Historic Preservation Commission

Village of Winnetka Historic Preservation Commission Regular Meeting October 6, 2025 at 7:00 PM Winnetka Village Hall - 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Approval of Minutes a. Approval of September 15, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks a. Case No. 25-12-HPC - 20 Fox Lane: Advisory review of proposed alterations to 20 Fox Lane, a locally designated landmark. b. Case No. 25-15-HPC - 1094 Fisher Crescent Lane: Advisory review of proposed alterations to 1094 Fisher Crescent Lane, a locally designated landmark. 5. Other Business a. November 1, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check b. 2025 Preservation Awards - Award Plaque Update c. Monthly Communications For Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion and Content Decision 6. Adjournment NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, 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 meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 1 of 56  1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2 SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 MEETING MINUTES 3 4 Members Present: Chris Enck, Acting Chairman 5 Beth Ann Papoutsis 6 Joseph Stuart 7 Patti Van Cleave 8 9 Members Absent: Jack Coladarci 10 Paul Weaver 11 Anna Wisniewski 12 13 Non-Voting Members Present: Scott Myers 14 15 Junior Commissioner Present: Louis Zaranski 16 17 Village Staff: Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 18 19 Call to Order & Roll Call: 20 Acting Chairman Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Commission Members 21 present. 22 23 Public Comment: 24 No public comment was made at this time. 25 26 Approval of April 4, 2025 Minutes: 27 Chairman Enck asked if there were any comments or corrections or for a motion to approve the Augustl 4, 2025, 28 meeting minutes. A motion to approve the August 4, 2025, minutes was made by Ms. Van Cleave and seconded by 29 Mr. Stuart. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 30 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave 31 NAYS: None 32 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaranski 33 34 Demolition Permit Applications: 35 a. Case No. 25-13-HPC - 458 Sunset Road: Review of the demolition permit application submitted for the 36 single-family residence at 458 Sunset Road. Case No. 25-14-HPC - 1086 Fisher Crescent: Review of the demolition 37 permit application submitted for the single-family residence at 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane. 38 Mr. Marx identified the property owners, location, size and zoning classification with a construction date of 1921 39 along with several subsequent alterations. He stated the property does not appear on the Illinois Historic 40 Structures Listing and no public comment was received. Mr. Marx stated the Historical Society stated the property 41 has architectural significance and referred to Attachment C and noted no public comments had been received. He 42 also mentioned that no building permit or site restoration plans have been submitted. He then asked if there were 43 any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 44 45 Chip Hackley, the architect, stated the plan for the property is for consolidation with a neighboring lot and for the 46 current home to be expanded. He stated the home at 458 Sunset Road is legally nonconforming which he 47 described to the Commission as well as the home’s site positioning and significant alterations over the years. Mr. 48 Hackley stated the home was previously used as a rental and that there is no way in which to expand the current 49 home without a variation or demolition. He noted the Applicant’s intended home addition, spread over both lots, 50 would remain sensitive in its scale and would not be intrusive to the neighborhood. Mr. Hackley then asked if there 51 were any questions. 52 Page 2 of 56  September 15, 2025 Page 2 1 Ms. Papoutsis questioned the condition of the home to be torn down. Mr. Hackley responded it has been 2 significantly altered in the rear and did not have the same standards as other homes on the same streetscape. 3 Chairman Enck asked Mr. Marx of the steps in terms of lot consolidation which Mr. Marx outlined for the 4 Commission. Mr. Stuart asked if any aspects of the home’s interior would be preserved. Mr. Hackley responded 5 they can consider it and they would go through the deconstruction process. Chairman Enck noted there have not 6 been any other demolitions on the street and asked Mr. Hackley if they considered having the home fit the street’s 7 character. Mr. Hackley confirmed that is the intention. 8 9 Chairman Enck asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this time. He then 10 called the matter in for discussion and asked the Commission if they felt an HAIS should be required. Ms. Papoutsis 11 asked if there were any other homes in the neighborhood designed by Howard Bowman. Mr. Marx confirmed 760 12 Cherry Street had a recent HAIS report and was a Howard Bowan home. Mr. Hackley provided additional 13 information on the home at 458 Sunset to the Commission. Ms. Van Cleave described Howard Bowan’s 14 significance with regard to chimneys. 15 16 Chairman Enck asked for a motion for an HAIS for 458 Sunset Road and referred to the findings as indicated on 17 page 5 and to allow demolition to proceed without delay. Ms. Van Cleave moved to not recommend an HAIS due 18 to the documentation on record for Howard Bowan. Mr. Stuart seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the 19 motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 20 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave 21 NAYS: None 22 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaranski 23 24 Case No. 25-14-HPC - 1086 Fisher Crescent: Review of the demolition permit application submitted for the 25 single-family residence at 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane. 26 Mr. Marx identified the property owners, the HAIS author, its location, size and zoning classification with a 27 construction date of 1910 and several subsequent alterations. He stated the property does not appear on the 28 Illinois Historic Structures Listing and no public comment was received. Mr. Marx stated the Historical Society 29 indicated that the property did not have architectural and historical significance and referred to Attachment C. He 30 noted no public comments were received and no public building permit or site restoration plans have been 31 submitted at this time. Mr. Marx then asked if there were any questions. 32 33 Chairman Enck referred to the lot’s odd shape and asked if the lot is nonconforming. Mr. Marx responded the 34 architect can confirm that information with new construction being allowed which is code compliant. 35 36 Chairman Enck asked for the applicant’s presentation. Eamon Murphy of WMA Studio introduced himself as the 37 architect for the applicants, Riley O’Gara and Addie Nelson O’Gara and stated the applicants purchased the 38 property in May 2024. He stated the home has several issues which he identified for the Commission and further 39 described the home’s interior configuration and nonconforming status. Mr. Murphy stated they plan to construct a 40 new single family residence with similar character and planned to reuse some of the home’s existing elements. He 41 stated the existing home would not be adaptable for the family. 42 43 Mr. Stuart asked if the interior millwork is original. Mr. Murphy responded some of the interior elements date to 44 the 1950’s and 1960’s and described their plan to save some of the wallpaper. He then stated the detached garage 45 was part of the 1950’s project which he described to the Commission in detail. Chairman Enck asked if it would be 46 torn down as well. Mr. Murphy confirmed that is correct and explained their reasoning and the new home’s siting 47 which needed to be code compliant. Mr. Marx referred to the Commission to the plat of survey and identified the 48 easement as well as summarized the new home’s siting requirements. 49 50 Mr. Stuart described the home as very unique. Mr. Murphy agreed the home has had a lot of change and described 51 the difficulties of the interior layout configurations in detail. He reiterated how the applicants attempted to make 52 the home work in terms of raising a family or lasting another 100 years. Ms. Papoutsis referred to the mature trees 53 on the site. Mr. Murphy described how they plan to configure the driveway to avoid the mature planning as well as Page 3 of 56  September 15, 2025 Page 3 1 attempts to relocate existing planting. Ms. Papoutsis questioned the new home’s style. Mr. Murphy responded 2 they are considering Colonial detailing with one-and-a-half to two-story massing which would last another 100 3 years. Ms. Van Cleave commented she is glad that the new home would fit in the neighborhood. 4 5 Chairman Enck asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this time. Chairman 6 Enck then asked for a motion to recommend an HAIS. Ms. Van Cleave moved to not require an HAIS. Ms. Papoutsis 7 referred to the Historical Society’s comments and the applicants’ attempts to make the home work. She seconded 8 the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 9 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave 10 NAYS: None 11 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaranski 12 13 Historical Architectural Impact Studies (HAIS): 14 15 a. Case No. 2025-09-HPC - 1385 Trapp: Review of the Historic Architectural Impact Study (HAIS) attached 16 to the demolition permit for the single-family residence at 1385 Trapp Lane. 17 Mr. Marx summarized the application for the Commission and noted a new construction permit is under review. 18 19 Susan Benjamin presented a PowerPoint presentation of the HAIS to the Commission and described it as an 20 unusual home. She provided information relating to the architect as well as prior owners. Ms. Benjamin then 21 identified several views of the home and summarized the interior elements in detail. She also identified several 22 other landmarked homes in the area. Ms. Benjamin then summarized her findings in that while the home was 23 interesting to research, she did not find that it should not be demolished. 24 25 Chairman Enck asked if there were any questions. Ms. Van Cleave referred to the pillars which are not to scale. 26 Chairman Enck asked for the applicant to provide any desired comments. No comments were made at this time. 27 28 Chairman Enck referred to page 106 and asked for a motion to find the HAIS complete. A motion was made by Ms. 29 Van Cleave and seconded by Mr. Stuart to find the HAIS complete. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously 30 passed, 4 to 0: 31 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave 32 NAYS: None 33 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaranski 34 35 Chairman Enck referred to page 107 and the motions for the Commission to consider and asked for a motion. He 36 also referred to the Historical Society findings on page 171 and asked for a motion to find that the proposed 37 demolition would not have a significant negative architectural or historical impact on the Village as a whole or on 38 the immediate neighborhood and that based on these findings, demolition may proceed without delay. A motion 39 as stated by Chairman Enck was made by Ms. Papoutsis and seconded by Ms. Van Cleave. A vote was taken and 40 the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 41 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave 42 NAYS: None 43 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaranski 44 45 Other Business: 46 a. October 6, 2025 Regular Meeting - Quorum Check. 47 Mr. Marx identified the items on the October 6, 2025 meeting agenda. The Commission Members discussed their 48 availability. 49 50 b. 2025 Preservation Awards - Review of Nominations. 51 Mr. Marx summarized the consideration of 870 Locust Road for a preservation award which was submitted by the 52 developer who is the homeowner. Mr. Myers stated the consideration would set a precedent for presenting a 53 preservation award for new construction. Mr. Stuart identified the factors the Commission would consider in that Page 4 of 56  September 15, 2025 Page 4 1 regard. Chairman Enck agreed with Mr. Stuart’s comment and stated they should be mindful of the precedent the 2 new construction category would set. Ms. Van Cleave agreed with the comments made and referred to the 3 developer’s attempts relating to the home’s changes. Ms. Papoutsis questioned if they have any information 4 relating to the architect which she commented is an important consideration. Mr. Marx responded he would look 5 into it. The Commission Members discussed the status of several other homes which received preservation 6 awards. Mr. Marx stated there appeared to be a consensus in terms of the Commission’s position and for the 7 criteria to be redefined in terms of awarding new construction in future years. Chairman Enck asked the 8 Commission Members to brainstorm ways in terms of getting more applications. Mr. Marx informed the 9 Commission he would discuss with Lake Forest the project criteria and process they use. 10 11 c. Monthly Communications for Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion and Content Decision. 12 Chairman Enck asked the Commission Members to draft for consideration any potential items to include in the 13 next quarterly report. He then referred to the Crow Island project and to wait for the project to be completed 14 before reporting on it. Mr. Marx identified the timeline for consideration and review. 15 16 Adjournment: 17 Chairman Enck asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Van Cleave and seconded by 18 Ms. Papoutsis. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 19 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave 20 NAYS: None 21 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaranski 22 The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. 23 24 Respectfully submitted, 25 26 Antionette Johnson 27 Recording Secretary Page 5 of 56  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2025 SUBJECT: 20 FOX LANE - ALTERATIONS TO LOCAL LANDMARK (CASE NO. 25-12-HPC) INTRODUCTION On September 6, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is scheduled to consider a request from Aspect Design Architecture Inc. (the “Applicant”), as the architect representative of Chicago Land Trust Company, As Trustee Under Trust #8002364810 (the “Owner”) of the property located at 20 Fox Lane (the “Subject Property”), for an advisory review of exterior alterations to the Subject Property, a locally designated landmark. PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant has provided a written narrative, photos, architectural plans, and material specifications that detail the proposed alteration to an accessory structure on the Subject Property. The existing detached garage would receive modifications and improvements that include a one-story 286 square-foot addition on its south end, bringing the accessory structure to a size of 814 square feet. The addition’s roof would match the same pitch of the existing roof while the shingles on the entire roof surface would be replaced with a one-inch standing seam copper roof material. The addition would have a matching face brick of 2¼” x 7 5/8” x 4” bed depth with a smooth face and semi flush mortar and a warm white color identified as Sherwin Williams Greek Villa. The addition would be accessible with a Morgan brand wood door painted in the same shade of Greek Villa white. A Marvin Ultimate wood casement style window would be installed with simulated divided light munitins in an arrangement of two panes in width and three panes in height while also being painted in Greek Villa white, placed over a limestone sill. The Applicant states that the proposed addition is designed to provide a seamless appearance in all aspects from the existing garage and its addition. The Applicant states that the proposed addition would provide additional storage space while not disrupting the character and architectural integrity of the main house. The Applicant has also applied for a zoning variation that is awaiting review at a future Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, as the proposed addition would not comply with zoning ordinance requirements for setbacks. Page 6 of 56  Figure 1 – Subject Property – GIS aerial map Figure 2 – Subject Property – Front (North) façade of house Page 2 Page 7 of 56 Figure 3 – Subject Property – Front and side (North and East) façades of house Figure 4 – Subject Property – Side (West) façade of house Page 3 Page 8 of 56  Figure 5 – Subject Property – Detached garage and accessory shed Location of Proposed Addition Figure 6 – Subject Property – Proposed garage addition front (west) elevation rendering Figure 7 – Subject Property – Proposed garage addition site plan Page 4 Page 9 of 56 COMMISSION REVIEW Exterior alterations of designated landmarks are subject to an advisory review by the HPC. The criteria to consider when conducting an advisory review of alterations are as follows: 1. General Standards: a. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; b. Reasonable effort shall be made to use the building, structure, object or site for its originally intended purpose or to provide a compatible use which requires minimal alteration, relocation or demolition; c. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, object or site should not be destroyed. The alteration, relocation or demolition of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature should be avoided except when necessary to assure an economically viable use of the property; d. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, object or site should usually be maintained and preserved; e. Deteriorated architectural features should whenever possible be repaired rather than replaced. If replacement is necessary, the new material should match as closely as practicable the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features, where possible, 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, structures, objects or sites; f. The surface cleaning of buildings, structures, objects or sites should be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods which will damage the architectural or historic features and building material shall be discouraged. g. New buildings and structures and the alterations and relocation of existing buildings or structures shall not be discouraged when such work does not destroy significant historical or architectural features and is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property or neighborhood. h. Alterations, relocations and demolitions which do not affect any significant exterior architectural or historic features of the building, structure, object or site as viewed from a private street, a courtyard open to the public or a public street, place or way should generally be permitted; i. Demolition of a designated landmark shall be discouraged if the building, structure or property, as the case may be, is economically viable and can yield reasonable return in its present condition or can be made economically viable and yield reasonable return after completion of appropriate alteration, relocation, renovation or restoration work. 2. Design Guidelines: a. Height. The height of any proposed alteration should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. b. Proportions of Windows and Doors. The proportions and relationships between doors and windows should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. c. Roof Shape. The design of the roof should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. Page 5 Page 10 of 56  d. Scale. The scale of the structure should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. e. Directional Expression. The dominant horizontal or vertical expression of the facades should be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark. f. Architectural Details. Materials, textures, colors and architectural details should be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark. g. Appurtenances. Appurtenances including, but not limited to, signs, fences, accessory buildings or structures, permeable and impermeable surfaces should be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark. h. Other. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission may consider the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. FINDINGS The HPC shall determine whether the proposed alterations will be appropriate or not appropriate to the preservation of the Subject Property. Considering the alterations, does the HPC find that the Subject Property continues to meet the criteria for designation as a locally designated landmark? If the HPC determines that the proposed alterations are inappropriate, it shall make recommendations to the Applicant concerning changes, if any, in the proposed alterations which would cause the HPC to reconsider its determination and shall confer with the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Page 6 Page 11 of 56 ATTACHMENT A Page 12 of 56 Page 13 of 56 From: jletzter aspectdesigninc.com To: Christopher Marx; Ann Klaassen Cc: Dean Botes Subject: 20 Fox Lane / HPC meeting 10-6-25 and Zoning meeting 10-13-25 / ADI AD24227 Date: Thursday, September 11, 2025 6:12:47 PM Attachments: Copper roof information 9-11-25.pdf AD24227-CARROLL-09 11 25-REVISED.pdf s3WKSX_978474_survey_r1.pdf 9-11-25 Signed application for Variation Carroll.pdf 09 11 25 Standards for Granting Variation Carroll.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Christopher & Ann, Please find additional items requested for the HPC meeting and the zoning meeting. HPC: Photos off home             Brick & Mortar will be painted Sherwin Williams SW7551 “Greek Villa” warm white. The brick will match the common brick 2 ¼” x 7 5/8” x 4” bed depth which has a smooth face and lightly tumbled edges, the mortar is semi flush and can cover some of the brick with semi-raked joints.               Window will be Marvin Brand Ultimate wood window casement style with 1 ¼” simulated true divided lites, 2 Wide x 3 Tall with 3 ½” wood casing on the sides and head and wood sill painted in the SW7551 color on a 3 ¼” tall x 5 ¼” deep limestone bull nose sill.              Service door will be a Morgan brand wood door and wood door frame with wood brick mould and be painted in the SW7551 Color.         Roofing will be copper standing seam roofing 1” tall 20 oz thickness (see attached information). Zoning & HPC: revised architectural plans        Updated Plat of Survey Updated Standards for Granting a Zoning Variation     Current signed application form After your review, please contact us with any additional items required. Thank you, Jeff Jeffrey T. Letzter President / Sales & Business Development Aspect Design, Inc. 26575 Commerce Drive Suite 607 Volo, IL 60073 847-875-4372 Direct 847-457-2500 Office www.aspectdesigninc.com Page 14 of 56  3 ASP 2508.4428 4 5 ASP ASP PLAT OF SURVEY LOT 46 05-29-201-010 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 7 NE 1502 G RVL LA 0.5' OFF 6 0.4' OFF P.O.B. CP CP ASP 230.30' (R) 8 FO SIRC X G RVL 89 91 90 CLF S 89°31'28" E 230.30' (C) 79 88 78 77 174 87 C HLK C HLK C HLK 11 C HLK MF TONE C HLK MF WF 9 G RVL BRK SIRC L4 68 G RVL 69 G RVL PILLAR 81 85 G RVL SIRC L3 80 S. R/W LINE OF VACATED PORTER AVENUE 70 BRK PILLAR BRK PILLAR 74 BRK PILLAR 71 SIRC G RVL 73 72 G RVL G RVL G RVL G RVL IF 10 0.4' ON (8') W G RVL VE L D/ 84 PARCEL 1 GR A 82 83BRK PILLAR 42 BRK PILLAR 67.2' 67.2' BRK PILLAR 43 49 48 G RVL 50 13 G RVL G RVL GRAVEL G RVL 44 G RVL TP 81.3' 80.8' BRK G RVL 47 51 G RVL G RVL PILLAR 76 156 46 45 MF 3.9' ON TP (124.75') 52 G RVL G RVL G RVL 57 58 56 STN 59 61 STN 67 STN 53 STN 60 STN STN 38 BRK 39 36 37 BRK 3.8' ON G RVL 66 G RVL 62 63 CONC. ASP/BRK ASP/BRK STREET 35 54 37.7' 64 75 WF STN STN 25 34 8.4' W. G RVL 40 14 33 32 22.0' ASP/BRK 24.6' G RVL 41 BX BX MF ASP/BRK BRK GX PROPERTY ADDRESS: 65 55 BRICK ASP/BRK ASP/BRK ASP/BRK 05-29-201-016 G RVL STONE G RVL BRICK 14.3' 24.0' 24.0' 15 20 FOX LANE, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS 60093 ASPHALT 29.9' 86 GFF 28.8' 1.1' 10.0' 4.1' 10.0' 29.1' 0.7' GAR. 1.1' BX 11.8' 2.5' 6 SURVEY NUMBER: 2508.4428 WF 2.5' 22.0' 62 27. 6.7 1 625 62 .7 5.8 6.9' 137 0.7' 31 30 16 17 1.4' ON 12 19 20 18 21 13.2' 5.9' GX MF ASP/BRKASP/BRK GX 2 STORY BRICK WALL 12.0' TP TOPO TOPO BRICK WALL 8.8' 24 28 29 TOPO 23 22 TOPO 3.5' ON 158 C/S 9.2' BX 27 26 TOPO 136 135 TOPO 9.8' DATE SIGNED: 09/08/25 FIELD WORK DATE: 9/5/2025 ASP/BRK 62 BRICK IF 47.7' ASP/BRK BRK WALL/WF MF 7 9.4' MF FRAME MF WF 625.9 0.6' ON STONE RES. #20 FIRE PIT BRK GRILL 139 SHED 138 3.5' ON REVISION DATE(S): STONE BRK 149 BRK 94 37.9' 4.2' 6.2' 6.2' 97 95 92 BRK 96 STN 28.7' F IRE PIT F IRE PIT 3.5' STN (REV.0 9/8/2025) 8.3' 3 .6 3 .6 F IRE PIT ' ' 3 .6' ' 93 3 .6 150 15.0' S 3°50'47" W 283.42 N 0°11'54" E 249.50' (C) 140 146 147 STN 151 148 12.1' BRICK BRK 1.5' BRK BRK BRK BRK POINTS OF INTEREST BRK 141 152 155 STONE 1.5' 144 249.50' (R) 153 145 BRK BRK BRK B.R. (ASSUMED) 10.3' 5.6' 10.2' BRK 283.42' (R) BRK BRK 1. ADJACENT FENCE OVER PROPERTY LINE. ' (C) 5/8" FIR 98 MF 106 MF 109 STN 110 STN 105 104 MF 154 MF BRK 142 143 179 129 128 112 111 113 114 05-29-202-012 108 107 BRK BRK 5/8FIR WF WF STN STN STN STN MF MF WASHINGTON 161 160 C HLK C HLK 127 126 124 123 P OOL P OOL P OOL P OOL 125 P OOL ON LINE 157 TP 05-29-201-002 IF IN GROUND IF 162 CLF C HLK POOL 05-29-201-008 (124.75') VACATED 118 119 121 122 99 100 103 102 WF WF P OOL P OOL P OOL P OOL MF 120 C HLK MF C HLK CONC. TENNIS/ 115 P OOL 117 STN STN STONE BASKETBALL COURT PARCEL 2 116 STN PARCEL 3 101 IF C HLK CLF 163 C HLK 05-29-201-009 1.0' ON 05-29-201-035 (8') AREA= 72,077 SQ. FT. ± 0.7' OFF WF SIRC 0.3' ON 130 131 132 178 5/8" FIR WFWF 7.2' ON L2 WF 5/8FIR 1.0' ON L1 164 165 169 WF C HLK C HLK 159 LINE TABLE WF 133 0.9' ON TP 167 177 134 166 173 176 168 170 172 WF WF 171 5/8" FIP 5/8FIP WF WF WF N 89°29'57" W 212.15' (C) 5/8FIP CLF WF C HLK 0.8' ON WF LINE BEARING DISTANCE 5/8" FIP 1 C HLK 212.15' (R) 1.6' ON 0.5' ON SIRC 0.5' OFF L1 N 0°15'49" W 14.12' (C) 14.16' (R) 05-29-201-013 05-29-201-033 05-29-201-034 L2 N 89°29'15" W 38.00' (R&C) L3 S 89°29'15" E 38.00' (R&C) L4 N 0°11'54" E 19.18' (R&C) GRAPHIC SCALE (In Feet) 1 inch = 40' ft. SEE PAGE 2 OF 2 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 OF 2 - NOT VALID WITHOUT ALL PAGES Page 15 of 56 Page 16 of 56 Page 17 of 56 Page 18 of 56  GENERAL NOTES ENERGY CODE FIREBLOCKING NOTES GARAGE STORAGE ROOM ST AT E OF I L L I NO IS ADDITION DEAN BOTES STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA LI 001-017326 EC T C EN T DESIGN LOADS I 20 FOX LANE SE D AR C H DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: WINNETKA, IL 60093 GARAGE STORAGE ROOM ADDITION SHEET INDEX 20 FOX LANE WINNETKA, IL. 60093 230.30' SITE WORK CONCRETE WORK METALS MASONRY 12/04/2024 12/23/2024 08/11/2025 09/09/2025 09/11/2025 DOORS AND WINDOWS THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION VACATED WASHINGTON REVIEW REVIEW FINAL REVISED REVISED CARPENTRY NOTES 26575 COMMERCE DR. WWW. ASPECTDESIGNINC.COM SUITE 607 VOLO, IL 60073 IL. LICENSE # 184-004354 STREET MAIN: 847-457-2500 283.42' S P E C T D E S I G N I N C. A R C H I T E C T S MECHANICAL PLUMBING 212.15' PROJECT # DRAWN BY: AD24227 DB / MB 20 FOX LANE TITLE SHEET & GEN. NOTES 1 SITE PLAN (R-1 ZONING) NORTH A 01 A 02 © COPYRIGHT MMXXV # 1 OF 4 TOTAL SHEETS Page 19 of 56  A 02 2 STORAGE ROOM TYPICAL WALL SECTION A 02 1 Page 20 of 56 ENLARGED SITE PLAN © COPYRIGHT MMXXV REVIEW 12/04/2024 REVIEW 12/23/2024 DRAWN BY: PROJECT # 26575 COMMERCE DR. FINAL 08/11/2025 SUITE 607 20 FOX LANE REVISED 09/09/2025 VOLO, IL 60073 MAIN: 847-457-2500 REVISED 09/11/2025 S P E C T D E S I G N I N C. GARAGE STORAGE ROOM ADDITION WWW. ASPECTDESIGNINC.COM A R C H I T E C T S # 2 OF 4 TOTAL SHEETS A 02 IL. LICENSE # 184-004354 20 FOX LANE SITE PLAN & WALL SECTION DB / MB AD24227 WINNETKA, IL. 60093  GARAGE STORAGE ROOM ADDITION 20 FOX LANE 1 WEST ELEVATION (EXISTING) 2 SOUTH ELEVATION (EXISTING) WINNETKA, IL. 60093 A 03 A 03 EXISTING 2-CAR GARAGE N 4 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 12/04/2024 12/23/2024 08/11/2025 3 WEST ELEVATION (PROPOSED) 4 SOUTH ELEVATION (PROPOSED) 7 FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING) A 03 A 03 A 03 REVIEW REVIEW FINAL 26575 COMMERCE DR. WWW. ASPECTDESIGNINC.COM SUITE 607 VOLO, IL 60073 IL. LICENSE # 184-004354 EXISTING 2-CAR UNEXCAVATED GARAGE MAIN: 847-457-2500 UNEXCAVATED S P E C T D E S I G N I N C. A R C H I T E C T S UNEXCAVATED STORAGE ROOM N N 8 FOUNDATION PLAN (EXISTING) PROJECT # AD24227 10 PROPOSED FOUNDATION PLAN N DRAWN BY: DB 9 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN A 03 20 FOX LANE ELEVATIONS & PLANS 5 FOUNDATION PLAN (PROPOSED) 6 FLOOR PLAN (PROPOSED) A 03 # 3 OF 3 TOTAL SHEETS A 03 A 03 © COPYRIGHT MMXXV Page 21 of 56  GARAGE STORAGE ROOM ADDITION 20 FOX LANE WINNETKA, IL. 60093 UNEXCAVATED EXISTING 2-CAR GARAGE L-? L-? UNEXCAVATED L-? L-? STORAGE ROOM STORAGE ROOM 12/04/2024 12/23/2024 08/11/2025 09/09/2025 09/11/2025 6 FOUNDATION PLAN (PROPOSED) 4 ROOF PLAN (PROPOSED) 2 FLOOR PLAN (PROPOSED) A 03 A 03 A 03 REVIEW REVIEW FINAL REVISED REVISED 26575 COMMERCE DR. WWW. ASPECTDESIGNINC.COM SUITE 607 VOLO, IL 60073 IL. LICENSE # 184-004354 MAIN: 847-457-2500 S P E C T D E S I G N I N C. A R C H I T E C T S UNEXCAVATED EXISTING 2-CAR GARAGE PROJECT # AD24227 DRAWN BY: DB / MB 20 FOX LANE FLOOR PLANS 5 FOUNDATION PLAN (EXISTING) 3 ROOF PLAN (EXISTING) 1 FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING) A 03 A 03 A 03 A 03 © COPYRIGHT MMXXV # 3 OF 4 TOTAL SHEETS Page 22 of 56  A 04 3 A 04 4 WEST ELEVATION (PROPOSED) WEST ELEVATION (EXISTING) Page 23 of 56 A 04 1 A 04 2 SOUTH ELEVATION (PROPOSED) SOUTH ELEVATION (EXISTING) © COPYRIGHT MMXXV REVIEW 12/04/2024 REVIEW 12/23/2024 DRAWN BY: PROJECT # 26575 COMMERCE DR. FINAL 08/11/2025 20 FOX LANE SUITE 607 REVISED 09/09/2025 VOLO, IL 60073 MAIN: 847-457-2500 REVISED 09/11/2025 S P E C T D E S I G N I N C. GARAGE STORAGE ROOM ADDITION WWW. ASPECTDESIGNINC.COM A R C H I T E C T S A 04 IL. LICENSE # 184-004354 20 FOX LANE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS # 4 OF 4 TOTAL SHEETS DB / MB AD24227 WINNETKA, IL. 60093 Page 24 of 56 Page 25 of 56 Page 26 of 56 Page 27 of 56 Page 28 of 56 Page 29 of 56 Page 30 of 56 Page 31 of 56  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2025 SUBJECT: 1094 FISHER CRESCENT LANE - ALTERATIONS TO LOCAL LANDMARK (CASE NO. 25-15-HPC) INTRODUCTION On October 6, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is scheduled to consider a request from Downey Szafarz Architects (the “Applicant”), as the architect representative of Edward and Katherine McNabola (collectively, the “Owner”) of the property located at 1094 Fisher Crescent Lane (the “Subject Property”), for an advisory review of exterior alterations to the Subject Property, a locally designated landmark. PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant has provided a written narrative along with descriptions, photos, and product specifications that detail the proposed alterations to the existing residence on the Subject Property. The proposed alterations would involve installing several glass skylight windows on the attic floor of the house. First, the top of the main mansard roof of the house would have three glass skylight windows installed on a low-slope angle of the roof which would provide sunlight into a portion of the house’s upper floor. The windows would be Velux CABRIO Balcony Roof Windows with powder-coated charcoal gray aluminum frames that are intended to match existing glazing on the house. Additionally, the mansard portion of the roof on the rear-facing east side of the house would receive four retractable windows located towards the center of the facade near the chimney. The windows would be Velux CABRIO Balcony Skylight windows with powder- coated charcoal gray aluminum frames that would maintain the same flush plane of the mansard while being capable of extending outwards to allow for open air ventilation if desired. Lastly, the roof would be given spot repairs and shingle replacements with CertainTeed Landmark shingles in the color of Pewter, with a material intended to match the existing roof surface. The Applicant states that all the proposed alterations are meant to preserve the home’s appearance while providing more natural light for the interior of the attic floor. The Applicant states that the proposed windows would be minimally visible, if at all, since the skylight windows are located on a flat plane on the top of the building and the east building façade windows can only be seen from the bottom of a slope along Sheridan Road with significant tree cover obstructing it. The proposed alterations comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Page 32 of 56  Figure 1 – Subject Property – GIS Aerial Map Figure 2 – Subject Property – Front (West) façade of house Figure 3 – Subject Property – Rear (East) façade of house Page 2 Page 33 of 56  Figure 4 – Subject Property – Rear (East) façade of house Location of Proposed Windows and Skylights Figure 5 – Subject Property – Proposed rear (East) façade elevation rendering of house Figure 6 – Subject Property – Proposed attic floor section of architectural plans Page 3 Page 34 of 56 COMMISSION REVIEW Exterior alterations of designated landmarks are subject to an advisory review by the HPC. The criteria to consider when conducting an advisory review of alterations are as follows: 1. General Standards: a. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; b. Reasonable effort shall be made to use the building, structure, object or site for its originally intended purpose or to provide a compatible use which requires minimal alteration, relocation or demolition; c. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, object or site should not be destroyed. The alteration, relocation or demolition of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature should be avoided except when necessary to assure an economically viable use of the property; d. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, object or site should usually be maintained and preserved; e. Deteriorated architectural features should whenever possible be repaired rather than replaced. If replacement is necessary, the new material should match as closely as practicable the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features, where possible, 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, structures, objects or sites; f. The surface cleaning of buildings, structures, objects or sites should be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods which will damage the architectural or historic features and building material shall be discouraged. g. New buildings and structures and the alterations and relocation of existing buildings or structures shall not be discouraged when such work does not destroy significant historical or architectural features and is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property or neighborhood. h. Alterations, relocations and demolitions which do not affect any significant exterior architectural or historic features of the building, structure, object or site as viewed from a private street, a courtyard open to the public or a public street, place or way should generally be permitted; i. Demolition of a designated landmark shall be discouraged if the building, structure or property, as the case may be, is economically viable and can yield reasonable return in its present condition or can be made economically viable and yield reasonable return after completion of appropriate alteration, relocation, renovation or restoration work. 2. Design Guidelines: a. Height. The height of any proposed alteration should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. b. Proportions of Windows and Doors. The proportions and relationships between doors and windows should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. c. Roof Shape. The design of the roof should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. Page 4 Page 35 of 56  d. Scale. The scale of the structure should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. e. Directional Expression. The dominant horizontal or vertical expression of the facades should be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark. f. Architectural Details. Materials, textures, colors and architectural details should be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark. g. Appurtenances. Appurtenances including, but not limited to, signs, fences, accessory buildings or structures, permeable and impermeable surfaces should be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark. h. Other. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission may consider the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. FINDINGS The HPC shall determine whether the proposed alterations will be appropriate or not appropriate to the preservation of the Subject Property. Considering the alterations, does the HPC find that the Subject Property continues to meet the criteria for designation as a locally designated landmark? If the HPC determines that the proposed alterations are inappropriate, it shall make recommendations to the Applicant concerning changes, if any, in the proposed alterations which would cause the HPC to reconsider its determination and shall confer with the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Page 5 Page 36 of 56  ATTACHMENT A   10/06/25 ____________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The project scope for 1094 Fisher Lane includes the interior remodel and attic build-out of an existing two-story residence. As a portion of the attic build-out, there is a desire by the homeowner to provide for natural lighting beyond what can be provided by sole window currently in the space, and therefore we propose the addition of (4) Velux Balcony Skylights (cutsheets provided) in the mansard portion of the roof on the rear (east) facing elevation. Additionally, there will be (3) Velux traditional skylights in the low-slope portion of the roof that is not visible from the view plane. Both installations of skylights require minor patching and replacement of adjacent materials for shingle and low-slope roofing, consistent with the existing color and type. Both roofing materials will be specified to match the existing. Please refer to the additional photos, which include the existing conditions on the front (driveway) elevation, rear (east facing) elevation, roof conditions, and the view from Sheridan Road (down the bluff). Page 37 of 56 From: Subject: Re: 1094 Fisher Crescent - Interior Renovation Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:11:22 AM Attachments: VELUX GDL Roof Window Brochure.pdf A2.1.pdf Shingle Spec Certainteed Landmark.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Christopher, Please see the attached additional documents which include the following to satisfy your requested information: 1. Velux GDL Roof Window Brochure is attached showing the product, application, and example installations. 2. The skylight frames would be powder coated aluminum, in charcoal gray. This matches the general color of the roofing and flashing which are gray and charcoal tones. 3. The A2.1 is attached for inclusion. A portion of the building section is also included in the materials sent yesterday if that is sufficient without the CD drawing. 4. The shingles will be CertainTeed Landmark, in color Pewter. I've attached the sale brochure, with the color shown on Page 9. It is an exact match to the existing roofing. Thank you, Darrin R. Pfaff, RA, NCARB 13705 W. Irma Lee Ct. Ste. 100 Lake Forest, IL 60045 Tel: 224-580-0274 Page 38 of 56 Page 39 of 56 Page 40 of 56 Page 41 of 56 Page 42 of 56  CABRIO® Balcony Roof Window GDL Model VELUX Roof Windows veluxusa.com 9 Page 43 of 56 Page 44 of 56  Options & Accessories Roof Window Shades, Flashing and Accessories VELUX Roof Windows veluxusa.com 11 Page 45 of 56  Complete Light Control Roof Window Shades Finish the look of your space by paring shades to your VELUX roof windows. VELUX offers a wide selection of shades that range from completely darkening an entire room to softly diffusing incoming light, giving you ultimate light control. Light-Filtering, Single-Pleated Shades Room-Darkening, Double-Pleated Shades White Classic Natural Dark Grey Jeans Blue Classic White Beige Grey Grey Dark Sand Charcoal Sand White Melange Charcoal Dusty Dusty Sand Beige Red Wine Forest Golden Blue Light Ivory Orange Dusty Green Brown Green Beige Brown Mint Green Light Beige Grey Soft Blue Light Blue Dark Taupe Light Grey Petrol Venetian Shades Blackout Shades, Flat Fabric White Brushed Matte Black Matte Grey Natural Taupe White Grey Beige Blue Black Sand Silver Dark Brown Orange Warm Grey Dusty Green Light Blue Taupe In stock shades Special order shades Soft Rose Natural Light Taupe Dark Petrol VELUX Roof Windows veluxusa.com 12 Page 46 of 56  Flashing & Accessories Single Unit & Combi-Flashing™ Accessories EDL Shingles/Shakes EDW Tile/Metal ZIL Insect Screen EKL Shingles/Shakes EKW Tile/Metal EKL/EKW are available with 4" horizontal and vertical gutter spacing. ZCT 200K Telescopic Rod Extends from 3' – 6' ZWC Flashing Adapter ZOZ 085 Shade Adapter When VELUX flashing is not used. For use with telescopic rod VELUX Roof Windows veluxusa.com 13 Page 47 of 56 Landmark® Series Designer Roofing Series Landmark, shown in Weathered Wood Page 48 of 56 NOTE: Due to limitations of printing reproduction, CertainTeed can not guarantee the identical match of the actual product color to the graphic representations throughout Pagethis publication. 49 of 56  Trust Your Home to Landmark® Few things in this world are as precious as the place that you call home. It is much more than just a house. It’s the foundation from which you build your life. That’s why having a roof that gives your home long-lasting curb appeal and protection from the elements is so important. At CertainTeed, our benchmark for success is our customers’ total peace of mind. And we wouldn’t have it any other way. Our dedication to making the highest- quality roofing systems continues to earn the respect of top building professionals. And our product portfolio offers the widest variety of design and color options in the industry. It’s no wonder that more than a million homeowners across North America choose CertainTeed each year. And the job doesn’t stop once the roof goes on. Every CertainTeed product is backed by our industry-leading manufacturer’s warranty, allowing you to rest confidently and comfortably for years to come. Q SINCE 1904 PEACE High-Quality, Industry- Century of OF MIND Reliable Best Trusted Choice Warranty Performance Landmark, shown in Georgetown Gray Page 50 of 56 3  Technology that protects the beauty of your roof and strengthens its performance. 4 Page 51 of 56  The new and improved NailTrak nailing line, a feature on CertainTeed designer shingles. Now NailTrak is brighter than ever before, with high-visibility lines that stand out whether it’s daybreak or dusk. NailTrak removes the guesswork with three separately defined lines, creating a large area to guide your nailing and a smaller area for extreme steep-slope applications. CertainTeed’s specially formulated adhesive adheres shingle layers at four points, more than any other manufacturer. This superior bond provides greater protection against shingle delamination to maximize performance over the life of the shingle in any climate. Granule with StreakFighter Technology The ultimate in stain protection. Those streaks you see on other roofs in your neighborhood? That’s algae, and it’s a common eyesore on roofing throughout North America. CertainTeed’s StreakFighter technology uses the power of science to repel algae before it can take hold and spread. StreakFighter’s granular blend includes naturally algae-resistant copper, Ceramic coating helping your roof maintain its curb appeal and look Diagram for Mineral core beautiful for years to come. illustrative Copper layer purposes only. CertaSeal® is a fast-activating modified asphalt sealant with a 20-year record of proven performance. Designed to seal shingles together upon installation, it protects roofs from wind uplift and shingle blow-off so that homes stay safe and dry. It’s also engineered to remain flexible after installation, unlike harder sealants that can dry out and crack over time. Solar Reflectivity Solaris® Cool Roof is a sustainable shingle granule technology that applies energy-saving cool roof performance to CertainTeed’s most popular shingle brands. Available in rich and authentic colors, including dark hues and tones, Solaris Cool Roof can lower roof temperatures and allow homeowners to reduce cooling costs without sacrificing beauty, quality, or color. Landmark, shown in Weathered Wood Page 52 of 56 5 6 Page 53 of 56  The Trusted Classic LANDMARK® Owning a Landmark roof brings peace of mind. Landmark’s dual-layered construction and exceptional durability provide long-lasting protection for your home. • Classified as UL 2218 Class 3 Impact Rated • Dual-layered for extra dimensionality and protection from the elements • Offers the widest array of colors in the industry • Independently certified as meeting the highest quality standards for roofing Weathered Wood Scan code for more information Landmark, shown in Weathered Wood Page 54 of 56 See next page for full color palette. 7  LANDMARK® COLOR PALETTE Cobblestone Gray Georgetown Gray Weathered Wood Moiré Black Heather Blend Burnt Sienna LANDMARK® COLOR PALETTE Graphite Weathered Wood CRRC Product ID 0668-0155 CRRC Product ID 0668-0119 8 Page 55 of 56 Driftwood Colonial Slate Pewter Resawn Shake Page 56 of 56 9