Plan and Design Commission

PUBLIC NOTICE In accordance with the statutes of the State of Illinois and the ordinances of the City of Highland Park, the next regular meeting of the Plan & Design Commission of the City of Highland Park is scheduled to be held at the hour of 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, at City Hall, 1707 St Johns Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois. Individuals with questions or feedback about an agenda item may email Karl Burhop, Senior Planner, with the Community Development Department, at kburhop@cityhpil.com. All emails and comments submitted for the Commission will be made public. The City, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe or participate in this hearing, or who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting facilities, contact the City’s ADA coordinator Emily Taub at etaub@cityhpil.com or 847.926.1005. The City encourages individuals to sign-up for its eNews for important information from the City and its government partners. The City updates its web site daily and also posts on social media daily. To sign-up for the eNews, visit www.cityhpil.com. At the meeting, it is anticipated that there will be a discussion of the following items: City of Highland Park Regular Meeting of the Plan and Design Commission Highland Park City Hall, 1707 St Johns Avenue May 5, 2026 7:00 P.M. MEETING AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes a. Consideration of Plan and Design Commission Minutes i. Regular Meeting on April 21, 2026 IV. Scheduled Business a. Public Hearing #PUD-2025-00081 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final Planned Development with Modifications from City Code; and a Plat of Re-Subdivision, with Variances from City Code (147 Central Ave.) V. Other Business a. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update b. Next Meeting – May 19, 2026, A Regular Meeting at City Hall c. Case Briefing VI. Business from the Public VII. Adjournment Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 45  1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION 3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 4 5 6 MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 7 p.m., Acting Chair Nanus called the meeting to order. Staff was asked to call the roll. 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 Commissioners Present: Acting (Vice) Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 15 16 Commissioner Absent: Chairperson Kerch; Commissioners Fettner & Moore 17 18 Councilmember Present: Ross 19 20 Student Council Present: Pielet 21 22 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 23 24 Guests Present: Cal Bernstein, Attorney/Samuels & Bernstein 25 Michael Ezgur, Attorney/Acosta Ezgur, LLC 26 David Goldman, Founder/Structa LLC 27 Jeff Goulette, Founding Partner & Design Principal/SGW Architecture & Design 28 29 Staff Present: Fontane, Burhop, Hoffmann, & Markle 30 31 Others Present: Marcus Martinez, Corporation Counsel/Elrod Friedman LLP 32 Gale Cerabona/Recorder 33 34 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35 Regular Meeting of the Plan and Design Commission – April 7, 2026 36 37 Commissioner Henry moved to approve the April 7, 2026, PDC regular meeting minutes. Commissioner 38 Ihnchak seconded the motion. 39 40 On a voice vote 41 Voting Yea Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 42 Voting Nay: None 43 Abstain: Acting Chair Nanus 44 45 Acting Chair Nanus declared that the motion passed 3-0. 46 47 Corporation Counsel Martinez advised for any approvals, 3 of 4 Commissioners must be in favor. 48 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 1 Page 2 of 45  1 SCHEDULED BUSINESS 2 1. PUD-2025-00081 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final Planned Development 3 with Modifications from City Code; and a Plat of Re-Subdivision, with Variances from City Code (147 Central 4 Avenue) 5 6 Councilperson Ross reminded she lives across the street form 147 Central Avenue. She will be fair and has 7 checked with Corporation Counsel & City Manager, Ghida Neukirch. 8 9 Planner Hoffmann reviewed the proposal: 10 • Recommendation 11 • Project Summary 12 • Aerial View was shown 13 o create 2 lots 14 • Planned Development 15 o landmarked 16 • Public Benefit 17 o $2,500 donation 18 • Proposal 19 o Lot 1 & Lot 2 20 • Heritage trees on Lot 2 21 • Review 22 • Public Comment 23 o 3 public comments (1 piece of correspondence was distributed) 24 • City Comments 25 o Forestry will review 26 o Engineering provided comments of Lot 2 27 • Recommendation 28 o Applicant submitted edits and has asked for a continuance 29 30 Corporation Counsel Martinez stated this is regarding the PUD & Plat of Subdivision. This is an Application as 31 presented (no structures proposed at this time). 32 33 Planner Markle offered a presentation from the HPC: 34 • HPC Written Recommendation & Report 35 • HPC Consideration Required 36 • 147 Central Avenue Landmark Status 37 • Prior HPD Consideration – January 8, 2026 38 o HPC voted to deny the PUD 39 o Continued to February, March, then April, 2026 40 o HPC unanimously still recommends denial 41 • Historic Resource Standard 42 • Previous Landmark Removal Consideration (Concurrent Application) 43 o HPC doesn’t recommend landmark removal 44 o Lot 2 meets criteria 45 o a structure on Lot 2 requires a Certificate of Appropriateness/COA 46 o Lot 2 meets Integrity of Design 47 • Cornelius Field House Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 2 Page 3 of 45  1 o second Mayor of Highland Park lived there; President of Highland Park Building Company 2 o is on Lot 1 3 o Gardener’s Cottage, Historic Greenhouse (remnants) 4 o new driveway 5 o Lot 2 (wooded area, ravine, trees, driveway) 6 o Lots 1&2 7 ▪ historic wrought-iron fence 8 ▪ historic gatepost (on City right-of-way) 9 ▪ fence was restored 10 • HPC Findings 11 o fence would be damaged with newly-constructed driveway 12 o HPC is opposed to damaging existing driveway 13 o would damage estate setting 14 • HPC Recommendations 15 o denial 16 o Conditions if approved 17 ▪ Site Plan was illustrated & explained 18 19 Some PDC comments are….. 20 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked: 21 o where the 80’ setback would be. Planner Markle said – to the proposed lot line. 22 o what the potential maximum would be if building on Lot 2. Director Fontane reminded there 23 is no proposed structure on Lot 2. Planner Hoffmann identified the Plat of Subdivision and 24 explained required setbacks, buildable area. 25 • Acting Chair Nanus asked: 26 o what the square footage of the buildable area is. Senior Planner Burhop and Planner Markle 27 will review. 28 o if only a single-family home can be placed. Planner Hoffmann said yes. 29 • Commissioner Mantis asked, regarding the estate setting, if landscaping is included. Planner Markle 30 said it’s just the estate setting. She expounded (on 1980 landscape survey, etc.). Out buildings, etc. 31 on the National Register were mentioned. 32 • Acting Chair Nanus asked: 33 o about the carriages. Planner Markle said, presumably, they would go around the house. 34 35 Senior Planner Burhop provided information about the FAR. If approved on Lot 2, 15,352 square 36 feet would be the buildable area not withstanding trees. Planner Hoffmann said it would be 32’ 37 in height; average grade. 38 39 o if there is a legal definition that deems an estate. Planner Markle said no. Director Fontane 40 noted the historic setting and whole landmarking is important. 41 42 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked what the home would be (with setback included) if 80’ is included. 43 Senior Planner Burhop said something could be built. Planner Hoffmann said the existing home has 44 5,000 square feet of livable area. Lot width is 258’. Buildable area would be 170’ with an 80’ setback. 45 46 Mr. Cal Bernstein said, due to the size, historic preservation is relevant. They are seeking 2 lots. The 4 acres 47 is triggering the PUD. There was confusion as to what was landmarked. The house was all that was discussed Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 3 Page 4 of 45  1 in the ordinance as well as Stupey Log Cabin. The City extended landmarking to the whole property (which 2 included Lot 2). A COA was subsequently requested. All historic elements were noted on Lot 1. Based on the 3 HPC’s determination, anything that’s built would have to be presented to the HPC with a COA process. This 4 proposal is not seeking to remove anything on Lot 1. They are seeking to build on Lot 2 (two 2-acre 5 properties). The real estate taxes are $80,000 not including the care of the property, etc.; purchasing of this 6 house is limited. If subdivided, Lot 1 would have a lower tax bill (and increase purchase options). This has 7 been on the market for 1 year. This could be a problematic property in Highland Park. 8 9 He gave history on the overlay zone; limits density. Both proposed lots are double the size in this overlay 10 zone; consistent with the Lakefront Strategic Plan and the City’s Master Plan. It was not a surprise that the 11 HPC is not in favor of a subdivision. Many of the HPC’s conditions are acceptable (fence, gateposts 12 remaining). There is a challenge with 1 driveway serving 2 houses. They would propose a 20’ setback along 13 the west side along the Field House and 12’ in the rear. There’s a significant drop-off between Lot 1 & Lot 2; 14 grade change. There are a lot of factors to consider regarding height. The Heritage trees would not be 15 removed. 16 17 A Public Benefit is not required. They want to preserve what is there. There is a large empty lot. A donation 18 of $2,500 would go to historic preservation. 19 20 This proposal would fit the neighborhood. The landmark would not be touched. This meets all the standards 21 except the 4 acres. This looks at practicality. There are no landmark structures on Lot 2. Mr. Bernstein noted 22 prospective buyers are present. 23 24 Commissioner Mantis asked why a driveway is being requested for a new home on Lot 2 that meets 14 25 standards. Mr. Bernstein said the driveway is for Lot 1. 26 27 Acting Chair Nanus asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. He swore in the following: 28 • Ms. Kelsey Gonzalez advised she lives across the street. She noted the HPC recommended denial 29 regarding the entire estate setting. This has status. Conditions change the character. Once it’s 30 destroyed, it can’t come back. Ms. Gonzalez doesn’t know how this could be delandmarked. Director 31 Fontane stated the HPC’s position is not binding. City Council has the final say. 32 • Tom Corning lives 1 block away. He commends the Staff for its presentation. He has the same 33 position. His wish, if allowed, is that the construction be respectful regarding architecture; property 34 should be honored. A contemporary home next to this is unacceptable. Mr. Corning is sympathetic 35 to the Applicant’s economic burden. If subdivided, he would like to see the HPC Conditions imposed; 36 should be complementary. Director Fontane reminded the PDC of its purview. Lot 2 is still 37 landmarked whether the PDC is in favor of subdividing or not. Applicable standards (14) could apply. 38 39 Councilperson Ross said, as indicated before, the owners of a 6-7,000 square-foot house on a 1-acre 40 property on this block pay $80,000 in taxes due to improvements not lot size. 41 42 More PDC comments are….. 43 • Commissioner Henry clarified, and Director Fontane verified if anything is built on Lot 2, that would 44 have to be presented. There is no home proposed. 45 • Commissioner Ihnchak said the 1985 structure was landmarked rather than the estate. She asked for 46 further clarification. Director Fontane said City Staff believes the entire estate is landmarked. De- 47 landmarking Lot 2 was denied (by the HPC who has the final authority). Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 4 Page 5 of 45  1 2 Director Fontane said amendments, by the Petitioner, have not yet been reviewed by Staff. 3 4 Mr. Bernsein said they are willing to continue this matter. He would like to learn the PDC’s position on what 5 the HPC provided. Director Fontane identified the dates of May 5 or June 2, 2026, for a continuance. 6 7 Mr. Bernstein encourages the 3 Commissioners who aren’t present to review tonight’s video. 8 9 Commissioner Henry said this is complex. An owner has a right to do what he/she would like on his/her 10 property. The HPC doesn’t see things like the PDC does. This is troubling. The PDC’s job is different. He is 11 comforted that both lots are landmarked. 12 13 Commissioner Henry moved to continue this matter to the May 5, 2026, PDC meeting. He stated notice is 14 actual. Commissioner Mantis seconded the motion. 15 16 On a roll call vote 17 Voting Yea Acting Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 18 Voting Nay: None 19 20 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously, there would be no notice, and the next 21 meeting would take place at City Hall in Highland Park, at 7 p.m. 22 23 2. PUD-2026-00083 & PUD-2026-00084 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone from RM1A to RO, a 24 Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Concurrent Preliminary and Final Planned Development, and Design 25 Review, with Modifications & Variations from City Code, for Multiple-Family Developments (1696-1704 26 McGovern St. & 793 Laurel Avenue) 27 28 Senior Planner Burhop said there are multiple requests; 1 project. Corporation Counsel Martinez concurred 29 there are 2 applications. 30 31 Planner Hoffmann reviewed the proposal: 32 • Project Summary 33 o 20-unit development on McGovern, 6 stories 34 o 14-unit development on Laurel, 5 stories 35 • Rezoning, Zoning, & Design Review Summary 36 • Existing Conditions 37 o vacant church and classroom wing 38 o vacant church and residents’ lot 39 • Property Photos 40 o grade change; McGovern sits higher 41 o Senior Planner Burhop expounded on heights and elevations 42 • Neighborhood Context 43 • PUD Request 44 o 1 zoning lot 45 • All Elevations were shown 46 • Zoning Analysis – Setbacks 1696 McGovern Street 47 o south and east; 2 frontages Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 5 Page 6 of 45  1 o corner lot; 2 side-yard requirements 2 • Zoning Analysis – Setbacks 793 Laurel Avenue 3 o south, west, and north 4 • Site Plans were displayed 5 • Zoning Analysis – Article 23 6 • Zoning Analysis 7 o height 8 o lot coverage 9 o lot area and density 10 • Parking 11 o garages 12 • Off-Street Parking & Loading 13 • Zoning Analysis – Height & Coverage Exhibit 14 o comparables (provided by Applicant) 15 • Landscaping (some areas may not get sunlight) 16 • Materials 17 • Renderings 18 • Public Benefit 19 o bury utility lines, etc. 20 • Design Review 21 • Housing Commission/HC Review 22 • Other Comments 23 o Traffic-Impact Study 24 o Interdepartmental Comments 25 o Public Comments 26 • Recommendation 27 28 Some PDC comments are….. 29 • Commissioner Henry: 30 o said the buildings are not connected; unify zoning. Planner Hoffmann concurred. Amenities 31 will be shared. 32 o asked if the alley has public parking. Planner Hoffmann said it is private. Director Fontane 33 noted the alley is important for fire, safety, general traffic, etc. He noted other buildings’ 34 residents access this alley. This is 1 zoning lot; 1 development agreement. 35 • Commissioner Mantis: 36 o asked what the average unit size is. Planner Hoffmann said 1,700 square feet. 37 o said the zoning change is for height not density; gateway site; more dense. Planner 38 Hoffmann said 34 units are proposed; with the zoning change, 53 units could be there 39 (base). 40 • Commissioner Ihnchak asked how this fits in regarding height and context. Planner Hoffmann 41 referenced other properties that received height variations. The Laurel site is 64’; average grade. He 42 illustrated a step map provided by the Petitioner. 43 44 Acting Chair Nanus swore in Mr. Ezgur who introduced his team, and noted they met with Staff 1 year ago. 45 He noted this proposal was revised. A presentation followed: 46 • Process Timeline 47 • Site Plan Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 6 Page 7 of 45  1 o grade conditions 2 • Height Comparisons were shown 3 • Contextual Photos were illustrated 4 • Aerial View was displayed 5 • Site Plan was shown 6 • Modifications were identified 7 o meet and exceed standards 8 o 2 step backs 9 o combined Applications; 1 development 10 11 Acting Chair Nanus swore in Mr. Goldman who said they are not seeking to vacate the alley. He touched on 12 5 stories vs. 6 stories. The average unit size is 2,000 square feet. Regarding the Public Benefit, they will 13 extend the paved surface. They are working with Com Ed regarding transformers, relocating equipment, etc. 14 15 Acting Chair Nanus swore in Mr. Goulette who noted height on stepbacks, increased green space, etc. 16 17 Councilperson Ross said it’s helpful to have context which wasn’t in the packet. She asked about a green 18 roof and how to access it. Mr. Goldman said the renderings, etc. were included. He stated the green roof is 19 for storm-water management. There is a roof hatch atop stairs. There is no access for residents. 20 21 Mr. Ezgur discussed materials. 22 23 Acting Chair Nanus asked: 24 • why 1 building has a green roof and the other doesn’t. Mr. Goldman said it’s due to lot size and 25 requirements for detention. 26 • if it was considered to acquire another property. Mr. Goldman said they had discussions and are not 27 acquiring that property. Director Fontane noted mechanical equipment is yet to be determined. 28 29 Acting Chair Nanus asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. He swore in the following: 30 • Mr. Peter (son) and Anne (mother) Mordini said this is a residential neighborhood. The citizens 31 never receive relief. Air-conditioning units are loud. There are impacts when buildings are close. 32 They suffered from the Albion development. There is a gigantic wall feet from their windows. His 33 parents spent time making a garden that residents see. Mr. Mordini wants relief and tiering. When 34 light and air is blocked, there are impacts. He would like to see depictions. Their home is cut-off 35 from the plan. Director Fontane referenced Page 219. Senior Planner Burhop illustrated same. 36 37 Some PDC comments are….. 38 • Commissioner Mantis said: 39 o regarding units per acre of other developments, breaking these into smaller units that are 40 more attainable/affordable is desirable. Mr. Goldman said these are for sale, not rental 41 units. 42 o 2 and 3-bedrooms could be 1,400-1,500 square feet. 43 o he prefers a higher unit count with more units. 44 • Commissioner Ihnchak concurred. She appreciates the sculpting; though, is concerned about the 45 bulk. It feels high on this street. 46 • Commissioner Henry said this could be going from mid-density to high-density. 47 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 7 Page 8 of 45  1 Acting Chair Nanus swore in another audience member: 2 • Ted Pickus, Realtor for @Properties, said the reality is people are coming from a large home, and 3 they need space when they downsize; there is a need. Homeowners have children, caregivers 4 staying with them. Director Fontane reminded the inclusionary housing plan hasn’t been received 5 yet. Acting Chair Nanus wants to be sure all of the developments are in the traffic study. Mr. 6 Goldman said they are included. 7 8 Commissioner Mantis moved to continue this matter to the June 16, 2026, PDC meeting. Commissioner 9 Henry seconded the motion. 10 11 On a roll call vote 12 Voting Yea Acting Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 13 Voting Nay: None 14 15 Director Fontane declared that the motion passed unanimously, there would be no notice, and the next 16 meeting would take place at City Hall in Highland Park, at 7 p.m. 17 18 OTHER BUSINESS 19 1. Information Item: Administrative Design Review Update 20 There were no updates. 21 22 2. Next Regular Meeting – May 5, 2026 23 The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2026. 24 25 3. Case Briefing 26 There was no Case Briefing. 27 28 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 29 There was no Business from the Public. 30 31 ADJOURNMENT 32 Commissioner Henry moved to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Ihnchak seconded the motion. 33 34 On a voice vote 35 Voting Yea Acting Chair Nanus; Commissioners Henry, Ihnchak, & Mantis 36 Voting Nay: None 37 38 Acting Chair Nanus declared that the motion passed unanimously. 39 40 Respectfully Submitted, 41 42 43 Gale Cerabona 44 Recorder 45 46 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 7, 2026, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. 47 Plan and Design Review Commission Minutes April 21, 2026 - Page 8 Page 9 of 45  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION DATE REFERRED: For the May 5 , 2026 Plan and Design Commission (“Commission ”) ORIGINATED BY: Community Development SUBJECT: Consideration of a Planned Development and Plat of Subdivision with Variations for 147 Central Ave. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Commission consider the proposed Final Planned Development (“PUD”) and Plat of Re-Subdivision with one requested subdivision variation. This application was previously before the Commission on January 6, 2026 and April 21, 2026. Please follow the link for the previous staff report and review. SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATION: The property owner is the following: • Atied Associates, LLC and Gale Rothner, as trustee, Greg Moyer authorized representative The Petitioner: • Greg Moyer The Subject Property is the following: • 147 Central Avenue Page 1 of 3 Page 10 of 45  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION • The property is currently one buildable lot, • Two buildable lots are proposed (two separate and independent legal lots of record). • The Subdivision proposes to split the current property into two buildable lots. • Requesting one variation to the Subdivision Code for lot shape per Section 151.004(A)(1). Plat of Subdivision The applicant has supplied an edit to the proposed Plat of Subdivision, which you can find as Attachment 1. The applicant proposes a 20’ side yard along the western property line for that lot line adjacent to the existing historic home and then then a lag to make the side yard 12’ where adjacent to the yard behind the home – see the Applicant’s Attachment 1 for illustration of the proposed west side yard (and how it is proposed to change from 20’ to 12’). This change reflects a mix of the previously proposed Plat of Subdivisions. On January 6, the applicant had proposed 20’ side yard along the shared western property line and on April 21 that same side yard was proposed at 12’. There are no additional changes to what was presented at the April 21 PDC meeting. All setbacks shown on Lot 2 comply with the R4 zoning setback standards. Applicant should confirm the plan with the proposed driveway set up. HPC recommend using the existing driveway and the applicant should supply an easement if they plan to follow HPC’s recommendation. Even if the exiting driveway is used a spur will need to be added for the newly created Lot 2. PUD Amendment The current proposal is to split the existing lot into two buildable lots and to in the future build one single family home on the newly created vacant Lot 2. The applicant has not supplied any plans for this future home or bulk parameters, only proposing a buildable area for Lot 2, as presented in Attachment 1. Per Code any future home will require an amendment to the PUD per Section 150.545(A)(1)(c) for an increase by more than one percent in Floor Area or Building square footage. • The Commission may consider certain conditions, such as an acceptable buildable area, floor area, height, and other considerations, such as driveway, that if met would allow future construction of a single family home on Lot 2 to proceed by permit and without necessitating a PUD amendment. • Any new single family home built on Lot 2 will require a Certificate of Appropriateness by the HPC. For reference, the footprint of the existing structures on 147 Central Ave.: • Single family home ~ 4,556 sq. ft., footprint see Attachment 2 for sketch plan data from the Lake County Assessor’s Office. • Coach house ~ 1,152 sq. ft. footprint • Gardener’s cottage ~ 643 sq. ft. footprint Page 2 of 3 Page 11 of 45  REQUEST FOR PLAN AND DESIGN COMMISSION ACTION Historic Preservation Commission This application was considered by the HPC on January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting, March 12, 2026 Regular Meeting, and April 15, 2026 Special Meeting where the HPC recommended denial. Please reference the April 21, 2026 PDC packet for additional information. Please note, the City did not extend the local landmark designation on the property. Staff has determined that the City Council and HPC intended to landmark the property in its entirety in 1985. Staff’s determination can be found as Attachment 3. Public Benefit No public benefit is required per Sec. 150.515(B). The applicant proposes a $2,500 donation to the City to help promote Historic Preservation. Findings of Fact The Commission directed staff to draft findings of fact recommending approval at the January 6, 2026 PDC meeting for the proposed PUD. Please find this draft as Attachment 4. Public Comment No new public comment has been submitted for the May 5 PDC meeting. Please see April 21 PDC meeting for all public comment. Page 3 of 3 Page 12 of 45 Page 13 of 45 PARID: 1623210002 ASSESSOR #: 049 NBHD: 1825010 ROLL: RP GALE ROTHNER TTEE GALE ROTHNER 147 CENTRAL AVE SPOUSAL Tax Year: 2025 (Taxes Payable in 2026). Select Tax Year on the right: Item Area 2s/BSMT 2274 OFP - 11:OFP OPEN FRAME PORCH 940 1s - 10:1S FR FRAME 56 1s/CRAWL - 10/53:1S FR FRAME/CRAWL 201 1s/SLAB - 10/52:1S FR FRAME/SLAB 138 GARAGE - 13:FRAME GARAGE 529 CARPORT - 30:CARPORT 418 Printed on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 5:31:37 PM EST Page 14 of 45  Memorandum Date: May 5, 2026 To: Plan and Design Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: 147 Central Avenue Landmark Status Determination Background. It is Staff’s practice to complete a detailed review of a property’s historic record to determine if an entire property is a Local Historic Landmark. Staff’s determination is that the entire parcel at 147 Central Avenue was always, and continues to be, a Local Historic Landmark. The following is Staff’s review of the entire record leading up to, and immediately following the Ordinance designating 147 Central Avenue. Review of 147 Central Avenue Record 147 Central Avenue’s 1985 designating Ordinance (Attachment A), describes 147 Central Avenue as a “property”1 and includes a PIN associated with the entire parcel. Yet, it also refers to the property as the “Cornelius Field House” which conflicts with the other descriptors. Because of these conflicting descriptors within the Ordinance, Staff looked at the record leading up to the designation ordinance to determine the original intent of the HPC and City Council. National Register Nomination - 1982 In 1982, 147 Central Avenue was included as part of the Highland Park Multiple Resource Nomination submitted to the National Register of Historic Places (“NR”) (Attachment B). The nomination was prepared by then Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) Chair, Susan Benjamin. The nomination inventory for 147 Central Avenue included the entire 3.8 acre property and outbuildings (coach house, gardener’s cottage, bridge, greenhouse foundation). The HPC looks at relevant NR nominations as part of local landmark nominations because NR nominations contain detailed, invaluable research. At the time of the local landmark nomination, the HPC would have been aware of 147 Central Avenue’s significant outbuildings. The HPC Chair especially, would have been familiar with all of these details since she wrote the NR nomination herself. It is reasonable to assume that the Chair would have intended to landmark the property in its entirety since that is how she nominated the property to the NR. Landmark Nomination- 1985 The 1985 landmark nomination form (submitted by former property owner Martha Macleod) refers to the property as a whole. The property is called the “Field” property, not the Cornelius Field House, as it is called in later documents (Attachment C). Both the HPC and City 1 “Property” in Chapter 24, refers to “land and improvements identified as a separate legal lot of record for the purposes of the City’s subdividing and zoning regulations.” This definition, if applied to 147 Central Avenue, would encompasses the entirety of the parcel. 1 Page 15 of 45  Memorandum Council would have seen that Ms. Macleod did not single out her house for designation, but rather sought to landmark the “Field Property.” In 1985, Martha Macleod, signed a consent form to landmark “the property located at 147 Central” (Attachment D). Between 1983 and 2005, owner consent was required for landmark designations and Council reviewed this form as part of the nomination. HPC Resolution – 1985 The HPC referred to the property as the “Cornelius Field House” on a resolution recommending approval of landmark designation to City Council (Attachment E and F). Referring to a property by its colloquial historic name is a common preservation practice and does not necessarily mean the HPC only intended to regulate the main house. Past COA Reviews (1986-2011) In 1986, a year after the subject property was designated a Local Historic Landmark, the HPC reviewed alterations to the coach house on the property (Attachment G). The HPC members who issued the 1986 COA were the same HPC members who recommended the designation to City Council a year prior. Susan Benjamin, former HPC Chair, signed both the 1985 resolution recommending landmark designation to City Council and the 1986 coach house COA. Martha Macleod was still the property owner during the 1986 COA review. She did not object to the review of the coach house. The gardener’s cottage and landscape have since been reviewed by the HPC as part of this designation as well (Attachment H). None of these reviews have received any pushback from the Macleods, or subsequent owners. Conclusion. Based on the evidence gathered, Staff concludes that the property owner, the HPC and City Council intended to regulate the property in its entirety, not just the main house. City Council was presented a landmark nomination to designate the “Field Property” and in the following years the HPC and property owner acted in ways that further reinforced an intent to regulate the property in its entirety. In the broader context surrounding the designation, it seems that the inconsistent naming conventions in the 1985 Ordinance does not reflect an intent to only regulate the main house. Staff’s review of the historic record for 147 Central Avenue finds that the property as a whole is a Regulated Historic Structure, meaning any newly-created lot will be a Regulated Historic Structure. Regulated Activity on any newly created lot will require a COA from the HPC. Attachments. A. 1985 Landmark Ordinance B. 1982 National Register Nomination C. 1985 Landmark Nomination D. 1985 Owner Consent Form E. 1985 HPC Resolution 2 Page 16 of 45  Memorandum F. 1985 RFCA G. 1986 Coach House COA H. Gardener’s Cottage and Landscape COA 3 Page 17 of 45  DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT Public Hearing #PUD-2025-00081 for a Special Use Permit in the Nature of a Preliminary and Final Planned Development with Modifications from City Code; and a Plat of Re-Subdivision, with Variances from City Code (147 Central Ave.) Pursuant to Section 150.530(H)(3): The Plan and Design Commission shall not recommend approval of a proposed Planned Development and Preliminary Development Plan except upon making all findings of fact required pursuant to Section 150.1404 of this Chapter, and as follows: a) That the Planned Development conforms to the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, and to the standards and requirements of this Article, including, without limitation, Section 150.520 of this Article; b) That the proposed Planned Development contains no more residential dwelling units than permitted pursuant to the subdivision sketch plan submitted in accordance with Section 150.525(A)(8) of this Article, as may be adjusted pursuant to Section 150.510(D) of this Article; and c) That the Planned Development provides a public benefit, if required pursuant to Section 150.515 of this Article. Findings of Fact consistent the requirements in Section 150.530(H)(3) are provided below: Pursuant to Section 150.1404, the Plan & Design Commission or the City Council, as the case may be, shall not recommend or grant a special use permit be issued unless it shall make findings of fact based upon evidence presented at the hearing in any given case that: (1) The special use will serve the public convenience at the location of the subject property; or the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare; Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed Plat of Re-Subdivision will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The project’s land area complies with the Lake Front Density & Character Overlay Zone (LFOZ) subdivision requirements. (2) The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with the special use, the size of the subject property in relation to such special use, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it, shall be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the zoning district in which it is located; Finding: The Commission finds that the planned development is within the density allowance and therefore the proposal is in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the zoning district in which it is located. The Commission finds the density acceptable since the project complies with the single family zoning density and LFOZ subdivision requirements. (3) That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in such zoning Page 1 of 8 Page 18 of 45  district, nor substantially diminish and impair the value of other property in the neighborhood; Finding: The Design Commission finds that the planned development will not be injurious to properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The property has been in a single family residential zoning district for many years, which permits single family uses. The Commission finds that the subdivision modifications requested are warranted given the size of the lot. (4) The nature, location, and size of the buildings or structures involved with the establishment of the special use will not impede, substantially hinder, or discourage the development and use of adjacent land and buildings in accord with the regulations of the zoning district within which they are located; Finding: The Commission finds that the nature and size of the development will not impede or discourage the development or use of adjacent land. The single family land use is consistent with the R4 zoning district. (5) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Finding: The Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads, and drainage will be provided within the Plat of Subdivision. (6) Parking areas of adequate size for the special use shall be properly located and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses, and the entrance and exit driveways to and from these parking areas shall be designed to prevent traffic hazards, eliminate nuisance, and minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; Finding: The Commission finds that the planned Plat of Subdivision will have adequate land area to accommodate the single family use. (7) The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified as provided in this Chapter; Finding: The Plan & Design Commission finds that the planned Plat of Subdivision conforms with the Chapter 150 Zoning Code and is requesting modifications to Chapter 151 Subdivision Code:  Section 151.004(A)(1) – Lot shapes. Proposed lots will have greater than four sides. (8) There is reasonable assurance that the special use will be completed and maintained as and if authorized; and Finding: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that the Planned Development will be built and maintained as authorized. (9) The special use shall comply with all applicable requirements set forth in this Chapter. Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed planned development meets the requirements of the Zoning Code with acceptable modifications. Page 2 of 8 Page 19 of 45 150.530(H)(3)(a): That the Planned Development conforms to the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, and to the standards and requirements of this Article, including, without limitation, Section 150.520 of this Article Objectives of the Master Plan Finding: The Commission finds the proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the Lakefront District Neighborhood Strategic Plan 1. The project maintains larger lot sizes than required in the R4 and LFOZ. Pursuant to Section 150.520 of the Code, the applicant for a Planned Development must demonstrate that the proposed Planned Development satisfies and incorporates, to the greatest extent practicable, the following site design standards: (A) Protection of the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. The uses and structures within the Planned Development shall be compatible with one another, in that they are designed, located, and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Finding: The Commission finds that the planned Plat of Subdivision is compliant with the single family density standards of the R4 Zoning District and LFOZ. (B) Preservation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. (1) No development shall occur in any Environmentally Sensitive Area located on the subject property, except upon approval of a modification therefore, in accordance with Section 150.510(B) of this Article. Finding: The Commission finds that the no portion of development is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The property does have steep slope zone (ravine), but the applicant adequately buffers from these sensitive areas. (2) Environmentally Sensitive Areas located on the subject property may be included as common open space within a Planned Development, upon either (a) identification of such areas on the plat of subdivision as a separate lot or lots, or (b) recordation by the applicant of a conservation easement or similar restriction that ensures the preservation of such areas, in perpetuity, from future development. Finding: The Commission finds that there are Environmentally Sensitive Areas located on the subject property and the applicant is appropriately placing setbacks protecting these areas. (C) Historic Resources. The Planned Development shall preserve all (1) locally designated landmarks, and (2) properties, structures, areas, objects, and landscapes determined to be historically significant by the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with Chapters 24 or 170 of the Code. Finding: The Commission finds the proposed Plat of Subdivision preserves the primary residential structure and outbuildings on the landmarked property. 2 (D) Clustering New Development. The Planned Development shall preserve the structures, landscapes, scenic view sheds, and other natural and historic features of the subject property, 1 Central District Plan (May 2001). 2 The historic Cornelius Field House, Gardner’s Cottage and Coach House. Page 3 of 8 Page 20 of 45  through (i) clustering of lots or building pads, (ii) adaptive reuse of existing structures, and (iii) the protection of designated open space from development; provided, however, that clustering of development shall not be required upon a demonstration by the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Plan & Design Commission and the City Council, that there are no features on the subject property worthy of preservation, or that those features worthy of preservation will be more effectively preserved by not clustering development. Finding: The Commission finds that the applicant is compliant with the zoning code setback requirements, providing enough space between houses and sensitive ravine areas. (E) Location of Structures. All structures to be located within the Planned Development shall (1) be related harmoniously to the terrain and to existing structures in the vicinity of the subject property, and (2) have a visual relationship to existing nearby structures; Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed Plat of Subdivision proposes no structures. The creation of a new lot is in harmony with the existing property within the vicinity. (F) Environmental Quality and Responsible Design. The Planned Development shall be consistent with the City of Highland Park Environmental Policy and with the City of Highland Park Checklist for Environmentally Responsible Design and Construction. The applicant may demonstrate consistency with standards established for site design and building construction practices by referencing known sustainable development and green architecture rating systems. Finding: The Commission finds that the planned development satisfies this standard. (G) Preservation of Landscapes. The landscapes within the Planned Development shall be preserved in their natural states, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal. All proposed grade changes shall be consistent with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Finding: The Commission finds that the planned development satisfies this standard. (H) Schools, Parks, and Public Facilities. The Planned Development shall not impose an undue burden on parks, recreational areas, schools, or other public facilities that serve or are proposed to serve the Planned Development. Finding: The Commission finds that no evidence was presented at the public hearings indicating a new single family home will impose an undue burden on parks, recreational areas, schools, or other public facilities. (I) Relationship and Connection to Adjoining Land. The Planned Development shall not be designed as an enclave separate from adjacent properties, unless existing development patterns, natural features, and/or topographic conditions prevent vehicular or pedestrian access connections to adjacent properties. In order to achieve connectivity to adjoining land, all lots, streets, sidewalks and/or paths within a Planned Development shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to allow for the continuation of such existing or proposed features to adjoining areas. New streets, sidewalks, and/or paths located within a proposed Planned Development shall be constructed and installed to the boundaries of the proposed Planned Development if the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that the proposed Planned Development adjoins land with the potential of being subdivided or re-subdivided. Page 4 of 8 Page 21 of 45  Finding: The Commission finds that the planned development will incorporate an additional single family home into the neighborhood, which is in harmony with all surrounding uses. (J) Setbacks from the Periphery of the Planned Development. The required front, rear, and side yards along the periphery of the Planned Development shall be of a size not less than the greater of (1) the minimum front, rear, and side yard requirements of the underlying Zoning District in which the Planned Development is located, and (2) the minimum front, rear, and side yard requirements of the adjacent Zoning District. Finding: The Commission finds the planned development meets the setback requirements. (K) Functional and Mechanical Features. Exposed storage areas, trash containers, recycling container space, exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures, and similar accessory areas and structures shall be (1) identified on the site plan required pursuant to Section 150.525(A)(9) of this Chapter, (2) incorporated into common areas of the development, (3) made as unobtrusive as possible, and (4) designed, landscaped, and screened in accordance with the requirements set forth in Article XXII of this Chapter and of Chapter 176 of the Code. Finding: The Commission finds no structures are being proposed, therefore, this standard is not applicable. (L) Distance Between Buildings. The minimum horizontal distance between any two new buildings to be located on the subject property, or between any new building and an existing building (including building appurtenances), shall be not less than 15 feet; provided, however, that this Section 150.520(L) shall not apply to buildings that (1) share a common wall, and (2) have individual entrances and exits. Finding: The Commission finds this standard is met as the any new proposed building will sit 20’ away from the west property line, which is the closest existing building. (M) Surface Water Drainage. In accordance with the storm water management regulations set forth in Article XVIII of this Chapter, surface drainage systems serving the subject property shall be designed to prevent surface waters from adversely affecting neighboring properties or the public storm water drainage system. Surface water in all paved areas shall be collected at intervals so as to prevent obstruction of the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The design of the storm water management system shall enhance natural storm water storage areas such as high-quality aquatic resources and regulatory floodplains, and may incorporate natural storm water management techniques commonly referred to as low impact development techniques or best management practices. Finding: The Commission found that the planned development will be constructed in accordance with the storm water management regulations established in the Highland Park City Code. (N) Ingress to and egress from the Planned Development shall be designed to (1) promote safe vehicular movements, (2) minimize traffic congestion in the public streets outside the Planned Development, and (3) facilitate the free flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the Planned Development. Finding: The Commission finds the proposed access is acceptable. No evidence was provided that one new single family home will have a significant impact to the existing street network along Page 5 of 8 Page 22 of 45  Central. The newly created lot will not have frontage along Park Ave, therefore, keeping existing conditions the same. (O) Streets, Alleys, and Public Ways. The streets, alleys, and other public and private traffic thoroughfares located within the Planned Development shall conform to the applicable requirements set forth in Section 151.004 of the Subdivision Ordinance, as may be modified upon the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and the approval by the City Council. The City Council may, in its sole discretion, require that streets located within the Planned Development be stubbed in order to provide for future connections to adjacent developments. Finding: The Commission finds that the planned development will not impact traffic along Park Ave as the newly created lot does not front Park Ave and the addition of one single family home along Central Ave will not have a significant impact to local traffic. (P) Common Ownership or Control. (1) During Development. During the development process and until such time that the development is turned over to an owners’ association or equivalent entity, all common areas within buildings, common open space, landscaping, exterior maintenance areas, and all other exterior aspects of the development located within the proposed Planned Development shall be on a tract or tracts of land under common ownership or control. Finding: The Commission finds this standard is not applicable. The proposal to do subdivide the lot and sell it off for a new single family home. (2) Upon Completion of Development. The owners’ association or equivalent entity, upon its establishment, shall be responsible for all obligations set forth in (a) the ordinance approving the Planned Development, adopted pursuant to Section 150.540(C) of this Article, (b) any associated development agreement pertinent to the Planned Development, and (c) the declaration of covenants, or similar recorded document, establishing the owners’ association or equivalent entity. Finding: The Commission finds this standard is not applicable. The proposal to do subdivide the lot and sell it off for a new single family home. 150.530(H)(3)(b): That the proposed Planned Development contains no more residential dwelling units than permitted pursuant to the subdivision sketch plan submitted in accordance with Section 150.525(A)(8) of this Article, as may be adjusted pursuant to Section 150.520(D) of this Article; Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed development does not contain more residential dwelling units than permitted by Code. 150.530(H)(3)(c): That the Planned Development provides a public benefit, if required pursuant to Section 150.515 of this Article. Page 6 of 8 Page 23 of 45  Finding: The Plan & Design Commission finds that the planned development requires no modifications to the regulations of Chapter 150. Pursuant to Section 150.515, the development does not have to provide a public benefit. Sec. 151.009. - Variations and Exceptions. Variations from these regulations shall not be granted as a right. However, the Plan Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variations from the regulations contained in this Subdivision Code in specific cases which do not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Such recommendations shall be communicated to the City Council in writing. Findings: See below for comments of Section 151 Subdivision Code variation findings. RECOMMENDATION: The Plan and Design Commission recommends the requested variations be granted by the City Council, with the following conditions of approval: A. The Applicant must secure the necessary approvals from all public utility companies, provide easement statements, and locate all existing easements on the Final Plat, prior to recordation; B. The Applicant must secure the signatures of the City Engineer and the County Clerk on the Final Plat, prior to its recordation; C. The Final Plat must include all certificates, signatures, and seals as required by Section 151.005(A)(12) of the City Code; D. The Final Plat must identify monuments for all corners of the proposed lots; and E. The Final Plat must be tied into the state plane coordinate system. REQUESTED VARIATIONS: The Applicant has requested a variation to Section 151.004(A)(1), which states thus: “Lot shapes. Every lot shall have four sides. Exceptions may be approved when the applicant demonstrates that a four-sided lot is not feasible because of peculiar topographical conditions, abutting lots of record or abutting parcels, or pre-existing buildings not owned directly or indirectly by the applicant. A lot of other than four sides will not be approved if it appears that such lot has been so formed solely to comply with the minimum area, depth and width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As nearly as practicable, intersecting lot lines shall form right angles with each other. • The Applicant’s proposal divides the property’s land area more evenly, creating two lots with similar land area. Additionally, the property has ravine on it reducing the amount of buildable area. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Plan and Design Commission finds the requested variation in this specific case does not affect Page 7 of 8 Page 24 of 45 the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code. The Plan and Design Commission documents the following facts of this specific case: 1. Approving the variation for more than 4-sides does not change the character or density of the neighborhood. STANDARDS FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIATION AND EXCEPTION: Sec. 151.009. - Variations and Exceptions. “Variations from these regulations shall not be granted as a right. However, the Plan Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variations from the regulations contained in this Subdivision Code in specific cases which do not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Such recommendations shall be communicated to the City Council in writing.” Sec. 151.002. – Intent and Purpose. “These regulations are intended to serve the following purposes:” A. “To assist in the carrying out and implementation of the Master Plan of the City of Highland Park.” B. “To set forth rules and regulations for the division and consolidation of real property.” C. “To provide for the proper location and/or width of streets and alleys, buildable areas, open spaces, utilities and drainage easements, and public use facilities and areas.” D. “To protect neighborhood character and to provide quality neighborhoods by requiring minimum lot widths, depths, and areas.” E. “To provide minimum standards for public improvements and provision for modernizing infrastructure, including water, sanitary sewer lines, and drainage.” F. “To provide for and secure the actual construction of public improvements.” G. “To discourage residential "enclaves" which tend to divide neighborhoods and which restrict reasonable access to adjacent land which is likely to be subdivided or resubdivided in the future.” Page 8 of 8 Page 25 of 45 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 26 of 45 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 27 of 45  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 28 of 45  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 29 of 45  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 30 of 45  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 31 of 45  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 32 of 45 .,. ~ .... ~ ... - ~---~--- ...  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 33 of 45 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 34 of 45 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 35 of 45 1 zr,.: q' .. i,ia*, t.+.-fS'.•.? a.1.rh' -..'`, JIB it eaK' :• . 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 36 of 45 Illinois 60035  Owner Consent Form for Highland Park Lambark Nomination Date: The undersigned owner of the property located at 14.7_..r,} t address) , in the city of Highland Park, Llliois, hearby approves consent for the above property to be nominated by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission for designation as a Highland Park Landmark (.. LKJ / cru . C,•. • j _' i • 1. 1• l - __• _• __a u • ••• • esigmt4enas - Mii place- appropriate space.) Print Name ( s) Y.Z a at LL -0 d Page 37 of 45  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 38 of 45  ute q u es Tor Cou'ncil Action REMMM_ M. August 121 1985 AGE" MM 2- a Historic Preservation Cmmissio'n Landmark Namination, of Cornelius Field House SUMMU AM B-AMMAM OF SaBJUM Th e, Historic -Preservation Cm'mission nominates local landmarks, as set forth by the Highland Park Preservation Ordinance. The Ommission has passed a - resolution to rdommend to the City Council that the Cornelius Field House', 147 Central Ave. be designated as a Highland Park Landmark. The enclosed material summarizes the significance of the building. . The owner has given consent. to the .landmark designation of the house. 1) Completed Landmark Nanination Form ( Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks is on the back of the sheet) 2) Resolution to recommend to the City Council that the Cornelius Field House be designated as a Highland Park Landmark 3) Owner Consent for .Highland Park Landmark The Historic Preservation. Conmission recommends that the Cornelius Field House. be designated as a Highland Park Landmark I ;Ikl 57VIT,M Concur Page 39 of 45  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 40 of 45 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 41 of 45  scope o WoRK 60 mvx•.. STo uE P.¢ -' moo Page 42 of 45 Proposed Fence Style for Patio Gate Style for Patio Decorative Trellis Example Page 43 of 45  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 44 of 45  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 45 of 45J