Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting City Hall - Council Chambers February 12, 2026 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 PM on Thursday, February 12, 2026, 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 the meeting 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 189 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes A. 1-8-26 Regular Meeting Minutes IV. Scheduled Business A. 147 Central Avenue — Review of Written Report to the Plan and Design Commission Regarding Planned Development B. 147 Central Avenue — Continuation of Partial Landmark Removal C. 818 Hill Street — Preliminary Consideration of Landmark Nomination V. Discussion Items VI. Business from the Public (Individuals wishing to be heard regarding items not listed on this agenda) VII. Other Business A. Next Regular Meeting to Occur March 12, 2026 VIII. Staff Report IX. Adjournment Page 2 of 189  1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 4 5 6 MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 8, 2025 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 6:32 p.m., Acting Chair Greenbaum called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on- 12 site. Staff was asked to call the roll. 13 14 ROLL CALL 15 Commissioners Present: Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 16 Portman 17 18 Commissioners Absent: Chairperson Weeder 19 20 Councilmember Present: Blumberg 21 22 Student Council Absent: Koslow 23 24 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 25 26 Staff Present: Coleman & Markle 27 28 Guests Present: Scott Simpson, Partner/Scott Simpson Design + Build 29 Cal Bernstein, Attorney/Samuels & Bernstein 30 Greg Moyer, Founder/Moyer Properties 31 Julia Jonas, Resident/Historian 32 33 Others Present: Gale Cerabona, Recorder 34 35 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – December 11, 2025 37 38 Commissioner Gonka moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of December 11, 2025. Commissioner 39 Pines seconded the motion. 40 41 On a voice vote 42 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 43 Portman 44 Voting Nay: None 45 46 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 47 48 SCHEDULED BUSINESS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 1 Page 3 of 189  1 1. Final Consideration of Landmark Designation Recommendation – 3135 Priscilla Avenue 2 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 3 • Landmark Designation Process 4 • Summary 5 o H.W. Kadell House 6 o built in 1941 7 o architect is George Fred Keck of Keck and Keck 8 o Contemporary style 9 • Existing Conditions were shown 10 • Previous Consideration 11 o criteria 1, 4, 5, & 6 12 • Findings of Fact 13 o integrity is met 14 • Additional Information 15 o 30 Keck homes in Highland Park 16 o 12 received a Significant rating 17 • Landmark Criteria were reviewed 18 o passive solar, radiant heat 19 • Recommendation 20 21 Commissioner Gonka moved that the property at 3135 Priscilla Avenue satisfies Criteria #1, 4, 5, and 6 with 22 sufficient integrity of design, and a recommendation that City Council adopts a Landmark Designation 23 Ordinance. Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 24 25 On a roll call vote 26 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 27 Portman 28 Voting Nay: None 29 30 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 31 32 2. Determination of Historic Significance – 1375 Sheridan Road 33 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 34 • Churchill House 35 • Significant Rating in Central East survey 36 • Colonial Revival style 37 • Built c. 1919 38 • Architect is Robert Seyfarth 39 • Property History was reviewed 40 • Architecture 41 o alterations – roof replacement in 2022, possible rear addition 42 • Elevations were shown 43 • Landmark Criteria were illustrated 44 • Impact of Historic Findings 45 • Recommendation 46 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 2 Page 4 of 189  1 Petitioner, Scott Simpson, Partner at Scott Simpson Design + Build, said the integrity of the structure is a 2 concern as well as making this code compliant (leaky basement, foundation made of terracotta tubes); 3 would be a major project to bring this back. 4 5 Some HPC comments are….. 6 • Commissioner Hartinger asked if: 7 o this is as close to original as possible. Planner Markle said much of the exterior material is 8 original. Mr. Simpson shared that the interior/bathrooms have been altered. Kitchen is from 9 the 1950s. 10 o the windows are original. Mr. Simpson said he is unsure. He noted the windows or doors 11 don’t operate. 12 • Commissioner Ehrlich said it is a classic site for the house. The architect is famous. 13 • Commissioner Gonka believes Criteria #3 applies. 14 • Commissioner Portman believes Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 apply. He explained the owner, James Hart, 15 is the son of Max Hart of Hart Schaffner Marx. A labor dispute resulted in the first labor union in 16 America. Planner Markle stated the obituary of the father, Max Hart, was distributed. They noted 17 additional material is available. 18 19 Commissioner Gonka moved that this house meets Criteria #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and has sufficient integrity and 20 design. Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 21 22 On a roll call vote 23 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, & Portman 24 Voting Nay: Commissioner Pines 25 26 Staff declared that the motion passed 5-1. 27 28 3. Recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission/PDC Regarding a Planned Unit Development/PUD – 29 147 Central Avenue 30 Planner Markle gave a presentation: 31 • Commission Consideration Required 32 • Review of Historic Record 33 • Summary 34 o Field property 35 o Significant rating in the Central East Survey from 2020 36 o Gothic Revival/Italianate style 37 o built c. 1875 38 o architect is Highland Park Building Company 39 o proposing to subdivide into two parcels 40 • Site Context 41 • Site Plan (Lot 1 & Lot 2) 42 • Prior PDC Consideration – January 6, 2026 43 o removing driveway on Lot 2, creating driveway on Lot 1 44 • Photos were shown 45 o 123+ square-foot setback from street 46 47 Staff asked if anyone from the public wishes to speak. The following came forward: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 3 Page 5 of 189  1 • Kelsey Gonzalez stated she lives across the street and noted it is part of the National Historic District. 2 Planner Markle said this is a local landmark. Ms. Gonzalez said this is not typical. This is the oldest 3 house in Highland Park and lived in by the second Mayor. The estate is proposed to be destroyed to 4 preserve the home. This should be highly considered. This house is on a tour route. She doesn’t 5 want a precedent set and hopes this is not delandmarked. 6 7 Senior Planner Coleman advised this case is not regarding delandmarking. 8 9 Commissioner Ehrlich disclosed that he lives within 400’ of this house. He consulted Corporation Counsel 10 and was advised he could participate in this matter. 11 12 Staff asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. The following came forward: 13 • Tom Corning: 14 o asked if one lot would not be landmarked if these parcels are subdivided. Planner Markle 15 said Lot 2 would not be landmarked any longer. 16 o asked how many dwellings could be built. Senior Planner Coleman stated one, as it is a 17 single-building lot. 18 o appreciates the owner retaining the structures. He would like an Italianate structure to keep 19 the historic character. Mr. Corning noted the driveway is problematic. 20 • Jim Fraerman stated he is a former Chair of the HPC and won awards for preservation. He advised the 21 subdivision retains the historic structures on Lot 1. Lot 2 only has the gate that is historic. Mr. 22 Fraerman has no objection. Regarding two driveways, that would impede onto a Heritage tree. 23 Another tree is huge. The porte cochere is on the west side of the house. He hopes the view is not 24 compromised for neighbors. Both parcels have significant restrictions (ravine, significant buffers). 25 26 Commissioner Ehrlich said the fence along the front of the house is also historic. Mr. Fraerman 27 stated he doesn’t know the relative integrity of the Field House. 28 29 Some HPC comments are….. 30 • Commissioner Ehrlich has an issue with the second driveway, as it will compromise the slope. He 31 noted the ravine is behind the house on a sloping angle; there may be more restrictions; There is a 32 vacant house. The landmarking could be removed later; could destroy the value of the house. It’s a 33 unique National Historic area. 34 35 Councilmember Blumberg said there are significant restrictions that are in no Commissions’ 36 purview. There is a Steep Slope Zone/SSZ. The structures are landmarked. He explained 37 delandmarking. The HPC cannot consider what may be built on Lot 2. The matter before the HPC is a 38 nonbinding recommendation to the PDC. 39 40 • Commissioner Gonka asked when this property was landmarked. Senior Planner Coleman said 1985. 41 42 Councilmember Blumberg said there was a similar circumstance. He provided background on 43 subdividing from the other case. 44 45 • Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the HPC should be considering anything regarding this being a National 46 Historic District. He said the other case had a second street and alley access. Councilmember 47 Blumberg expounded on that farm house. He noted, in the end, the lot was subdivided. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 4 Page 6 of 189  1 • Commissioner Portman asked if that was a Historic property or in a Historic District. Councilmember 2 Blumberg stated it was a regulated structure. Planner Markle expound on 326 Central Avenue. They 3 noted thorough documentation was found regarding the buildings of Lot 1 on this project. 4 • Acting Chair Greenbaum: 5 o said it is a stately house. The property attached to it enhances it. If the subdivision is 6 allowed, it will lose the charm. 7 o asked if there are a lot of trees. Planner Markle said this has nothing to do with landmarked 8 design. 9 10 Mr. Bernstein noted this is such a large lot, it triggered a PUD. The property at 326 Central Avenue did not 11 go through this process. This is a unique situation. The COA should have come before the HPC to add a 12 regulated fence. Planner Markle referenced a footnote and explained same. The fence and gate were added 13 after the property was landmarked. 14 15 Commissioner Ehrlich advised the new fence was installed as a result of the bridge for safety reasons. 16 17 Mr. Bernstein shared what was landmarked. The Resolution approved that the house was landmarked in 18 1985. The house and other certain area/properties (Stupey Cabin) on the land were landmarked. 19 Subsequent to 1985, two COAs were sought for a Coach House and a Guest House. He stated there is no 20 evidence, since 1985, that the HPC or City Council extended landmarking to Lot 2. The house and landscape 21 design at 405 Sheridan is landmarked. 22 23 More HPC comments are….. 24 • Commissioner Ehrlich said there are 3-4 structures on one side. When a house is landmarked, 25 typically a lot is as well. 26 27 Councilmember Blumberg stated, regarding the determination at Linden & Central Avenues, the 28 landmark was specific to the structure. It only applies typically to the structure. 29 30 • Commissioner Gonka said some people come forward themselves to landmark a house (without an 31 attorney). The repositioning of the driveway changes the curb appeal of the land. He wondered if a 32 permit was issued for the fence. Senior Planner Coleman said it was part of the bridge repair, so a 33 permit was issued. 34 • Commissioner Ehrlich said the other case may not have set a precedent for future matters. 35 36 Mr. Bernstein noted this is in the R4 district which has strict zoning. He expounded on the overlay 37 zone, etc. The two lots are almost 90,000 square feet; no lot is similar, so it won’t create a 38 precedent. They are complying, and this is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Bernstein stated a 39 shared driveway is problematic. The site plan was illustrated, and the setback was discussed. He 40 noted they considered having 3 lots on this property. The existing home has an $80,000 tax bill. This 41 limits the home sale. Subdividing will create interest in marketing the home for sale; more 42 attainable. They want to see it maintained. 43 44 • Commissioner Gonka said that would give a current concession to the owner. 45 • Commissioner Ehrlich said an argument could be made that the lot, as is, could be more saleable. Mr. 46 Bernstein shared they are trying to make Highland Park better. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 5 Page 7 of 189  1 • Commissioner Portman commented the driveway is not the only thing that’s important. He read the 2 Ordinance in 1985 (4 houses, Stupey Cabin; subject properties). Mr. Bernstein reminded the PDC is 3 seeking the HPC’s advisory opinion. He noted code language in 1985 may have been used 4 interchangeably. 5 • Acting Chair Greenbaum asked, and Planner Markle said the PDC should discuss the driveway. 6 • Commissioner Portman asked if the driveway could be shared. Mr. Bernstein said the existing 7 driveway will serve Lot 1, and a new driveway will be built on Lot 2. 8 9 Councilmember Blumberg remarked his function as a Liaison is to bring policy to the HPC. 10 11 • Commissioner Ehrlich believes they need to review the entire estate. 12 13 Mr. Greg Moyer, Founder with Moyer Properties, stated the owner doesn’t live in the home. It’s been on the 14 market for a year. People love the property. It’s not saleable. This is a reasonable way to market a house 15 that is historic. One can barely see the other lot. It could sit there for another year. 16 17 Additional HPC comments are….. 18 • Commissioner Portman said this is a Historic Preservation Commission (created in 1985). When he 19 walks east on Central Avenue, the house has unbelievable characteristics. What strikes him is the 20 estate; preserving the entirety of the lot. He would vote no to subdivide based on the merits before 21 the HPC. 22 • Commissioner Gonka said the entire property/PIN # was landmarked. Subdividing and moving the 23 driveway changes that. The shape of the driveway and fence is historic. 24 • Commissioner Portman concurred and would like to preserve the property. He would like to see a 25 shared driveway that splits off to both houses. 26 • Commissioner Pines is not bothered by the relocation of the driveway. If being more affordable 27 makes it saleable, he is for it. An architectural effort needs to occur on the new house. He would like 28 to see the lot line move further to the east. 29 • Commissioner Ehrlich thought initially the house would be too close to the lot line. He is unsure what 30 would enhance this. It is more valuable as one large estate. A singular driveway is not as saleable. 31 Commissioner Ehrlich is opposed to disturbing the driveway, etc. The other aspects need to be 32 considered. 33 • Commissioner Hartinger believes there are good things and bad things on both sides. 34 35 Commissioner Gonka asked if a motion should be crafted that a subdivision would have a significant impact 36 on the historic nature of the site. Mr. Bernstein read the Staff Report, and noted a Planning Report is the 37 next step. Councilmember Blumberg asked that anyone who speaks gets recognized by the Chair. Senior 38 Planner Coleman clarified what the motion should be. 39 40 Commissioner Gonka moved that the subdivision of the lot would significantly impact the historical 41 significance of the property at 147 Central Avenue based on the historic fence, columns that make-up the 42 gate, relocation of the new driveway and its impact of the curb appeal, and the growing density of the lot. 43 Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 44 45 On a roll call vote 46 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 47 Portman Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 6 Page 8 of 189  1 Voting Nay: None 2 3 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 4 5 4. Preliminary Consideration of Partial Landmark Designation Removal – 147 Central Avenue 6 Planner Markle offered a brief presentation: 7 • Partial Landmark Removal of Lot 2 8 • Summary of Application 9 • Site Plan, Photos were shown (no structures; driveway/gate) 10 • Prior Designation 11 • Recommendation 12 13 Ms. Julia Jonas, Historian, noted she was a docent at this house in 2016. She provided history (pineapple on 14 gate post, owner was a gentleman farmer, had two bedrooms, circular driveway so horses could go 15 forward). This Field House and 4-acre property was placed on the Chicago Watch List. The property slopes 16 down with a view of the ravine. The house may have been built in 1870. 17 18 Mr. Bernstein explained this should be considered as if the subdivision occurred. Historic features are 19 located on Lot 1, not on Lot 2. Criteria wouldn’t apply to Lot 2; vacant lot. 20 21 Some HPC comments are….. 22 • Commissioner Ehrlich said the HPC could wait until it is known if the lots will be subdivided; it’s a 23 hypothetical. Planner Markle said Staff was advised by Corporation Counsel that it is appropriate to 24 discuss both issues together. Mr. Bernstein said they were directed by Staff & Corporation Counsel 25 to bring this forth as the process. 26 • Acting Chair Greenbaum said, due to keeping the lot as one estate, this is not worth the discussion. 27 Senior Planner Coleman said an Application was submitted and must be reviewed for Lot 2. 28 29 Councilmember Blumberg said, procedurally, decisions could occur. He noted the options are to 30 delandmark Lot 2, not to delandmark Lot 2, or if there is no motion at all, the matter would fail. 31 Planner Markle said this action ends with the HPC (and does not go to City Council) if the 32 Commission does not recommend landmark removal. 33 34 Staff asked if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this matter. The following came 35 forward: 36 • Kelsey Gonzalez asked why there are two motions. She doesn’t understand the logic. If it was 37 deemed this should not be subdivided, how can delandmarking occur? Ms. Gonzalez noted the 38 Lakefront landmark would be destroyed. 39 40 Commissioner Pines moved to continue this matter to the next HPC meeting. Commissioner Portman 41 seconded the motion. 42 43 On a roll call vote 44 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 45 Portman 46 Voting Nay: None 47 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 7 Page 9 of 189  1 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. A report will be drafted and the HPC’s 2 recommendation would be submitted to the PDC. The potential delandmarking issue will be discussed at 3 the next HPC meeting. 4 5 Commissioner Gonka shared this is a back-door attempt to get a lot subdivided. It is grossly unfair to put 6 these issues together. 7 8 Acting Chair Greenbaum said making a decision on a hypothetical is a slippery slope; back-door approach. 9 She is having a hard time wrapping her head around this. 10 11 Councilmember Blumberg advised Corporation Counsel could attend the next HPC meeting. 12 13 5. Resolution Recommending Ways to Encourage Historic Preservation 14 Planner Markle asked for feedback on the report. Commissioner Portman likes the memo and asked what 15 next steps are. Planner Markle replied if City Council asks for actions, this will come back to the HPC for 16 embellishments. 17 18 Commissioner Hartinger moved to adopt Resolution #2026-001. Commissioner Gonka seconded the motion. 19 20 On a roll call vote 21 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 22 Portman 23 Voting Nay: None 24 25 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 26 27 DISCUSSION ITEMS 28 There were no Discussion Items. 29 30 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 31 There was no Business from the Public. 32 33 OTHER BUSINESS 34 1. Administrative Determination of Historic Significance – 1770 Heather Lane 35 Planner Markle advised there was a fire and demolition was requested. 36 37 2. Next Regular Meeting is Scheduled for February 12, 2026 38 It was noted the next regular HPC Meeting is scheduled for February 12, 2026. 39 40 STAFF REPORT 41 Planner Markle asked that the Organizational Disclosement Form be completed and submitted by January 42 16, 2026. 43 44 They noted a Code Amendment would be presented at the next HPC meeting due to an error. 45 46 ADJOURNMENT 47 Commissioner Pines moved to adjourn at 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Gonka seconded the motion. 48 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 8 Page 10 of 189  1 On a voice vote 2 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 3 Portman 4 Voting Nay: None 5 6 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 7 8 Respectfully Submitted, 9 10 11 12 Gale Cerabona 13 Recorder 14 15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON DECEMBER 11, 2025, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 9 Page 11 of 189  Memorandum Date: February 17, 2026 To: Plan and Design Commission From: Historic Preservation Commission Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: 147 Central Avenue – Written Report to Plan and Design Commission Background. On January 8, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) considered the impact of the proposed Planned Development on the Historically Significant property located at 147 Central Avenue. Since the Director has determined that the property at 147 Central Avenue is a Historically Significant property, the HPC is required to provide a non-binding recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission per Sec. 150.520(E)(2) of Code. Sec. 150.520(E)(2) of Code states the Historic Preservation Commission shall (a) Review the potential impact of the proposal on the historically significant property, and (b) Submit a written report of its findings to the Plan and Design Commission and the City Council. The following findings and recommendations are the HPC’s written report, approved by the HPC at the Feb. 12, 2026 Regular Meeting. Findings. At the Jan. 8, 2026 Regular Meeting, the HPC concluded: “The subdivision of the lot would significantly impact the historical significance of the property at 147 Central Avenue based on the historic fence, columns that make-up the gate, relocation of the new driveway and its impact on the curb appeal, and the growing density of the lot.” Specifically, the HPC finds that the wrought-iron fence and the gateposts are among the historic resources of the property, and that the Planned Development would negatively impact each of them as follows: • Wrought-Iron Fence Element o The HPC finds that the wrought-iron fence is associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embodies the Victorian landscape style, is 1 Page 12 of 189  Memorandum identifiable as the work of a notable builder (Cornelius Field), and embodies detailing that renders it visually significant. The wrought-iron fence is an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the wrought-iron fence retains sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship. o The HPC finds that the Planned Development will disrupt the historic wrought-iron fence located along the front lot line. In order to create a new driveway the applicant will have to disrupt the continuity of the historic wrought-iron fence. The HPC is opposed to the destruction of the fence to make room for a new driveway and notes that a shared driveway could aid in preserving the historic fence. • Gatepost Elements o The HPC finds the gatepost elements (base and finials) are associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embody the Victorian landscape style, are identifiable as the work of a notable builder (Cornelius Field), and embody detailing that renders them visually significant. The gatepost elements are an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the gate elements retain sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship o The HPC is concerned that the Planned Development will result in the loss of the gateposts located on the proposed Lot B. The gateposts contain important historic elements, and have a connection to the original property owner, Cornelius Field. o At the Jan. 8, 2026 meeting an architect representing the property owner offered that the gatepost could be preserved, if that is the preference of the Commission. The HPC would like the applicant to pursue the option to preserve the historic gateposts. • Driveway Element o The HPC finds the driveway element is associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embodies the Victorian landscape style, is identifiable as the work of a notable builder (Cornelius Field), and exhibits elements of design that render it visually significant. The driveway element is an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the driveway element retains sufficient integrity of original location. o The HPC finds that the placement of the current driveway is another element of this historic resource, and therefore is opposed to changing the 2 Page 13 of 189  Memorandum driveway’s placement. A shared driveway could mitigate possible negative impacts on the historic driveway placement. • Estate Setting Element o The HPC finds the estate setting is associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embodies the Victorian landscape style, and is identifiable as the work of a notable designer (Cornelius Field). The estate setting is an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the estate setting retains sufficient integrity of location and design. o The HPC finds that the open space on the property contributes to the estate setting of the Cornelius Field Property, and is integral part of this historic resource worth preserving. The proposed Planned Development will allow increasing density of the property and will fundamentally diminish the estate’s setting. Recommendation. • The HPC recommends denial of the proposed Planned Development on the basis that the proposed plan will irreversibly alter the property’s historic site setting. • However, if the Plan and Design Commission recommends approval of the subdivision, the HPC recommends that the Plan and Design Commission enforce more restrictive yard setbacks on the proposed Lot B, and require the preservation of the gateposts and the wrought-iron fence, and use of the driveway in its existing location as conditions of approval. Historic Commission Consideration. Attachment 1 is the staff report that informed the HPC’s consideration of this matter and Attachments 2 and 3 are the meeting minutes from the Jan. 8, 2026 HPC Regular Meeting as well as the draft minutes from the Feb. 12, 2026 HPC Regular Meeting. Attachments 1. 1.8.26 HPC Staff Report 2. 1.8.26 HPC Regular Meeting Minutes 3. DRAFT 2.12.26 HPC Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Written Public Comment Submitted to HPC 1.8.26 3 Page 14 of 189  Memorandum Date: January 8, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: 147 Central Avenue – Planned Unit Development Recommendation Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission consider a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) application for the property at 147 Central Avenue and provide a non-binding recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission, that considers the impact of the proposed changes to the historic site setting, as part of the required PUD review process. Property Background The Cornelius Field Property was established c. 1875. The property’s main house was constructed by the Highland Park Building Company for Mr. Field, who was a Director of the Highland Park Building Company and the City’s second mayor. Starting in 1889, the home was known as Sylvan Dells, “A Home School for Boys and Girls”, though the school later became exclusively for boys and was eventually combined with the North Western Military Academy. By 1899 the house was back in private hands, keeping the estate name of “Sylvan Dells.” The property at 147 Central Avenue was designated a Local Historic Landmark in 1985. The Historic Preservation Commission found that the property met Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4 and 6 (Attachment A). The home has two distinct additions. The northern two-story portion is what remains of the original 1870’s farm house. The eastern section is a Victorian Gothic Revival Cottage c. 1895. To the west of the eastern section is an abutting two-story Italianate Classical wing with porte-cochere and Palladian windows in a mansard roof. In addition to a main house, the property also includes a historic coach house, gardener’s cottage, bridge and greenhouse foundation. These structures, all located on the western half of the property, are listed as part of the 1982 National Register Multiple Resource Nomination (Attachment B) and have been subject to HPC review in the past. Notable landscape features include the wrought-iron fence in the front yard, the wooded area to the east of the main home, and the main home’s dramatic driveway. These features were listed as part of the 1988 Highland Park Historic Landscape Survey (Attachment C). 1 Page 15 of 189  Memorandum Current Applications Atty. Calvin Bernstein (the “Applicant”) has submitted a PUD application for the property at 147 Central, on behalf of property owner Harold Katz (Attachment D). The applicant intends to subdivide the property into two separate legal lots of record. One of the proposed lots will contain the property’s historic main house, coach house, gardener’s cottage, greenhouse foundation, and bridge (“Lot A”). The other proposed lot will consist of a wooded area and not include any of the property’s historically significant structures 1 (“Lot B”). The applicant has also applied to remove the landmark designation from Lot B. That application is being considered as a separate agenda item, as required per Sec. 24.025(H) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Figure 1. Proposed site plan submitted by applicant. Historic Status To understand the totality of the property’s historic significance, Staff has reviewed the entire historic record leading up to and following the landmark designation of 147 Central Avenue to determine if the entire property is a Regulated Historic Structure. After review, Staff concludes that the property at 147 Central Avenue is a Regulated Historic Structure in its entirety. The following is staff’s review of the historic record. 1 Staff has determined that the property’s historically significant structures are those named in the 1985 Landmark Nomination and or 1982 National Register Nomination. An association with the 1988 Landscape Survey does not alone make a structure historically significant because the survey was completed three years after the Council adopted an ordinance designating 147 Central Avenue a Local Landmark. 2 Page 16 of 189  Memorandum · The 1985 RFCA for Council and HPC resolution for Council refer to the property as the “Cornelius Field House” (Attachment E and A). · The 1985 landmark ordinance refers to the property as a “property,” uses a PIN that encompasses the entire property, but also refers to the property as the “Cornelius Field House” (Attachment F). · The original landmark nomination presented to Council in 1985 was to landmark the “Field” property, not the Field House (Attachment G). · The National Register Nomination for 147 Central (predates local landmark nomination by 2 years, and was known to the HPC) includes the entire property and mentions features such as the coach house, gardener’s cottage, greenhouse foundation and bridge (Attachment B). · The same HPC members who recommended the nomination to Council reviewed the coach house for a Certificate of Appropriateness (“COA”) a year after the nomination. The property owner (who was the nomination applicant) did not object to this review, neither did staff or Council (Attachment H). · The gardener’s cottage and landscape have also been reviewed by the HPC in the past with no objections from the property owners (Attachment I). Planned Unit Development Application The applicant proposes to subdivide the 178,534 sq/ft lot into two separate legal lots of record. Lot A will be 88,808 sq/ft and contain all the site’s significant historic structures as well as the ravine on the back of the lot. Lot B will be 89,729 sq/ft and consist of the wooded area to the east of the main house. No significant historic structures exist within the boundary of proposed Lot B. The largest change to the site is a proposed alteration to the current driveway. The applicant proposes removing the current driveway and creating a new driveway to the historic main house. The unused driveway pavement to the right of the current main house will be removed and the existing curb cut will be used to create a new driveway for Lot B (Attachment J). Given that 147 Central Ave. is a landmark property, staff considers this property a Significant Area and therefore requires Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) review per 150.130(E)(2). As part of the required Planned Unit Development review, the HPC should give a non-binding recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission per Sec. 150.520(E)(2) of Code. The Plan and Design Commission will consider this recommendation while they review the PUD application. 3 Page 17 of 189  Memorandum The HPC should consider the impacts the proposed plan could have on the site’s historic structures, landscape and setting. Staff recommends that the HPC consider the impact of the proposed driveway changes on the property’s historic landscape and setting. Next Steps Staff recommends the Commission consider the impact of the proposed PUD on the historic structures, landscape and setting of the property at 147 Central Avenue. The Commission should make a non-binding recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission. 4 Page 18 of 189  Memorandum Attachments A. 1985 HPC Resolution B. 1982 National Register Nomination C. 1988 Highland Park Historic Landscape Survey D. Dec. 2025 PUD Application E. 1985 RFCA F. 1985 Ordinance Approving Landmark Designation G. 1985 Landmark Nomination H. 1986 Coach House COA I. 2011 Gardener’s Cottage and Landscape COA J. Dec. 2025 Proposed Site Plan 5 Page 19 of 189  1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 4 5 6 MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 8, 2025 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 6:32 p.m., Acting Chair Greenbaum called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on- 12 site. Staff was asked to call the roll. 13 14 ROLL CALL 15 Commissioners Present: Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 16 Portman 17 18 Commissioners Absent: Chairperson Weeder 19 20 Councilmember Present: Blumberg 21 22 Student Council Absent: Koslow 23 24 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 25 26 Staff Present: Coleman & Markle 27 28 Guests Present: Scott Simpson, Partner/Scott Simpson Design + Build 29 Cal Bernstein, Attorney/Samuels & Bernstein 30 Greg Moyer, Founder/Moyer Properties 31 Julia Jonas, Resident/Historian 32 33 Others Present: Gale Cerabona, Recorder 34 35 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – December 11, 2025 37 38 Commissioner Gonka moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of December 11, 2025. Commissioner 39 Pines seconded the motion. 40 41 On a voice vote 42 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 43 Portman 44 Voting Nay: None 45 46 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 47 48 SCHEDULED BUSINESS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 1 Page 20 of 189  1 1. Final Consideration of Landmark Designation Recommendation – 3135 Priscilla Avenue 2 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 3 • Landmark Designation Process 4 • Summary 5 o H.W. Kadell House 6 o built in 1941 7 o architect is George Fred Keck of Keck and Keck 8 o Contemporary style 9 • Existing Conditions were shown 10 • Previous Consideration 11 o criteria 1, 4, 5, & 6 12 • Findings of Fact 13 o integrity is met 14 • Additional Information 15 o 30 Keck homes in Highland Park 16 o 12 received a Significant rating 17 • Landmark Criteria were reviewed 18 o passive solar, radiant heat 19 • Recommendation 20 21 Commissioner Gonka moved that the property at 3135 Priscilla Avenue satisfies Criteria #1, 4, 5, and 6 with 22 sufficient integrity of design, and a recommendation that City Council adopts a Landmark Designation 23 Ordinance. Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 24 25 On a roll call vote 26 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 27 Portman 28 Voting Nay: None 29 30 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 31 32 2. Determination of Historic Significance – 1375 Sheridan Road 33 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 34 • Churchill House 35 • Significant Rating in Central East survey 36 • Colonial Revival style 37 • Built c. 1919 38 • Architect is Robert Seyfarth 39 • Property History was reviewed 40 • Architecture 41 o alterations – roof replacement in 2022, possible rear addition 42 • Elevations were shown 43 • Landmark Criteria were illustrated 44 • Impact of Historic Findings 45 • Recommendation 46 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 2 Page 21 of 189  1 Petitioner, Scott Simpson, Partner at Scott Simpson Design + Build, said the integrity of the structure is a 2 concern as well as making this code compliant (leaky basement, foundation made of terracotta tubes); 3 would be a major project to bring this back. 4 5 Some HPC comments are….. 6 • Commissioner Hartinger asked if: 7 o this is as close to original as possible. Planner Markle said much of the exterior material is 8 original. Mr. Simpson shared that the interior/bathrooms have been altered. Kitchen is from 9 the 1950s. 10 o the windows are original. Mr. Simpson said he is unsure. He noted the windows or doors 11 don’t operate. 12 • Commissioner Ehrlich said it is a classic site for the house. The architect is famous. 13 • Commissioner Gonka believes Criteria #3 applies. 14 • Commissioner Portman believes Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 apply. He explained the owner, James Hart, 15 is the son of Max Hart of Hart Schaffner Marx. A labor dispute resulted in the first labor union in 16 America. Planner Markle stated the obituary of the father, Max Hart, was distributed. They noted 17 additional material is available. 18 19 Commissioner Gonka moved that this house meets Criteria #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and has sufficient integrity and 20 design. Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 21 22 On a roll call vote 23 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, & Portman 24 Voting Nay: Commissioner Pines 25 26 Staff declared that the motion passed 5-1. 27 28 3. Recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission/PDC Regarding a Planned Unit Development/PUD – 29 147 Central Avenue 30 Planner Markle gave a presentation: 31 • Commission Consideration Required 32 • Review of Historic Record 33 • Summary 34 o Field property 35 o Significant rating in the Central East Survey from 2020 36 o Gothic Revival/Italianate style 37 o built c. 1875 38 o architect is Highland Park Building Company 39 o proposing to subdivide into two parcels 40 • Site Context 41 • Site Plan (Lot 1 & Lot 2) 42 • Prior PDC Consideration – January 6, 2026 43 o removing driveway on Lot 2, creating driveway on Lot 1 44 • Photos were shown 45 o 123+ square-foot setback from street 46 47 Staff asked if anyone from the public wishes to speak. The following came forward: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 3 Page 22 of 189  1 • Kelsey Gonzalez stated she lives across the street and noted it is part of the National Historic District. 2 Planner Markle said this is a local landmark. Ms. Gonzalez said this is not typical. This is the oldest 3 house in Highland Park and lived in by the second Mayor. The estate is proposed to be destroyed to 4 preserve the home. This should be highly considered. This house is on a tour route. She doesn’t 5 want a precedent set and hopes this is not delandmarked. 6 7 Senior Planner Coleman advised this case is not regarding delandmarking. 8 9 Commissioner Ehrlich disclosed that he lives within 400’ of this house. He consulted Corporation Counsel 10 and was advised he could participate in this matter. 11 12 Staff asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. The following came forward: 13 • Tom Corning: 14 o asked if one lot would not be landmarked if these parcels are subdivided. Planner Markle 15 said Lot 2 would not be landmarked any longer. 16 o asked how many dwellings could be built. Senior Planner Coleman stated one, as it is a 17 single-building lot. 18 o appreciates the owner retaining the structures. He would like an Italianate structure to keep 19 the historic character. Mr. Corning noted the driveway is problematic. 20 • Jim Fraerman stated he is a former Chair of the HPC and won awards for preservation. He advised the 21 subdivision retains the historic structures on Lot 1. Lot 2 only has the gate that is historic. Mr. 22 Fraerman has no objection. Regarding two driveways, that would impede onto a Heritage tree. 23 Another tree is huge. The porte cochere is on the west side of the house. He hopes the view is not 24 compromised for neighbors. Both parcels have significant restrictions (ravine, significant buffers). 25 26 Commissioner Ehrlich said the fence along the front of the house is also historic. Mr. Fraerman 27 stated he doesn’t know the relative integrity of the Field House. 28 29 Some HPC comments are….. 30 • Commissioner Ehrlich has an issue with the second driveway, as it will compromise the slope. He 31 noted the ravine is behind the house on a sloping angle; there may be more restrictions; There is a 32 vacant house. The landmarking could be removed later; could destroy the value of the house. It’s a 33 unique National Historic area. 34 35 Councilmember Blumberg said there are significant restrictions that are in no Commissions’ 36 purview. There is a Steep Slope Zone/SSZ. The structures are landmarked. He explained 37 delandmarking. The HPC cannot consider what may be built on Lot 2. The matter before the HPC is a 38 nonbinding recommendation to the PDC. 39 40 • Commissioner Gonka asked when this property was landmarked. Senior Planner Coleman said 1985. 41 42 Councilmember Blumberg said there was a similar circumstance. He provided background on 43 subdividing from the other case. 44 45 • Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the HPC should be considering anything regarding this being a National 46 Historic District. He said the other case had a second street and alley access. Councilmember 47 Blumberg expounded on that farm house. He noted, in the end, the lot was subdivided. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 4 Page 23 of 189  1 • Commissioner Portman asked if that was a Historic property or in a Historic District. Councilmember 2 Blumberg stated it was a regulated structure. Planner Markle expound on 326 Central Avenue. They 3 noted thorough documentation was found regarding the buildings of Lot 1 on this project. 4 • Acting Chair Greenbaum: 5 o said it is a stately house. The property attached to it enhances it. If the subdivision is 6 allowed, it will lose the charm. 7 o asked if there are a lot of trees. Planner Markle said this has nothing to do with landmarked 8 design. 9 10 Mr. Bernstein noted this is such a large lot, it triggered a PUD. The property at 326 Central Avenue did not 11 go through this process. This is a unique situation. The COA should have come before the HPC to add a 12 regulated fence. Planner Markle referenced a footnote and explained same. The fence and gate were added 13 after the property was landmarked. 14 15 Commissioner Ehrlich advised the new fence was installed as a result of the bridge for safety reasons. 16 17 Mr. Bernstein shared what was landmarked. The Resolution approved that the house was landmarked in 18 1985. The house and other certain area/properties (Stupey Cabin) on the land were landmarked. 19 Subsequent to 1985, two COAs were sought for a Coach House and a Guest House. He stated there is no 20 evidence, since 1985, that the HPC or City Council extended landmarking to Lot 2. The house and landscape 21 design at 405 Sheridan is landmarked. 22 23 More HPC comments are….. 24 • Commissioner Ehrlich said there are 3-4 structures on one side. When a house is landmarked, 25 typically a lot is as well. 26 27 Councilmember Blumberg stated, regarding the determination at Linden & Central Avenues, the 28 landmark was specific to the structure. It only applies typically to the structure. 29 30 • Commissioner Gonka said some people come forward themselves to landmark a house (without an 31 attorney). The repositioning of the driveway changes the curb appeal of the land. He wondered if a 32 permit was issued for the fence. Senior Planner Coleman said it was part of the bridge repair, so a 33 permit was issued. 34 • Commissioner Ehrlich said the other case may not have set a precedent for future matters. 35 36 Mr. Bernstein noted this is in the R4 district which has strict zoning. He expounded on the overlay 37 zone, etc. The two lots are almost 90,000 square feet; no lot is similar, so it won’t create a 38 precedent. They are complying, and this is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Bernstein stated a 39 shared driveway is problematic. The site plan was illustrated, and the setback was discussed. He 40 noted they considered having 3 lots on this property. The existing home has an $80,000 tax bill. This 41 limits the home sale. Subdividing will create interest in marketing the home for sale; more 42 attainable. They want to see it maintained. 43 44 • Commissioner Gonka said that would give a current concession to the owner. 45 • Commissioner Ehrlich said an argument could be made that the lot, as is, could be more saleable. Mr. 46 Bernstein shared they are trying to make Highland Park better. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 5 Page 24 of 189  1 • Commissioner Portman commented the driveway is not the only thing that’s important. He read the 2 Ordinance in 1985 (4 houses, Stupey Cabin; subject properties). Mr. Bernstein reminded the PDC is 3 seeking the HPC’s advisory opinion. He noted code language in 1985 may have been used 4 interchangeably. 5 • Acting Chair Greenbaum asked, and Planner Markle said the PDC should discuss the driveway. 6 • Commissioner Portman asked if the driveway could be shared. Mr. Bernstein said the existing 7 driveway will serve Lot 1, and a new driveway will be built on Lot 2. 8 9 Councilmember Blumberg remarked his function as a Liaison is to bring policy to the HPC. 10 11 • Commissioner Ehrlich believes they need to review the entire estate. 12 13 Mr. Greg Moyer, Founder with Moyer Properties, stated the owner doesn’t live in the home. It’s been on the 14 market for a year. People love the property. It’s not saleable. This is a reasonable way to market a house 15 that is historic. One can barely see the other lot. It could sit there for another year. 16 17 Additional HPC comments are….. 18 • Commissioner Portman said this is a Historic Preservation Commission (created in 1985). When he 19 walks east on Central Avenue, the house has unbelievable characteristics. What strikes him is the 20 estate; preserving the entirety of the lot. He would vote no to subdivide based on the merits before 21 the HPC. 22 • Commissioner Gonka said the entire property/PIN # was landmarked. Subdividing and moving the 23 driveway changes that. The shape of the driveway and fence is historic. 24 • Commissioner Portman concurred and would like to preserve the property. He would like to see a 25 shared driveway that splits off to both houses. 26 • Commissioner Pines is not bothered by the relocation of the driveway. If being more affordable 27 makes it saleable, he is for it. An architectural effort needs to occur on the new house. He would like 28 to see the lot line move further to the east. 29 • Commissioner Ehrlich thought initially the house would be too close to the lot line. He is unsure what 30 would enhance this. It is more valuable as one large estate. A singular driveway is not as saleable. 31 Commissioner Ehrlich is opposed to disturbing the driveway, etc. The other aspects need to be 32 considered. 33 • Commissioner Hartinger believes there are good things and bad things on both sides. 34 35 Commissioner Gonka asked if a motion should be crafted that a subdivision would have a significant impact 36 on the historic nature of the site. Mr. Bernstein read the Staff Report, and noted a Planning Report is the 37 next step. Councilmember Blumberg asked that anyone who speaks gets recognized by the Chair. Senior 38 Planner Coleman clarified what the motion should be. 39 40 Commissioner Gonka moved that the subdivision of the lot would significantly impact the historical 41 significance of the property at 147 Central Avenue based on the historic fence, columns that make-up the 42 gate, relocation of the new driveway and its impact of the curb appeal, and the growing density of the lot. 43 Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 44 45 On a roll call vote 46 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 47 Portman Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 6 Page 25 of 189  1 Voting Nay: None 2 3 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 4 5 4. Preliminary Consideration of Partial Landmark Designation Removal – 147 Central Avenue 6 Planner Markle offered a brief presentation: 7 • Partial Landmark Removal of Lot 2 8 • Summary of Application 9 • Site Plan, Photos were shown (no structures; driveway/gate) 10 • Prior Designation 11 • Recommendation 12 13 Ms. Julia Jonas, Historian, noted she was a docent at this house in 2016. She provided history (pineapple on 14 gate post, owner was a gentleman farmer, had two bedrooms, circular driveway so horses could go 15 forward). This Field House and 4-acre property was placed on the Chicago Watch List. The property slopes 16 down with a view of the ravine. The house may have been built in 1870. 17 18 Mr. Bernstein explained this should be considered as if the subdivision occurred. Historic features are 19 located on Lot 1, not on Lot 2. Criteria wouldn’t apply to Lot 2; vacant lot. 20 21 Some HPC comments are….. 22 • Commissioner Ehrlich said the HPC could wait until it is known if the lots will be subdivided; it’s a 23 hypothetical. Planner Markle said Staff was advised by Corporation Counsel that it is appropriate to 24 discuss both issues together. Mr. Bernstein said they were directed by Staff & Corporation Counsel 25 to bring this forth as the process. 26 • Acting Chair Greenbaum said, due to keeping the lot as one estate, this is not worth the discussion. 27 Senior Planner Coleman said an Application was submitted and must be reviewed for Lot 2. 28 29 Councilmember Blumberg said, procedurally, decisions could occur. He noted the options are to 30 delandmark Lot 2, not to delandmark Lot 2, or if there is no motion at all, the matter would fail. 31 Planner Markle said this action ends with the HPC (and does not go to City Council) if the 32 Commission does not recommend landmark removal. 33 34 Staff asked if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this matter. The following came 35 forward: 36 • Kelsey Gonzalez asked why there are two motions. She doesn’t understand the logic. If it was 37 deemed this should not be subdivided, how can delandmarking occur? Ms. Gonzalez noted the 38 Lakefront landmark would be destroyed. 39 40 Commissioner Pines moved to continue this matter to the next HPC meeting. Commissioner Portman 41 seconded the motion. 42 43 On a roll call vote 44 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 45 Portman 46 Voting Nay: None 47 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 7 Page 26 of 189  1 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. A report will be drafted and the HPC’s 2 recommendation would be submitted to the PDC. The potential delandmarking issue will be discussed at 3 the next HPC meeting. 4 5 Commissioner Gonka shared this is a back-door attempt to get a lot subdivided. It is grossly unfair to put 6 these issues together. 7 8 Acting Chair Greenbaum said making a decision on a hypothetical is a slippery slope; back-door approach. 9 She is having a hard time wrapping her head around this. 10 11 Councilmember Blumberg advised Corporation Counsel could attend the next HPC meeting. 12 13 5. Resolution Recommending Ways to Encourage Historic Preservation 14 Planner Markle asked for feedback on the report. Commissioner Portman likes the memo and asked what 15 next steps are. Planner Markle replied if City Council asks for actions, this will come back to the HPC for 16 embellishments. 17 18 Commissioner Hartinger moved to adopt Resolution #2026-001. Commissioner Gonka seconded the motion. 19 20 On a roll call vote 21 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 22 Portman 23 Voting Nay: None 24 25 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 26 27 DISCUSSION ITEMS 28 There were no Discussion Items. 29 30 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 31 There was no Business from the Public. 32 33 OTHER BUSINESS 34 1. Administrative Determination of Historic Significance – 1770 Heather Lane 35 Planner Markle advised there was a fire and demolition was requested. 36 37 2. Next Regular Meeting is Scheduled for February 12, 2026 38 It was noted the next regular HPC Meeting is scheduled for February 12, 2026. 39 40 STAFF REPORT 41 Planner Markle asked that the Organizational Disclosement Form be completed and submitted by January 42 16, 2026. 43 44 They noted a Code Amendment would be presented at the next HPC meeting due to an error. 45 46 ADJOURNMENT 47 Commissioner Pines moved to adjourn at 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Gonka seconded the motion. 48 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 8 Page 27 of 189  1 On a voice vote 2 Voting Yea Acting Chair Greenbaum; Commissioners Ehrlich, Gonka, Hartinger, Pines, & 3 Portman 4 Voting Nay: None 5 6 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 7 8 Respectfully Submitted, 9 10 11 12 Gale Cerabona 13 Recorder 14 15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON DECEMBER 11, 2025, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2026 - Page 9 Page 28 of 189  WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2026 Case No. PUD-2025-00081 - 147 Central Avenue Commissioners and Council Members, My name is Kelsey Gonzalez, a resident of Highland Park. I’m writing to oppose the de-landmarking of Lot 2 and, more fundamentally, to oppose the underlying subdivision that necessitates it. But first, I must address a procedural matter that threatens the legitimacy of tonight's meeting. THE NOTICE PROBLEM I live within 250 feet of 147 Central Avenue. I received NO certified mail of public hearing regarding this request. Perhaps it was sent; I don’t know because I never received it. I know that two of my neighbors did. The only posted notice the general public got was a fence sign somewhere around the middle of December that gave a name and phone number to call with no hearing date specified. There was no notice posted prominently in City of Highland Park communications and none on the website that I could find until after December 30. It seems a notice was published in the newspaper, which one, I’m not clear. I, like most of the public, do not keep up with small newspaper notices, much less those published in the Breeze-Courier in downstate Illinois, which is where notice of the Central Avenue Bridge project was published. This is Highland Park's oldest house. A 40-year landmarked property. A National Register contributing property. And the public got a fence sign during the busy holiday season. Let me be clear about what you are being asked to approve: THE PROPERTY: • Built 1875 by Cornelius Field, Highland Park’s second mayor • The oldest residence in Highland Park • Locally landmarked since 1985; over 40 years of protection • Contributing property to National Register-listed historic district • 4.10 acres intact on original lot since the 1870s Page 29 of 189 • In a national recognized historic area the Historic Preservation Plan describes as properties that were never subdivided. THE REQUEST: The applicant wants to: 1. Subdivide this 4-acre estate into two 2-acre lots 2. De-landmark the newly created Lot 2 3. Allow for the potential to build up to a 15,000- square foot house on the de- landmarked lot 4. Destroy the historic estate character forever THE JUSTIFICATION: The property has been apparently vacant 5 years (a point I question given that I live across the street) and marketed for 1 year without success. Therefore, the applicant claims, subdivision is necessary to preserve the landmark. Let that sink in: A landmarked estate that has been intact for 150 years must be subdivided to be preserved. WHY THIS IS WRONG 1. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS WAS OMITTED The application makes NO mention that 147 Central is a contributing property to a National Register-listed historic district. In May 2019, the Federal Highway Administration prepared Section 106 documentation for the Central Avenue Bridge replacement. That document explicitly states that Highland Park committed to avoid adverse effects to this historic Linden-Bell-Park Avenues district, including the contributing property at 147 Central Avenue; The federal government determined this property worthy of protection from adverse effects caused by a bridge replacement across the street. Now Highland Park proposes to approve subdivision that causes far more severe adverse effects. 2. LANDMARK DESIGNATION SHOULD PROTECT LOT CONFIGURATION When Highland Park landmarked this property in 1985, what was being protected? Just the building? Or the building in its historic estate setting? Page 30 of 189 Modern preservation standards are clear: historic properties include their spatial relationships, landscape settings, and lot configurations. You cannot preserve a Victorian estate by keeping the house and destroying the estate. I believe the real reason the applicant is requesting two driveways is because it allows for de-landmarking the historic posts and driveway that are part of the estate and currently protected, therefore facilitating the subdivision request. 3. THE PRESERVATION THROUGH SUBDIVISION ARGUMENT IS ABSURD The applicant argues subdivision is necessary to make the property marketable. But: • Approximately one year of marketing is brief for a unique estate property • Marketing difficulty is not economic hardship • Preservation easements, extended marketing, alternative uses, real estate tax amendments…none appear to have been explored If marketing difficulty justifies subdivision, then every landmark facing a slow market becomes a subdivision candidate. Landmark designation becomes meaningless. 4. THE DE-LANDMARKING REQUEST IS CIRCULAR LOGIC The applicant says: • Subdivide the landmark • The new lot has no historic structures • Therefore, de-landmark it • Allow build of a huge house on it without needed preservation review • The lakefront landmark setting is destroyed This HPC is being asked to approve the consequence of subdivision while another body approves the subdivision itself. Neither body evaluates the combined impact. THE PRECEDENT Highland Park has 76 local landmarks and 163 National Register contributing properties. If you approve this subdivision and de-landmarking, you establish that: • Landmark designation protects buildings but not settings • National Register status is meaningless • Marketing difficulty justifies circumventing preservation Page 31 of 189 • Lot configurations receive no protection Every landmark on a large lot becomes a subdivision candidate. The estate-scale character Highland Park claims to value will be systematically dismantled through incremental decisions, each seeming reasonable decision made in isolation. THE PATTERN Two years ago, Highland Park demolished the Central Avenue Bridge. Same street. Same ravine. Same National Register district. That bridge was allowed to be demolished based on incorrect documentation listing it as built in 1935 instead of what the City’s own council meeting minutes record as 1907-1908. Dozens of trees were felled. Community opposition was documented but ignored. A two-lane highway compliant bridge with minimal historic features was built a block away from the edge of a bluff. This HPC approved it. Now, several years later, we’re here about 147 Central Avenue. Another inadequately documented case. Another minimization of significance. Another claim that there is no alternative. Where does Highland Park draw the line? WHAT I AM ASKING 1. RECOMMEND DENIAL of the de-landmarking request 2. OPPOSE THE UNDERLYING SUBDIVISION that necessitates de- landmarking 4. REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES including preservation easements, extended marketing, adaptive use, tax amendments, etc. before irreversibly subdividing the oldest estate in Highland Park CLOSING This is not routine. This is Highland Park’s oldest property. A 40-year landmark. A National Register contributing property within a nationally recognized historic district; on its original 4-acre lot since 1875. If this significant lakefront property can be subdivided with presumable maximum protections, maximum significance, and maximum documentation already Page 32 of 189 recorded, then Highland Park’s preservation program is revealed as hollow rhetoric. The Central Avenue Bridge could not be saved. But 147 Central Avenue can be. I urge you: Stop the pattern here. Recommend denial. Protect what remains of Highland Park’s historic integrity. Thank you. Kelsey Gonzalez 126 Central Avenue 773-896-6163 kelseygonzalez@icloud.com Page 33 of 189  Memorandum Date: February 12, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: 147 Central Avenue – Continuation of Partial Landmark Designation Removal Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission consider Landmark Removal for the proposed “Lot B” located on the eastern half of the property at 147 Central Avenue. Previous Commission Consideration The Historic Preservation Commission previously considered this item at the Jan. 8, 2026 meeting. After some discussion about procedure the Commission moved to continue the item to the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting. Application Summary Atty. Calvin Bernstein (the “Applicant”) has submitted a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) application for the property at 147 Central, on behalf of the Gale Rothner TTEE Gale Rothner Spousal Trust (see Attachment A). As part of the PUD, the applicant intends to subdivide the property into two separate legal lots of record. One of the proposed lots will contain the property’s historic main house, coach house, gardener’s cottage, greenhouse foundation, and bridge (“Lot A”). The other proposed lot will consist of an unimproved wooded area and not include any of the property’s historically significant structures (main house, coach house, gardener’s cottage, bridge, and greenhouse foundation) 1 (“Lot B”). The applicant has applied to remove the landmark designation from Lot B to avoid it being subject to HPC approval as a regulated property. Without removal of the landmark 1 Staff has determined that the property’s historically significant structures (relative to the 1985 landmark designation ordinance) are those named in the Landmark Nomination and or National Register Nomination. See Attachments B and H. Staff does not consider the structures listed as part of the 1988 Landscape Survey alone, historically significant (relative to the original 1985 landmark ordinance) because this survey work was completed years after the property was designated a Local Landmark. 1 Page 34 of 189  Memorandum designation any new home on Lot B would be a Regulated Structure 2 and have to be approved by the HPC through a Certificate of Appropriateness consideration. (see Attachment B). At the January 8, 2026, HPC meeting, the Commission requested further clarification concerning the procedure for concurrent PUD and landmark removal applications. Corporation Counsel has affirmed that the Commission’s reviews for the PUD subdivision and the partial landmark designation removal can occur concurrently (see Attachment C). Procedure for Landmark Removal The landmark removal process is initiated when an application is submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. The City already sent the property owner a letter stating the time, place, and purpose of this meeting where the application will be considered. The City has since sent a second notification letter to inform the owner of the item’s continuation to the February 12, 2026 meeting. The owner has provided consent to the landmark removal, so the next steps are as follows: The Commission should consider and discuss the landmark removal. (1) If the HPC finds that the property (a) does not meet two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, or (b) does not have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, then the Commission should adopt the drafted Resolution from staff making a Landmark Removal recommendation (Attachment D). 3 a. The City Council will consider the findings, recommendations, and official record of the Historic Preservation Commission and may, by an Ordinance duly adopted, remove the Local Landmark designation status. (2) If the HPC finds that the property does meet two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, and (b) does have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, the Commission should not make a Landmark Removal recommendation. a. In the case that a Landmark Removal recommendation is not adopted by the Commission, the Landmark Removal process is 2 Per Chapter 24, Regulated Structure is defined as “Any property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance that is subject to the provisions of this Chapter or the provisions of Section 170.040 of the building code because it (a) is a landmark, […]” 3 The applicant requested a resolution be drafted in anticipation of the Commission’s consideration of this matter. 2 Page 35 of 189  Memorandum complete and will not proceed to the City Council for further consideration. b. There is no formal appeal process if the Commission does not make a recommendation for Landmark Removal. c. The applicant may submit a successive Landmark Removal application to the Commission in the future with property owner consent per Sec. 24.025(G). (3) If the HPC does not have enough information to fully consider this item it may direct staff or the applicant, as appropriate to provide additional information, and make a motion to continue the item to a certain date. Staff recommend Mar. 12, 2026, the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Property Background The Cornelius Field Property was established c. 1875. The property’s main house was constructed by the Highland Park Building Company for Mr. Field, who was a Director of the Highland Park Building Company and Highland Park’s second mayor. Starting in 1889, the home was known as Sylvan Dells, “A Home School for Boys and Girls”, though the school later became exclusively for boys and was eventually combined with the North Western Military Academy. By 1899 the house was back in private hands, keeping the estate name of “Sylvan Dells.” The property at 147 Central Avenue was designated a Local Historic Landmark in 1985. The Historic Preservation Commission found that the property met Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4 and 6 (see Attachment E). The home has two distinct additions. The northern two-story portion is what remains of the original 1870’s farm house. The eastern section is a Victorian Gothic Revival Cottage c. 1895. To the west of the eastern section is an abutting two-story Italianate Classical wing with porte-cochere and Palladian windows in a mansard roof. In addition to a main house, the property also includes a historic coach house, gardener’s cottage, bridge, and greenhouse foundation. These structures, all located on the western half of the property, are listed as part of the 1982 National Register Multiple Resource Nomination (Attachment F) and have been subject to HPC review in past Certificate of Appropriateness applications (see Attachment G and H). Notable landscape features include the wrought-iron fence in the front yard, a well behind the main house, the main home’s curved driveway and distinct gateposts. 3 Page 36 of 189  Memorandum These features were listed as part of the 1988 Highland Park Historic Landscape Survey (see Attachment I). Request for Partial Removal of Landmark Designation The applicant has submitted an application to remove the landmark designation from the newly proposed Lot B 4 in accordance with Sec. 24.025(H) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff’s review of the record finds that the property as a whole is a Regulated Historic Structure, therefore any newly-created lot will be a Regulated Historic Structure. Therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission will be required for any Regulated Activity (as defined in Sec. 24.005) on the newly- created lots. The applicant seeks to remove the landmark designation from the newly created Lot B, and seeks to build a new home there. The applicant does not seek to remove the landmark designation associated with Lot A. The applicant asserts that the newly created Lot B will no longer satisfy the reasons or applicable landmark criteria for which the landmark designation was originally approved. Historic Resource Analysis for Lot B The following provides analysis of the historic elements on the Lot B portion of the property. Ice House – Not Intact Lot B may have once included the remains of a historic ice house according to the 1988 Highland Park Historic Landscape Survey, but the survey does not identify an exact location. The survey states “Ice house on edge of ravine – remnant of road to lake from ice house. Old foundation removed in 1960s.” This would seem to imply that the old ice house remnants were removed in the 1960s (Attachment I). The ice house was not included as part of the Landmark Nomination nor as part of the 1982 National Register Multiple Resource Nomination, which further supports the assumption that this structure no longer exists. 4 Consisting of approximately 89,726 SF or 46% of the total area of the property at 147 Central Ave. 4 Page 37 of 189  Memorandum Wrought-Iron Fence – Intact Lot B will include a portion of the property’s original wrought-iron fence (see Figure 1). The original portion is located directly to the west of the property’s historic gateposts. The fence is noted on the 1988 Landscape Survey and is pictured in the 2020 landmark summary sheet 5 (Attachment J). Gatepost and Finials - Intact Lot B will include the property’s gateposts Figure 1. Historic fence located on proposed with pineapple finials (see Figure 2). Lot B These features are pictured as part of the 1988 Landscape Survey and the 2020 landmark summary sheet. 6 Local experts and staff suspect that the finials are original to the property. The Smithsonian has published information about the significance of pineapple finials. The 2021 Smithsonian Archives Unbound article “The Prickly Meaning of the Pineapple” says: Figure 2. Historic gateposts as pictured in “During the 18th century, the 2020 landmark summary sheet pineapple was established as a symbol of hospitality, with its prickly, tufted shape incorporated in gateposts, door entryways and finials.” 7 The Smithsonian Gardens Collection says “…Large (pineapple) finials appeared atop monumental gateposts… Impressive posts capped with monumental finials were carefully chosen to embellish entries and raise the standard of the house. In addition to their decorative effects, finials were functional as well. They often top gateway posts to allow rain and 5 Created by: Susan Benjamin 6 Same as above. 7 Blakely, Julia. (2021, January 28). The Prickly Meanings of the pineapple – Smithsonian Libraries and Archives /Unbound. https://blog.library.si.edu/blog/2021/01/28/the-prickly-meanings-of-the- pineapple/ 5 Page 38 of 189  Memorandum snow to shed off quickly without much buildup. This greatly reduces the amount of water that seeps downward to saturate the core of the post.” 8 The Smithsonian Garden Collection further states that pineapple finials were most common during the Victorian Period, between 1837 and 1901. 9 In email correspondence with staff on Jan. 28, 2026, local historian and author Julia Johnas said: “Gateposts were used to indicate the location of the carriageway entrance. Carriageways were one-way drives. The gateposts indicated the entrance rather than the exit, telling the driver which "way" or direction to take the carriage. This allowed passengers to exit safely and directly to the house entrance. I believe the pineapple design reflected Field's New England antecedents. Sailors often spiked a pineapple on their gatepost to announce their safe return home. It was used by whalers who hunted in the South Seas where pineapples were grown and was a popular gatepost finial design at the time Field constructed his house.” Staff notes that remnants of historic wrought-iron are visible at the base of the gateposts (see Figure 3). The additional historic context provided by the Smithsonian Institute, Johnas, 1988 Landscape Survey and 2020 landmark summary sheet point to the historic significance of the gatepost and finials. The wrought-iron remnants further indicate the gatepost’s historicity. 10 Commission Consideration Figure 3. Wrought-iron remnant at base of gatepost The Commission should consider if a newly created Lot B satisfies the Landmark Criteria listed in Sec. 24.015 of Code and has 8 Smithsonian Institute. (n.d.). Finial, Pineapple. Retrieved January 28, 2026, from https://gardens.si.edu/collections/explore/object/hac_1985.024#:~:text=Pineapple%20finial%20made %20of%20cast,locations%20for%20finials%20to%20appear. 9 Smithsonian Institute. (n.d.). 10 Staff believes the finials, base, and gatepost placement are historic elements. The gatepost brick may be altered, or non-historic. The brick pointing and dimensions appear more consistent than what would typically be expected of nineteenth century brick. 6 Page 39 of 189  Memorandum sufficient integrity.11 If the Commission finds that a newly created Lot B does not satisfy two or more Landmark Criteria, or does not have sufficient integrity, then the Commission should recommend the removal of landmark designation from Lot B. 12 The Commission may consider all the Landmark Criteria listed in Sec. 24.015 of Code, not merely those found by the City Council at time of the initial landmark designation in 1985. Additionally, the Commission may consider other historic elements of the property, regardless of whether or not they were included as part of the original landmark designation. The Commission may consider whether the driveway placement, the gateposts, and the wrought-iron fence located on the proposed Lot B are historic resources. Attachments A. 2025 Planned Development Application B. 2025 Application for Landmark Removal C. Corporation Counsel Opinion D. DRAFT Resolution Recommending Landmark Removal E. 1985 HPC Resolution F. 1982 Multiple Resource Nomination to National Register of Historic Places G. 2011 HPC COA for Gardeners (Potters) Cottage and Landscape H. 1986 HPC COA for Coach House (Carriage House) I. 1988 Highland Park Landscape Survey Pages J. 2020 Landmark Summary Sheet – 147 Central Avenue K. Cornelius Field Biography L. 1985 Landmark Nomination M. 1985 Landmark Ordinance 11 Per Chapter 24, Integrity is defined as follows: “The degree of original design and historic material remaining in place on a property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance.” 12 Sec. 24.025(H)(2) states: “Under no circumstances shall the City Council remove the Landmark designation for any property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance unless it finds that the reasons for which the landmark designation was once appropriate are no longer present. Nothing herein shall be deemed or interpreted as requiring the City Council to remove the landmark designation upon such a finding.” 7 Page 40 of 189 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK Subdivision Application Letter of Situation Dated: October 7, 2025 RE: 147 Central Avenue Subdivision in Highland Park TO: Plan Commission and City Council 147 Central is also known as the Field House. 147 Central is a substantial property situated adjacent to a ravine, encompassing more than four acres of land. It was the home of Highland Park’s second mayor, Cornelius Field, and is believed to be the oldest residence in Highland Park. In addition to being mayor, Cornelius Field was a director of the Highland Park Building Company, and he built this home for himself in 1875. In 1985, the existing home was designated as landmark by the City of Highland Park. In the landmark application, the stated reason for the landmarking was due to the “eastern section Gothic Cottage, abutting it on the west is two story wing – second story contained within Mansard roof”. The property has been altered over the years, and it has been vacant for over 5 years. The current owners have been marketing the unsubdivided home and property for sale, without success, for over a year. In order to preserve the existing landmarked home, the applicant desires to subdivide the property into two very large lots. One containing the historic landmarked home and the second, the non-historical/landmark vacant area. This subdivision will allow the owner to properly market the home to allow a buyer the ability to purchase the landmark home while embracing the historical significance at a fair price. The two lots created by this subdivision are both very large and double the minimum lot size for R-4 LFOZ, however, each will contain more than four (4) sides. Due to the ravine location, it is impossible to create two lots with only four sides at this location. Thus, to subdivide, one variation is required to allow lots of more than 4 sides. Pursuant to the Subdivision Code, the Plan and Design Commission may recommend, and the City Council may grant variations so long as the variation does not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code (Section 151.009). The intent and purpose of the regulation set forth in the Subdivision Code is, in part, to protect neighborhood character and to provide quality neighborhoods by requiring minimum lot widths, depths and areas (Section 151.002(D)). In this case, the existing lot contains more than 4 sides, as will the newly created lots. It is important to note that many homes in this area, including 147 Central, have more than 4 sides, as these lots meander around the ravine. The newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character. The existing landmarked home will remain untouched and preserved for generations to come. Furthermore, the newly created lots comply with the regulations by meeting the minimum lot width, depth and area in the zoning district. Thus, the application herein meets the standards for a variation set forth in the Subdivision Code and but for the one issue, no variation will be required or needed. In sum, the proposed subdivided lots do not affect the general plan and are consistent with the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Thank you for considering this application. Page 41 of 189 Page 42 of 189 Page 43 of 189 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK Historical Preservation Review Letter of Situation Dated: December 22, 2025 RE: 147 Central Avenue Subdivision in Highland Park TO: Chairman of the Historical Preservation Commission, the Historical Preservation Commission and the City Council 147 Central is also known as the Field House. 147 Central is a substantial property situated adjacent to a ravine, encompassing more than four acres of land. It was the home of Highland Park’s second mayor, Cornelius Field, and is believed to be the oldest residence in Highland Park. In addition to being mayor, Cornelius Field was a director of the Highland Park Building Company, and he built this home for himself in 1875. In 1985, the existing home was designated as landmark by the City of Highland Park. In the landmark application, the stated reason for the landmarking was due to the “eastern section Gothic Cottage, abutting it on the west is two story wing – second story contained within Mansard roof”. The property has been altered over the years, and it has been vacant for over 5 years. The current owners have been marketing the unsubdivided home and property for sale, without success, for over a year. In order to preserve the existing landmarked home, the applicant desires to subdivide the property into two very large lots. One containing the historic landmarked home and the second, the non-historical/landmark vacant area. This subdivision will allow the owner to properly market the home to allow a buyer the ability to purchase the landmark home while embracing the historical significance at a fair price. The two lots created by this subdivision are both very large and double the minimum lot size for R-4 LFOZ, however, each will contain more than four (4) sides. Due to the ravine location, it is impossible to create two lots with only four sides at this location. Thus, to subdivide, one variation is required to allow lots of more than 4 sides. Pursuant to Section 24.025(H)(2) of the City Code, the City Council may remove the Landmark designation for any property, structure, area, object or landscape of significance if it finds the reasons for which the landmark designation was once appropriate are no longer present. Assuming the concurrent subdivision application is approved, the reasons for the landmark designation will solely remain existing home lot and not on the newly created vacant lot. As such, the reasons for the landmark designation will no longer exist on the newly created empty lot. Since the basis for the designation will no longer exist, the City Council may remove the landmark designation on this newly created lot. To be clear, the applicant is not requesting nor advocating for the removal of the Field House’s landmark designation. Instead, the new subdivision will enhance the historical home by allowing someone to purchase the historical home at a fair price providing them the financial flexibility to invest in the home’s preservation. We believe this creates a win-win situation, where the owner obtains a fair price for this large property while allowing someone to purchase the landmarked home at am attainable price. In sum, the existing landmarked home will remain untouched and preserved for generations to come. Furthermore, the newly created lots comply with the regulations by Page 44 of 189 meeting the minimum lot width, depth and area in the zoning district. As set forth above, the application herein meets the standard for removal of landmark designation set forth in the Zoning Code, and based upon the City Code, the Council would be within its authority to remove such a designation. Thank you for considering this application. 2 Page 45 of 189  350 North Clark Street Second Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-528-5200 www.elrodfriedman.com Hart M. Passman 312.528.5193 hart.passman@elrodfriedman.com Memorandum Date: February 6, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Corporation Counsel Re: Consideration of Landmark Removal – 147 Central Avenue The Community Development Department advised our office of the Commission’s inquiry, identified at its January 8, 2026 meeting, concerning the proposed removal of landmark designation for a portion of the property at 147 Central Avenue. As the Commissioners are aware, the owner of the 147 Central Avenue property has filed an application with the City for Planned Development and subdivision approval. That application contemplates the subdivision of the property into two lots, one of which (designated in the Commission’s agenda materials as “Lot A”) will contain the existing historic structures, and the other (“Lot B”) consisting of an unimproved wooded area. The owner has concurrently filed an application for removal of the existing landmark designation for Lot B. We understand that at the January 2026 meeting, several Commissioners questioned the legality of considering landmark removal for a lot that does not currently exist. Our office does not have any legal concerns at this time. In the zoning context, concurrent applications – for which the approval of one form of relief is contingent on the approval of another form of relief – are common. In this case, the owner is authorized to seek landmark designation removal for a portion of the property, and the Commission has the authority to issue a recommendation on that application. In essence, the Commission is being asked: if the City approves the subdivision of the property into two lots, would removal of the landmark designation from one of those lots satisfy the standards for removal? In the event that the subdivision is approved, the Commission’s recommendation and the removal application would be considered; if the subdivision is denied, the removal application would be deemed moot. We recommend that the Commission proceed with its consideration of the pending application. 4932-5301-1085, v. 1 1 Page 46 of 189  City of Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 2026-XX A Resolution Recommending Removal of Landmark Designation for 147 Central Avenue Lot B WHEREAS, the City Historic Preservation Commission (“Commission”) is a commission of the City created pursuant to Section 33.1701 of the "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"); and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 34-85, designating that certain real property located at the address commonly known as 147 Central Avenue in the City (“Property”) as a landmark; and WHEREAS, Gale Rothner TTEE Gale Rothner Spousal (“Owner”) is the record title owner of the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 150.505 of "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"), the Owner has filed an application with the City for approval of: (i) a planned development for the Property, and (ii) a plat of subdivision for the Property (“Zoning Relief”); and WHEREAS, as part of the Zoning Relief, Owner seeks to subdivide the Property into two separate legal lots of record, with the western portion of the Property comprising 88,808 square feet (“Lot A”), and the eastern portion of the Property comprising 89,726 square feet (“Lot B”); and WHEREAS, Lot A is improved with structures of historical significance, including the main residential structure, greenhouse foundation, gardener’s cottage, bridge, and coach house; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(H)(3) of the City Code, Owner filed an application with the Chairman of the Commission to remove the landmark designation of Lot B; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it will serve and be in the best interests of the City and its residents to recommend to the City Council removal of the landmark designation of Lot B; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Commission. SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION. The Commission finds that, upon Resubdivision of the Property: (i) Lot B will not be improved with any structures of historical significance; and (ii) the standards for landmark designation are not satisfied by Lot B. SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATION FOR LANDMARK REMOVAL. In accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 24.025(H) of the City Code, the Commission hereby recommends to the City Council removal of the landmark designation from Lot B. 4902-9357-7092, v. 3 Page 47 of 189  SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED: APPROVED: RESOLUTION NO. ____________________________________ Erica Weeder, Chairperson ATTEST: ___________________________________ Maddy Markle, Commission Secretary 4902-9357-7092, v. 3 Page 48 of 189  WHEREAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allows the City Oouncil to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/ or landscape characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landmarks; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Oomission has held a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has prepared a report summarizing the evidence at said hearing, a copy of which report is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dtermined that the Oornelius Field House, located at 147 Central Ave., P. I. N.: 16- 23- 210- 002, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landmark because it meets with Criteria # 1, # 3, # 4, and # 6 of the Commission' s " Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks"; NCW, THERIMRE, BE IT RESCUED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATIAN MMNlISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARR, LAKE ( DUMPY, ILLINOIS: That the proposed landmark, the Oornelius Field House, be recmmended to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landmark. AYES: - 5- MUM: - 0- ABSENT: - 4- PRESENT: - 0- PASSED: 7- 30- 85 APPROVED: 7- 30- 85 KAIIINORM1; RESCLUTION NO. 2- 85 Page 49 of 189  HIGHLAND PARK MULTIPLE RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET PROPERTY, NAME Cornelius Field House ADDRESS 14.7 Central .Avenue CITY/ TOWN/ VICINITY Highland Park COUNTY Lake STATE Illinois zip 60035 OWNER' S NAME Martha F-: MacLeod ADDRESS same CITY/ TOWN/ VICINITY STATE ZIP LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Deerfield Township Assessor' s Office 600 Laurel Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 T VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Lot 4,.,. Block 26 Highland Park, 'Subdivision_ .- P. I. N..- # 16- 23- 210= 002 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 3. 8 acres circa DATE OF CONSTRUCTION 1875. :, ARCHITECT AND/ OR BUILDER Cornelius Field ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IF RELEVANT) Steamboat Gothic PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Vertical -battened siding would argue for labeling the OF BUILDING AND overall structure Steamboat Gothic, however, the - south - PROPERTY facing facade is a combination of two separate styles., indicating completion at different times. ( Photographs show house had attained its present size by 1896.) The eastern section is a straightforward but slightly broad Gothic cottage with roof, running parallel to the street, intersperced by a gable. A High Victorian porch wraps around this part of the first floor to face_ south and east. Abutting this section, on the west, is an Italianate structure approximately the same size but with the second story contained ( continued on attached OVERALL CONDITION: EXCELLENT X GOOD FAIR DETERIORATED RUIN INTEGRITY: UNALTERED X ALTERED DATE AND NATURE OF ALTERATIONS: A later addition, a second - floor sleeping porch, was removed in 1985- Page 50 of 189 ALTERATIONS ( cont' d) USE: ORIGINAL USE Predominately residential } PRESENT USE Residential OUTBUILDINGS AND/ OR OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PROPERTY ( ATTACH SKETCH PLAN IF APPLICABLE) Coach House, circa 1875- 1880, on the northwest corner of the property ( address, 160 Park- Avenue). 1s Queen Anne style with a gambrel roof bisected by gambrel dormers front and continued on attached) HISTORICAL AND/ OR During the 1880s, the building served as a boys, school. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The unusually large bedroom ( second floor, southwest corner) is said to have been a dormitory dating from this period. FORM PREPARED BY Martha F. MacLeod r TEL ( 312) 433- 3353 PROPERTY NAME Cornelius Field House LOCATION 147 Central Avenue ' CITY/ TOIM/ VICMTV. Highland. Park, 1111holS FACING DATE PHOTOGRAPHER LOCATION OF NEGATIVE Page 51 of 189 FHn4-= ( 11- 78) United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item number page continued from " Physical'. Description:'.- e" _.__ Page 1 within a Mansard roof. Here a large Palladian window, with ample cornices and topped by a large keystone, Below bisects the front. this, on the ground floor,. is a square - fronted bay. Behind the east ` Gothic) section is the kitchen wing which is housed in an older and more simple structure, . apparently the original. farmhouse. On the west side of the front is a large porte- cochere. In 1984 and 1985 restoration of the porch -- wide front and deep side -- was carefully and authentically executed. All woodwork that needed replacement was faithfully. reproduced ( from existing work) and replaced. Porch roof was covered, and gutters and downspouts executed, in lead - coated copper. In the early 198s, the entire exterior of the building was hand stri ped with paint remove.r.- contined from " Outbuildings and/ or other..." Page 2 back. Bridge from driveway to coach house was constructed of railway trestlework ( infrastructure) and wood ( superstructure) circa 1930. Guest Houseon property was originally the potting shed ( and heating source) for a large greenhouse. The greenhouse had been razed by 1954; the potting shed was converted ( varied floor levels and furnace cellar were retained) to a guest house ; in 1967. The foundation of the old greenhouse now serves as a planted terrace. V. Page 52 of 189 1 zr,.: q' .. i,ia*, t.+.-fS'.•.? a.1.rh' -..'`, JIB it eaK' :• . 1` . . 7 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Certificate of Appropriateness DATE: June 9, 2011 NAME OF LANDMARK: Cornelius Field House ADDRESS: 147 Central Avenue NAME OF OWNER: Gale Rothner NAME OF ARCHITECT: N. Batistich Architects, Burr Ridge, IL PROPOSED REPAIR, ALTERATION, REMOVAL, CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION: 1) Replacement of two exterior stairways with concrete steps. The steps will be capped in masonry and have white wooden risers. 2) A fenced -in patio on the north end of the house. Details of the fence and pavers are attached to this COA. 3) A cedar deck will be constructed on the east side of the guest cottage. Approved plans attached. DATE OF COMMISSION REVIEW: June 9, 2011 MOTION: Commissioner Rotholz SECOND: Commissioner Fradin ABSTAIN: VOTE: 5- 0 ACCEPT PROPOSAL X REJECT PROPOSAL Details of the fence and patio pavers. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS: Approved drawings of cedar deck on the cottage. Photographs of the exterior stairs to be replaced. COMMENTS: SIGNED: Page 53 of 189  scope o WoRK 60 mvx•.. STo uE P.¢ -' moo Page 54 of 189 Proposed Fence Style for Patio Gate Style for Patio Decorative Trellis Example Page 55 of 189  Za" AAJW_el p i #*, C A ANDSCAPES 1W S A GRAND DIME PP_ FL AG TONE FLAG Ok J 1 13,A o O, ft 0 Rosetta Hardscapes accurately creates the look art! feel of mature in any application you previously unavailable in landscape block materials. Also, the use of wet -cast concrete allows imagine. This boutique line of landscape products truly amazes even the most discerning Rosetta to offer significantly improved durability over most competitive products. craftsman or homeowner. The textures, colors and shapes of these stones are like nothing else on the market today. Thank you for taking the time to review the Rosetta line of products on the following pages. Imagine the possibilities of a Rosetta solution for your next project! Let Rosetta be the catalyst BY crafting Rosetta stones with architectural - grade wet -cast concrete as opposed to the that inspires your creative process. much more common dry -cast concrete, Rosetta Hatdscapes captures a level of detail in texture Page 56 of 189  GENEZAL NOTES: F SOIL ASSUMED CONCRETE TO TO BE HAVE 3. 000 A BEA, F. S. I. ING IN 28 CAPACITY GAYS. OF 3. 000 R. S. F. S ALL STRUCTURAL GZADE LUMBER TO BE STRUCTURAL G2AOE FIR 02 5. i.F.. ALL FRAMING LUMBER TO BE ' PRESSURE TREATED' MIN. 1. 05-0 f.. w w ALL EXPOSED FINISH WOOD TO BE CEDAZ WO STAIR RIS - 25 SHALL BE 7- 3/ 4' MAXIMUM AND STAIR TREAD TO BE 10 MINIMUM CLEAR OF TREAD ABOVE. MINIMUM WID TN TO . E . L W U LL w w r O v- DIEM U o z l}fl LL w m flA1 m+ ED RARE LNm sVNS 1 6omo c L' 1, Y 1750N— FSPXRC- F " VNNM 5Tr 5 EXIST1: W nsCRT. TRn / / I w M' A1 V75mT5 T r. W JSSOW' O.G a GOiTAG cAAX T 7 L11GS31 SOL1,11WA W Z ND' OtOBXt usAr. vTDVRTO, iT s;, m ttNLLO w I ZzwZ j w QNmIU 0 nl I Z 7DAYae' LJ.I Nf! O~LL0 I W WW J SIT DV. CONC. RIE, — F} wm m Oo LL uw0 FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT - SIDE ELEVATION , '- 7 , xve w ec vx yr ao m uu2211w DECK SECTION y} OWq SWL SChL UT = i'-0' 338 { t K ECkING p 8- DA. CONCZETE PIER TO A MIN. 3- 6 BELOW GRACE DECK FRAMING PLAN L Page 57 of 189 J  r -- - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION- CERTIFICATE OF. APPROPRIATENESS - Date:. August 19,-- 1986- Name cf Landnark: Cornel:ius.-Fiel-d-. House.,( Coach. House) Address: 147 Central/•_160. P_ark.. Ave: Name of owner: _ MaetW and .Al -.MacLeod Name_ cf--dontractor-:_Peter- Nrcol.azziis.:-Carpenter and Smith` Proposed repair-,- alteration,. removal, construction or demolition: ReSub,= structureband;_foot ngs ( see a: ttached- letter. dated August 1, 1986)- Date- of 0oirm ission Review; August. 19, 1986 Motion' - Caranissianeri-LAxel rod x1Accept Rej ect Propospal Second: Commissioner Norvi;ckas w' Abstain: Cmmissioner.' Nicolazzi• Vote: All - i n-. Documents. Fa Letter from Peter- Nicola.zz.i,.to. .-A1 MacLeod - date Aug. 1, 1986 ,. Camnents: Signed eol t ,. may: T a :. i i ' ,_ . i.k.. ': C_ • F X• q• ti... , _ z _ „ { .{: , . 1n a' Y +" • t. l'.- Page 58 of 189  r7r< es to rations 504 Central Court Highland Park. Illinois 60035 312/ 433- 7277 August 1, 1986 A. H. MacLeod 147 Central Avenue Highland Park, Illinois CARRIAGE HOUSE- Park Avenue REBUILD OF SUB - STRUCTURE AND FOOTINGS As you know, we have found the post and beam sub- structure supporting At this point, we the carriage house in need of immediate attention. rebuild piers, install must shore up the building, remove rotten members, new timbers and make structural repairs as needed.. Insulation, plastic and wire mesh must be removed from underside of floor joists, as it is holding in moisture and advancing deterioration. to let air circulate, and Siding -around bottom perimeter must be removed, for the same reason, should not be replaced. Somethim must also be done about gutters and downspouts that are directing water at structure, further enhancing the problem. Our goal is to correct existing problems and to prevent their reoccurance. From structure to ornamentation uniquely quaUfted to perpetuate the past." Page 59 of 189  i Secondary Documentation or References Lar) W1yr4..45 1/, sX., na . /. k.r rr i ,. h% rs Significance Historic Association _ Historic Signif in Landscape Design Historic Signif in Culture _ Work of a Recognized Master Important Artistic Statement _ Example of Fine Craftsmanship Use of Unique Materials _ Unique Regional Expression Example of Particular Style _ Example of Particular Type Example of Particular Time _ Example of Time Sequence Other Verifiable Quality Statement of Significance ( for each type of significance) Or7, giniy14, U i., 6) Physical Desription Brief Description of Significant Design Elements Plant Materials () a kg , tyr> / u/ e. nrr H/ s n- 74, 0, rI frrn. Manmade Features JQ #1PI ' nt & u rx , Da dor),, 6wd nrvr/ nh wj (o -, m/v,/ 4r s r cl a i r J 0, h. rias., } i l/ n C.. si Dri/ Y 0 ///_ 4 fi"._ Water Is there' a ravine on this property? Yes No Page 60 of 189  Are there any critical or end ngered plant materials on this property? If yes please explain All iljy t , _.' t% r, -) i IF 7) Evaluation Condition Excellent , Good LFair _ Deteriorated _ Severely Deteriorated Changes Unaltered _( Altered < Added to _ Loss/ Removal _ Encroached Upon Z Qualilfying Statement of Condition and Change Integrity ( Does the site retain the physical characteristics that give it its historic identity; and represent and convey the type( s) of sigiiig , icance established by the sites historical context?) Location _ Design Intent Spatial Relationships/ Setting Materials _ Vegetation _ Workmanship Feeling Association Other Describe the degree to which the overall landscape and its significant I features are present today. Explain the categories of integrity noted above: M-0- / ir- ee. s Helm / TIu OXY / f.J/ J GY7 r1 M.C- iA e 4-r,L«.L f? " / + I 8) Form Prepared by: t 00-5 Address / 70 7 1R. jpi ? O -S Phone Date 7-175- 275-_ Jo Page 61 of 189 0) Photo( s) Roll Number Negative No( s). Sketch of base map or plan Please attach if on separate sheet Page 62 of 189  G.. '> YY't' ' 4^. rG{ i'; '. : . 3tr' { i] •^ r[ C': P•:% i Y' ,•( Ii ` 2!•, { ld: J p'' y. tet•., y \` t, Yi G :' C' r• 0', ` y ` l', •. l.Rr r •r • \ Cr •.'. a> r_.,. ti r• J 1 y 1! f' , . 11' .. a-:y. W• J ; a. •'.. ;`. ?. •>!.. C iZ f* •' r !. a•- '/•' 3`l`:? r•.\.: rj{\ a• fT'• 4. •rl.. i ''. Y'q. t_..-,, M` t.. t1V /• a-N rr i.. KL tri f; 3 ` j ' \ 1': ., jt di:` ` t•,+ , ri,J•:r`• ;}'. T,:. <." . / rid t: r > ter„ fy- ` . ter' '` > • a/ ' • i :.. •, y? C, O`: ,;'•. 0' r,:\'' \ f `",, L.•• F • r, . 4' 7 at> ' !.(-... ... V 9,1 ]t . 1 Y :"- \ q ' h51 tw rr'' y7j ' . • SSI) V` 9 tel i, l' _/', 1:" .^ 1• t, 0 '•.: i •n,. 1 t• fr fir-, wv'. ny rn.Lv, 1 _ f....!. t/ 1 y ' R; ". A• fi * tir y:'.-•! i M N , C. 1.: .` i , , i. S' f. pyr•, 7,!'. • e t f, 1 a... •' rT .. • ! 9r; r '. 1 !' „ a, . . 7.; i' .• Y , • P \•: f. ..-+..:.• tr .. a• a, ' :'' a- f ' 4 i'r• t• t . - `^. - w' 1" vM•• 1 th%_':',•"!', cai . fit?:a •:!, tr. i!'< %` r;. lf r'• 1,• v, \' t, ;i: . IC f tr y". 1 F•%•• ' r4• . f,,, Kh.,•. , kX11 ;. '5'.> t•;. •, ';'`:., ._•.': a.:r tl'': f•-51. is?T.+. ! i :i:: '. ! t . r . • '' :+ 1•• i• ma.. .,. J, e. . ! pi( S { y . ' y- 1 v3''' e\ !!. ', S •. _ r8,' L a. •' a,? y:,.. t rhf: a 1•.; . .' 1.: ! j:.', ti r•.. 4trJ : r" t, . 1 ' 1,' _ 4l r,.\` - , 1 •, 0. ry. ': 1 w: i • yi ' v 11 • : . ft T. r'i. R'• s. t .r.' '`. V. i r. r.•'.?, ; . t a ,>ti1:' j ar• ..\ i•,' :, l ' r., / r. ,• • 1 . _•... ']., •. f.,.. a: '. f'1a f C •• 4•.• A aa \ , rOr \' Sr •,{, ' A9 ^ 4' Iter• Qr. . Ii WA rya;- r, o. rr. . 11 r. Ir` r, f...,.. '• : pt' t` e fyl.\` q! i,. ; •' • ": 1.-"' , i'• ha •. It '., 1 :.Y._•. . r j: r' tv _ i;• ( J.. 1y , r•"sf%''.';'. ; cy t., r1•" • r. /.{ aA r • `: I f •}•' '•: I F V1 : d. . /!"{ a t ] C 1 b : f , fir , , ',•. • 1_ `. 7^': ` '' i ' ." t]'; >` ''.^.. ,. y*. 1 ; . „ 1i:: a' . , S i :- ti / 1',, r 4 . y:%- rt• r ;`: a1 tt -•'.`..' t, r' i,:;' SdJ '' '•, 7 P°`;": Q to__tt :<. t: ••^,' t ifZ' t ` K :'rte .: ,,. _' 1 o . I l.rj,j` ,h.'!L,. • /, .Y^,'':+'..,, 1^ .: :._: AAA `' s`:'.'. ' '`. `, i,'r q. ... ` ti, C% , i t';• f V % 7!.•, ' l f': 4 1 ' g l' 1, i.. , ,; 1. t a'. ' C i :.. c' •, ' • e /. : wq.' 7'`• j yr.. r C, ` ,, ', ih •. i ,. r: l - E ' t'„.. 71f O% its,. ', idr; ':, ' , r•. • ri,' •, '''._ , s ar ,.` fr'• i ' ;,.;, i'•, S.: i••.' Yr,'`• , j; },:',.A ryr' ice'\ M': f t f.,. :• I/ NJ. ai, • L!.• tl iii""• j r1r ,. Y/ qqq l• r•. t.• i•r'%•'•' - n` ' \ T l-, L' r :''ir : .'.• r,;! 1:\ 1• 1.' t 1 i•- It-l.: i y:: i/'. :• i..: l. 9+.';'+, Ca•. • * , ., `••• tf!(••\\ ) 1, p' i qq T w,. r: Js,; il . v` E' r'y *"•' `_`.' {' W'':. ''aj., ?, p 1 A.. n.. ; `',. h.C.::_ r}. 1• Y'_ 1,•' i a' f . r ''fla . c' fy: f . i +.a: t;; ti'` r.; j, ai rS1;,' _ ;. i'[}' J..;: 1•'M1:. 1e::•' - , f±.':• a,.'• .. l. I >, '* 1•, •- vv , / ` ' p r: t. .:u•..r:,?,•. 4 :.•rl'. Y,!'; :: . ..:• ''{ e' ',. g ' M' 1', r ,.J: '. 7-`' e•' : r r:' y. I r1 : f M.. ;: *'' yd':,; Fl il ri . .•.,, ?:' 4`.: I`'' • l;. 1 ; i? rtl. oi• ; . f •,,' G'•. ,_. .:+.,, •.Cvr'... F , Sj.• 1. . v: f :':;' rjj)': I • a y'. v; .. 1 > ._ :. ffi.'` ai a •' ii Sii i: . Q sAt ! ' C .. s ,, ., '• itr,>. •.. i. ar:,, i•, a. 1.`-""% 1"> 0 _:!.: f • . 1• - y . " r.> ^•! 1: I• f.-; ,• { ti ' -'''' '. l 1>'.; "'•:. i'.i.: ' .'.,•?,o a A` y. . ':, , f; 1:~-. i -,•t' H .. ' a j.•: t.• 144 Cr , . r .... '` 7' L—_ n,;:•. ••; ,• . Y - « s. y • •`• Y . :. Q .;, moi , _ ' 1. a ' ice L• _. d s.. as i `.> y:.: l 1}- --- 1111111111 .. -• - : t'!" S. 11{ _11 f•taal +__._ _ _ 1li ' J - 11:; i.::1L iljjjjL,. w . r r• . A,' . i.. . j!,rL i/// Cc':!' , i .—' T—'-—' I 1• d •-'= ;• .. --- " t- --------- -- ._. - 1'• .: • a ,' .• rJa rt••,..f `r r. ti '• >•. h r tlEii. _ : li.l: :; 1!;, I t v.. .•• ,, 1; , ' a •' ''• " • • i fly ` ! ' ,• Lz^' i c ' 1; 6' , ' ] i:Y%' Sl, ! 1,•\ , •• ,,_ ,: s• ' I I; 1 •. • r. .. ' a ;:' . p. I r , . I' .+. .. i '' al... . e ..+ r•• - firn. 1C',^'..« _ •! arr. r•_ - .."- .. r C. . l. r] 1 , Y.:. 11707: t y l•!. r11 MrrF •-, - - .. ice• n•” 11! J Page 63 of 189 FTI Ak ea not ON p: i, Ot . . ." . OWN. - VIP. utntriiiitiili 1L Page 64 of 189  z 4,:.. ,. y,:. . • J.•:•..• . '. • is ...- t•. _ ,^",? Zi:;} • '_ 5.; ' I, • e. r. ,, t.. ' S .. rr t rr ?• e`er ' i r T. ,;`. ' - y. ;+{. i, i - ,.,: f,,. t ' s F' J r•• w r. y. I t- f• 1w, t _ 1 i fit„ •, f 1" 1 F' G: moi:, I:: r. I rti ..: ' r r- 7, .": ' F c' r. r • O' P• Tj j a. 1. 1 j v Li Li t J •.), l r, I ,.! •' i. -- t e7'. ti. • 1. :.' L1l • y tib• a' 3 t • t: l' I M' S" • 5'r j rI •. t`'th. yT,•t:/• /• IC, 1, f.. rliM- { iid. ( raa r' +• ala. Y .: \. • # 1' a,.' .. qr 7. f..r o ti .. 7 7' V•- t\ t '. fir lr t` q!% \ Il'{Yr is \4^. / C.) i't rs' ' r . r, S v ef;,, }. tr..•,. t:•/ r. f - . 4.•.•; +lC f f- e/ '„'' i. ' c '') 4': i6' r' l, a•.: 1 ti..t•'%:: 7-f'J7t•• a p: r.• k-S . i. '' j ;! J'—. I•, l.`•,'-' i'. . e' t.. r.' r: Tare: ,. ti••:.. 4.. i4:,./ so f: ; 1 ys'/: 4 J1. tet T•1'v. rJa„;::=-, r. , ac. r J•, •%' ";;•` . a'.,:', 4. •%! t. 1 a,. .' j :' 1;' '{. a' J .\{... :,; 1•- 1 .. S- t• r J' 1 r. 7 4. F^ J' f s' i•: r • `+ 1 3” II4'• ll t l. I J rt; f• 7. f' i . 1+ 5 l i r,< t 1', it , ti 1 t!' J: r'•' . i 1• r:: • S j :: t:+ tC ,` tl r ( j: r , tt ' t• - lw,,. .' t .;' i i , l- q l •` t o• t1 0. OM1. Page 65 of 189  440 tee_ ._._.._.__.._..._ - _ __ .__._.__.____._.__.._.. __- _. __._ _._.._..___ ____._ G J_'3 _ Ai ve 14, a12,--rIl77 r) 'IlL 1. Page 66 of 189  ani w - ue. , a._ oGd fcu.. dw/t trr`. P-e o p( / 9bOS 517/ f __. 6-___.._... U___--.._-.._ i^cd-.1r.---`= lUs--=-•--------- --- i 1 C& y __-- 9 30 s 10 4 v w t Page 67 of 189  A• t v t f •• tar ` J : ', . siT7:ii•'. £ Ul. .'_ :. tis J' F ., , -.. ' r... 1''-! F"' l • t J; '" tAJlt J r' f , ,,, .. • T, t Q yl w J 1l`yk•{' i• t ur"%. y, 1 t'' S •''' G }{~' r1 R t+ ty JV s •) ' ( 7P r, ' 1j`` r• • IC' I i,'jp • M ! i'":/ " Y. r + r Vey,. r 4:,.- Jjp r p ' tl'' a y • y'y . e. a s ' . •.. 1 f r; I.' P f r5); f S., Ss '{ f•!L''ri •• trlt.r"` Ka ` ' tb- i• S .. Y' l);: ,•!,Jar v.y. '' y, `., 1 T". w A....!'' r,•.--..+ sd T'S s`+ - 11 . Y. S'' i.. 1 , y 1.. A ;: a ,., ' + y, it , h k a t, t rti' ':` 1• n •. vii'; ay 4. :'`';.. y`_%:•: tea,• s.,:. : 1 tiC 1-'• .:= ` I..r% _ r• f-'`a(^' lt ' rt ' y1' )! k_i +., t: i - -- r .-•.. c". 1 t• - ) y, 9Se. — ,•:' . •_ ry .^^ tiar. f 5..: y ,j. C •: : it r . - t Q"•y. l' • 04, Ly yam,,•• d,'. . y i 1 fi • fir: i.. ._ vt _ - op p fit •. ' ; a, tR'1 :• s .. r ;,. J• rt•-•• M 1• n Mrt ,` OM1 rte.> 4S d • _- . yam--:, .. T' '. ett • t .. e . ` a. y r.•. r {'•. r 1.: t I.)....• A.<. Page 68 of 189 ILI 111 . J r.. - ... y ? - .. a. 1'-•, ='/` sa 3 `_ t s, I-`: ra- tib ..°.:• J t' i F - dY - • sem y `,,• Page 69 of 189 City of Highland Park, Illinois Local Landmarks 147 Central Avenue Address: 147 Central Avenue Ordinance No.: 34-85 (08/26/85) Historic Name: Cornelius Field House Architect: Highland Park Building Company Year Built: c. 1875 Architectural Style: Gothic Revival and Italianate Secondary Structure: Original Coach House 160 Park Avenue Historic District: Linden Park Place/ Belle Avenue (NR) National Register Historic District (1982) Local Historic District National Register Property Local Landmark (1985) Comments: Identified in the 1973-1974 Illinois Historic Structures Survey; built in two sections and completed by 1896; coach house in rear; 1880’s Boys School and later a single family residence; owned by Cornelius Field, Director of Highland Park Building Company; significant owners include Albert and Martha MacLeod, members of Highland Park City Council; historic Victorian landscape. Page 70 of 189 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK ) COUNTY OF LAKE ) SS STATE OF ILLINOIS ) I, DAVID W. FAIRMAN, City Clerk of the City of Highland in the County Park, of Lake, State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am keeper of the records, ordinances, files and seal of said City, and; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 34- 85 entitled, " AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS," which Ordinance was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Highland Park on August 26, 1985; all as appears from the records in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate Seal of said City of Highland Park, this 13th day of January 1986. City Clerk Page 71 of 189 8/ 23/ 85- 1: 14 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Highland Park, pursuant to Section 24. 025 of " The Highland Park Code of 1968", as amended, did conduct a public hearing on July 30, 1985, pursuant to proper notice; and WHEREAS, following said hearing, the said Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolutions Nos. 2- 85 through 6- 85 copies of which resolutions are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit I), which resolutions contain the reports of the Commission as well as a reco mmend ation- to- the C_i_ty Council of the City of Highland Park that- tihe` Cornelius Field House, the—W] L' amb- orrn Hou" se , the Francis Ev" e.r_ e"tt- House;- the_ Charl_ es H. Lipman House, an -d` the StupeyCabin ?( hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sub"j"ect - Properties') be designated Highland Park Landmarks; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the designation of the Subject Properties will be consistent with the planning policies. and objectives of the City, will promote the welfare of its residents, and will not adversely affect the value, use, or enjoyment of any adjacent or nearby property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Highland Park believes it to be in the best interests of the residents of the City of Highland Park that the Subject Properties be designated Landmarks; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That, pursuant to Section 24. 025 of " The Highland ark Code of 1968 as amended, the following described properties be and the same are designated hereby as Landmarks: Cornelius Field House 147 Central Avenue 16- 23- 210- 002 W. Lamborn House 2360 Sheridan Road 16- 23- 210- 003 Francis Everett House 296 Linden Park Place 16- 23- 403- 030 Charles H. Lipman House 85 Roger Williams Ave. 16- 36- 204- 007 Stupey Cabin St. Johns Avenue 16- 23- 413- 018 and as such shall be subject hereafter to the provisions of Chapter 24 of " The Highland Park Code of 1968", as amended. SECTION TWO: That, as notice of the action of this City Council, the City Clerk shall forward certified copies hereof to those who nominated the aforedescribed properties as Landmarks, to the owners of record of the aforementioned Landmarks, and to the Building Department of the City of Highland Park. SECTION THREE; That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect rom and after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law. AYES: - 7- NAYS: - 0- ABSENT: - 0- PASSED: 8/ 26/ 85 APPROVED: 8/ 26/ 85 PUBLISHED: 9/ 12/ 85 ORDIZWCE NO: 34- 85 ayor ATTEST• City Cler Page 72 of 189  the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic WHEREAS, Preservation ordinance in effect which allows the City Council to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/ or landscape characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landmarks; and IMERFAAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation O mumission has held a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has prepared a report su marizing the evidence at said hearing, a copy of which report is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland -Park -Historic -Preservation Commission has dtermined that eQornelius--Field-House,- loca-ted at 147 Central Ave., P. I. N.: 16- 23- 210- 002, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria U, # 3, # 4, and # 6 of the Commission' s" Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks"; NCKF ` THEREFORE, BE IT RESCLVED BY - IiE HISZORIC PRESERVATION ( OMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARR, LAKE ( X)UNTY, ILLINOIS: That the proposed landnark, the Cornelius Field House, be recommended to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landmark. AYES: - 5 NAPES: -- 0- ABSENT: - 4- I PRESENT: - 0- PASSED: 7- 30- 85 APPIMED: 7- 30- 85 Chairman RESCLUTION NO. 2- 85 PL n A. IT PP r Page 73 of 189  Report Summarizing the Evidence Presented at the Public Hearing H. P. C. 2- 85 Public hearing no. 2- 85 was held on July 30, 1985, at the Ravinia Station, 510 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, Illinois. Said public hearing was conducted by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission to nominate the Cornelius Field House as a Highland Park Landmark. The Cornelius Field House is located at 147 Central Avenue, Highland Park. The property' s legal description is: lot 4 block 26, Highland Park subdivision. The P. I. N. is: 16- 23- 210- 002. The house was built by the Highland Park Building Company circa 1875. The eastern section is a Gothic Revival Cottage. Abutting this section is a two story wing at the west with a mansard roof. The wrap- around porch has been carefully restored. Cornelius Field was the director of the Highland Park Building Company. He built this house for himself. The Commission determined that the building meets with criteria numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the " Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks". The Commission has passed resolution 2- 85, recommending to the. Highland Park City Council that the Cornelius Field House is designated as a Highland Park Landmark. Page 74 of 189  highland Park Historic Preservation Commission 1707 St. Johns Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Lw)amark N= inaticn Foca Date: 1) Name of Property ( originalifknown) : le?Iel 2) street Address; / 4'7 3) Legal description or P. I.N. ( Permanent Index N= ber frac Zbs Assessor' s Office, ip 600 Laurel Ave., Highland ark): Park).-- 4)4) Name and Address of, Property Owners) ( From Assessor' s Office): 5) Present Use: Ie.5/ denaye 6) Past Use:_ f- e,!/gjVjI C 7) Architect: 8) Date of Construction: o 9) Written statement describing property and setting forth reasons it is - eligible for Landmark designation: - - 17` ByJ :Gt1 s iS 7 t l —57 ru G't' A-.0rJ CIY S t" r' 00oal_ - .. 10) This structure -is eligible for designation on the basis .. of the following criteria - see reverse page): _ R1, ss , 31) Nmie ( s) and Adress (es) of ......:...' -..___ _ r w' .. 121 n' Applicant( s):. Names) Signature (s) ; '..: • _ Mme _ Address ( es) oe_ . 17) Affiliation (Q= dssion Member. Owner, City Council, Preservation 4 • . Organization) : Please oompletP anA vm", ... Page 75 of 189  Cri . -ria for D_e_ teminirm Hiprhland Park Landnark In making decisions about' which sites. or structures qualify as Highland Park Landmarks, the Preservation Commission will decide within 45 days whether the nominated property meets one or more of the folly,4ing criteria: Z .) Its Character, interest or value _as part of the _ development, heritage or culture characteristics of the community, county, state or. country, 2.) Its location as a site of a significant local, _ county, state or national event; 3.) Its identification with. a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the community, county, state or country; 4.) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an. architectual and/ or landscape style. valuable for the study,.. of a period, type, method of. construction or use of indigenous materials;.- aterials;. 5.)5.) Its identification as the work of a master builder,_ designer.. architect or landscape architect whose individual work has infulenced the development of the community, county, - state or. country; 6.) Its overall embodiment . of elements of design, detailing materials or. craftsmanship which renders it architecturally significant; 7- Y Its overall embodiment of design elements that make It structurally or architecturally innovative; Its unique location or singular physical characteristics that. makes it a .n established or familiar visual feature; and/ or a 9.) Its character as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of. such structures, including, + but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commierciat_-, structures, with a high level of integrity or architectual significance. Any structure, proPerty, or area that meets one or more of' the above criteria shall,•also have sufficient, integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. or restoration. Page 76 of 189 Page 77 of 189 fl Lr Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission - 1707 St. Johns Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 dation Pbm , Date.-_/ 1). Name of Property (, original ifif known) : P. r' 0g/ Ys . 2) Street Address 2_ J- 3) Legal description or P. I. N. Assessor' s Office, 600 Laurel land Number from 7 PPark nship F1l _ 16z3_ 2 o ) ao 4) Nam and Address of Property Owner( s) '( Fran Assessor' s Office):_ 14- 7 av1 ' 5) Pre ' . sent..... - _ Use, --= 4r 6) Past Use. GYP Architect 1Lai l,J4p 8) Date of Construction: 9) Written eligible statenent for Lanav=describing Property and setting forth reasons it is k. designation: 007 10) This structure ' 3s eligible for designation on the basis - of t' ze following criteria see reverse page): i1) Nmw( s) and Adress( es) of Applidant( s) .- Name( s) : A Signature( s); Address ( es) 12) Affiliation ( cm= dssion. Member. Owner. City Council, Preservation Organization) ; - Please cOMPlete and return this ford to the Highland Park Preservation COMmssion 1707 St. Johns Avenue; Highland. park, Page 78 of 189 Illinois 60035 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK COUNTY OF LAKE SS STATE OF ILLINOIS I, DAVID W. FAIRMAN, City Clerk of the City of Highland Park, in the County of Lake, State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am keeper of the records, ordinances, files and seal of said City, and; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 34-85 entitled, "AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS," which Ordinance was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Highland Park on August 26, 1985; all as appears from the records in my off ice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate Seal of said City of Highland Park, this 13th day of January 1986. Page 79 of 189 8/23/85-1:14 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Highland Park, pursuant to Section 24.025 of "The 11 Highland Park Code of 1968 as amended, did conduct a public , hearing on July 30, 1985, pursuant to proper notice; and WHEREAS, following said hearing, the said Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolutions Nos. 2-85 through 6-85 (copies of which resolutions are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit I), which resolutions contain the reports of the Commission as well as a recommendation to the City Council of the City of Highland Park that the Cornelius Field House, tne W. Lamborn House, the Francis Everett House, the Charles H. Lipman House, and the Stupey Cabin (hereinafter collectively referr e d to as "Subject Properties") be designated Highland Park Landmarks; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the designation of the Subject Properties will be consistent with the planning policies and objectives of the City, will promote the welfare of its residents, and will not adversely affect the value, use, or enjoyment of any adjacent or nearby property ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Highland Park believes it to be in the best interests of the residents of the City of Highland Park that the Subject Properties be designated Landmarks; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTI8N ONE: That, pursuant to Section 24.025 of "The Hig hland Park Code of 1968 a s amended , the foll owing described 11 , properties be and the same are designated hereby as Landmarks: Cornelius Field House 147 Ce ntra l Avenue 16-23-210-002 W. Lamborn House 2360 Sheridan Road 16-23-210-003 Francis Everett House 296 Linden Park Place 16-23-403-030 Charles H. Lipman House 85 Roger Williams Ave. 16-36-204-007 Stupey Cabin St. Johns Avenue 16-23-413-018 and as such shall be subject hereafter to the provisions of Chapter 24 of "The Highland Park Code of 1968", as amended. SECTION TWO: That, as notice of the action of this City Council, the City Clerk shall forward certified copies hereof to those who nominated the aforedescribed properties as Landmarks, to the owners of record of the aforementioned Landmarks, and to the Building Department of the City of Highland Park. SECTION THREE; That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law. AYES: - 7 - NAYS: - 0 - ABSENT : - 0 - PASSED: 8/26/ 85 APPROVED: 8/26/ 85 P UBLI S HED : 9/12/8 5 ORDrnANCE NO : 34-85 Page 80 of 189  RESCLUTIQN 'IO RE<DMMENP 'IO 'IRE CTTY <DUNOJ, 'IlIAT 'IRE OOJSE BE DESIGNATED AS A HIGffiJ@ P&Bt Lh'Il::MARK WHERF.AS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allws the Ci cy Council to designate di stinctive historic, architectural, and/or landsca:p= characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and · WHERF'AS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Corranission has held a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has preµired a rei;:ort suranarizing the e.ridence at said hearing, a COP.f of which rei;:ort is attached hereto and herecy- maae a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dtenuined that ffie CorneliBS Field Heuse, located at 147 Central Ave., P.I.N.: 16-23-210-002, is eligible for aesignation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria il, i3, :if4, and 4f6 of the Cormnission's "Criteria for Detennining Highland Park Landnarks"; Nav, 'Il!EREFORE, BE IT RESCLVID BY 'IHE HIS'IORIC mESER\TATIDN COMMISSION OF 'IHE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE CDUNrY, ILLINOIS: . That the proµ>sed landnark, the Cornelius Field House, re recommended to the Cicy Cbtmcil of the Ci~.1 of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landnark. AYES: -5- NAYES: -0- ABSENT: -4- PRESENT: -0- PASSED! 7-30-85 APPRO/ED: 7-30-85 RES<LU'l1ION NO. 2-85 1-A ~·· ~..1-- • _,, . , . , ./:,,, Page 81 of 189  RESOLOTION 'IO RE<PMMENP 'IP 'IHE CITY mmKTI;l WAT 'IBE HOOSE BE DESJGNATED AS A HIGHLl\ND PARK LANCMARK - WHERFAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allOHs the City Cotmcil to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or laridscai;e characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and WHERFA.S, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has _held a hearing on July 3 0, 1985, and has pre:tared a re:µ:>rt summarizing the e.vieence at said hearing, a a:>P.f of which re:r;ort is attached hereto and hereby mad: a µirt hereof as Exhibit A; and WH.EREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dterrnined that the • Iafil50r ouse, located at 2360 Sheridan Rd., P.I.N.: 16-23-210-003, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria #4, i5, and t6 of the Cbrranission' s "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landnarks"; NOV, 'JEEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'IEE HIS'IORIC PRESm!ATION <DMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE CDUNTY, JLLINOIS: That the protosed landnark, thew. Lamborn House, be reccmmended to the Cicy Council of the City of Highland Park for resignation as a Highland Park Landnark. · AYES: -5- NAYES: -0- ABSENT: -4- PRESENT: -0..;. PASSED: 7-30-85 ,, APPRCNED: 7-30-85 AJ?~ l ~/ U ~ - Cllairman /:~ RESCLUTION NO. 3-85 r. . .\\ ._-_.:J;. / :/ t ·' i~- !i .i '1:- 1i .· ~ . ! I . ; I . _, Page 82 of 189  RESOLUTION 'ID RECDMMEND ID IBE CITY muNm. 'lHAT 'lHE HCXJSE BE DESIGNATED "AS A HIGHL&\JD PARK LANrMARK WHERF..1\S, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservati.o n ordinance in effect which allcms the City Council to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or landsca:t;e characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and · WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Cormnission has' held a bearing on July 30, 1985, and has pretared a rei;ort summarizing the e1idence at said hearing, a CXJP.f of which re:I;Ort is attached hereto and here!:¥ nade a i:art hereof as Exhibit A; and ~, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Cormnission has dtermined that the Francis Everett H~, located at 296 Linden Park Place, P.I.N.:16-23-403-030, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria il, #3, i4 and i6 of the Commission' s "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landnarks"; NCW, '1HEREFORE, BE IT RESCLVED BY 'IBE HIS'IORIC PRESERVATION ffiMMISSION OF 'IBE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNI'Y, ILLlNOIS: ·. That the prop:>sed land:nark, the Francis Everett House, be reconunen~d to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landnark. Al'ES: -5- NAYF.s: -0- MSENT: -4--·- IRESlllT: -0- PASSED: 7-30-85 APPROlED: 7-30-85 RESCLUTION NO. 4-85 I - c_ Page 83 of 189  RESCLUTION ID RECOMMEND 'IQ 'IlIE CITY <DUNCTT. 'IF.AT 'IBE HCUSE BE DESIGNATED 'PB A HIGHIJlNl) PARK LF-.NPMARK WHEREAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Pr eservation ordiri.ance in effect which allcws the Cicy Cotmcil to oosignate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or landscai;e characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has held a hearing on _July 30, 1985, and has preµtred a rei;ort slJJ!Inarizing the evidence at said hearing, a OOP.f of which reµ:>rt is attached hereto and here!:¥ rrade a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHERE.AS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Ccmmission has dtermined that t.."1e Oiarles H. iJ;!!!an House, located at 85 Roger Williams Ave., P. I.N.: 16-36-204-007, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Land:nark because it meets with Criteria il, #4, ts, and i6 of the Commission's "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landnarks"; Nav, 'IHEREIDRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'ffiE HISIDRIC PRESERVATION CDMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLF-ND PARK, LAKE CDUNrY, ILLINOIS: That the prop:>sed landnark, the .Olarles H. Lipnan House, be recanmended to the Cicy C.Otmcil of the Cicy of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landnark. AYES: -5- NAYES: -{)- PB SENT: -4- IRES ENT: -0- PASSED: 7-30-85 APP.RO/ED: 7-30-85 RIBCLtJTION NO. 5-85 Page 84 of 189  RESCLUTION 'IO R.E<DMMENP ID 'IEE CTTY COONCIT. '!HAT 'lHE HOOSE BE DESIGNATED AS A HIGHLAND PARK L.ANDMARK WHEREAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allONs the City Cbuncil to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or landscape characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and WHERE.AS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation C.ommission has held! a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has pre:i;ared a re:f:X>rt summarizing the e.:vidence at said hearing, a COP.f of which reµ:>rt is attached hereto and beret¥ made a p:trt hereof ~ Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dtermined that the Stupey. Gtbin,- located at the east side of st. Johns Ave., between Hazel St. and Laurel st., P. I.N.: 26-23-413-018, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria tl ~ ~4, i8, and *9 of ·the Commission's "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Lar..dnarks"; NOd, 'IHERfilORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY IBE HIS'IDRIC PRESERVATION illMMISSION OF THE CTTY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ~l<E CDDNI'Y, ILLINOIS: That the proi;x:>sed landnark, the St~y cabin, 1::e recommended to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Parik Landnark. AYES: -5- NAYES: -0- PBSENT: -4- PRESENT: -0- PASSED: 7-30-85 APPROJED: 7-30-85 ,' 7 (} ,r;-Ju~. J .f:J/4A,AA -ir,t,. ~ Chainnan (} RESCLUTION NO. 6-85 I -E Page 85 of 189 .,. ~ .... ~ ... - ~---~--- ...  Memorandum Date: February 12, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: Preliminary Landmark Designation – 818 Hill Street Location 818 Hill Street Historical Name “The Summer House” Historical Status Not Surveyed Structure Style: Tudor Style with Swedish Folk elements Architect: Harry Bengston Builder: Harry Bengston Built: c. 1927 Petitioners Thomas Hiller 818 Hill Street, Highland Park Figure 1. Front Façade, 2022, courtesy Lake Figure 2. c. 1929 Aerial, courtesy County Assessor Linda Barbera-Stein Summary of the Nomination The owner of 818 Hill Street, Thomas Hiller, has nominated his property for a local landmark designation (see Attachment 1). The applicant believes this property is eligible for landmark designation because of its contributions to the development of the City, association with notable persons, associations with a notable builder, architectural style, and innovative construction methods. The residence at 818 Hill Street, designed c. 1927 by Harry Bengston, is a Tudor Style cottage with Swedish folk influences. The property was originally developed and owned by a trust associated with Edith Rockefeller-McCormick, the daughter of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller. The home is a part of the Highlands development and is the only structure of its style sub-type in Highland Park. Existing pictures of the property have been compiled into Attachment 2. 1 Page 86 of 189  Memorandum Edith Rockefeller-McCormick Edith Rockefeller-McCormick (1872-1932) was the daughter of prominent oil executive J.D. Rockefeller. She was known for her analysis of Jungian phycology, real estate development business, and philanthropy related to the Brookfield Zoo. At one point, she was the world’s richest woman. 1 Rockefeller sought treatment for panic attacks in Switzerland between 1913 and 1921. During these trips she became a student of Carl Jung and would later become a Jungian analyst. While in Switzerland she became acquainted with architect Edwin Krenn. Krenn introduced her to Edward Dato, a Russian engineer. The three of them would establish a real estate trust with the Standard Oil money. The Trust would be responsible for multiple Chicago North Shore developments including “The Highlands” in Highland Park. 2 The nature of Rockefeller and Krenn’s relationship is disputed. Some sources, like Landmark Illinois, claim they had no romantic relations. However, local Figure 3. Edith Rockefeller Highland residents suggest that their relationship was McCormick, c. 1912, Chicago Tribune more than friendship. At the very least, it is clear that they were deeply-entwined friends. Rockefeller left much of her estate to Krenn after her death. The Highlands Development Rockefeller, Krenn and Dato used $5.2 million in Standard Oil securities to purchase 200 acres of woodland from farmer John Sweeny. The development was named “The Highlands” and still carries the name to this day. The location was desirable since it was close to Lake Forest (where Rockefeller’s primary residence was located) and the Old Elm gold course. The development was marketed to appeal to the Chicago elite in Rockefeller’s social circles. 3 818 Hill Street was one of the first three homes Rockefeller developed in the Highlands. A local source speculates that 818 Hill Street was built by Rockefeller for Krenn and was used as a rendezvous between the two. The two car garage (uncommon during this time period) seems to suggest that the property was designed for two. Architectural Style The structure at 818 Hill Street is a two-story cottage with an asymmetrical façade and multi-gabled roofline. There are two projections that jut out from either side of the front façade. On the right side 1 End of a Princess. (1932, September 5). Times Magazine. 2 Edith Rockefeller McCormick | Landmarks Illinois. (2021, July 29). Landmarks Illinois. https://www.landmarks.org/women_built_type/edith-rockefeller-mccormick/ 3 Ross, A. F. (2020). Edith: The Rogue Rockefeller McCormick. Southern Illinois University Press. 2 Page 87 of 189  Memorandum projection there is a prominent stone chimney. On the left side of the projection there is a two car garage. The lower story is clad in hand-hewn timber and the upper story is clad in stucco. Tudor Style The Tudor Style reached its peak in Highland Park in the 1920s, post World-War I. The War exposed American soldiers to European architecture and contributed to an interest in European design. The style seeks to mimic late-medieval Old World architecture. Tudor homes commonly have multi-gable roofs, stonework, wood timbering, horizontal plans, and prominent chimneys. The structure at 818 Hill Street fits this description. The defining characteristic of the structure is the faux thatched roof. The roof resembles a straw thatched roof, but in actuality is composed of steam-bent cedar wood shingles. Faux-thatched roofs are a rare characteristic of the Tudor Style. 4 Swedish Folk Influence A 1928 article in the Chicago Tribune (see Attachment 3) described the residence at 818 Hill Street as, “A ten room house… with three baths and a two car garage, built in the early Swedish Style… In this dwelling (the builder) has achieved a home which reflects in a measure the spirit of his native land a house combining the simple ruggedness of a peasant hut with the subtle artistry of Swedish peasant handicraft, and at the same time incorporating all the comforts and conveniences of present day urban life.” The builder in question was Swedish immigrant Harry Bengston, a local architect and builder who designed custom Swedish style homes along the North Shore. The structure at 818 Hill Street has a painted ship detail on the face of the field stone chimney. The applicant has successfully identified the ship as the Kalmar Nyckel, also known as the “Swedish Mayflower.” This ship brought the first group of Swedish and Finnish settlers to modern day Figure 4-7. The Kalmar Nyckel design Deleware in 1638. The ship detail on 818 Hill Street on 818 Hill Street, and souvenir coins is recognizably the same as that of the engraving on the 1938 Swedish-Finish American Tercentenary souvenir coin. There is a copper weather vane in 4 McAlester, V., & McAlester, A. L. (1984). A field guide to American houses. Page 369. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA0139195X 3 Page 88 of 189  Memorandum the shape of a fish on-top the garage. The applicant proposes that the fish further demonstrates a connection to the Swedish culture (see Attachment 1). The hand-hewn logs on the first story, field stone chimney, faux thatched roof, Kalmar Nyckel design and weathervane all indicate Swedish folk influences. Materials Historic Materials • Oak hand hewn logs • Concrete • Field stone • Wood framed windows • Plaster • Cedar shingles Replacement Materials • Plaster repaired in-kind • Masonry repaired in-kind • Cedar shingles replaced in-kind • Replacement garage doors • Replacement openings on south and east facades The aforementioned Tribune article says, “The first story of hand hewn oak logs set in concrete. These logs demonstrate to what lengthens Mr. Bengston will go to secure just the materials he wants. In order to get them he had to tear down an old log cabin in Mundelein and haul them to the present site. When this cabin was built in the virgin forest of the north shore, Chicago was but a tiny village only ten years old!” If this article is to believed, the logs on the structure are older than those of the Stupey Cabin, Highland Park’s oldest building. These logs may be the oldest building material in the City. The Commission should consider if such historic material could have archeological significance. Alterations The residence at 818 Hill Street retains the majority of its historic form, massing, and design details. The residence is identifiable in late 1920s aerial photography, confirming that the overall form has remained the same (Attachment 4). Zoning Board of Appeals documents from 1990 indicate that a period restoration took place in 1987. Openings were modified on the east and south façades during this time (Attachment 5). In 1990 some (but not all) of the hand-hewn logs on the first story were replaced, according to the applicant. Between 1978 and 2018 the original garage doors were replaced. The applicant reports the garage doors were replaced again in 2018 (as seen in Attachment 6). The current owner has restored the structure using in-kind materials and methods. The restoration included work on the roof, stucco/plaster, masonry, ship detail, and weather vane. The current owner has submitted a detailed account of the restoration as part of a separate 2026 Preservation 4 Page 89 of 189  Memorandum Awards application. Further details can be found in Attachment 7. The most recent alterations completed by the current owner have not substantially changed the visual character of the residence. Ownership The property at 818 Hill Street has been owned by known local characters such as Edith Rockefeller McCormick, William Hilton, and Herbert Verrall. As mentioned previously, Rockefeller was the developer of the Highlands as well as a Jungian analyst and at one point the richest woman in the world. William Hilton was a prominent executive with the Santa Fe Railroad Company. Herbert Verrall was the president of the Lakeland Construction Company. Chain of Title • C. 1927-1933 Edith Rockefeller McCormick • 1933-1938 William C. Hilton (S.T. & F. Railroad executive) • 1938-1945 Norman and Jewell Crissey • 1945-1950 Herbert Verrall (President of Lakeland Construction) • 1950-1954 Phillip Shaefer • 1954-1969 Jerome Miller • 1969-1977 Jerome and Mary Alexander • 1977-1978 Mary Alexander • 1978- c. 1987 Bendicht U. Pauli and Elizabeth M. Pauli • C. 1987-1993 Maureen and Jeffery Blonder • 1993-1996 Thomas Dean Brandt and Denelle Miller Brant • 1996-2022 Simon Anthony Roland and Lauren Jill Plenner • 2022-Present Sun Peijan and Thomas Hiller Complete chain of title documentation is compiled in Attachment 7. Landmark Criteria The home at 818 Hill Street may meet the following Landmark Criteria: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Sec. 24.015 Criteria for Landmark Designation. The following is a list of the criteria to be considered in the designation of a Property, Structure, Area, Object, or Landscape of Significance as a Landmark: (1) It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state, or country. (2) It is the site of a significant local, county, state, or national event. (3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, County, State, or Country. (4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. 5 Page 90 of 189  Memorandum (5) It is identifiable as the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, artist, or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, County, State, or Country. (6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, details, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative. (7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. (8) It is a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical, and/or community significance. (9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. Landmark Nomination Process Outline The landmark process is initiated when a nomination form is submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. At this point, the property owner has already been sent a letter stating the time, place, and intent of this meeting where the nomination will be considered. The owner has provided consent to the landmark designation, so the next steps are as follows: (1) The Commission should consider and discuss the landmark nomination. If the HPC finds that the property (a) meets two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, and (b) has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, then the Commission should direct Staff to draft a Resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation. (2) The Commission should consider the resolution making the preliminary recommendation. Should the HPC adopt the resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation, the house becomes a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alterations. (3) Staff will draft a Planning Report evaluating the relationship of the proposed designation to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Report will be presented to the Commission following the adoption of the Resolution making the preliminary recommendation. (4) At a subsequent meeting, the Commission shall review the Planning Report, Findings of Fact, and make a determination to recommend a landmark designation to City Council. (5) The City Council will consider the findings, recommendations, and official record of the Historical Preservation Commission and may, by an Ordinance duly adopted, designate the subject property as a Local Landmark. 6 Page 91 of 189  Memorandum Recommended Action The Historic Preservation Commission is asked to discuss and consider the preliminary landmark designation for 818 Hill Street. If the nomination is to be given a positive recommendation for approval, the Commission must find that the structure meets two or more of the criteria set forth in Section 24.015 and have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. If the nomination is given a positive recommendation, the Commission is asked to consider A Resolution Making a Preliminary Landmark Designation Recommendation for 818 Hill St. Should the Commission adopt the resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation, the house becomes a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alteration. 7 Page 92 of 189  Memorandum Attachments: 1. Landmark Nomination – Redacted 2. Current Conditions 3. 1928 Article – Original Scan and Transcription 4. 1920s Aerial Photography 5. 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals 6. 2019 Garage Doors 7. 2026 Preservation Awards Nomination 8. Compiled Chain of Title 9. Compiled Building Permits 10. Real Estate Cards 8 Page 93 of 189 Page 94 of 189 Page 95 of 189 Page 96 of 189 Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness Below are the standards considered by the Historic Preservation Commission when awarding Certificates of Ap- propriateness for Additions/Alterations and New Construction. This is an abbreviated version of Sections 24.030 (C) and (D) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance: 1) Height. The height of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, struc- tures, 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 pro- posed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, ob- jects, 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 ob- ject 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, win- dows, 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. Historic Preservation Application Page 4 of 10 Page 97 of 189 Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness Continued 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. 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 Regulat- ed 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 Struc- tures 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 Regulat- ed 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 com- patible 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 treat- ed 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 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 materi- als used in such Landmark, Regulated Structure, or a Contributing Regulated Structure shall not be undertaken; 21) 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 Regu- lated Structure would not be impaired. Historic Preservation Application Page 5 of 10 Page 98 of 189 Local Landmark Designation Process WHAT IS THE HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC WHAT IS A HIGHLAND PARK LOCAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCE? LANDMARK? The Highland Park Historic Preservation Ordinance The City of Highland Park is empowered by ordinance provides a mechanism to identify and preserve the dis- to designate objects, structures, buildings, districts and tinctive historic, architectural and/or landscaping fea- sites as local landmarks if they have aesthetic, architec- tures of Highland Park that represent the City’s cultur- tural, cultural and/or historic value. Highland Park’s lo- al, social, economic, political and architectural history. cal landmark designation affords properties more pro- By encouraging preservation, rehabilitation and res- tection than state or national landmarking programs toration, the City fosters civic pride in the beauty and do. Once a property is locally designated, any exterior noble accomplishments of the past as represented in alteration, construction, demolition or removal requir- Highland Park’s landmark buildings and historic dis- ing a building permit is reviewed by the Historic Pres- tricts. Preservation efforts enhance the attractiveness of ervation Commission. The review process is handled the City to its residents, home buyers, tourists, visitors in a timely fashion and careful consideration is given and shoppers, and thereby support to the owner’s needs. The Commis- and promote business, providing sion works as a resource for owners economic benefit to the City. of landmark properties. Property owners can rely on the Commis- sion’s technical expertise to aid WHAT IS THE HISTORIC them in developing their plans. Fur- PRESERVATION thermore, Staff is assigned to land- COMMISSION? mark homeowners, giving them a dedicated City advocate. The Preservation Ordinance created a need for the Historic Preservation WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF Commission in 1984. The Commis- OWNING A HIGHLAND PARK sion is composed of nine citizens, LANDMARK? Henry Towner House c.1990 appointed by the mayor, with a 133 Laurel Ave  Colonial Revival demonstrated interest, knowledge, Architect Unknown Highland Park landmarks receive ability, experience, and expertise in Landmarked: 2000 community-wide recognition and architectural restoration, rehabili- protection. A certificate signed by tation, and local history. the Mayor is presented to the own- er(s) of a landmark property containing a statement of The Commission meets at 7:30 PM every third Thurs- significance. Because Highland Park’s Historic Preserva- day at City Hall to carry out its responsibilities, which tion Ordinance is certified by the Illinois State Historic include making recommendations to the City Coun- Preservation office, landmark owners are eligible for tax cil on preservation issues, identification of landmark benefits. State legislation provides an eight year proper- buildings and areas, and review of alterations to land- ty tax assessment freeze for owners of single family res- marks. The Commission also presents a variety of pub- idences that are substantially rehabilitated, following lic awareness programs, informing residents on the im- the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. portance of preserving historic resources. For more information on the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program call the Local Government Services Co- Note: Meeting dates vary. If you would like to attend ordinator at the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency a meeting, call the Department of Community Devel- at (217) 785-4512. Landmark homes receive support opment to confirm the date and time: (847) 432-0867. from the Historic Preservation Commission and may be eligible for special City-sponsored incentives. Relative to any possible effect landmarking will have on the re- sale value of your house, we suggest you call a Realtor. Historic Preservation Application Page 6 of 10 Page 99 of 189 Local Landmark Designation Process Continued CAN ALTERATION, CONSTRUCTION OR WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING DEMOLITION OF A DESIGNATED LOCAL HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS? LANDMARK OCCUR? In making decisions about whether a nominated prop- Once a site or structure has been designated as a local erty qualifies as a Highland Park Landmark, the Pres- landmark, the property is subject to Commission ap- ervation Commission will consider the criteria listed proval for exterior alterations, construction or demoli- below (Section 24.015): tion plans requiring a building permit. Interior work is 1) It demonstrates character, interest or value as part of the never reviewed by the Commission. Unless specifically development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the landmarked or it impacts the exterior, interior work City, county, state or country; is not reviewed by the Commission. Generally, build- ing permits are required for any action other than ba- 2) It is the site of a significant local, county, state or national event; sic maintenance and upkeep. This review process is an effective way to protect and preserve Highland Park’s 3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly historical and architectural heritage and provides an ex- contributed to the development of the City, county, state cellent opportunity for property owners to receive free or country; design review and technical advice from the Commis- 4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architec- sion. It is unlikely that demolition tural and/or landscape style valuable for of a landmark home will ever be the study of a specific time period, type, allowed. method of construction or use or indige- nous materials; ABOUT HIGHLAND PARK 5) It is identifiable as the work of a no- table builder, designer, architect, artist, Highland Park is predominantly or landscape architect whose individual a suburban residential communi- work has influenced the development of ty characterized by fine examples the City, county, state, or country; of many significant architectural 6) It embodies, overall, elements of de- styles dating from the 1870s to sign, detailing, materials, and/or crafts- the present. Excellent Victorian manship that renders it architecturally, structures stand side-by-side with visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally Prairie School residences, historic “Thorneycote” c.1901 significant and/or innovative; revival style buildings and Interna- 215 Prospect  Howard Van Doren Shaw 7) It has a unique location or it possess- tional Style homes. Some are very National Register of Historic Places es or exhibits singular physical and/or Landmarked: 1987 aesthetic characteristics that make it an large; others are quite modest. But all contribute to the rich fabric of established or familiar visual feature; Highland Park architecture, which 8) It is a particularly fine or unique ex- illustrates not a single period of outstanding signif- ample of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, icance, but a broad overview of the development of including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or architectural styles. other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical and/or community In 1984, the City Council passed the Highland Park significance; and/or Historic Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of this 9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archae- Ordinance is to promote the educational, cultural, ological qualities. economic and general welfare of the community by The nominated property must also demonsrate suffi- protecting the City’s heritage. This overview is not cient integrity of location, design, materials, and work- intended to be a substitute for City Ordinance Chapter manship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabil- 24: Historic Preservation. The Ordinance is available itation and any nomination must include the written in its entirety for download, through the Department consent of the owner for the landmark designation. of Community Development, or from the City Clerk. Prepared by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission, August 2007 (updated December 2018) Historic Preservation Application Page 7 of 10 Page 100 of 189 Determination of Significance/Demo Review Info GENERAL INFORMATION The following outlines the demolition Permit process. Please refer to Sectio 170.040 of the Highland Park Code for additional information. 1) All demolition applications for residential structures in Highland Park Zoning Districts R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R5A, R6, R7, RM1, and RM2 are subject to a historic preservation review by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission. 2) The Commission meets on the second Thursday of every month at 7:30 pm. The meetings are held in the Pre-Session Meeting Room on the second floor of Highland Park City Hall, located at 1707 St. Johns Avenue. 3) Demolition applications must be received at least 21 days (three weeks) before the meeting date of the Commission at which the historic preservation review occurs. This deadline is important, so please factor it in to your timeline. 4) An owner or owner’s representative must attend the Historical Preservation Commission meeting at which the historic review of the Demolition Application is scheduled. This individual should be able to answer questions about the recent history and condition of the residential structure(s) in question and authorized to speak on behalf of the applicants. 5) Photographs are required as part of the demolition permit application. However, additional exhibits may be presented at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to document the current condition of the structure(s). This may include addi- tional photographs or technical information demonstrating structural and historical integrity. PROCESS At the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting, City Professional Staff will present a brief historical summary of the property for which you have submitted a Demolition Application. The Commission will have a chance to ask questions of Staff. The owner or his representative will also have the opportunity to address the Commission with any comments or additional information. The Commission will discuss the building or structure proposed for demolition and determine which, if any, of the nine Landmark Criteria in the City Code under Section 24.015 are satisfied (See Local Landmark Designation Process for Criteria). If the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the Structure that is the subject of the Demolition Application satisfies: • Four or more of the Landmark Criteria, and has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, or workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or Rehabilitation, then a mandatory 365-day Review Period commences on the date that the complete demolition permit application was submitted to Highland Park’s Building Division. • Three or two of the Landmark Criteria, and has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, or workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or Rehabilitation, then a mandatory 180-day Review Period commences on the date that the complete demolition permit application was submitted to Highland Park’s Building Division. • One or none of the Landmark Criteria, or does not have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, or workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or Rehabilitation, in which case the Application for Demolition shall be processed. Please note the following: 1) No “Regulated Activity” (demolition or any other action that requires a building permit) may take place during this review period. 2) During either a 180-day or 365-day review period, the Commission may receive nominations to designate the building or struc- ture as a local historic landmark. 3) There is an appeal mechanism whereby the City Council can reduce a 365-day review period to 180 days. 4) The Historic Preservation Commission has the authority to terminate a demolition delay based on a set of specific standards. Please speak with City Staff for more information on the City Council appeal and the possibility of requesting a termination. Historic Preservation Application Page 8 of 10 Page 101 of 189 Page 102 of 189 Page 103 of 189  818 Hill St Background • Two months after Edith Rockefeller McCormick passed away (August 1932), an AT&SF rail executive and wife purchased 818 Hill St. They and subsequent owners had no connection to Swedish-Finnish immigrant communities, art, history, culture, etc. • The historical context of the house, sailing ship plaque, builder, vanished from memory. Local folklore filled the vacuum. • Also vanished, until very recently, a Rosetta Stone like article in a section of the 1928 Chicago Tribune “Home Builders Department”. Chicago Tribune August 26 1928 • The article and drawing are on next two pages • It contains an interview with the builder, Harry Bengston, a Winnetka resident and Swedish immigrant. • Harry Bengston lived in close proximity to Andrew Paulson and Carl Bengston, Swedish immigrants, who built five “whimsical Swedish-style houses” in Winnetka. • Article includes • Ink or line drawing • Swedish roots and themes • Steam-bent false thatched cedar roof • 1st floor plan • Chimneys and fireplaces • Swedish log house lower level • Stucco upper level • Walk through description • Decor, light fixtures, central hot water heat • Field stone base • Building materials • Article does not touch upon • Historical context • Architectural classification • Swedish Grace • Nordic folklore • Sailing ship plaque • Copper fish and iron weather vane Page 104 of 189 Page 105 of 189 Notes about the drawing are on last page, for example, there are words above the garage. Historic Preservation Review Application • See following pages below for narratives responding to the following criterion 1) It demonstrates character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state or country; 4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction 6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, detailing, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative; 7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature; 9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities Page 106 of 189 1) It demonstrates character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state or country; Swedish-Finnish American Tercentenary 1938: This was the commemoration of the 300th year anniversary of the landing of Swedish and Finnish settlers near Wilmington Delaware. The planning for the event started 20-years earlier in 1918. Recall: 818 Hill St was built 1927-1928 Major themes of the 1938 Tercentenary were the Kalmar Nyckel sailing ship, Swedish log houses, and Swedish art and hand crafts. • Swedish-Finnish log houses • Swedish-Finnish are credited with bringing log houses and joinery to the US • The 1938 Tercentenary highlighted the “Lower Swedish Cabin” of “New Sweden”. • See notes below. • Floor to above roof river stone chimney at one end of the living room • Kalmar Nyckel • The ship in the plaque is the “Swedish Mayflower” that bought Swedish and Finnish settlers to the US. In the figure it is the circle on the chimney. Below the ship are two large fish and on the perimeter are sea horses, anchors, and fish hooks. • The plaque is ceramic low relief sculpture. • The US Mint and Royal Mint in Stockholm issued coins with engravings of the Kalmar Nyckel and dated 1938. The Swedish government provided the US Mint with a model of the Kalmar Nyckel. The US Mint held an engraving bake-off, which drew 40-entries. Carl Schmidt, a Smithsonian engraver, German immigrant, and student of Carl Milles, won the bake-off. A exact copy of that model is in Stockholm’s National Maritime Museum. • See next page for a comparison. Svante Nilsson engraved the medallion on the right side of the page. • The Kalmar Nyckel sailed west from Kalmar Sweden to what is now Wilmington Delaware On the coins, the Kalmar Nyckel faces right to left: Cartographic west. • On the plaque, the Kalmar Nyckel faces left to right: Geophysical west. • Swedish arts and craftsmanship • See notes below on Swedish Grace. • Scandinavian Connection to the Sea • Wavy rows of shingles the false thatched cedar roof can be viewed as crashing waves on a sea. Further superimposed are other waves crossing rows of shingles. • The waves of the roof, copper fish above weather vane, and sailing ship plaque and sea life below and on the perimeter serve to convey the profound connection of Scandinavia to the sea. Page 107 of 189 Page 108 of 189 Swedish Grace Movement 1910-1930: Swedish Grace involved Nordic folklore, myths, nature-centric motifs, Swedish hand crafts including hand-pounded metal objects and ceramics, along with modern interior design and house technology. Swedish Grace is a movement, not a specific type of art nor technique. The “Living Room at Ulriksdal Palace” historically embodies Swedish Grace. • Nordic and Scandinavian folklore • Scandinavian and Nordic folklore involve moons and quarter moons, and on the lower half of the Dutch front door are four engraved quarter moons connected via decorative grooves. • Above the garage is a hand-pounded copper fish that looks like salmon atop a wrought-iron weather vane: A connection to Nordic and Scandinavian folklore. • Plaster and stucco work • Swedish Grace liked plaster craftsmanship, durability, simplicity, borrowed from antiquity. • The exterior upper level stucco is imprinted with large floral-like patterns. The fronts of the dormer and trim around the windows is stucco. • Gable soffits are curved stucco that follows the curved roof arches • Ornate plaster walls and ceilings throughout the house are imprinted with geometric and repetitive surface surface decorations, no two square inches similar. • The living room has a vaulted partial barrel plastered ceiling, also with the surface decoration imprints mentioned right above. • The dining room has a substantial plaster crown molding. • Wood craftsmanship • The living room wainscoting is Japanese Burnt Cypress. • Japonisme is a French term for late 19th and early 20th century influence of Japanese art in Europe. Japonisme impacted Swedish Grace. • The Japanese Burnt Cypress technique, which the Tribune article outline, is known as Yakisugi aka Shou Sugi Ban. It dates back to 18th century Japan. • Curved mill work flows around doors and curved plaster walls. • Diamond and round medieval like doors with small dungeon like windows. • Dining room mahogany wainscoting. • Quarter moon engravings on front door noted above. • Sunburst wood decorative design of eyebrow windows. The eyebrow windows are the low curved windows around which the roof curves; they are a hallmark of Storybook Houses. Within the eyebrow windows are radiating bars that mimic a rising or setting sun. • According to the Tribune article the staircase balustrade is handmade. It matches the balustrade of the internal living balcony. • Gymnasium maple floors: Sleeper boards between subfloor and the top tongue and groove. The living room is 10” wide alternating 6” wide rustic oak. • Other craftsmanship • Hand pounded iron chandelier, as described in the Tribune. It is resting in the attic. • Hand pounded metal sconces, mostly iron but a couple are brass. The hand pounded metal sconces have a medieval castle theme (Spanish Revival). • Hand pounded copper fish noted is intact with green patina. • Faience was popular in the Swedish Grace Movement and other styles of the era. The ship plaque is of the Kalmar Nyckel is faience low relief sculpture. • The 1920s bathrooms, extended fireplace hearths, and front vestibule are all faience ceramic tile of the “The Mosaic Tile Co”. Page 109 of 189 4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction • False Thatched Cedar Roof Tudor Revival • The book “A Field Guide to American Houses” documents “False thatched cedar roof” as a rare kind of Tudor Revival. • The revival architectures were European inspired, American created. • Storybook House and Cotswold Cottage are types of “False thatched cedar roof” houses. • Storybook House • Storybook House is a Hollywood creation that spread elsewhere in the US. Many books on Storybook Houses of the 1920s exist. • Medieval like doors: arched, diamond, square top. Heavy wood and batten. Iron or medieval hardware. Many with small or tiny castle or dungeon like windows in doors, arranged to mirror door shapes • Whimsical shutters (non working). • Steep, steam bent, wavy cedar roof resembling traditional thatch, undulating surfaces flowing around eyebrow windows and arched dormers with apron sides. • Asymmetry everywhere: Gables, internal floor plan, each room, and so forth. • Medieval like wall sconces. • The forests around Magra Sweden inspired the enchanted forest and cottage of “Snow White and Seven Dwarfs” plus other films. Magra was the hometown of lead Disney animation illustrators such as Gustaf Tenggren, a Swedish immigrant. • Stockbroker Storybook House • Stockbroker Storybook House was associated with the Chicago North Shore. It was poplar among wealthy, industrial, merchant, and, stockbrokers. • The living room balcony, partial barrel ceiling, fireplace, and dedicated quarters for a live-in maid point to affluent persons, and therefore, points at the house being a Stockbroker Storybook House. Page 110 of 189 6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, detailing, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative; Steam-bent False Thatched Cedar Roof • The defining feature of the house is the roof. Each shingle is hand cut to fit, potentially after being steam bent. • Shingles in a horizontal rows have a wave like exposure. Exposure means not covered by other shingles of higher rows of the roof. That causes each row to look like a wave. There are waves seemingly run at diagonals, crashing into each other. The wave patterns are subjective, an art unto themselves. • The first roof endured 60-years. The second roof made it 40-years. • This is the third roof on the house. We and Cedar Roofing Company went well out of our way to replace the second roof with a third one that would last +60-years. • A first step is use of 18” perfection Western Redwood shingles from old growth Crown forests on Vancouver Island. A second step is use of a chemical treatment to ward off insects, moss, algae, etc. • The shingle are typically stacked 5-6 deep: Most area of every shingle is hidden below shingles of rows higher on the roof. • After a century, virtually all the original under structure of the storybook thatched roof was intact. In places where the roof leaked, surface wood was replaced. Note: There is no plywood involved in the roof. • Complex framing and curved surfaces provide the undulating, rolling, convex, concave surface. Ditto, the aprons of Storybook House dormers. The framing itself is sometimes rounded; other framing is built out above lower framing. Smaller pieces of wood, potentially angled, are nailed to curved framing to create curved surfaces. Shingles are cut after being steam bent to fit, one by one, to fit the curves. • There is a very involved copper flashing around windows, dormers, roof protrusions, the chimney, the ridge, the tops of dormers, etc. • There are ice shields to meet Highland Park codes and Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau requirements. • The Tribune states that the first roof was 9-shingles deep. The shingles were very likely protected with something called “Creo-Dipt”, a preservative and stain. Photos of that roof are black and white, but it looks like the current roof. • The first roof was due to William N Cramer of Hinsdale. He did all other steam bent false thatched cedar roofs back in the day. So it includes cedar thatched roofs in Hinsdale, Park Ridge, Palatine, Western Springs, Evanston, Highland Park, and more. Bill Cramer worked with Harold Zook, an architect who made the false thatch cedar roofs famous. These days the roofs are sometime called “Zook Roofs”. Bill Cramer was part of a 4-generation family of roofers. • Bill Cramer was awarded a US Patent for roof innovations (patent US1803998A). Cedar Roofing Company created a short video of the roof replacement • https://vimeo.com/user5295986/review/1100307973/6dac03c305 Page 111 of 189 River stone chimney, fireplace, and masonry • The living room chimney is composed of many kinds of solid round river stones. The river stones are on the living room internal side, from floor to ceiling, and ground to above the roof. • The river stones do not hold up the chimney. It has an internal brick structure. The same is true of a fireplace in the first floor hallway. • Recognizing the Swedish settler log house, there is wrought iron crane swing arm to support a Dutch oven over the fire. • Brick piers support 6x8 horizontal beams below the living and dining room floors, including a wall that supports the cantilevered balcony and part of the second story of the house. The joists, beams and brick piers are quite robust. • The Tribune article also mentions the field stone foundation wall. The stones are individually cut and mortared to a part of outside of the above ground foundation. The foundation holds up the house, not the field stones. Swedish Hewn Log House • The Swedish and Forest Finns worked with hewn logs, meaning squared off flat on four sides. • The 180-year old hewn logs of the first floor of 818 Hill St are from a Mundelein log cabin built ca 1840, razed in the 1920s, and then transported here for this house. • The vast majority of the hewn logs on this house are original • Observation: The original log house from Mundelein must have been fairly large because on this house, the hewn logs run a full length of wherever they are going. For example: there is one single continuous log above the two car garage, from one wall to the opposite. It is not like standard shorter logs are blocked together, as with siding, for example. • The house holds up the logs, walls, and roof, not the other way around. • The corners are “box joint” also called “square joint”. • Zooming in on the ink drawing, one can see the corner box joints • Swedish and Forest Finn settlers back in the 1600s made use of other kinds joints at corners. • Box joint corners can be internally reinforced, which is sometimes why they are liked over other corner joints. We have not taken any part to look at the corner joints on this house. Page 112 of 189 Architectural Illusions • The 4” thick field stone foundation wall provides a believable illusion of an old field stone foundation. The fields stones do not support anything. • The 4” field stones are mortared to an 8” thick above ground part of a below ground 12” foundation. • The hewn logs, corner joinery, and chinking provide a provide a believable illusion of a Swedish log house. The hewn logs do not support anything. • The hewn logs are fasted to the house frame. • The field stones and hewn logs are the same width, so it appears that the hewn logs rest on top of a field stone foundation. • There are hewn logs look like cantilevered supports of the living room balcony • The balcony holds up the hewn logs, not the other way around. • From the outside the chimney looks like historic chimneys of Swedish log houses. Fireplace with wrought iron crane swing arm supports a Dutch oven. There is an ash pit that is inaccessible at the bottom. There is a second fireplace in a first floor hallway. • Since the house has centralized heat and a kitchen, and originally, live-in maid quarters, the fireplaces are focal point décor. • False thatched cedar roof: Self descriptive • The shutters are decorative wood, angled consistent with the whimsical nature of storybook. Page 113 of 189 7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature; • Steam bent false thatched cedar roof storybook houses are rare kinds of Tudor Revival. • The Swedish and Finnish influences makes the house even more unique in an already rare category. • We have discovered that the house is well-known. 9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. • The house is about Swedish immigrant history, Swedish art and culture, and was attuned to Swedish Tercentenary planning. And to “Stockbroker Storybook House” of the greater North Shore of Chicago. • No effort was spared inside and out. Page 114 of 189 Notes on Tribune article drawing: • It has unexpected words in a white circular cloud-like space above the garage. The wide dots form part of the perimeter of a circle. See a zoomed in snip from the figure below. • On an upward diagonal in the circle is the word “Log” in cursive handwriting. Significant zoom may be needed to unravel the pen stroke of the cursive ‘L’. • Harry Bengston liked cloud-like framing perhaps to convey the idea of a dream house. • Below the word “Log”, visible without zoom, is yet another word • At first glance, it looks like the word “YES”. However, the ‘s’ is followed by ‘t’, all in the same heavier ink. • Looking at the first two letters as Old English calligraphy ‘n’ and ‘e’ run together followed by ‘s’ and ‘t’, the letters spell “nest”. “Run together” may be printing press artifact. • One begins to wonder: • Is it a pun: “Log nest” in place of “Love nest”? • Is it actually saying “YES” to log houses? Or written like that to be both “yes” and “nest”? • Is it some subliminal message to the couple on the windy stone sidewalk? • Aside • Fairly visible are bold numbers 7 & 8. The house was constructed in 1927-8. • There may be yet other handwriting, for example, on the chimney. • We are looking for an actual paper copy to digitize. • The drawing is accurate • One can see dormer aprons and large eyebrow dormer curved roof mostly hidden behind trees. The west roof ridge rises to “jerkin-head gable” and roof ridge facing south. • The sailing ship’s white sail and dark images below match the orientation of sails and two large fish below the ship. • The corner box joints, hewn logs, and field stone are very accurate. • Is it a photo projected to paper using halftone, popular for newspapers of the time, and then further enhanced by hand? Or was it entirely done by a talented artist? • There are a couple of minor oversights, but otherwise, it is remarkably accurate. Page 115 of 189 Restoration of century old art-like houses is very challenging. • Cedar Roofing Company was able to replace the second roof with new one that is historically accurate and quite close to the robustness of the original roof. Understanding how such a roof is constructed, where old growth shingles originate and are treated, “the waves”, modern roof codes, steam bending, the understructure, is comparable to graduate thesis. • Cedar Roofing Company 2-minute video of the roof replacement • DiVinci restored plaster walls ceilings, crown molding, and stucco. The vertical, sloped, curved plaster walls and exterior stucco have historic imprinted surface decorations that was variously falling apart. Myriad unknown coatings on plaster and efflorescence, confounded us. Swedish Grace plaster crown moldings may possess simplicity, but they are not simple to repair. Same is true for engraved doors. • Elite Chimney and Masonry (St Charles) restored masonry, chimneys, fireplaces, and cleaned up the ship plaque. River stones simply fell out and rolled to the ground. Some modernization to meet codes. Boring holes from the inside to exactly exit between river stones through many layers of brick, clay tile, and more. Yet masonry in the house is very challenging to access to repair. Who financed the house? • Although the physical lot is part of the Mrs Rockefeller McCormick Properties land purchase that is “The Highlands”, the house itself has no relationship to Krenn & Dato Construction, its in-house architect, etc. • Krenn & Dato recruited a multi lingual sales force that included Swedish and other Scandinavian. • Despite being across the street from the Krenn & Dato widely advertised Tudor Revival model home, the house was not on their marketing bus tour, nor mentioned in their monthly newsletter nor vast newspaper advertising. • One thing for certain, Harry Bengston was well connected. Page 116 of 189 818 Hill St Narrative (continued) (3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, county, state or country; Conveyance record mystery • Question: Who owned the lot and house at 818 Hill St prior to William and Ethel Hilton? • All Krenn & Dato’s Highland Park addition lots sold 1925 through the mid 1930s seemingly arrive to Chicago Title & Trust from nowhere. • Recorder office conveyance records may indicate Dato as the Grantor, but in that case there is no clue how Dato received them in the first place. • Newspaper real estate transaction abstracts cite Chicago Title and Trust as the Grantor • It always seems that the other half of the transaction is somehow lost across the board • Benjamin Rosenthal land tract • The December 11 1923 meeting is where the ERM Trust decides to buy the Benjamin Rosenthal land tract. • In the process the ERM Trust decides to create a trust to hold the land tract being purchased. • Trust #13675 • The ERM Trust meeting minutes of December 11 1923 do not report the trust number because the trust has yet to be created at that time. • Reading the deeds for all lots from Krenn & Dato’s Highland Park addition, we see they originate from Trust Number 13675, dated Eighth day of August 1924. • So this is the trust specified to be created in the December 11 1923 ERM Trust meeting. • Missing years of ERM Trust meeting minutes • ERM Trust meeting minutes for 1927 and 1928 are missing. However, there is no proof that the lost meeting minutes ever reported the number of the trust. • See following pages for meeting minutes, Hilton deed, and other example deeds Review • Harry Bengston builds the Storybook House at 818 Hill St in 1927 and 1928 • We know this fact from the August 16 1928 Chicago Tribune “Home Builders Department” article on the house. The article includes an ink drawing of the house viewed from Hill St. The author of he article obviously interviewed Harry Bengston • As an aside, Harry Bengston worked with Mrs Edith Rockefeller McCormick Properties because he ended up in insolvency court with Edward Dato et al regards a property in Sheridan Manor, Lake Forest. So they all knew each other. First owner • William and Ethel Hilton purchased the house and lot a month after ERM passes away. Their purchase originates from Trust Number 13675, dated Eighth day of August 1924 • Harry Bengston built a Storybook House on a lot owned by Edith Rockefeller McCormick. • ERM never sold the lot and house. It would not be sold for another 4-5 years. This was a month after after she has passed away. • Edith Rockefeller McCormick is the first owner of 818 Hill St • William and Ethel Hilton are the second owners. • Harry Bengston is not part of Krenn & Dato Building Contractor Company. Aside: William Cramer installed the steam bent false thatched cedar roof. He worked with/for Harold Zook. • 818 Hill St is across the street from the Krenn & Dato model home. The model home is on their real estate sales bus tour, their advertising, in the same time frame. Yet, 818 is never mentioned. Page 117 of 189 Page 118 of 189 Page 119 of 189 Page 120 of 189 Lot 1: William and Ethel Hilton, October 1932 = 818 Hill St Page 121 of 189 Lot 114: CT&T to Herman Ritow, August 10th 1928 Page 122 of 189 Lot 112: CT&T to Petter Iversen, November 12th 1925 Page 123 of 189 Lot 85: CT&T to Fred Heine, May 31st 1927 Page 124 of 189 Lot 56: CT&T to Rudolph Gran, August 30th 1929 Page 125 of 189 Lot 98: CT&T to James O’Brien, May 28th 1928 Page 126 of 189 Lot 91: CT&T to Carl Sulzer, August 3rd 1931 Page 127 of 189  Time Comparisons ● First roof (1928-1989): Tribune ink drawing of house from Hill St. See narrative. ● Third roof (2025): Detailed video of roof and entire house ● https://vimeo.com/user5295986/review/1100307973/6dac03c305 ● The next two slides compare the south side before and after 1990 ● Identical camera positioning while varying one “parameter” is challenging. ● While the three roofs visually look identical, they are not. Page 128 of 189  Time Comparisons ● Next two slides: South side before and after 1990 ● Before 1990: Photos on left half of next two slides ● After 1990: Photos on right half of next two slides ● Today: Refer to narrative and watch the video on first slide. ● Note: The stucco was restored after the video whereas the roof and masonry are before. In reality, one may have to “zoom in” to see numerous core problems and what was being restored. Or be inside the house itself. Page 129 of 189 Before 1990 After 1990 Page 130 of 189 Before 1990 After 1990 Page 131 of 189  Door and Window on South Side ● Butler pantry, kitchen, maid’s bedroom are merged. ● Double window becomes a door and a single window becomes a double window. Back door is replaced with a matching door. ● Some logs over 100-years have had to be replaced as the logs were already ~150-years old in 1990. 2nd roof looked like 1st roof. Any “new” logs are identical dimensions w/ distressed age. ● Refer to “before and after slides”: The south side exterior historical appearance is intact. Page 132 of 189  Maid’s Bath ➙ Laundry ● 1993-1996: Maid’s bathroom morphed into laundry ● This changed the level of that floor to match the level of the back door. It is the south east back corner of the house. ● This did not affect the exterior of the house. Original maid’s bathroom window stays. Page 133 of 189  Other Three Sides of 818 Hill St ● Backdoor on east side replaced as outlined above. ● Original garage doors were carriage with original hewn logs. The carriage doors were approximately 60-years old whereas the hewn logs on the garage doors were much older. ● Today, one can order “DIY carriage garage doors”. Such doors have steel frames and one “builds up” starting with the frame. Mechanical questions exist. Practical matter: Snow will block carriage garage doors. ● Restoring 818 Hill St has involved lots of almost non existent present-day skill sets. Contrarily, replicating original doors is a one-of-a-kind project. Page 134 of 189 Page 135 of 189 Page 136 of 189 Page 137 of 189 Page 138 of 189 Page 139 of 189 Page 140 of 189 Page 141 of 189 Page 142 of 189  1928 Chicago Sunday Tribune: August 26, 1928 "House of Hand Hewn Logs Built without Plans; Picturesque Sweden and Yankee Conveniences. (House designed and built by Harry Bengston, 975 Oak Street, Winnetka, and located in Krenn and Dato's Highland Park Highlands, University and Hill Street, Highland Park) A ten room house, this, with three baths and a two car garage, built in the early Swedish Style. It was designed and built by a man who is a dreamer, an artist, and a builder, a man who constructs unique, artistic homes without a finished blueprint, creating each room and detail as he goes along. In this dwelling he has achieved a home which reflects in a measure the spirit of his native land a house combining the simple ruggedness of a peasant hut with the subtle artistry of Swedish peasant handicraft, and at the same time incorporating all the comforts and conveniences of present day urban life. The foundation is of field stone. the first story of hand hewn oak logs set in concrete. These logs demonstrate to what lengthens Mr. Bengston will go to secure just the materials he wants. In order to get them he had to tear down an old log cabin in Mundelein and haul them to the present site. When this cabin was built in the virgin forest of the north shore, Chicago was but a tiny village only ten years old! The upper story is of rough plaster while the roof is thatched with nine thickness cedar shingles. The entrance to the garage is cleverly concealed. the doors are made of logs like the rest of the first story. The dominant note of the exterior, however, is the huge stone chimney of the living room fireplace, which extends from the ground level up beyond the roof. Two Story Living Room Hopping into the two story living room, one is confronted with this large fireplace, which is really the soul of the house. It is massive, yet graceful. The grate, which is large enough to hold six foot logs, is raised above the floor level. The fire place and chimney are constructed of large granite boulders set in concrete. the entire living room is finished in paneled cypress, burnt over with a torch and then rubbed down with a wire barb brush to bring out the hard grain. The central lighting fixture consists of an old wooden wagon wheel, scarred by fire. It hangs in a horizontal position. On the rim of the wheel are candle light fixtures of various heights into which electric lamps are fitted. All trimmings are of hand hammered Swedish iron. The reception hall has a quaint little stone fireplace. The floor is of heavy random width oak planking. An old fashioned stairway of very simple design, with a hand made balustrade, leads to the upstairs. The entrance vestibule walls are finished in hand hewn antiquated oak planks. Dinning Room Walls Unique The dinning room walls are decorated in a unique manner. Conventionalized Swedish floral patterns are employed. Colors and shades are beautifully blended in a style peculiar to old Swedish interior decorations. There is a mahogany paneled wainscotting and the floor is finished to harmonize with the walls. The central lighting fixture is made of four old fashioned kerosene lamps wired for electricity in addition there are four single wall lamps. The bedrooms mark a wide departure from the usual standardized design. Various slants and angles in the ceiling do away with the box-like tubby-hole effect and lend to these chambers a cozy intimate atmosphere. No two of them are finished alike. Each bedroom has an individually in the color treatment of walls, floor and trims. The master bedroom looks down upon the two story living room from a little balcony. The maid's bedroom is on the first floor. The house is heated by a hot water system fired with gas. The basement walls and ceiling are plastered. Page 143 of 189 file:///sweepea/...h%20-%20818%20Hill%20St.%20Lanmark%20Nomination%20-%20Prelim%20Consideration/Transcribed%20Article.txt[1/21/2026 11:23:49 AM] Page 144 of 189 Page 145 of 189 Page 146 of 189 Page 147 of 189 Page 148 of 189 Page 149 of 189 Page 150 of 189  Restoration of 818 Hill St Steam-bent false cedar thatched roof replacement • Roof replacement video: Steam-bent false cedar thatched roof replacement • The first two roofs survived almost 100-years. This is just the third roof in a century. • We have a few black and white photos of the first roof plus the Tribune ink drawing ca 1928. For the second roof, there would be lots of photos. • We went with 18” perfection shingles, old growth western red cedar from Vancouver Island, CCA treatment to resist mold, algae, and insects, correct nails, working with a 3½” average exposure that achieves fairly aggressive wave patterns. We installed all new copper flashings throughout. Average exposure refers to the average measured in inches of the minimal and maximal row “waviness”. The roof varies between five and six shingles deep, everywhere. • Cedar Roofing staff was extremely patient, actually removing entire rows when we were not happy with multiple interacting waves on the roof, as it were. They also fortified dormers with copper flashing from the previous roof. • It is important to understand that the roof is not simply flat shingles cut to waves between rows including interacting across rows, but also that the rake eaves are convex curved, the dormers concave curved, the ridges, hips, and valleys modulate between concave and convex. • Every shingle and any under surface wood boards are individually hand cut. Very many shingles are steam bent. For curved shingles is no such thing as a “typical” curvature. • The roof under structure and associated curved surfaces upon which shingles are fastened (ca1927) were all almost entirely intact. The structure and associated surfaces alone are a work of art. Cedar Roofing cut new surface wood to repair problem areas, used modern ice shielding according to Highland Park codes, etc. They found a new route for electrical and refrigerant lines along the back of a gable wall edge through a steam bent curved rake eave and into the attic. The previous route had been degrading stucco, shingles, and galvanized wrap around trim. • The first roofer was William Cramer of Hinsdale. William installed “Zook Roofs” on Cotswold Cottages revival houses in that era, throughout the Chicago metro. He had patent on steam bent false thatched roofs (US1803998A). “Zook Roofs” are named after “R Harold Zook” with whom Cramer was an associate. Note: “Cramer” is sometimes spelled “Kramer”, but not in US patents. • There are rain runoff issues. We added historic copper gutters to certain horizontal straight-way roof lines, which solved seepage problems in the basement. • We have photos of that 2nd roof we replaced plus countless photos of the replacement process. The few photos and ink drawing of the first photo serve as a historical accurate 1927-1928 snapshot. Page 151 of 189 Stucco and plaster • The stucco has imprints of plants, consistent with the Swedish Grace Movement of the era. • Various trim on dormers is stucco, not wood. The soffits below roof arches are curved stucco. Actual wood trim is encased in galvanized steel. • The stucco itself, like interior plaster walls, and the chinking between hewn logs, has a metal diamond mesh lath base. • Due to leaking chimney masonry and roof deterioration, the stucco and imprints were deteriorating. • DiVinci restored the stucco, plant pattern imprints in the stucco, galvanized steel around trim, “stucco trim” on dormers, mock window shutters, and the rest. • DiVinci also restored the copper bay window hoods above the dining room windows. • On the interior of the house, DiVinci restored damaged ornate imprinted curved walls, dining room plaster crown molding, and solved very problematic ceilings. The style is Swedish Grace Movement. Masonry • The chimneys have many myriad types of round river stones mortared onto an internal triple width brick structure that itself surrounds clay tile. We plan to identify the types of stone because it seems like someone went to length to find a wide variety. The living room stone mason chimney reflects the stone masonry on the outside, running floor to barrel ceiling. • From photos and condition, the masonry had not been worked on for decades. The chimney masonry mortar leaked into the attic, walls, ceilings, etc. The clay tile was falling apart and posed fume risks. The dampers were broken. • The St Charles company “Elite Chimney and Masonry” restored the chimneys, fireplaces, and exterior masonry on the house. • They cleaned up the faience ceramic Kalmar Nyckel Sailing Ship plaque on the chimney. • They also repaired brick piers in a very challenging low crawlspace. The piers support 6”x8” beams in the center of the living and dining rooms. • Some gas pipe was not up to code for the hallway fireplace, and they re-piped it. We had them install gas pipe and gas logs in the other fireplace, which required drilling holes from the inside that lined up with mortar joints in-between curved river stones on the outside, and running pipe through the very challenging low crawlspace. • The fireplace cast iron dampers were broken, so we installed modern day dampers, along with stainless steel liners. We installed copper caps on the two chimneys. Page 152 of 189 Weather vane and hand pounded copper fish • After a century, the wrought iron weather vane was very significantly deteriorating. We found a blast shop that was able to lightly sand blast it and powder coat. • The hand pounded copper fish was doing fine but needed a new copper spindle. Cedar Roofing Company reworked internal roof carpentry in the attic to more securely support the wrought iron weather vane and copper fish. Hardwood floors • We did a very conservative sanding of the floors and stairs. • The floors are constructed along the lines of modern day gymnasiums. Page 153 of 189  Background Information Old photos and original ink drawing of house: • Black and White photos and summary data • Historical real estate cards from Linda Stein • Moraine Township assessor office data, which has photos • Older book about Highland Park history • 1990 south side of house posted by Florida-based roofer who installed the second roof • Chicago Tribune August 26, 1928 • Chicago Tribune August 26, 1928 Home Builders Department has a detailed narrative of the entire house plus an accurate and detailed ink drawing of the north side of the house • It is possible the drawing is a “half tone process”, a projection of a photo into lines and dots. • Includes hand drawn vegetation plus a hidden message above the garage. • This article can safely be classified as “invaluable” Vast information on Storybook Houses • Entire books are dedicated to Storybook Houses: history, exteriors, interiors, etc • A well-known “field guide to houses in US” • Wikipedia and countless online articles Steam bent false thatched cedar roof • Chicago Tribune August 26, 1928 Home Builders Department • Cedar Roofing Company, Lake Forest • National Park Service and other such entities Swedish Grace Movement • A historical art movement from Sweden and outlined in the narrative. 300th Year Anniversary of the landing of Swedish and Finnish Settlers near Wilmington DE • Generally known as the “Swedish Tercentenary”, as outlined in the narrative. • The principle themes of the 300th year landing anniversary appear in the exterior of this house. • The house was built in 1927 and 1928, and while the Swedish Tercentenary was in 1938, the Swedish and Finnish communities in the Midwest started planning and fund raising at least two decades earlier. So the themes were well-established when this house was built. Newspapers.com • Newspapers articles and ads of the era on houses, materials, products, and etc. Everything from houses, to plumbing, to cedar roofing, to laundry tubs, etc. • Searchable abstracts of real estate transactions. • Transactions solely applicable to “The Highlands” originating from an internal trust of Mrs Edith Rockefeller McCormick Properties, appear as being from “Chicago Title and Trust”. In the deed there is a standard reference to said inner trust and the date of the trust. The decision to create that inner trust appears in Mrs Rockefeller McCormick Trust meeting minutes, December 1923, and are archived in the Newberry Library. Internet Archive • Catalogs of the era are scanned into the Internet Archive. Page 154 of 189 Page 155 of 189 Page 156 of 189 Page 157 of 189 Page 158 of 189 Page 159 of 189 Page 160 of 189 Page 161 of 189 Page 162 of 189 Page 163 of 189 Page 164 of 189 Page 165 of 189 Page 166 of 189 Page 167 of 189 Page 168 of 189 Page 169 of 189 Page 170 of 189 Page 171 of 189 Page 172 of 189 Page 173 of 189 Page 174 of 189 Page 175 of 189 Page 176 of 189 Page 177 of 189 Page 178 of 189 Page 179 of 189 Page 180 of 189 Page 181 of 189 Page 182 of 189 Page 183 of 189 Page 184 of 189 Page 185 of 189 Page 186 of 189 Page 187 of 189  CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION MAKING A PRELIMINARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION FOR 818 HILL STREET WHEREAS, on December 3, 2025, pursuant to Section 24.025(A) of "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"), Thomas Hiller and Peijian Sun (collectively, the “Owner”), the record title owners of that certain real property located at the address commonly known as 818 Hill Street in Highland Park, Illinois ("Property"), submitted a written nomination to designate the Property as a landmark; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(1) of the City Code, a public meeting of the Commission to consider preliminary landmark designation of the Structure was held on February 12, 2026 notice of which meeting was delivered on January 16, 2026 to the Owner; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, to make a preliminary landmark designation recommendation for the Structure, the Commission must, by resolution duly adopted: (i) find that the proposed landmark designation satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code; and (ii) determine that the Property has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation; and WHEREAS, the Property demonstrates value as part of the development and cultural character of the City; and WHEREAS, the single-family residential structure on the Property embodies culturally significant elements of Swedish folk design; and WHEREAS, the single-family residential structure on the Property was built in the Tudor Style, and includes many of the architectural features of that style; and WHEREAS, the single-family residential structure on the Property was designed by notable designer and builder Henry Bengston whose individual works had an influence on the region; and WHEREAS, the Property was developed by notable person Edith Rockefeller-McCormick who contributed to the development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Property exhibits singular characteristics that make it an established visual feature; and WHEREAS, the single-family residential structure on the Property has a hand- hewn log veneer that possesses archeological significance for its age and method of construction; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the proposed landmark designation of the Property satisfies the criteria for landmark designation set forth in the City Code; {00116884.1} Page 188 of 189  CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Historic Preservation Commission. SECTION TWO: PRELIMINARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION. In accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, the Commission hereby: (a) finds that the Structure satisfies the criteria for landmark designation set forth in Sections 24.015(1), 24.015(3), 24.015(4), 24.015(5), 24.015(6), 24.015(7) and 24.015(9) of the City Code; and (b) determines that the Structure has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. Pursuant to such finding and determination and Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, the Commission hereby makes a preliminary recommendation to designate the Structure as a landmark. SECTION THREE: EFFECT OF DESIGNATION. In accordance with and pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(3) of the City Code, upon the effective date of this Resolution, the Structure will be considered a "Regulated Structure," as that term is defined pursuant to Section 24.005 of the City Code. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED: APPROVED: February 12, 2026 RESOLUTION NO. ____________________________________ Erica Weeder, Chairperson ATTEST: ___________________________________ Maddy Markle, Commission Secretary {00116884.1} Page 189 of 189