CITY COUNCIL 2021/09/07 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Proceedings of the Monday, September 7, 2021
City Council Meeting - City Council Chambers
REMOTE ACCESS MEETING
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Honorable Mayor Pandaleon called the meeting to order at 6:30pm, and
the City Clerk Margaret Boyer called the roll of Council members.
Present: Honorable Mayor Pandaleon, Alderman Morris, Alderman Karras, Alderman Rummel, Alderman
Notz, Alderman Preschlack, Alderman Goshgarian, Alderman Buschmann and Alderman Weber.
Absent: none
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was recited.
REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS
COMMENTS BY MAYOR
Mayor Pandaleon made the following statement as required by the Open Meetings Act. In accordance with
state statute, Mayor Pandaleon has made a determination that it was not practical or prudent to schedule
an in-person City Council meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why this September 7, 2021
City Council meeting is being held remotely.
Mayor Pandaleon spoke about the recent music festival and antique car show.
COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER
A. Community Spot Light
- Open Lands, Susie Hoffman, Director of Education and Center for Conservation
Leadership
City Manager Jason Wicha introduced Open Lands, Director of Education, Susie Hoffman, to provide an
update on their upcoming events. She provided the City Council with information on their latest events
including the recent Land Blessing, Helping Hands, and their signature event, Bagpipes and Bonfire. Ms.
Hoffman stated that Bagpipes and Bonfire is scheduled to take place on September 19 from 4 pm – 8 pm.
OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the public can provide public comment by calling into the following number during the
meeting: 847-810-3643
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ITEMS FOR OMNIBUS VOTE CONSIDERATION
Proceedings of the Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Regular City Council Meeting
1. Approval of August 2, 2021, City Council Meeting Minutes
2. Approval of the Check Register for the Period of July 24 – August 27, 2021
3. Approval of an Amendment to the City Council Schedule of Regular Meetings Previously
Adopted by the City Council for the Year 2021
COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the three (3) Omnibus items as presented
Mayor Pandaleon asked members of the Council if they would like to remove any item or take it separately.
Seeing none, he asked for a motion. Alderman Rummel made a motion to approve the three (3) Omnibus
items as presented, seconded by Alderman Weber. The following voted “Aye”: Alderman Morris, Karras,
Rummel, Notz, Preschlack, Goshgarian, Buschmann and Weber. The following voted “Nay”: None. 8-Ayes, 0
Nays, motion carried.
Information such as Purpose and Action Requested, Background/Discussion, Budget/Fiscal Impact,
Recommended Action and a Staff Contact as it relates to the Omnibus items can be found on the agenda.
ORDINANCES
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to Deny a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the Third Condominium Building in the McKinley Road
Multi-Family Planned Development. (Action by Motion)
Mayor Pandaleon made a statement providing details of the process the City Council will follow for the item
presented. Specifically, Mayor Pandaleon stated that the Council would not be conducting a public hearing
on this appeal as that hearing had been held by the Historic Preservation Commission. He also noted that
the zoning and development approvals were not the subject of this hearing. He addressed various
communications submitted by an attorney for neighboring residents, and noted that in his opinion, the City
Council had jurisdiction to consider the appeal tonight.
City Attorney, Julie Tappendorf, then provided additional information regarding the appeal process. She
stated that the City Council had the authority to consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation
Commission’s decision to deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness. She also noted that the
Council had been provided with a significant amount of information and documentation relating to the
Commission’s hearings and proceedings. She stated that the City Code provides that the Council is to
consider the same standards as the Commission but that is not the only consideration and the Council is to
consider the standards in the context of the Council’s other responsibilities to the City, including the
responsibility to promote the public health, safety, and welfare and its fiduciary responsibilities to the City.
Director of Community Development, Catherine Czerniak, presented a brief background of the McKinley
Road development. Ms. Czerniak began by providing the history of the first two Phases of the project that
are completed. Additionally, she explained the timeline of this project, and the outcomes at its various
levels of discussion.
Proceedings of the Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Regular City Council Meeting
The Appellant, Peter Witmer, made a presentation about its appeal, explaining the changes that were made
to the proposed project to address concerns raised by the Historic Preservation Commission about the
project. Mr. Witmer stated that he believe the Commission erred in denying his application when it adopted
findings that were contrary to its decision, and requested the decision of the Historic Preservation
Commission be overturned.
Alderman Morris provided a statement recusing himself from the proceedings of this item.
Mayor Pandaleon asked members of the City Council to provide brief preliminary comments regarding the
McKinley Road development project to see where the Council stands before going to public comment.
Alderman Notz offered comments in support of overturning Historic Preservation Commission decision,
including his opinion that the application satisfies the standards and that the process was thorough and fair
to all parties.
Alderman Buschmann offered comments in support of upholding the Historic Preservation Commission
decision. He stated that the Commission did make findings that the standards weren’t met and that the
Council should affirm the Commission and deny the appeal.
Alderman Rummel offered comments in support of upholding the Historic Preservation Commission
decision for numerous reasons, including that the application failed to meet all of the standards and based
on the Council’s fiduciary responsibility.
Alderman Weber stated she was inclined to uphold the Historic Preservation Commission decision.
Alderman Karras also stated she was in favor of upholding the Historic Preservation Commission decision.
Alderman Preschlack offered comments in support of overturning Historic Preservation Commission
decision. He stated his opinion that upholding the Commission does not strike the right balance. He stated
six reasons for his opinion, including the potential legal liability if the City Council denied the appeal, the
potential chilling effect on future development.
Alderman Goshgarian offered comments in support of overturning Historic Preservation Commission
decision. He stated his opinion that the standards were met and that the Commission erred in denying the
application.
Mayor Pandaleon opened public comment.
Robert Grabemann, Attorney for the Neighbors, provided comments to the City Council on behalf of the
residents in the historic district. He stated that the appeal is based on a misrepresentation of the
Commission hearing and that Commission members stated that certain standards were not met. He asked
the Council to uphold the HPC decision.
Regina Lind offered comments to the City Council including her opinion that the north façade is not
compatible.
Tim Downey offered comments to the City Council including his opinion that the application did not meet
the standards and that there would be litigation either way.
Mark Pasquesi offered comments to the City Council including that upholding the Commission would chill
future development and be a setback for Lake Forest and asked the Council to overturn the Commission.
Proceedings of the Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Regular City Council Meeting
Susan Athenson offered comments to the City Council in her role as President of the Lake Forest
Preservation Foundation. She asked the Council to uphold the Commission and stated her opinion that the
application failed standards 1, 8, 10, 14, 2-6, 8, 9, and 11 and that it is not visually compatible.
Tom Prarie offered comments to the City Council, including that he had submitted a letter to the Council. He
expressed his opinion that the rooftop use was a problem and asked the Council to uphold the Commission.
Leslie Lardino offered comments to the City Council, stating that she was not opposed to a building but that
the proposed building does not fit and the scale and brick do not match the houses in the area.
Tom Swarthout offered comments to the City Council, including his agreement with Alderman Preschlak and
provided examples of previous developments that had opposition. He stated his opinion that the decision to
deny the project was a big disappointment to him and most of Lake Forest.
Reed Dailey offered comments to the City Council including his opinion that the project would impact his
home and a condo project was not a transition to the neighborhood
Stephanie Capparelli offered comments to the City Council, including her opinion that the building was not
visually compatible and she appreciated the Commission’s decision to deny the project.
Jeff Torosian offered comments to the City Council including that the Commission’s decision was not close
and that the Council should listen to the Commission.
Arthur Miller offered comments to the City Council including that he supported the Commission’s decision.
Patrick Corsiglia offered comments to the City Council, stating that when he purchased a unit in a
neighboring building he knew there would be a third building and that the City should live up to its
commitment to the developer.
Bud Angelus offered comments to the City Council including that the proposed rooftop use caused problems
with residents.
Tom Sweeny offered comments to the City Council including that the City’s treatment of residents is unjust
and nobody wants to live in Lake Forest.
James Sharron offered comments to the City Council, including his opinion that the City should protect
single family homes.
Mayor Pandaleon then provided an opportunity to the Appellant to respond to public comments.
Mr. Witmer asked about a statement made regarding potential conflicts of interest. Attorney Tappendorf
responded that she was aware of no conflict of interest that would preclude an Alderman from voting on
this appeal.
Following public comment, Mayor Pandaleon asked the Council if they had additional remarks.
Alderman Buschmann provided his opinions as to the proposed development. He then stated his
disagreement with the Appellant’s claim in its appeal that the HPC found all relevant 17 criteria were met,
stating that based on the record and HPC’s deliberations, the HPC had determined several specific standards
were not met. He suggested a remand to the HPC if the Council felt the HPC’s real intentions were not clear.
Otherwise he asked for the opportunity at the appropriate time to make a motion to deny Petitioner’s
appeal and affirm the HPC’s decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriates for three reasons. First, he stated
his opinion that the basis of the appeal is faulty and without merit. Second, he stated that a review of the
Proceedings of the Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Regular City Council Meeting
record confirms that several relevant standards are not met, including the reasons stated in a
communication from the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation dated 9-1-21. And third, he stated that the
Council’s broader responsibility for the welfare of its citizens and its fiduciary responsibility justifies denial.
Alderman Goshgarian provided comments regarding the completion of the project, and the Historic
Preservation Commission meeting minutes. He also discussed the existing zoning of the property and the
PUD approval, and that development should be considered as a whole.
Alderman Weber provided comments regarding the architectural aspects of the project. She stated that she
is in favor of multi-family but wants the building redesigned to be a better transition and had hoped the
Commission would have approved a better project.
Alderman Karras provided comments regarding development in the historic district and discussed 4 factors,
including the responsibility to all Lake Forest residents, the Commission finding that 5 standards were not
met, the Council following Commission decisions, and that it would be bad precedent to overturn the
Commission.
Alderman Rummel provided additional comments regarding the Historic Preservation Commissions decision
and how it relates to the 17 standards of appropriateness. She stated that an application only needs to fail
one standard to justify a denial. She stated that standards 1, 8, 2, 6, 7, 10, 4, 11, and 14 were not met. She
stated that many of these were discussed during the Commission hearings, and she referenced building
height compatibility, roof shapes, building massing, entrance porch, building materials, architectural style as
standards that were not met. She stated that the City Code allows the Council to consider its fiduciary
responsibility, as well as the health, safety, and welfare. She stated that the Council should listen to the
Commission, Preservation Foundation, and residents, reject the applicant’s and staff’s findings, and uphold
the Commission.
COUNCIL ACTION: Options for Council action are offered below in the form of possible motions.
Any of these require a motion and a second along with a roll call vote.
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny a Certificate
of Appropriateness for the third condominium in the McKinley Road Multi-Family Planned
Development.
OR
2. Grant the appeal and overturn the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision.
OR
3. Remand the matter to the Historic Preservation Commission for further consideration, public
testimony and action.
Mayor Pandaleon asked if members had any questions of the petitioner. Seeing none he asked for a motion.
Mayor Pandaleon asked the City Attorney to clarify what a particular vote on a motion means prior to the
City Council voting.
Alderman Buschmann asked for assistance from the City Attorney in framing a motion based on option 1. He
then made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny
a Certificate of Appropriateness for the third condominium in the McKinley Road Multi-Family Planned
Development. He based his motion on the three grounds he had noted earlier, as well as the statements
and findings presented by Aldermen Rummel, Weber and Karras, statements made by certain
Commissioners at the July 12, 2021 hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as other
Proceedings of the Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Regular City Council Meeting
evidence supporting the Commission’s decision and the finding that the appeal is without merit and the
application did not meet the applicable standards to justify a certificate of appropriateness. Seconded by
Alderman Rummel.
The City Attorney explained that a yes vote means that an Alderman agrees with the HPC decision to deny
the application and a no vote means an Alderman does not agree with the HPC decision to deny the
application.
The following voted “Aye”: Alderman Karras, Rummel, Buschmann and Weber. The following voted “Nay”:
Alderman, Notz, Preschlack and Goshgarian. The following Abstained: Alderman Morris. 4-Ayes, 3-Nays, 1-
Abstention. The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial
carried.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION/COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Mayor Pandaleon asked for a motion. Alderman Rummel made a motion to
adjourn, seconded by Alderman Weber. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote at 9:23 pm.
Respectfully Submitted
Margaret Boyer, City Clerk
A video of the City Council meeting is available for viewing at the Lake Forest Library and on file in the Clerk’s
office at City Hall. You can also view it on the website by visiting www.cityoflakeforest.com. Click on I Want
To, then click on View, then choose Archived Meetings Videos.