 226 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE ZONING INFORMATION “ ” SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS U E E N A V LEGEND A L TR N CE NOTES CL SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES LINE LEGEND “ ” PROJECT PROJ. NO.: 1 OF 1 SCALE: 1" = 30' 799 Central Avenue Highland Park , IL 23.0114 ALTA SURVEYS l TOPOGRAPHY l CONSTRUCTION STAKING CLIENT 2631 GINGER WOODS PARKWAY, STE. 100 AURORA, IL 60502 Keshet 610 Academy Drive PHONE: (630) 820-9100 FAX: (630) 820-7030 EMAIL: ADMIN@CLSURVEYING.COM Northbrook IL 60062 Page 18 of 78 J:\Psdata\2023 Projects\23.0114\23.0114LTS.dwg, 6/29/2023 8:35:39 AM  MONUMENT SIGN RENDERING - DAY THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 19 of 78  MONUMENT SIGN RENDERING - NIGHT N THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 20 of 78  GYM ADDITION RENDERING - DAY THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 21 of 78  GYM ADDITION RENDERING - NIGHT N THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 22 of 78  ENTRY CANOPY RENDERING THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 23 of 78 Page 24 of 78 Page 25 of 78 Long lasting beauty by design. Inspiration Guide Siding | Trim | Soffit jameshardie.com Page 26 of 78 INTRODUCTION Hardie ® Plank Evening Blue Make your dream home a reality. As North America’s #1 brand of siding,* count on Hardie® fiber cement products to perform beautifully while helping to protect what you cherish. Hardie ® Plank Aged Pewter Hardie ® Trim Arctic White *Based on Freedonia 2022 Global Siding (Cladding) demand estimates and James Hardie sales in North America. 2 Page 27 of 78  Hardie ® Plank Arctic White Hardie ® Panel & Hardie ® Trim Batten Arctic White 3 Page 28 of 78 G E T T I N G S TA R T E D Hardie ® Plank Deep Ocean Hardie ® Shingle Deep Ocean Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Hardie ® Soffit Arctic White 4 Page 29 of 78 Transform imagination into inspiration. Explore colors, styles and accents that can help give your home a beautiful new beginning. Scan to visualize your home with Hardie® products, colors and textures. 5 Page 30 of 78 THE DESIGN PROCESS Imagine falling in love again with a home you’ve had for years. Hardie ® Panel & Hardie ® Trim Batten Arctic White Hardie ® Plank Arctic White Hardie ® Shingle Straight Edge Evening Blue 6 Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Page 31 of 78  Bring your timeless design to life. When picking the siding style for your home, there are a few things you should always keep in mind: 1 Your home is an extension of you. Choose exterior materials and designs that reflect your lifestyle. 2 Think about the climate where you live. Our fiber cement siding is a better all-around performer than wood-based or vinyl siding, delivering exceptional resistance to weather, is noncombustible and does not appeal to pests. 3 Take a long-term view of your investment. Weighing costs? Re-siding with fiber cement siding is one of the top ways to increase your home’s re-sale value.* 4 Choose colors that complement your personality. Find colors that complement your home’s setting and your personality. No other siding brand matches our combination of styles, textures and color finishes to capture the design you desire. 5 Complete ExteriorTM by James Hardie. The trim, soffit, and fascia will complete your “As we started looking at the house, we home’s exterior, giving it instant curb appeal and thought, well, maybe we should re-side it. Now long lasting value. I think it reflects more what’s on the inside of our house. It looks like a different house—it looks like a new house.” Lisa and Mike H. used Hardie® fiber cement products to re-side their home. *Remodeling magazine’s 2024 Cost vs. Value Report (www.costvsvalue.com). Complete data from the 2024 Cost vs. Value Report can be downloaded free at www.costvsvalue.com. 7 Page 32 of 78  Stand up to the elements. Stand out from the crowd. 8 Page 33 of 78 It’s easy to get swept away by James Hardie’s collection Hardie® Plank Stone Gray Hardie® Panel Stone Gray of profiles and products. The closer you look, you’ll Hardie® Trim Batten Stone Gray understand why Hardie® is North America’s #1 brand of Hardie® Trim Cobble Stone siding*, chosen for more than 10 million homes.** *Based on Freedonia 2022 Global Siding (Cladding) demand estimates and James Hardie sales in North America. **Estimate based on James Hardie North American siding sales and average housing unit size. Scan to see why James Hardie is the recognized industry leader. 9 Page 34 of 78 HARDIE® PLANK Hardie® Plank creates a signature style that’s uniquely yours. Hardie ® Plank Iron Gray 10 Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Page 35 of 78  Traditional beauty that goes beyond tradition. Wrap your home in clean, classic lines with low maintenance Hardie® Plank, which gives your home the warm and welcoming look you’ve always imagined. “Hardie® Plank was really able to provide the aesthetic I was going for. Now our home looks back to its original farmhouse look and feel.” Holly W. used Hardie® fiber cement products to re-side her 1800s-era farmhouse. Hardie ® Plank Khaki Brown Hardie ® Trim Arctic White 11 Page 36 of 78 HARDIE® SHINGLE Hardie® Shingle siding brings the handcrafted look of cedar to your dream home. Hardie ® Shingle Cobble Stone 12 Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Page 37 of 78 Inspire a mood of relaxation at the shore. Hardie® Shingle adds instant charm to any home—whether it’s located a stone’s throw from the sea or many leagues away. “Having something we knew would last and would still look good for a long time was a huge factor in our decision.” Chris and Minna Z. replaced fading and cracking cedar siding with Hardie® siding— with transformative results. Hardie ® Shingle Navajo Beige Hardie ® Plank Navajo Beige 13 Page 38 of 78 H A R D I E ® PA N EL Combine Hardie® Panel with Hardie® Trim Batten for a rustic board-and-batten look Hardie ® Panel Light Mist Hardie ® Trim Batten Light Mist 14 Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Page 39 of 78 Clean and contemporary with a little bit of country. Hardie® Panel transforms homes into modern farmhouses that would feel right at home on the prairie or rolling hills. Hardie® Panel Iron Gray Hardie® Trim Batten Iron Gray 15 Page 40 of 78 LONG L ASTING BEAUT Y Durable is the new beautiful. 16 Page 41 of 78 Hardie® fiber cement products are noncombustible,* hold no appeal for pests, and are made to withstand the harshest elements providing beauty built to last to Hardie ® Artisan ® Shiplap Primed and ready for paint help protect your home, and everything you cherish. *Hardie ® fiber cement products are noncombustible and have a Class A fire rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E84. Scan to see the durability of Hardie® products. 17 Page 42 of 78  Built to perform beautifully here, there, or anywhere. Only Hardie® fiber cement siding, trim and soffit are Engineered for Climate®, specifically designed to perform beautifully for where you live. Hardie® products resist shrinking, swelling and cracking, even after years of wet or freezing conditions, and they stand up to hot, humid conditions, blistering sun and more. Unlike other companies, we don’t prorate our Hardie® substrate warranty coverage. 30-Year, Non-Prorated Siding, Trim and Soffit Substrate Warranty Coverage by James Hardie 100% 100% 100% Year Year Year 10 20 30 18 Hardie ® Shingle Straight Edge Timber Bark Page 43 of 78  Hardie ® Plank Night Gray Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Nothing is ever finished until it’s finished. Exceptional finish adhesion Our proprietary coating is applied to the surface and edges of our boards for durable Hardie siding, trim and soffit products enhanced ® performance. with ColorPlus® Technology finishes can save you time, money and maintenance headaches down the road. Our controlled, baked on process, delivers a Superior color retention more consistent finish than paint applied on-site and Our ColorPlus® Technology finishes are baked performs better, helping your home look great for onto Hardie® fiber cement products, enhancing years to come. Backed by our 15-year limited finish resistance to peeling and chipping. warranty, you can enjoy the peace of mind that comes from a style that endures. Superior UV resistance Our ColorPlus® Technology finishes retain vibrancy longer when compared to vinyl siding and typical Scan to browse field paints on other siding products. color offering and request a sample. 19 Page 44 of 78 HARDIE® SIDING VS. WOOD-BASED SIDING Natural look of James Hardie designs every fiber cement board to resist swelling, buckling, warping and splitting. cedar with unparalleled No wood, wood-based, vinyl or other fiber cement siding can match our overall ability to performance. help protect your home’s exterior from the elements. Before After Hardie ® Plank Deep Ocean 20 Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Page 45 of 78  HARDIE® WOOD-BASED SIDING SIDING * * Resists Weather Hardie® siding Resists shrinking, swelling and vs. cracking in changing weather. Wood-based siding Shrinks and swells more with changes in moisture and humidity. ** ** Resists Fire Hardie® siding Won’t burn and is recognized by fire departments.† vs. Wood-based siding Noncombustible siding, combined with other safety measures, can help harden your home against damage from external fire. Resists Pests †† †† Hardie® siding Holds no appeal to animals or other pests. vs. Wood siding Subject to damage from woodpeckers and other pests. * The images illustrate Hardie® Plank and woodbased siding samples, both unexposed (left) and exposed (right) to repeated cycles of wetting and drying. ** The images represent Hardie® Plank and wood-based siding samples exposed to a blowtorch flame for 90 seconds. † Hardie® siding complies with ASTM E136 as a noncombustible cladding and is recognized by fire departments including Chicago IL, St. Paul MN, Flagstaff AZ and Wayne County, OH. Fiber cement fire resistance does not extend to applied paints or coatings, which may be damaged or char when exposed to flames. †† Images depict undamaged Hardie® Plank and wood siding exhibiting woodpecker damage. 21 Page 46 of 78 HARDIE® SIDING VS. VINYL SIDING Long lasting When investing in your home, don’t be misled by vinyl siding’s short-term cost. Its protection that vinyl color can be more susceptible to fading. Vinyl siding may also crack, buckle or sag siding can’t match. with weather stress and time, diminishing your home’s value. Hardie® Plank Evening Blue Hardie® Trim Arctic White 22 Page 47 of 78  HARDIE® VINYL SIDING SIDING * Resists Weather * Hardie® siding Resists damage from wind, rain, vs. freezing temperatures and hail. Vinyl siding Can be damaged by hail and more prone to cracks, buckling or warping with extreme temperature changes. ** ** Resists Heat Hardie® siding Noncombustible and helps resist damage from extreme heat.† vs. Vinyl siding Vulnerable to melting caused by flame, grills and Low-E windows. Resists Discoloration †† †† 0 0 Hardie® siding ColorPlus® Technology finishes are baked vs. onto the boards, creating consistent color that performs better and looks brighter on homes. Hours of UV 2,000 light exposure 2,000 Vinyl siding Color stability varies with product quality, which can affect susceptibility to color change. * The images illustrate samples of Hardie® Plank, both unexposed (left) and exposed (right) to repeated cycles of wetting and drying. Image of vinyl siding illustrates potential damage from hail or other impact. ** The images represent Hardie® Plank sample exposed to a blowtorch flame for 90 seconds, and a vinyl siding sample heated to 140°F for 30 seconds. † Hardie® siding complies with ASTM E136 as a noncombustible cladding and is recognized by fire departments including Chicago IL, St. Paul MN, Flagstaff AZ and Wayne County, OH. Fiber cement fire resistance does not extend to applied paints or coatings, which may be damaged or char when exposed to flames. †† Within a controlled lab environment, samples were exposed to an accelerated QUV test of 2,000 hours under ASTM G154-12a. 23 Page 48 of 78 LONG L ASTING BEAUT Y Durable Resilien 24 Page 49 of 78  e. nt. Meeting the challenges of a changing world. The Panorama House by Thrive Home Builders showcases a Net Zero, carbon neutral project featuring Hardie ® fiber cement siding. In the mountains of Breckenridge, Hardie ® siding is part of a project that is built for durability and resilience, while also providing a low maintenance solution. © 2024 Visuals by Insignia Studios / courtesy Pro Builder Media Scan to learn more about the resiliency of Hardie® siding. 25 Page 50 of 78 26 Page 51 of 78  Prepare for What to consider for your re-side Don’t just cover up an existing problem. your remodel To fix a damaged exterior, always completely remove the old siding. with these Have your home inspected for moisture damage, mold, termites and rot. If any of these are found, helpful tips. address the problem to avoid future structural issues. Your contractor should apply a weather-resistant barrier such as Hardie™ Weather Barrier. In fact, most building codes now require this. Be sure your new siding is installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions for optimal product performance. What to consider for your contractor Make sure the contractor’s proposal includes everything you requested and the price is based on the entire project, start to finish. Focus on value rather than price – the credentials, attention to detail and provisions for maintaining a safe and tidy workspace. Carefully read the contractor’s workmanship warranty policy. Remember, a proposal is not a contract. Once you get a written contract, compare it to the proposal to ensure all your needs are met. Scan for more Hardie ® Plank Arctic White help in choosing Hardie ® Panel Arctic White a contractor. Hardie ® Trim Batten Arctic White 27 Page 52 of 78  Added peace of mind with distinctive design. Hardie ® Plank Mountain Sage Hardie ® Trim Arctic White Get added peace of mind and complete your home’s distinctive Visualize Hardie® products on a 3D model of your home with Hover® Design Studio, design with Hardie® siding, trim, and soffit. With a Complete brought to you by James Hardie. Exterior™ by James Hardie you can spend less time and Start your free design. money maintaining your home and more time enjoying your new exterior. Select Hardie® products* are backed by the Good Housekeeping Seal. 2024 Green Builder Sustainable James Hardie recognized as *Includes Hardie® Plank, Hardie® Trim, Hardie® Panel, Hardie® Soffit, Hardie® Product of the Year Award for 2024 Eco-Leader by Green Builder ® Shingle (all primed and with ColorPlus® Technology), Hardie® Artisan® Lap, Hardie® Artisan® Lap Siding Hardie® Artisan® Shiplap, Hardie® Artisan® V-Groove, Hardie® Artisan® Square Channel, Hardie® Backer Board and Hardie™ Weather Barrier | 1.888.542.7343 | jameshardie.com Siding colors shown in these images may deviate from actual ColorPlus® Technology colors. For best results in color selection, please refer to our Statement Collection® and Dream Collection® product samples. © 2024 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, ™ and ® denote a trademark or registered mark owned by James Hardie Technology Ltd. Hover ® is a registered trademark of Hover Inc. The Good Housekeeping logo is a registered trademark of Hearst Communications, Inc. Green Builder ® and Green Builder ® logos are trademarks of its respective owner. HS2450 12/24 Page 53 of 78  6 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 5 INNER SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 INNER NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 8' 16' 32' OVERALL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (EXISTING) THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 54 of 78  6 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 5 GYM SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 INNER NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" KESHET OCCUPANCY KESHET OCCUPANCY 2 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" KESHET OCCUPANCY KESHET OCCUPANCY 1 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 8' 16' 32' OVERALL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (NEW) THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 55 of 78  T/ MASONRY PARAPET 34'-0" B/ROOF DECK 32'-0" EXTERIOR FINISH KEY NO. MATERIAL 1 BRICK T/ L1 COPING 23'-6" COLOR: TO MATCH EXISTING LEVEL 2 2 CAST STONE 19'-0" COLOR: TO MATCH EXISTING 3 FIBER CEMENT BOARD PANEL B.O.D.: JAMES HARDIE BOARD PANEL, 1'-6" X 8'-0" STYLE: OPEN JOINT TEXTURE: SMOOTH LEVEL 1 - N COLOR: DEEP OCEAN 2'-6" NEW STOREFRONT ASSEMBLIES 4 ACM PANEL 2 B.O.D.: ARCONIC RAYNOBOND ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATION (PR) STYLE: OPEN JOINT SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" TEXTURE: SMOOTH COLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED TO MATCH EXISTING NEW GYM ADDITION T/GYM PARAPET 43'-0" EXISTING MECH. SCREENING TO NEW PUNCHED WINDOWS T/ GYM STEEL REMAIN FOR NEW RTU'S 41'-0" T/ ACM PARAPET 38'-6" T/ MASONRY PARAPET 34'-0" B/ROOF DECK 32'-0" 3 T/ L1 COPING 23'-6" LEVEL 2 19'-0" 1 2 4 11'-6" LEVEL 1 - N 2'-6" NEW CANOPY & ENTRY NEW PUNCHED WINDOWS 1 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION (PR) SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4' 8' 16' PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 56 of 78  NEW GYM ADDITION T/GYM PARAPET 43'-0" T/ GYM STEEL 41'-0" EXTERIOR FINISH KEY T/ ACM PARAPET NO. MATERIAL 38'-6" T/ MASONRY PARAPET 1 BRICK 34'-0" COLOR: TO MATCH EXISTING B/ROOF DECK 32'-0" 2 CAST STONE COLOR: TO MATCH EXISTING 3 FIBER CEMENT BOARD PANEL T/ L1 COPING 23'-6" B.O.D.: JAMES HARDIE BOARD PANEL, 1'-6" X 8'-0" LEVEL 2 STYLE: OPEN JOINT 19'-0" TEXTURE: SMOOTH COLOR: DEEP OCEAN 4 ACM PANEL B.O.D.: ARCONIC RAYNOBOND STYLE: OPEN JOINT LEVEL 1 - N TEXTURE: SMOOTH 2'-6" COLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED TO NEW CANOPY & ENTRY MATCH EXISTING 2 ENLARGED GYM SOUTH ELEVATION (PR) SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NEW GYM ADDITION T/GYM PARAPET 43'-0" EXISTING MECH. SCREENING TO T/ GYM STEEL REMAIN FOR NEW RTU'S 41'-0" T/ ACM PARAPET 38'-6" T/ MASONRY PARAPET 34'-0" B/ROOF DECK 32'-0" T/ L1 COPING 23'-6" LEVEL 2 19'-0" LEVEL 1 - N 2'-6" NEW PUNCHED WINDOWS 1 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION (PR) SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4' 8' 16' PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 57 of 78 FROM CENTRAL AVE LOOKING NORTH FROM CENTRAL AVE LOOKING WEST FROM CENTRAL AVE LOOKING SOUTH FROM KESHET DRIVE ENTRY CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS N THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 58 of 78  SUNSET WOODS KESHET OCCUPANCY A V E. T R AL E) C E N F I C 833 OST OF P (US . R RD A VE . T RALA Y DP C EN BA N N LA 7 9 9 EE IGH GR N H 50 IO E. 18 LB V L A E (A T RA RAG E N GA K) 9 C G 9 7 RKIN PA CE L RA E. NT A L A V G ) T R D I N AV C EN BUIL E. 777 RBE (CO D S O O F OT ET L N S NG U K I S R PA AERIAL THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 59 of 78  KESHET SIGN SCHEDULE TYPE LENGTH HEIGHT AREA (SF) ILLUMINATION GYM WALL SIGN EAST 7'-8" 7'-7.5" 59 HALO LIT GYM WALL SIGN NORTH 17'-3" 4'-1" 70.5 HALO LIT CANOPY SIGN 17'-5.5" 1'-0" 18 HALO LIT MONUMENT SIGN 6'-0" 4'-2" 9 HALO LIT WALL FACE 7'-7 1/2" 4'-1" METAL SIGNAGE FACE LED STRIP LIGHTING AGAINST WALL 17'-5 1/2" PIN MOUNTING ACRYLIC BACKER 7'-8 3/8" 1'-10 1/8" 17'-3 1/8" 1'-0" THE JUSTIN COE CENTER 26'-9 5/8" NOTES: NOTES: 1. LOGO ON SOUTH ELEVATION & TEXT ON WEST ELEVATION 1. +12'6" AFF TO TOP OF SIGN 2. +38' AFF TO TOP OF SIGN 2. ALUMINUM LETTERS, FLOUROPOLYMER FINISH 3. BERTHOLD AKZIDENZ GROTESK TYPEFACE 3. ROBOTO REGULAR TYPEFACE 4. ALUMINUM LOGO & LETTERS, FLOUROPOLYMER FINISH 4. HALO ILLUMINATED 5. HALO ILLUMINATED 5. SIGN AREA: 18 SF 6. SIGN AREA: 129.5 SF 4 GYM SIGN DETAIL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 ENTRY CANOPY DETAIL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 HALO LIT SIGNAGE DETAIL (TYP.) SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" HALO LIT LOGO & TEXT 9 SF OF SIGN AREA FOR KESHET ANODIZED AL. CAPS STOP SIGN TO MATCH EXISTING 10'-0 3/4" EXISTING TENANT EXISTING LIGHT POLE SIGNAGE ELEMENT TO BE RECLAD 5'-0" FCB PANELS TO MATCH EACH TENANT: 3.5 - 7 SF GYM ADDITION SIGN AREA 3 PR3.13 2 6'-0" 9'-0 5/8" STOP SIGN MONUMENT SIGN 1 MONUMENT SIGN ENLARGED PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 MONUMENT SIGN - SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 MONUMENT SIGN - EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SIGNAGE DETAILS N THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 60 of 78  16'-11 1/8" TENANT SIGN SCHEDULE TYPE LENGTH HEIGHT AREA (SF) ILLUMINATION NEW HALO LIT SIGN, 25 SF, 1'-6" PART OF FRONT TENANT IVYREHAB SIGNAGE PERMIT WALL SIGN 8'-0" 3'-0" 25 Y WINDOW SIGN 1.5 N MONUMENT SIGN 3'-6" 1'-0" 3.5 Y SOUL 2 SOLE WALL SIGN 17'-2" 1'-2" 20 Y WINDOW SIGN 1.5 N MONUMENT SIGN 3'-6" 1'-0" 3.5 Y CENTRAL BLO BAR WALL SIGN 7'-11" 1'-11.5" 16 Y WINDOW SIGN 10 N (2) EXISTING LEVEL 2 MONUMENT SIGN 3'-6" 1'-0" 3.5 Y TENANT IDENTITY T&T NAILS 17'-6" SIGNS, 3 SF EACH WALL SIGN 3'-1" 5'-3" 16.3 Y WINDOW SIGN 2 N EXISTING KESHET MONUMENT SIGN 3'-6" 1'-0" 3.5 Y WINDOW SIGN, 1 SF FOWARD FOCUS (PROPOSED) NEW LEVEL 2 TENANT WALL SIGN 16'-11" 1'-6" 25 Y SIGNS TO BE WINDOW WINDOW SIGN 2 N SIGNS MOUNTED TO GROUND SIGN 5'-10" 3'-0" 18 Y DOOR OR TO ADJ. 18 SF SIGN AREA ON EXISTING GLAZING LEVEL 2 TENANT GROUND SIGN, LIT BY WINDOW SIGN (EACH) 3 N GROUND LIGHTS, PART OF FRONT TENANT SIGNAGE PERMIT 5 SIGN - FOWARD FOCUS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 WEST GROUND SIGN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 7 SIGN - LEVEL 2 ENTRY SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8'-0 7/8" 5'-3 1/4" 17'-2 1/8" 7'-11 1/8" 3'-0 3/4" 1'-2 1/8" EXISTING BACKLIT 1'-11 1/2" EXISTING BACKLIT EXISTING BACKLIT 3'-1 1/4" EXISTING BACKLIT SIGN, 20 SF SIGN, 16.3 SF SIGN, 25 SF SIGN, 15.5 SF 14'-5 7/8" 15'-3" 14'-6" 13'-9" EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING WINDOW SIGN, 1.5 SF SIGNS, 10 SF EXISTING WINDOW SIGN, 1.5 SF SIGN, 2 SF 1 SIGN - IVY REHAB SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SIGN - SOUL 2 SOLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SIGN - CENTRAL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 SIGN - T&T NAILS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT FOR SIGANGE STANDARDS. EXISTING & NEW TENANT SIGNAGE THE JUSTIN COE CENTER AT KERSTEN CAMPUS 799 CENTRAL AVE, HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 06/02/2026 © 2026 LCM ARCHITECTS Page 61 of 78  CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL Date Approved: June 2nd, 2026 Project Address: 799 Central Avenue (the “Property”) Applicant: Alec Thornton (on behalf of Keshet) Project Name / Description: Design Review for Keshet Application Summary The Plan & Design Commission approved the Design Review for exterior alterations as shown in Attachments 2, 4, & 6 of the packet. Approved Plans: • Approved Site Plan – per Attachment 2 in the posted packet for June 2, 2026 • Approved Elevations - per Attachment 6 in the posted packet for June 2, 2026 • The landscaping approval from October 21, 2025 is still applicable. Approved Plans Attached. See next page for notes and signature. Page 1 of 2 Page 62 of 78 This is to verify that on this date, an approval was given by the Plan & Design Commission of the City of Highland Park, Illinois for this project. It is the responsibility of the Petitioner to ensure that all necessary permits are filed with the City. Plan & Design Commission approval does not imply that the project has met all code requirements of the City as subsequent approvals by the Building Division, Public Safety or Public Works may be required. Anthony Mistretta Planner I Community Development Page 63 of 78  MEMORANDUM – PLAN & DESIGN COMMISSION TO: Plan and Design Commission (“Commission”) FROM: Community Development Department DATE: for the June 2nd, 2026 Plan & Design Commission meeting RE: Final Plat of Re-Subdivision with Variations (0 Meadow Ln., a vacant lot with the PIN 1616310002 that is adjacent to 1700 Meadow Ln.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Commission consider the proposed Minor Plat of Re- Subdivision with two requested subdivision variations and that the Commission make a written recommendation regarding the Plat 1. The proposed plat of re- subdivision is attached as Attachment 2. If the Commission is ready to make a recommendation to approve, draft Findings of Fact approving 2 the Plat (“FOF”) are attached in the packet as Attachment 4. Standard conditions of approval are also recommended, which are listed towards the end of this report. SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATION: The petitioner and property owner Hedjo Chase, LLC (“Applicant”) has submitted a Minor Plat of Subdivision application to re-subdivide the property 0 Meadow Lane (the “Property”) into two buildable lots. The Property is currently one buildable lot with no structures on it. Based on what the Applicant submitted, their intention is to subdivide the Property from one lot to two lots – both would be buildable 3. The existing Property is approximately 2 acres in size or 87,124 sq. ft. The proposed re-subdivision would split land into two approximate-1 acre lots. The lots are proposed as follows: • Lot 1: proposed to be 43,560 or approximately 1 acre. This lot is proposed to be vacant and buildable for a new single family home. • Lot 2: proposed to be 43,564 sq. ft. or approximately 1 acre. This lot is proposed to be vacant and buildable for a new single family home. The Subject Property is within the R3 zoning district, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. and minimum Lot Width of 100 feet. The proposed lots will comply. The Applicant requests two subdivision variations, discussed further in the next section. 1 The PDC has 45 days to make a written recommendation, unless the applicant allows longer in writing, and if the Commission takes longer than 45 days without the consent of the applicant, the application is deemed denied. 2 FOF are not a staff recommendation and are available only in the event the PDC is ready to act. 3 New construction must comply with relevant City Codes and receive permit. Page 64 of 78 A Minor Subdivision without variation only requires review by the Secretary and Chairman of the Plan Commission prior to the City Council meeting, per Section 151.005(E)(1)(a) 4. In all cases final consideration occurs by City Council at a public meeting noticed by regular US mailing to adjoining property owners. • The plat qualifies as a Minor Subdivision because no Bonded Improvements are required 5. • The Commission is considering the application because two 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.” Variation Review: The proposed re-subdivision does not comply with Section 151.004(A)(1): “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.” • Proposed Lot 1 has 11 sides and has multiple intersections that are not at 90 degree angles. • Proposed Lot 2 has five sides and has at least one intersection not at a 90 degree angle. • The prior subdivision was approved for similar relief, in 2021. The variation also encompasses the interior proposed lot lines, of which there are seven proposed interior line segments. Three of the interior line segments are approximately at 90 degree angles; the other interior lines are not. The interior line segments appear to follow the existing private driveway to the existing home. The Applicant submitted a survey and survey exhibit, included in Attachment 4, that indicate existing lot lines and the proposed lot lines with the driveway superimposed. The Applicant states the following regarding the proposed variation for this subsection, from Attachment 1.: • “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.” The proposed re-subdivision does not comply with Section 1501.004(A)(5): “Relationship to streets. Each lot shall have principal frontage on a public street. Through lots are prohibited.” The Subject Property currently fronts on private streets Thornwood Lane, Meadow Lane, and Hybernia Drive. This is a pre-existing condition and any re-subdivision of the Subject Property would need this variation. The proposed lot will front on Hybernia Drive and Thornwood Lane, both private streets. NEIGBOR COMMENTS: 4 Section 151.005(E)(1)(a). “Following a review of the plat of each such Minor Subdivision by the Secretary and Chairman of the Plan Commission, the Chairman will make a written recommendation regarding the plat to the City Council within 45 days. The failure of the Chairman to provide a recommendation within such 45 day period, or such further time to which the applicant may, in writing, agree, shall be deemed a recommendation against the approval of the minor subdivision plat.” 5 Section 151.010(B)(23) “’Minor Subdivision’ Any subdivision which does not involve the installation and/or construction of bonded improvements.” 2 65 of 78 Page Public Comments have been included in the packet. The abutting HOA (Hybernia) has provided general comments on behalf of the entire Homeowners Association. The Planning Division recommends Applicants reach out to neighbors and HOAs, as appropriate. 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: a. Zoning review is included within this memo. 2. Engineering Comments: a. In current conditions the lots drain east so with the new lot lines Lot 2 will need to accept the Lot 1 run off. 3. Forestry: a. Should this subdivision application receive approval, all matters of tree preservation will be administered within the permitting phase of development. 4. Fire Departments: No objections. 5. Building Division: No objections. 6. ComEd: The only comment ComEd has is that the Easement Provisions from Document 2906319 referenced on this new Plat should be included. Alternatively, the attached easement provisions can be added. (See Attachment 7.) 7. Comcast: Comcast has no cable facilities within the boundaries of the Minitzer Estates Resubdivision and therefore has noobjection to the proposed resubdivision. 8. AT&T: Thank you for sharing the details on the proposed plat of re-subdivision. After reviewing the information provided, AT&T has no concerns with this re-subdivision at 0/1700 Meadow Ln. Everything looks good from our end. 9. North Shore Gas was contacted and did not respond. 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. PRIOR RE-SUBDIVISION This property has had a prior re-subdivision which was considered at 9/28/21 PDC meeting. The PDC ultimately recommended the drafted Findings of Fact recommending approval for the Plat of Re-subdivision with the variations requested, recommending 5-1. The plat was approved by City Council on Oct. 25, 2021. ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW: Applicant/Property Owner: Hedjo Chase, LLC. Legal Counsel: Cal Bernstein Location: The Properties are comprised of the following tax parcel: • PIN: 16-16-310-002-0000 (0 Meadow Lane) The subdivision does not create any new zoning nonconformities. Section 151.004 Minimum Design Standards & Other Chapter 151 Requirements Standard Requirement Proposed Notes Sub. lot shape 4 sides Multiple Variation 3 66 of 78 Page  Applicant needs to lot depth 125' confirm Complies Lot 1 - 43,560 Sq. Ft. zoning density 40,000 Sq. Ft (R3) Lot 2 - 43,564 Sq. Ft. complies Applicant needs to zoning width 100' (R3) confirm complies creation of nonconformities none allowed none proposed complies tableland 20% or more complies complies located along private Sub. frontage on a public street frontage required streets Variation established property width average NA for two lots not applicable NA streets and alleys and pedestrian ways ROW dedication not required no PW objections complies other public access use areas and facilities no comments from PW no PW objections complies easements proposed utility and drainage easements new lots proposed or on plat complies lot-in-depth standards not applicable not applicable complies Other Review Notes: no flood plain on flood plain none property noted required infrastructure improvements See PW comments no PW objections NA must comply & bury per Sec. Waiver burial of utility lines 151.008(7) Waiver requested Requested The following is a summary Zoning Code review: 1. The Subject Property is located within the R3 zoning district. 2. The Subject Property is not locally landmarked nor within a historic district. 3. There is not steep slope on the Subject Property, as defined in Article II of the Zoning Code. 4. There is no flood plain on the Subject Property. 5. The Subject Property has frontage on dedicated and built private streets. Preliminary zoning review for proposed lots: 1. Lot 1: a. Lot 1 will have a R3 40 feet required front yard along the west property lines along the private streets, located along Hybernia Drive and Thornwood Drive. b. The three lot line segments opposite the front property lines will become R3 required rear yards, of 20% of the Lot Depth, or 40 feet, whichever is less. c. The residual two lot lines, one on the north being 197.84 feet in length and one on the south being 47.48 feet in length, are side yards and will have the R3 requirement: the total sum of the two side yards must equal 30% of the Lot Width with any one side yard being at least 15 feet. The Lot Width will have to be provided for future construction on this property. d. Subdivision Building Lines appear on the plat. The Codes does not require these lines. The Applicant may remove them if they want. If the Applicant keeps the lines they should clarifies what accessory structures are allowed to encroach, such as fences. 4 67 of 78 Page  e. The Established Building Setback (“EBS”) is not triggered by the proposed lot arrangement. 2. Lot 2: a. Lot 2 will have a R3 40 feet required front yard along the west and north property lines, located along Thornwood Drive. b. The two lot line segments opposite the front property lines will become R3 required rear yards, of 20% of the Lot Depth, or 40 feet, whichever is less. c. The residual two lot lines, one on the east being 195.84 feet in length and one on the southwest being 197.84 feet in length, are side yards and will have the R3 requirement: the total sum of the two side yards must equal 30% of the Lot Width with any one side yard being at least 15 feet. The Lot Width will have to be provided for future construction on this property. d. Subdivision Building Lines appear on the plat. The Codes does not require these lines. The Applicant may remove them if they want. If the Applicant keeps the lines they should clarifies what accessory structures are allowed to encroach, such as fences. e. The Established Building Setback (“EBS”) is not triggered by the proposed lot arrangement. Other zoning code requirements will apply as appropriate, and this review is a preliminary and general review only, not an approval. Tree considerations will be required as part of any permit review. 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.” 5 68 of 78 Page CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK Subdivision Application Letter of Situation Dated: March 27, 2026 RE: Lot 2, 1700 Meadow Lane in Highland Park TO: Plan Commission and City Council Lot 2, 1700 Meadow Lane is a substantial property situated in west Highland Park, encompassing more than two acres of land. It is currently vacant. The owner desires to subdivide the property into two lots large lots to construct homes thereon. To subdivide the lot, 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. The newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character. 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 69 of 78  PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION 3110 WOODCREEK DRIVE OF CURRENT P.I.N.: DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 MINTZER ESTATES RESUBDIVISION P: 630.598.0007 BEING A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST WWW.CAGECIVIL.COM OWNER/DEVELOPER 0 30 ' 60 ' OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS 1" = 30 ' (HORIZONTAL) BASIS OF BEARINGS CAGE PREPARED FOR: ENGINEERING 5' = 3 2 4 .1 . 8 6 ' L 310 2 4 . 71' ' 4 2 " E ) 3 7 R = 7 2°0 28' DR = N L = 3 2 0. O D CH O W AREA SUMMARY O RN ( TH TA CIVIL LO CH=N 59°47'46" E 63.58' ' R=113.50' L=64.45' 195.84 LEGEND LOT 2 3'37" W CH=N 42°05'45" E 27.94' REVISIONS S 10°4 L=3.87' R=25.00' L=29.64' (PARCEL 1) LOT 2 (P MINTZER ESTATES SUBDIVISION A LORCE CH=N 12°57'39" E 35.97' TDL R=213.50' L=36.01' 2) N 46 °1 THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE 8' REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM 38 PK CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. "W 19 7. 84 ' N 86°18'01" W 62 .91' R = 2 8 6. 5 0 LOT 1 C H=N 0 8 ° 4 ' L = 9 0. 4 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION S 51°12'22" W 65.29' 5 '12 " E ' MINTZER ESTATES RESUBDIVISION 9 0.0 3' .9 8' HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 85 "W LOT A (HYBERNIA DR) 1 7'2 °2 56 S LOT 1 ' 85 .3 9 "W MINTZER ESTATES SUBDIVISION 1'47 °3 43 S N 00°17'10" W 145.15' ' 25 0. 10 W 2" 4'4 SURVEYOR'S NOTES 38 °3 S 47.48' S89° 42' 50"W (P PROJ NO: 210112 A LORCE TDL PM : GP/AR 2) SHEET INDEX DATE : 02/05/2026 SCALE : 1"=30' SHEET NUMBER 1 OF 2 Page 70 of 78  PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION 3110 WOODCREEK DRIVE OF CURRENT P.I.N.: DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 MINTZER ESTATES RESUBDIVISION P: 630.598.0007 BEING A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS WWW.CAGECIVIL.COM CAGE ENGINEERING CIVIL REVISIONS THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION 3893 MINTZER ESTATES RESUBDIVISION HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS ’ FOR REVIEW PROJ NO: 210112 3893 PM : GP/AR DATE : 02/05/2026 SCALE : N/A SHEET NUMBER 2 OF 2 Page 71 of 78  TREE EXHIBIT CURRENT P.I.N.: 3110 WOODCREEK DRIVE DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 P: 630.598.0007 WWW.CAGECIVIL.COM OWNER/DEVELOPER 0 30 ' 60 ' 1" = 30 ' (HORIZONTAL) BASIS OF BEARINGS CAGE PREPARED FOR: ENGINEERING 5' = 3 2 4 .1 . 8 6 ' L 310 2 4 . 71' ' 4 2 " E ) 3 7 R = 7 2°0 DR =N O D CH O RN W LEGEND O ( TH TA CIVIL LO ' 195.84 CH=N 59°47'46" E 63.58' 3'37" W R=113.50' L=64.45' S 10°4 CH=N 42°05'45" E 27.94' REVISIONS R=25.00' L=29.64' (PARCEL 1) PK LOT 2 MINTZER ESTATES SUBDIVISION (P A CH=N 12°57'39" E 35.97' LORCE R=213.50' L=36.01' TDL 2) THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. N 86°18'01" W 62 .91' R = 2 8 6. 5 0 C H=N 0 8 ° 4 ' L = 9 0. 4 0 S 51°12'22" W 65.29' 5 '12 " E ' MINTZER ESTATES RESUBDIVISION 9 0.0 3' .9 8' HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 85 "W LOT A (HYBERNIA DR) 1 7'2 °2 56 S TREE EXHIBIT LOT 1 ' 85 .3 9 "W MINTZER ESTATES SUBDIVISION 1'47 °3 43 S N 00°17'10" W 145.15' ' 25 0. 10 W 2" 4'4 SURVEYOR'S NOTES 38 °3 S 47.48' S89° 42' 50"W (P PROJ NO: 210112 A LORCE TDL PM : GP/AR 2) DATE : 03/26/2026 SCALE : 1"=30' SHEET NUMBER 1 OF 1 Page 72 of 78  FINDINGS OF FACT Plan and Design Commission Recommendation For a Proposed Minor Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision Located at 0 Meadow Lane, Highland Park, Illinois 60035 That Requests Variations to the City of Highland Park Subdivision Code (Chapter 151) SUB-2026-00013 RECOMMENDATION: The Plan and Design Commission recommends the requested variations be granted by the City Council, with the following conditions of approval: A. The Owners shall secure the necessary approvals from all public utility companies, provide easement statements, and locate all existing easements on the Plat, prior to recordation. B. The Owners shall secure the signature of the City Engineer and that of the County Clerk on the Plat, prior to its recordation. C. The Plat shall include all certificates, signatures, and seals as required by Section 151.005(A)(12) of “The Highland Park Code of 1968,” as amended. D. The Plat shall identify monuments for all corners of the proposed lot. REQUESTED VARIATIONS: 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. • The Applicant proposes two new lots which will not be four sided and will have intersecting lines not forming at right angles. The Applicant has requested a variation to Section 151.004(A)(5), which states thus: “Relationship to streets. Each lot shall have principal frontage on a public street. Through lots are prohibited.” • The Applicant proposes two new lots which will not front on public streets. Proposed frontage for the new lots will be on private streets. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Plan and Design Commission finds the requested variations in this specific case do not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code. The Plan and Design Commission documents the following facts of this specific case: Page 1 of 2 Page 73 of 78 1. Developing new properties as four-sided polygons with intersecting lot lines forming at right angles is inherently difficult for the Subject Property, 0 Meadow Lane, because the property is already in curvilinear and oval in shape, due to pre-existing conditions from prior platting. Proposed interior lot lines follow the existing driveway and form nearly right angles where intersecting the front property line. 2. The property is not subdivisible without variation to the public street frontage requirement – the property is already cut-off from public street frontage due to prior platting. The Commission finds that the Applicant states that when curb cuts and access is proposed onto the private streets the issue will be brought forth to the Hybernia HOA. STANDARDS FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIATION AND EXCEPTION: Sec. 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.” Sec. 151.002. – Intent and Purpose. “These regulations are intended to serve the following purposes:” A. “To assist in the carrying out and implementation of the Master Plan of the City of Highland Park.” B. “To set forth rules and regulations for the division and consolidation of real property.” C. “To provide for the proper location and/or width of streets and alleys, buildable areas, open spaces, utilities and drainage easements, and public use facilities and areas.” D. “To protect neighborhood character and to provide quality neighborhoods by requiring minimum lot widths, depths, and areas.” E. “To provide minimum standards for public improvements and provision for modernizing infrastructure, including water, sanitary sewer lines, and drainage.” F. “To provide for and secure the actual construction of public improvements.” G. “To discourage residential "enclaves" which tend to divide neighborhoods and which restrict reasonable access to adjacent land which is likely to be subdivided or resubdivided in the future.” Page 2 of 2 Page 74 of 78  2200 CABOT DRIVE. STE. 325 PLAT OF SURVEY CURRENT P.I.N.: LISLE, IL 60532 P: 630.598.0007 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS LOT 2 IN MINTZER ESTATES , BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF BLOCK 11 IN HIGHMOOR SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE WWW.CAGECIVIL.COM PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JULY 13, 1926 AS DOCUMENT 282477 AND PART OF LOT D IN HYBERNIA SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 17, 1990 AS DOCUMENT 2906319, BOTH BEING PART OF SECTIONS 16 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. SURVEYED AREA 0 40 ' 80 ' CAGE 1" = 40 ' (HORIZONTAL) ENGINEERING OWNER 4 .15 ' L = 3 2 3 10 . 8 6 ' . 71' 2 " E PREPARED FOR: DR ) R = 3 2 4 °0 7 ' 4 72 D H =N OO C NW CIVIL R HO (T A LOT ' 195.84 .5 ' 5 .4 3 3'37" W 8' 4 6 6 L= " E ' CH=N 42°05'45" E 27.94' 50 46 LEGEND R=25.00' L=29.64' R = 113 . ° 4 7 ' 9 S 10°4 N 5 REVISIONS CH= R = 2 8 6. 50 L = 9 0. 4 ' LOT 2 0' C H= N 0 8 MINTZER ESTATES ° 4 5 '12 SUBDIVISION " E 9 0.0 3 ' R C H = 213 62.91' 9' THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF .2 N86° 18' 01"W CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE 65 REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM =N .5 CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. 12 ° 5 0 ' L = 3 6 . 0 2"W 1 2'2 ° 7'39" 1' 51 S E 3 5.9 7 ' ' .98 85 W '2 1" SURVEYOR'S NOTES LOT A (HYBERNIA DR) 27 56° S 9' .3 X LOT 2 IN MINTZER ESTATES 85 HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS "W 47 LOT 1 N 00°17'10" W 145.15' 31 ' 43 S ° MINTZER ESTATES SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SURVEY ' 25 10 0. W 2" 4'4 °3 38 S 47.48' S89° 42' 50"W SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE PROJ NO: 210112 PM : G.P. 3893 DATE : 04/15/2026 SCALE : 1"=40' SHEET NUMBER 1 OF 1 Page 75 of 78 Burhop, Karl Subject: FW: Subdivision of Lots at 0 Meadow Lane From: David Mason < > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 9:58 AM To: Burhop, Karl <kburhop@cityhpil.com> Cc: Robert Stanley < >; Bernie Erdman < >; James Scheider < >; David Sugar < >; Kyla Mercer < > Subject: Subdivision of Lots at 0 Meadow Lane [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Karl—Please provide this email to the Plan and Design Commission. Thank you. To: Highland Park Plan and Design Commission Re: Proposed Subdivision of 0 Meadow Lane It is the understanding of the Hybernia Area Homeowners Association that the lot in question can be subdivided into two lots without the consent of the HOA. It is also the understanding of the HOA that the owners of the lots will have certain rights of ingress and egress over HOA owned roads. As construction plans for the two lots evolve, we require that our rights and property are respected, but with proper notice we will consider reasonable requests that may affect our rights and property: 1. Access to both lots should be via Meadow Lane, exclusively. If there is a desire by the owner of one or both of the lots for the creation of alternative means to access either lot, we should discuss well in advance. If the proposed development of either lot would require curb cuts, driveway access connections, roadway modifications, utility work, grading, drainage alterations, or other physical encroachments affecting Hybernia Drive, Thornwood Lane, adjacent berms, landscaped areas, stormwater facilities, or other HOA- owned property, those actions may well infringe upon our rights and we ask that we be provided with ample notice to consider such requests. 2. Experience tells us that the construction process can be messy. We respectfully request that: a. All streets be swept for nails and other debris each evening in order to avoid tire damage. b. Mud and dirt be removed from all streets each evening. c. Every effort be made to avoid dirt and other runoff from the property(ies) into the streets. All dirt and runoff migrates into our storm sewers which empty into our ponds, leading to deterioration of health of the ponds. 1 Page 76 of 78 The HOA reserves all rights with respect to HOA-owned property. No work should occur within or affecting HOA property without the HOA's approval and involvement in the process. The Board of Directors of the Hybernia Area Homeowners Association May 27, 2026 2 Page 77 of 78  EASEMENT PROVISIONS An easement for serving the subdivision and other property with electric and communication service is hereby reserved for and granted to Commonwealth Edison Company and SBC Telephone Company, Grantees, their respective licensees, successors and assigns jointly and severally, to construct, operate, repair, maintain, modify, reconstruct, replace, supplement, relocate and remove, from time to time, poles, guys, anchors, wires, cables, conduits, manholes, transformers, pedestals, equipment cabinets or other facilities used in connection with overhead and underground transmission and distribution of electricity, communications, sounds and signals in, over, under, across, along and upon the surface of the property shown within the dashed or dotted lines (or similar designation) on the plat and marked “Easement”, “Utility Easement”, “Public Utility Easement”, “P.U.E” (or similar designation), the property designated in the Declaration of Condominium and/or on this plat as “Common Elements”, and the property designated on the plat as “common area or areas”, and the property designated on the plat for streets and alleys, whether public or private, together with the rights to install required service connections over or under the surface of each lot and common area or areas to serve improvements thereon, or on adjacent lots, and common area or areas, the right to cut, trim or remove trees, bushes, roots and saplings and to clear obstructions from the surface and subsurface as may be reasonably required incident to the rights herein given, and the right to enter upon the subdivided property for all such purposes. Obstructions shall not be placed over Grantees’ facilities or in, upon or over the property within the dashed or dotted lines (or similar designation) marked “Easement”, “Utility Easement”, “Public Utility Easement”, “P.U.E” (or similar designation) without the prior written consent of Grantees. After installation of any such facilities, the grade of the subdivided property shall not be altered in a manner so as to interfere with the proper operation and maintenance thereof. The term “Common Elements” shall have the meaning set forth for such term in the “Condominium Property Act”, Chapter 765 ILCS 605/2(c), as amended from time to time. The term “common area or areas” is defined as a lot, parcel or area of real property, the beneficial use and enjoyment of which is reserved in whole or as an apportionment to the separately owned lots, parcels or areas within the planned development, even though such be otherwise designated on the plat by terms such as “outlots”, “common elements”, “open space”, “open area”, “common ground”, “parking” and “common area”. The term “common area or areas”, and “Common Elements” include real property surfaced with interior driveways and walkways, but excludes real property physically occupied by a building, Service Business District or structures such as a pool, retention pond or mechanical equipment. Relocation of facilities will be done by Grantees at cost of the Grantor/Lot Owner, upon written request. Page 78 of 78