Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council removes special-land-use item for 14001 Woodward Avenue from tonight's agenda after administration request

5810499 · August 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Highland Park City Council voted to remove from the Aug. 4 agenda a community development resolution on a special land use at 14001 Woodward Ave (applicant: Tequila Downs) at the administration's request; council members cited errors in the packet and called for corrected documents and further review.

The Highland Park City Council on Aug. 4 approved the meeting agenda after removing item 6: a community development resolution to approve a special land use for 14001 Woodward Avenue, an establishment identified in the packet as Tequila Downs.

An administration representative requested that the item be pulled so staff could correct and review the application; Council members debated whether a workshop was needed and several members said the packet contained "errors" that should be fixed before the council votes. One council member said, "There are some significant errors in this document ... I don't necessarily want to even vote this through as it is because there's too many errors for us to even touch it. Send this back." Another council member said constituents are eager to comment on the proposal and urged a public hearing when the item returns.

During the agenda vote, Councilman Ashafi said he would "vote no for the removal" and asked for specifics about the errors; Councilwoman Martin also recorded a "no" vote on the removal. The motion to approve the agenda with the removal of item 6 carried after roll call.

Public comment: At the meeting's citizen-participation segment, several residents asked council to oppose the proposed establishment when it returns to the agenda. One resident, Robert Lodge, said the planning commission had recommended against the establishment and urged council members to "stand with the citizens" and vote no if the item returns.

Next steps: Council members asked that staff provide a confidential written presentation identifying the packet errors and that the corrected application be returned for formal consideration and, if appropriate, a public hearing.

Ending: The removal does not decide the special-land-use request on its merits; it pauses council action until staff submits corrected materials and the council schedules further consideration.