Historic Preservation
Regular MeetingHighland Park, IL · November 13, 2025
Minutes
1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
4
5
6 MEETING DATE: Monday, November 13, 2025
7
8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL
9
10 CALL TO ORDER
11 At 6:31 p.m., Chairperson Pines called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on-site.
12 Staff was asked to call the roll.
13
14 ROLL CALL
15 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger,
16 Portman, & Weeder
17
18 Councilmember Absent: Blumberg
19
20 Student Council Absent: Koslow
21
22 Staff declared that a quorum was present.
23
24 Staff Present: Mayor Rotering, City Manager Neukirch, Director Fontane, Senior Planner
25 Coleman, & Planner Markle
26
27 Others Present: Hart Passman, Corporation Counsel/Elrod Friedman LLP
28 Gale Cerabona, Recorder
29
30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
31 Special Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – September 29, 2025
32
33 Commissioner Gonka moved to approve the special meeting minutes of September 29, 2025. Commissioner
34 Weeder seconded the motion.
35
36 On a voice vote
37 Voting Yea Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Portman, &
38 Weeder
39 Voting Nay: None
40
41 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously.
42
43 SCHEDULED BUSINESS
44 1. Certificate of Appropriateness/COA – 242 Linden Park Place
45 Planner Markle offered a presentation:
46 • Summary
47 o Non-Contributing Structure – NC rating in the local Historic District
48 o built in 1959 (formerly Ranch type in the Plain style)
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 1
1 o no current home style
2 o architect is unknown
3 • Location of Proposed Changes
4 o rear of house; not visible
5 • Proposed Changes
6 o expand windows and door openings vertically by 10”
7 o install sliding-glass door
8 • Standards for COA were reviewed
9 • Recommendation
10
11 Some HPC comments are…..
12 • Commissioner Portman said replacements are consistent with existing structure and meets the
13 standards.
14 • Commissioner Weeder concurred, and said nothing is visible from the street. She has no issue.
15
16 Commissioner Gonka moved to approve the COA. Commissioner Weeder seconded the motion.
17
18 On a roll call vote
19 Voting Yea Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Portman, &
20 Weeder
21 Voting Nay: None
22
23 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously.
24
25 Commissioner Ehrlich arrived at 6:43 p.m.
26
27 DISCUSSION ITEMS
28 1. Encouraging Historic Preservation
29 Planner Markle offered a presentation (including benefits and challenges):
30 • Historic Rehabilitation Grants
31 • Local Property Tax Abatement
32 • Land Use Incentives
33 • Permit Fee Waivers
34 • Reduce Historic District Property Minimums
35 • Recommendation
36 • Next Steps
37 o feedback from HPC and Staff will be presented to City Council
38
39 Some HPC comments are:
40 • Commissioner Greenbaum clarified, and Planner Markle verified a fee could be assessed to the
41 homeowner to apply to remove a historic landmark designation (if the home no longer meets
42 criteria, etc.).
43 • Chairperson Pines asked, and Planner Markle confirmed the Fee Resolution is noted in the code.
44 Senior Planner Coleman stated this fee (for landmark designation removal) is $500.
45
46 Mr. Hart Passman, Corporation Counsel, arrived at 7:03 p.m.
47
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 2
1 Director Fontane suggested the HPC follow the discussion on encouraging/preserving historic presentation.
2 He explained fees, taxes, etc.
3
4 More HPC comments are:
5 • Commissioner Portman asked if all incentives are for existing homes and if this discussion is to
6 encourage others to landmark their homes. Planner Markle said the HPC could decide which homes
7 could/should be eligible for any potential preservation incentive.
8 • Commissioner Ehrlich thanked Staff as this information is very helpful. He would like to hear from
9 Mayor Rotering and City Manager Neukirch.
10
11 Mayor Rotering said she cannot speak on behalf of City Council. She shares the HPC’s concerns and looks
12 forward to incentivizing homeowners to preserve historic gems in Highland Park. Every idea is open and a
13 starting point.
14
15 Continued HPC comments are:
16 • Commissioner Gonka said he is interested in taxing people who are not interested in preserving
17 historic homes. Properties are hurt due to high property tax rates. Mayor Rotering said this could be
18 prioritized.
19 • Commissioner Weeder suggested taxing teardowns. Mayor Rotering said this happens with the
20 demolition tax. She recommended that these issues be presented to City Council.
21 • Commissioner Greenbaum asked, and Mayor Rotering shared that her home is not landmarked. She
22 explained the windows are not great, and it may be landmarked in the future.
23
24 City Manager Neukirch discussed the process, and said City Council is looking for the HPC’s feedback. She
25 suggested forming a list of supported recommendations – and complimented Planner Markle and Senior
26 Planner Coleman on the excellent presentation.
27
28 Commissioner Ehrlich asked, and Mayor Rotering advised if the code is being changed, a vote by City Council
29 is required. City Manager Neukirch stated corporate authorities can enact laws.
30
31 It was decided the HPC could review each category in the presentation and offer feedback.
32
33 Historic Rehabilitation Grants
34 • Commissioner Gonka believes it is not a good use of public funds. He would like to de-incentivize
35 people from tearing down houses.
36 • Commissioner Greenbaum stated the amount needs to be significant.
37 • Commissioner Gonka believes this should be a six-figure fine or 20% of the sale price.
38 • Commissioner Greenbaum identified that sometimes the HPC enacts a demolition delay, then City
39 Council removes it.
40
41 Mayor Rotering asked to differentiate between teardowns.
42
43 (continued)
44 • Commissioner Weeder said the whole City isn’t surveyed yet.
45 • Commissioner Portman reminded that City Council is looking for feedback on incentives.
46 • Commissioner Ehrlich identified that incentives are layered in other cities/villages. He noted a best
47 approach could be to mirror other cities/villages (Hinsdale, etc.).
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 3
1 • Commissioner Portman would like to decide which incentives are appropriate or not.
2
3 Director Fontane asked the HPC to look at the scope of the program; prioritize; how to encourage people to
4 landmark their homes; public good of private preservation. He noted there are 77 voluntarily landmarked
5 homes in Highland Park. Director Fontane stressed that the HPC not delve into the surveys, as they aren’t all
6 completed.
7
8 (continued)
9 • Commissioner Greenbaum asked Mayor Rotering what it would take for her to landmark her home.
10 Mayor Rotering said she doesn’t know, and wonders what’s to be gained. She stated education is
11 key. Her home has been in the family and is a Tudor Eclectic style.
12 • Commissioner Ehrlich said the HPC should learn what people are doing to their homes. Incentives
13 should be provided. There are a lot of Contributing Structures that haven’t been landmarked. Mayor
14 Rotering said preserving landscaping is another avenue.
15 • Commissioner Hartinger said the age of a home is a factor. People move here for the school system;
16 may not be able to afford a $2 million home. Homes built in the 1950s could be flagged to be
17 historic homes.
18 • Commissioner Gonka asked, and Planner Markle replied there is no age (of a house noted) in the
19 code to landmark a home. Senior Planner Coleman clarified that the 50 year cut-off is for Highland
20 Park architectural surveys.
21
22 Mayor Rotering mentioned the Boy Built homes should be landmarked.
23
24 (continued)
25 • Commissioner Ehrlich said there are homes built in the 1980s that should be landmarked. He noted
26 a landmarked home could be eligible for a grant.
27 • Commissioner Portman said educating people about a grant program is key. He referred to the
28 model Elgin has for income eligibility, and noted a test of this would be appropriate.
29 • Commissioner Gonka said the burden is on the homeowner to present a COA to the HPC when
30 someone wants to make a change to their house. He suggested a grant threshold could be a home
31 with 85 year-old windows, etc.
32 • Commissioner Weeder said rehabilitation is so costly.
33 • Commissioner Greenbaum suggested seniors with a limited budget who own a landmarked home
34 would be good candidates for a grant.
35
36 Local Property Tax Abatement
37 • Commissioner Gonka said this should be time-based for a property owner, not run with the land. He
38 would like to see the abatement be honored only if funds are put back in the property.
39 • Commissioner Portman asked, and Director Fontane said this is for the local level (what Highland
40 Park would enact) – not an assessment freeze. Property tax could be considered.
41 • Commissioner Hartinger asked, and Director Fontane said City Council would have to approve this.
42 • Commissioner Ehrlich said other taxpayers are paying the difference. He noted this is why a layered
43 approach would work. People’s income could change. Actual home examples (addresses) were
44 discussed on what could have been – other than a teardown.
45
46 Mayor Rotering advised that Highland Park’s portion is 7.7%. She shared her home was not maintained prior
47 to purchasing it.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 4
1
2 (continued)
3 • Commissioner Gonka said abatements can be given to maintain the house. There could be a sliding
4 scale based on income.
5 • Commissioner Portman said this would be helpful for the preservation tool box.
6 • Commissioner Gonka said money should be given back through preservation.
7 • Commissioner Greenbaum said the HPC wishes to preserve, and homeowners should benefit. She
8 stated those who don’t preserve should be fined.
9
10 Planner Markle advised tax abatement is a way to encourage people to landmark homes.
11
12 • Commissioner Gonka asked why a homeowner wouldn’t go through the state program if they are
13 going through the local program. He shared that his house is not locally landmarked, but he uses the
14 state program. There was no benefit locally, as there was more red tape.
15
16 Director Fontane said the historic preservation program is a benefit. This is voluntary. There is a public good
17 in private preservation; public value. Education on local landmarks is a value for the community. Local
18 landmarks don’t expire.
19
20 Chairperson Pines asked if anyone from the audience wishes to speak. The following came forward:
21 • Tom Hiller advised he lives in a Tudor Revival house. He said they crossed the 25% mark (of the state
22 program) and shared that it was explained (by a representative from the state) that he should
23 obtain a local landmark first.
24
25 Commissioner Gonka said a state landmarking could be attained without local landmarking.
26
27 Mr. Hiller concurs with Director Fontane.
28
29 Back to…..
30
31 Local Property Tax Abatement
32 • Commissioner Hartinger believes all categories/an armory should be provided. The end result is to
33 retain the home; charge as much as is legally possible if someone wants to tear down the house.
34 This would help developers think about homes rather than dollar amounts. No matter the income,
35 most people would take free money. He wonders what the number would be to trigger people.
36
37 Land Use Incentive
38 • Commissioner Hartinger said people may not buy if they cannot add on. Offering options would be
39 amazing.
40 • Commissioner Ehrlich stated other cities/villages already have a footprint. Working off of these is a
41 start. These have worked for at least some villages. Highland Park could make this widely available.
42
43 Director Fontane said there’s been a lot of feedback.
44
45 Chairperson Pines suggested this be studied, absorbed, and this discussion can be continued. It was stated
46 the remaining categories would be discussed at a future meeting. He asked, and Director Fontane advised
47 feedback would be provided to City Council.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 5
1
2 (continued)
3 • Commissioner Hartinger said if a demolition is granted, the code has to apply for new construction.
4
5 Director Fontane concluded these are incentives for historic properties; to encourage preservation – not to
6 discourage, penalize; a different approach policy-wise.
7
8 Chairperson Pines thanked Planner Markle for the information.
9
10 Mayor Rotering thanked the HPC.
11
12 Commissioner Greenbaum said she would like to discuss the negative approach; change people’s minds to
13 not tear down.
14
15 Commissioner Gonka said neighbors who protest encourage negative behavior. Having a big burden on the
16 homeowner, if demolishing, is an incentive; maintaining current properties benefits the community. He
17 noted City Staff/City Council do not want to discourage development.
18
19 City Manager Neukirch asked for all of the HPC’s ideas. She stated they will be compiled in a report. The
20 dialogue can be continued at the next meeting. Staff and Legal Counsel will present same to City Council.
21 City Manager Neukirch stressed that everything is on the table.
22
23 Everyone thanked the Mayor, City Manager Neukirch, etc. for attending tonight’s meeting.
24
25 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
26 There was no Business from the Public.
27
28 Senior Planner Coleman departed the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
29
30 OTHER BUSINESS
31 1. Commissioner/Open Meetings Act Training
32 Mr. Hart Passman, Corporation Counsel, offered a presentation:
33 • Agenda
34 • Statutory & Legal Authority
35 • City Code Provisions
36 • Specific HPC Duties & Responsibilities
37 • Landmark Criteria
38 • What is “Integrity”?
39 • Demolition of Dwellings
40 o New Code Provisions
41 o Common Questions
42 • Establishing a Landmark
43 • Establishing a Historic District
44 • Certificate of Appropriateness
45 • Certificate of Economic Hardship
46 • Burden for Satisfying Standards
47 • Common Questions & Problems
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 6
1 • Procedure – Open Meetings Act
2 • Open Meetings Act: Email & Online Communication
3 • Public Forums & Social Media
4 • Open Meetings Act
5 o Openness
6 o Enforcement
7 • Commissioner Attendance Requirements
8 • Freedom Of Information Act/FOIA
9 o General Rule
10 o Private Email & Text Messages
11 • Robert’s Rules of Order
12 • Procedure – Robert’s Rules of Order
13 • Motions
14 • Procedure
15 o Public Hearings
16 o Public Comment
17
18 Commissioner Greenbaum departed the meeting at 10:01 p.m.
19
20 (continued)
21 • Ethics
22 o City Guidelines
23 o Guidelines
24 o Enforcement
25
26 2. Next Regular Meeting is Scheduled for December 11, 2025
27 It was noted the next regular HPC Meeting is scheduled for December 11, 2025.
28
29 STAFF REPORT
30 Planner Markle advised that an article was written in The Highlander and has generated interest in
31 landmarking homes.
32
33 Planner Markle asked if the date of May 7, 2026, is okay for the Preservation Awards event.
34
35 ADJOURNMENT
36 Commissioner Hartinger moved to adjourn at 10:16 p.m. Commissioner Weeder seconded the motion.
37
38 On a voice vote
39 Voting Yea Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Portman, & Weeder
40 Voting Nay: None
41
42 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously.
43
44 Respectfully Submitted,
45
46 Gale Cerabona, Recorder
47
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 7
1 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
November 13, 2025 - Page 8
Agenda
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
City Hall - Council Chambers
November 13, 2025
6:30 PM
Agenda
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 Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Highland Park is scheduled to be held at the hour of 6:30 on November 13, 2025, at City Hall -
Council Chambers, 1707 St Johns Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois, during which meeting it is
anticipated that there will be a discussion of the following items.
The Historic Preservation Commission has elected to conduct hearings entirely in-person,
and without opportunity for virtual viewing or participation. Please contact the
Department of Community Development – Planning Division at (847) 432-0867 for up-to-
date information on the conduct of the hearing.
Individuals with questions or feedback about an agenda item may email the Staff Liaison Maddy
Markle at mmarkle@cityhpil.com. Comments and emails received prior to the Thursday before
the scheduled meeting will be included in the meeting packet. Public comments received by 4:30
PM the day of the meeting will be read under Business from the Public. Any comments received
during the meeting will be held until the end of the meeting. Individuals who wish to have their
comments read into the public record are limited to 200 words or less. Public comments should
be emailed and contain the following information:
• In the subject line, identify, “HPC (Date of Meeting)”
• Name
• Address (optional)
• City
• Phone (optional)
• Organization, agency representing, if applicable
• Topic or agenda item number of interest
All emails received will be acknowledged. Individuals with no access to email may leave a voice
message with Maddy Markle at 847.926.1856.
The City, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in
this hearing, or who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting facilities, email the
City’s ADA coordinator Emily Taub or call at 847.926.1005.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Minutes
A. September 29, 2025 Special Meeting
IV. Scheduled Business
A. 242 Linden Park Place - Certificate of Appropiateness
V. Discussion Items
A. A Discussion Regarding Encouraging Historic Preservation
VI. Business from the Public (Individuals wishing to be heard regarding items not listed
on this agenda)
VII. Other Business
A. Commissioner / Open Meetings Act Training
B. Next Regular Meeting Scheduled for December 11, 2025
VIII. Staff Report
IX. Adjournment
Packet
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
City Hall - Council Chambers
November 13, 2025
6:30 PM
Agenda
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 Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Highland Park is scheduled to be held at the hour of 6:30 on November 13, 2025, at City Hall -
Council Chambers, 1707 St Johns Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois, during which meeting it is
anticipated that there will be a discussion of the following items.
The Historic Preservation Commission has elected to conduct hearings entirely in-person,
and without opportunity for virtual viewing or participation. Please contact the
Department of Community Development – Planning Division at (847) 432-0867 for up-to-
date information on the conduct of the hearing.
Individuals with questions or feedback about an agenda item may email the Staff Liaison Maddy
Markle at mmarkle@cityhpil.com. Comments and emails received prior to the Thursday before
the scheduled meeting will be included in the meeting packet. Public comments received by 4:30
PM the day of the meeting will be read under Business from the Public. Any comments received
during the meeting will be held until the end of the meeting. Individuals who wish to have their
comments read into the public record are limited to 200 words or less. Public comments should
be emailed and contain the following information:
• In the subject line, identify, “HPC (Date of Meeting)”
• Name
• Address (optional)
• City
• Phone (optional)
• Organization, agency representing, if applicable
• Topic or agenda item number of interest
All emails received will be acknowledged. Individuals with no access to email may leave a voice
message with Maddy Markle at 847.926.1856.
The City, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in
this hearing, or who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting facilities, email the
City’s ADA coordinator Emily Taub or call at 847.926.1005.
Page 1 of 40
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Minutes
A. September 29, 2025 Special Meeting
IV. Scheduled Business
A. 242 Linden Park Place - Certificate of Appropiateness
V. Discussion Items
A. A Discussion Regarding Encouraging Historic Preservation
VI. Business from the Public (Individuals wishing to be heard regarding items not listed
on this agenda)
VII. Other Business
A. Commissioner / Open Meetings Act Training
B. Next Regular Meeting Scheduled for December 11, 2025
VIII. Staff Report
IX. Adjournment
Page 2 of 40
1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
4
5
6 MEETING DATE: Monday, September 29, 2025
7
8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL
9
10 CALL TO ORDER
11 At 7:06 p.m., Chairperson Pines called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on-site.
12 Staff was asked to call the roll.
13
14 ROLL CALL
15 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, &
16 Weeder
17
18 Commissioner Absent: Commissioner Portman
19
20 Councilmember Absent: Blumberg
21
22 Student Council Absent: Koslow
23
24 Staff declared that a quorum was present.
25
26 Staff Present: Planner Markle
27
28 Others Present: Gale Cerabona, Recorder
29
30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
31 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – September 11, 2025
32
33 Commissioner Ehrlich moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of September 11, 2025. Commissioner
34 Weeder seconded the motion.
35
36 On a voice vote
37 Voting Yea Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, &
38 Weeder
39 Voting Nay: None
40
41 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously.
42
43 SCHEDULED BUSINESS
44 There was no Scheduled Business.
45
46 DISCUSSION ITEMS
47 1. 2026 Commission Work Plan
48 Chairperson Pines shared he looks forward to HPC goals for 2026 and briefly reviewed objectives/expenses.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 29, 2025 - Page 1
Page 3 of 40
1 Commissioner Ehrlich thanked Chairperson Pines for all of his hard work and efforts in 2025.
2
3 Commissioner Ehrlich asked about the advertising budget of $500.00. Planner Markle advised this is for
4 publishing legal notices in newspapers.
5
6 Chairperson Pines proceeded reviewing objectives. He noted the Historic Preservation Awards and Bike
7 Tours continue to be successful and are well received by residents.
8
9 Regarding the preservation plan and community outreach, Planner Markle shared this includes welcome
10 letters for new residents or those who have recently purchased historic buildings in historic districts or
11 landmarked homes. They noted this is ongoing. Commissioner Ehrlich suggested sending welcome letters to
12 everyone and not just to those in historic districts. He stated information could be provided about Highland
13 Park’s goal toward preservation, what the HPC is about, etc. Input from the public at large is important.
14 Chairperson Pines agreed in heightening awareness. Planner Markle concurred it is a good idea to inform
15 everyone about the history of Highland Park.
16
17 Chairperson Pines highlighted Determinations of Significance, COAs, and the History Plaque Program.
18
19 Commissioner Gonka arrived at 7:18 p.m.
20
21 2. Introduction to Preservation Financial Incentives
22 Planner Markle mentioned Mayor Rotering, City Manager Neukirch, Director Fontane (tentative), and Senior
23 Planner Coleman will be in attendance at the November meeting.
24
25 Planner Markle offered a presentation highlighting incentive tools such as façade grants, restoration grants,
26 and adaptive reuse grants.
27
28 A brief discussion took place on landmarking historic properties. Commercial properties were raised.
29 Commissioner Gonka recommended a City Reform.
30
31 Planner Markle said demolition is when 50% or more of the structure is being torn down. Properties may not
32 be presented to the HPC, as they are not in a residential zoning district.
33
34 Commissioner Hartinger raised the importance of incentives to homeowners so they do not proceed with
35 teardowns. Chairperson Pines agreed on educating and offering incentives for preservation. Commissioner
36 Hartinger noted developers seek an attractive piece of land and don’t necessarily care about the history.
37
38 Commissioner Gonka shared reasons to live in Highland Park – it is not like other North Shore communities,
39 it has a vibrant downtown, historical surveys are unique (grants are received), etc. Planner Markle asked
40 that everyone brainstorm and provide creative solutions to challenges seen as of late. This will prompt the
41 discussion in November and facilitate ideas to City Council. They cited Hinsdale as a community that has
42 successfully moved its preservation program forward.
43
44 Ways to receive more funding was discussed (taxing, incurring penalties, varied fees for demolition delays,
45 etc.).
46
47 Commissioner Ehrlich talked about encouraging buyers to restore and preserve homes.
48
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 29, 2025 - Page 2
Page 4 of 40
1 Commissioner Gonka recommended a campaign to incentivize homeowners to voluntarily landmark their
2 homes. Commissioner Ehrlich said it could be promoted to homeowners that they may receive a higher
3 resale value if their home is voluntarily landmarked; statistical information could be provided. Public
4 awareness is key. There are more teardowns than homes being landmarked.
5
6 Commissioner Gonka asked if there are undesignated areas in Highland Park that could be designated as
7 Local Historic Districts. Planner Markle said there are National Historic Districts that have not been made
8 into local historic districts. Some of these areas were included in past failed nominations. Districts and
9 landmarks can be designated 2 years after the request previously failed. Planner Markle suggested
10 Commissioner Gonka look to the contiguous districts are on the National Register of Historic Places in
11 Highland Park. State and local tax freezes are common tools for incentives of restoration.
12
13 Commissioner Gonka asked how more incentives can facilitate landmarking houses. Planner Markle said if
14 homeowners have a regulated structure (in a landmark or historic district), they could potentially obtain a
15 tax freeze. This may be the thing that will convince homeowners. They noted private property owners,
16 whose houses are on the National Register, can tear down their house at any time. It was asked, and Planner
17 Markle will obtain the number of houses in Highland Park that are on the National Register.
18
19 Planner Markle continued with their presentation and explained flexible zoning (extra floor-area-ratio/FAR,
20 extra height, etc.), expedited review, fee waivers, etc. They pointed out these strategies work better when
21 layered as incentives for homeowners. Offering multiple incentives make a community successful.
22
23 Planner Markle will review if Highland Park has a requirement for building on a lot in order to demolish.
24
25 Commissioner Gonka raised variances being granted for those tearing down houses.
26
27 Planner Markle said many choices have to occur before making code changes. Multiple meetings will be
28 required. Encouraging homeowners to voluntarily landmark their homes is a good requirement for an
29 incentive rather than merely being a Contributing/Significant structure, as the home is not protected.
30
31 It was asked, and Planner Markle will distribute this PowerPoint presentation to the HPC.
32
33 Commissioner Ehrlich suggested informing homeowners wishing to sell, and those wishing to buy, of
34 landmarking opportunities (tax credits, etc.). Planner Markle cited this is where realtor education comes in.
35 Staff responds to realtor calls regularly. A landmarking campaign (education of Contributing properties, etc.)
36 would be appropriate. A brochure could be created. Boundaries were discussed.
37
38 Commissioner Hartinger mentioned significant architects who designed Mid-Century Modern houses in the
39 1950s, and homeowners who don’t realize their homes could be historic. Planner Markle advised best
40 practices indicate homes that are 50 years or older are considered historic.
41
42 Commissioner Greenbaum departed the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
43
44 Planner Markle advised Winnetka has flexible zoning ; however, there hasn’t been any interest.
45
46 Planner Markle will review how the State tax freeze works in Highland Park in relationship to local taxes–
47 freezing assessed value, etc.
48
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 29, 2025 - Page 3
Page 5 of 40
1 Planner Markle said the purpose of this discussion is to garner and prioritize ideas, so they can be presented
2 at the November HPC meeting. They noted the October HPC meeting may be canceled due to no
3 applications.
4
5 Chairperson Pines concluded the HPC should review this slide presentation, offer feedback to Staff,
6 determine top incentives, goals for preservation, etc. Planner Markle said the Mayor and City Manager may
7 bring the HPC’s thoughts/ideas to a Committee of the Whole. City Council may then decide which items to
8 pursue further. Planner Markle will incorporate feedback into tonight’s presentation and refine the
9 presentation for the November HPC meeting.
10
11 Commissioner Gonka said there isn’t a budget to hire a public relations firm to achieve certain HPC goals.
12 Planner Markle advised the budget for 2026 has been completed. Any ideas or increase in budget items
13 would be slated for 2027. They explained programs need to be decided first, then a budget would follow.
14
15 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
16 There was no Business from the Public.
17
18 OTHER BUSINESS
19 1. Next Regular Meeting is Scheduled for October 9, 2025
20 It was noted the next regular HPC Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2025, and may be canceled.
21
22 STAFF REPORT
23 Planner Markle referred to the 2022 Historic Preservation Plan which is available on the City website at:
24 https://www.cityhpil.com/government/boards_and_commissions/historic_preservation_commission/index.
25 php .
26
27 They thanked everyone for feedback on the welcome letter which has been revised and is being sent out.
28
29 Planner Markle will be speaking with Staff at the Village of Hinsdale about its preservation program and
30 what works and what doesn’t. Chairperson Pines asked and Planner Markle said they talked with Staff at 5
31 different communities about this and other topics.
32
33 ADJOURNMENT
34 Commissioner Hartinger moved to adjourn at 9:07 p.m. Commissioner Weeder seconded the motion.
35
36 On a voice vote
37 Voting Yea Chairperson Pines; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, &
38 Weeder
39 Voting Nay: None
40
41 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously.
42
43 Respectfully Submitted,
44 Gale Cerabona, Recorder
45
46 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2025, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 29, 2025 - Page 4
Page 6 of 40
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Maddy Markle, Planner I
Date: November 13, 2025
Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness – 242 Linden Park Place
Location: 242 Linden Park Place
Historical Name: None
Historical Status: Non-Contributing Structure in Linden Park Place Local Historic District
Structure: Style: Formerly Plain Style (1959-2000), Currently No Academic Style
Architect: Unknown
Built: 1959
Petitioner: Robert Shrago (contractor) on behalf of Stephanie Oettinger (owner)
1171 Beech Ln Highland Park, IL 60035
Project Architect: Cliff Town
1297 Shermer Rd, Northbrook, IL 60062
Figure 1. Front Façade of 242 Linden Park Place.
SUMMARY OF THE PETITION
Contractor Robert Shrago, on behalf of property owner Stephanie Oettinger, has submitted an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to openings on the rear elevation of the home at 242 Linden
Park Place. The application was submitted October 23, 2025.
242 LINDEN PARK PLACE
This property was designated a Non-Contributing Structure as part of the Linden Park Place Local Historic
District in 1997 (see Attachment 1). The original 1959 home was a Linear Ranch with Clusters in the Plain
Style. It was one story tall, with an asymmetrical façade, red-brick veneer, and an integrated garage on the left-
side of the front elevation. At some point prior to 1999 the red brick was painted white (see Attachment 2).
Page 1 of 5
Page 7 of 40
Few of the exterior features original to the house remain. In 1998 and 2000 the Historic Preservation
Commission (“H PC ”) granted Certificates of Appropriateness (“COA”) to previous owners, Sandra and Lee
Warren, to remodel the home and build a second story addition over the integrated garage (see Attachment 3).
The HPC found these changes appropriate because 242 Linden Park Place is a Non-Contributing Structure,
and the proposed changes were in scale with the Contributing Structures in the District. The house as it exists
today bears little resemblance to what was included in the 1996 Linden Park Place Local Historic District
Nomination. The applicant has provided photos of the home’s current condition (see Attachment 4).
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The applicant proposes to extend the window and door openings on the back elevation of the main house.
This will let in more light and create a better view of the trees in the backyard. All window and door headers
are currently at 80” above floor finish. The applicant proposes to extend these openings vertically so headers
will rest at 90” above floor finish (“AFF ”). A sliding glass door will be installed on the east side of the kitchen
(see Attachment 5).
• South Side of Dining Room: Remove three existing aluminum windows and one existing door in the
dining room. These will be replaced with three 90” AFF windows and a 90” AFF door. The
replacements will be aluminum framed and have mullions the same as current. Width of openings to
remain the same.
• South Side of Kitchen: Remove two existing aluminum framed windows in the kitchen and replace
them with 90” AFF aluminum framed windows with no mullions. Width of openings to remain the
same.
• East Side of Kitchen: Remove existing 80” AFF aluminum framed door and windows with a 90”x
108” aluminum framed glass sliding door with no mullions.
Page 2 of 5
Page 8 of 40
The applicant states the proposed changes will not be visible from the public right-of-way nor will they be
visible from neighboring properties.
Staff notes none of the proposed changes will impact the home’s original material nor will they have a visual
impact on the Linden Park Place Local Historic District as a whole.
STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
The following are the Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness as listed in Section 24.030(D), which are
for an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to a historic structure.
(1) Height. The height of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties,
structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related.
(2) Proportion of front façade. The relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation of
the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public
ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related.
(3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors of the
proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways,
objects, and places to which the building is visually related
(4) Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade
of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public
ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related.
(5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of the proposed new Structure or
object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible
with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related.
(6) Rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections. The relationship of
entrances and other projections of the proposed new Structure to sidewalks shall be visually
compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is
visually related.
(7) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the façade
of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in
the structures to which it is visually related.
(8) Roof shapes. The roof shape of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with the
structures to which it is visually related.
(9) Walls of continuity. Facades and property and site structures, such as masonry walls, fences, and
landscape masses, shall, when it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure
along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties, structures, sites, public ways,
objects, and places to which such elements are visually related.
(10) Scale of a structure. The size and mass of the proposed new Structure in relation to open spaces,
windows, door openings, porches, adjacent structures, and balconies shall be visually compatible
with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually
related.
(11) Directional expression of front elevation. The proposed new Structure shall be visually
compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is
visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, horizontal character, or
nondirectional character.
(12) Destruction or alteration of historic features. The distinguishing historic qualities or character of
a Property, Structure, site or Object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The Alteration of
any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible
(13) Archaeological and natural resources. Every reasonable effort shall be
made to protect and preserve archaeological and natural resources affected by, or adjacent
to any project.
Page 3 of 5
Page 9 of 40
(14) Architectural compatibility. In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a
requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement
for compatibility.
(15) Use compatibility. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a Regulated
Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure that requires minimal alteration of the Regulated
Structure or a Contributing Regulated Structure and its environment, or to use a Regulated Structure
or Contributing Regulated Structure for its originally intended purpose.
(16) Maintenance of Time Period Appearance. All Regulated Structures or Contributing Regulated
Structures shall be recognized as products of their own time and so alterations that have no historical
basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance than is properly attributable to the particular
Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure that is being altered shall be discouraged.
However, contemporary design for Alterations and additions to Regulated Structures or Contributing
Regulated Structures shall not be discouraged when such Alterations and additions do not destroy
significant historical, architectural, visual, aesthetic, archaeological or cultural material, and such
design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the Regulated Structure or
Contributing Regulated Structure, neighborhood or environment.
(17) Significance of changes made in the course of time. Changes that may have taken place in the
course of time are evidence of the history and development of Regulated Structure or Contributing
Regulated Structure and their environments. These changes may have acquired significance in their
own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected.
(18) Sensitivity to distinct features. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship or
artistry, which characterize a Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure, shall be treated
with sensitivity.
(19) Repair to deteriorated features. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than
replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material need not be
identical to but should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on
accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than
on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or
structures;
(20) Surface cleaning. The surface cleaning of the Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated
Structure shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning
methods that will damage the historically, visually, aesthetically, culturally or archaeologically
significant materials used in such Landmark, Regulated Structure, or a Contributing Regulated
Structure shall not be undertaken;
(21) Alterations to a Regulated Structure. Wherever possible, additions or Alterations to a Regulated
Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure shall be done in such manner that if such additions or
Alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Landmark,
Regulated Structure, or Contributing Regulated Structure would not be impaired.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings presented above, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission consider
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to openings on the back elevation of the structure.
Page 4 of 5
Page 10 of 40
ATTACHMENTS
1. Attachment 1 – Linden Park Place Local Historic District Ordinance and Nomination
2. Attachment 2 – 1999 242 Linden Park Place – Before Second Story Addition
3. Attachment 3 – 1998 and 2000 Certificate of Appropriateness
4. Attachment 4 – Current Conditions
5. Attachment 5 – Project Narrative
Page 5 of 5
Page 11 of 40
Page 12 of 40
Page 13 of 40
Page 14 of 40
Page 15 of 40
Page 16 of 40
Page 17 of 40
Page 18 of 40
Page 19 of 40
Page 20 of 40
Page 21 of 40
Page 22 of 40
Page 23 of 40
Page 24 of 40
Page 25 of 40
Page 26 of 40
NORTH ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 27 of 40
WEST ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 28 of 40
SOUTH ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 29 of 40
SOUTH ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 30 of 40
SOUTH ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 31 of 40
SOUTH ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 32 of 40
SOUTH ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 33 of 40
EAST ELEVATION 242 LINDEN PARK ROAD
Page 34 of 40
Project Narrative
242 Linden Park Place
Scope of work Exterior:
• Remove windows and door in kitchen rear elevation
• Remove windows and door in dining room
• Enlarge frames for kitchen and dining room from 80 inches to 90 inches
• Install taller windows in kitchen with slider doors no mullions
• Install taller windows and door in dining room with mullions
Materials:
• Current windows and doors aluminum clad exterior with mullions
• New windows doors aluminum clad exterior by Marvin.
• Mullions in dining room same as existing
Purpose for change
• Rear views wooded lot with ravine
• Current windows and doors are not high enough to see the trees or partial sky.
Mostly middle of trees and cannot see the ops of most
• Overall this is to enhance the view from inside
View From other Neighbors perspective
• No neighbors can see these changes even on any angle
Similarity to the houses on the street
• No similarities. Built in the 60s
• No notable architectural features
• Was born as a ranch. Second story built 1990s
Page 35 of 40
Memorandum
Date: November 7, 2025
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Maddy Markle, Planner I
Subject: A Discussion Regarding Encouraging Historic Preservation
Request for Feedback.
Staff request Commission feedback regarding how to encourage historic preservation.
Background
At its Sep. 8, 2025 meeting the City Council considered a Code amendment related to Historic
Preservation and directed staff to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to develop
a recommendation on how the City could encourage historic preservation. At its September
11, 2025 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) directed staff to research
preservation incentives for discussion at its Nov. 13, 2025 meeting.
The following provides a summary overview of three monetary incentives: matching grants,
tax abatements, and permit fee waivers; and two regulatory-based considerations – the
number of properties required for a Local Historic District nomination, and land use
regulations related to setbacks for historic properties.
Historic Rehabilitation Matching Grants
Some cities provide matching grants for historic rehabilitation projects that meet certain
design requirements. Eligible improvement projects can be encouraged through either
disbursement of grant monies up front, or by reimbursement upon successful completion. A
key policy consideration for such a grant-making program is whether to limit incentives to
the exterior restoration of significant architectural features, or to apply incentives more
broadly. Other considerations include whether to limit to income eligibility as Elgin does
through its matching grant for income eligible property owners.
• Approval Structure: Grants require HPC and City Council approval. Final designs
require a Certificate of Appropriateness (“COA”) approval from the HPC. Grants
would be likely be issued on a first-come first-serve basis to ensure budgetary control.
• Administrative Requirements: Staff is required to facilitate the initial grant
application process, COA review, inspections, and reimbursement.
• Benefits:
o Matching grants are appealing to property owners because they are relatively
simple to understand, and reduce financial barriers to preservation, especially
if issued as a lump sum up-front. Other means include reimbursement shortly
1
Page 36 of 40
Memorandum
after improvements are completed. Either way, staff ensures compliance
through physical inspection of work in accordance with approved plans.
o Historic rehabilitations can serve as marketing for the preservation program.
A restored home, partially funded by the City, can pique property owner
interest in preservation. Moreover, it recognizes the public benefit private
property owners provide through the historic preservation of their property.
o Higher value grants, limited to income eligible households, could aid the
preservation of market-rate affordable housing and help homeowners
maintain their historic homes.
• Challenges:
o Grants will require a funding mechanism that may include the establishment
of a Preservation Trust Fund.
Matching grants will need to be large enough to trigger preservation
related investments and related voluntary landmarking etc.
o Requires Staff time to develop, administer and enforce.
Local Property Tax Abatements
Reducing local property taxes for Landmarked and Local Historic District properties may be
another approach the City could take to recognize the public value of private preservation.
Key policy considerations include scope and period of abatement. The scope of such
abatement, if any, could be all Local Landmark and Local Historic District properties (133),
or, only to spur new voluntary Landmark designations or Local Historic District requests. In
terms of duration, the abatement can be limited to a period of time, or on-going. Another
consideration is whether the abatement runs with the property, or is limited to the specific
property owner.
• Approvals: Adoption by Council.
• Administrative Oversight: Finance Staff must work with Planning to administer this
program. Coordination with Lake County Assessor’s Office may be required. This
program may require a tax rebate.
• Benefits:
o Tax incentives create meaningful savings, especially when layered with
additional incentives.
o Local tax incentives require less program administration,
o Could provide an on-going benefit depending on how it is structured.
2
Page 37 of 40
Memorandum
o Tax incentives do not require the City to create a Preservation Trust Fund.
o Tax incentives do not require homeowners to undertake restoration work.
o Tax incentives can run with the land- this makes historic homes easier to sell
to buyers interested in preservation.
o Local tax incentives can run concurrently with the State historic property
assessed value freeze. 1
• Challenges:
o Tax incentives are paid for by other property owners.
Land Use Incentives
HPC briefly discussed a floor-area-ratio (FAR) bonus for historic properties, similarly to
Winnetka last year. However, the City’s zoning code already included a bonus FAR incentive
that serves this purpose.
Some homeowners tear down historic structures because they cannot expand their homes
due to Zoning constraints. Hinsdale planning staff reports that zoning flexibility generates
interest in preservation. Highland Park’s side setbacks have become increasingly restrictive
over the years 2. Local historic landmarks could utilize alternative side-setbacks that reflect
Highland Park’s past zoning standards as a way to allow owners of Historic Properties
additional flexibility to avoid functional obsolescence.
Landmarked properties could opt to utilize the 1947 Zoning Code standards for side setbacks.
• Approvals: No approvals, allowed by-right for Regulated Historic Structures.
• Administrative Oversight: No significant increase in administrative oversight.
• Benefits:
o Granting more approvals by-right does not cost the City or the property owner
anything and does not create a large administrative burden on Staff. More by-
right approvals lessens administrative workload.
o According to Hinsdale staff, well-resourced homeowners are more motivated
by zoning flexibility than monetary incentives.
1 Historic owner-occupied principle residences are eligible for an eight year freeze on assessed property values when a
substantial rehabilitation that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation takes place.
2 The 1947 Zoning Code States that in residence districts, “There shall be a side yard on each side of the building
having a width of not less than five (5) feet.” In 1967 this code was amended to be more restrictive. The current
zoning code requires that side setbacks total to at least 25-30% of lot width, with minimums for each side yard
starting at 6 feet and going up to 50 ft. depending on zoning district.
3
Page 38 of 40
Memorandum
• Challenges:
o Narrow-lot landmarked properties will not benefit from this change.
Permit Fee Waivers for Eligible Improvements
Highland Park does not collect fees for landmark nominations, historic district nominations,
or COAs. However, the City could also waive building permit fees for approved rehabilitations
and additions to historic structures. 3
• Approvals: No approvals.
• Administrative Oversight: Proper application of waiver for eligible improvements.
• Benefits:
o Relative ease of implementation.
• Challenges:
o May be monetarily insufficient to encourage investment in historic
properties. Consider layering this type of incentive with other incentives,
zoning and otherwise, to improve its effectiveness.
Reduce Property Minimums for Local Historic District Nominations
Highland Park’s Code currently requires Local Historic District Nominations to include a
minimum of ten properties unless certain exceptions are met (See Sec. 24.016(C)). This
requirement creates a barrier to the creation of Local Historic Districts.
• Approvals: Requires City Council approval.
• Administrative Oversight: No increase in administrative oversight.
• Benefits:
o Reduces the barriers associated with creating a valid Local Historic District
Nomination.
o Encourages the preservation of historic resources that are limited in number.
• Challenges:
o Requires a change to City Code.
3 Chicago and Hinsdale waive all permit fees.
4
Page 39 of 40
Memorandum
Other Considerations
• Preservation incentives require an aggressive marketing campaign to be effective.
Incentives do not matter if no one knows about them. Any incentive(s) employed will
need to be communicated to homeowners, architects, realtors etc.
Next Steps
• Incorporate Commission feedback and develop recommendation from staff to the City
Council for review at an upcoming Commission meeting.
5
Page 40 of 40