Historic Preservation Commission

Village of Winnetka Historic Preservation Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2026 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 May 4, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks a. Case No. 26-01-HPC - 419 Sheridan Road: Advisory review of proposedalterations to 419 Sheridan Road, a locally designated landmark. This item was continued from the January 5, 2026, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. (continued from January 5, 2026, Historic Preservation Commission Regular Meeting.) 5. Other Business a. July 6, 2026, Regular Meeting Quorum Check b. Preservation Awards - Award Plaque Update c. 2026 Preservation Awards - Review of Nominations d. Monthly Communications For HPC - 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).  1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2 MAY 4, 2026 MEETING MINUTES 3 4 Members Present: Jack Coladarci, Chairman 5 Chris Enck 6 Beth Ann Papoutsis 7 Joseph Stuart 8 Patti Van Cleave 9 Paul Weaver 10 Anna Wisniewski 11 12 Members Absent: None 13 14 Non-Voting Members Present: Scott Myers 15 16 Junior Commissioner Present: Louis Zaransky 17 18 Village Staff: Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 19 20 Call to Order & Roll Call: 21 Chairman Coladarci called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Commission Members 22 present. 23 24 Public Comment: 25 No public comment was made at this time. Mr. Marx corrected an error in the agenda packet re: 913 Cherry Street 26 and provided a copy of the correct information to the Commission. A gentleman in the audience also provided a 27 letter to the Commission relating to 913 Cherry Street. 28 29 Approval of Minutes: 30 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any comments or corrections or for a motion to approve the April 6, 2026 31 meeting minutes. Mr. Papoutsis clarified her comment on page 2, line 36. A motion to approve the April 6, 2026 32 minutes, as amended, was made by Ms. Van Cleave and the motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the 33 motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 34 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave, Weaver, Wisniewski 35 NAYS: None 36 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaransky 37 38 Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks: 39 a. Case No. 25-11-HPC - 419 Sheridan Road: Advisory review of proposed alterations to 419 Sheridan 40 Road, a locally designated landmark. This item was continued from the March 2, 2026 Historic Preservation 41 Commission meeting. The Applicant is requesting this item be continued to the June 1, 2026 Historic 42 Preservation Commission meeting. 43 Mr. Marx informed the Commission the applicant asked for another continuation. 44 45 Demolition Permit Applications: 46 a. Case No. 26-07-HPC - 1010 Hubbard Place: Review of the demolition permit application submitted for 47 the single-family residency at 1010 Hubbard Place. 48 Mr. Marx identified the property owners, its location, size and zoning classification with a construction date of 49 1924 with subsequent alterations which he described. He stated the property does not appear on the Illinois 50 Historic Structures Listing. Mr. Marx stated the Historical Society indicated that the property has architectural 51 significance and noted no public comments were received. He then asked if there were any questions. No 52 questions were raised at this time. 53  May 4, 2026 Page 2 1 Jack Kruszewski of Foxwood Development Group and Ali Akbar, the property owner, introduced themselves to the 2 Commission. Mr. Kruszewski stated while the home is in good shape, it has had significant modifications over the 3 years and was designed by S.S. Bemon. He stated they performed due diligence prior to the home’s purchase and 4 described the home’s interior which he stated is not architecturally significant. Mr. Kruszewski stated the home’s 5 exterior changed significantly with the home’s footprint doubling in size. 6 7 Chairman Coladarci asked if the home is unusable as is. Ms. Akbar stated there is significant water damage in the 8 basement with the tenant having to leave the home due to the number of problems. She stated modifying the 9 home would have presented a massive investment. Ms. Akbar stated she loved the Village and historic homes and 10 described the home as unrecognizable as an historic home. She stated the new home would fit in with the 11 neighborhood character and provided a rendering to the Commission and thanked the Commission for their role in 12 saving historic homes. Mr. Kruszewski referred to a statement from the architect with regard to the home. 13 14 Mr. Weaver stated he knew the prior owners and described the home as being in incredible shape although he was 15 not aware of water damage. He asked the applicant to find another home already in distress to tear down. Mr. 16 Myers questioned at what point does a home designed by a significant architect need to be saved when it had 17 undergone significant renovations. Ms. Wisniewski informed the Commission the home was featured on the 18 Historical Society walking tour in the fall and stated the home has Village significance. Mr. Stuart referred to 19 neighboring homes and the challenge to restore the home to its original state. He agreed with the suggestion to 20 find another home to tear down and stated the Village’s charm is vanishing. 21 22 Mr. Kruszewski stated while he agreed with the sentiment, the home’s layout is inefficient. Mr. Marx referred to 23 the additional materials provided by the applicant. Chairman Coladarci informed the applicant that old homes are 24 expected to have inefficiencies and referred to the number of similar applications presented to the Commission. 25 He asked the applicant to consider alternatives to demolition. Ms. Akbar explained the challenges the home 26 presented in detail as well as their plans to maintain the landscape. Mr. Enck asked Ms. Akbar if she considered 27 interior renovation as opposed to demolition. Ms. Akbar and Mr. Kruszewski explained how it would be 28 prohibitively expensive. Mr. Kruszewski then provided information with regard to his being required to have an 29 HAIS done on a home that was done by S.S. Bemon’s son and stated they perform a significant amount of due 30 diligence to ensure they are not tearing down a significant home. 31 32 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any other questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then called 33 the matter in for discussion. Mr. Myers suggested the Commission consider their goal of protecting historic homes 34 as opposed to charming homes. Chairman Coladarci confirmed the Commission realized their goal is to protect 35 architecturally and historically significant homes. Mr. Marx informed the Commission as part of the Foxwood’s 36 representation of the property owner he mentioned, a short bio was commissioned of S.S. Bemon’s son and other 37 properties documented on the North Shore. 38 39 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to require an HAIS. Mr. Weaver referred to the Historical Society’s 40 comments which identified the home as historic and moved to recommend an HAIS be done for 1010 Hubbard 41 place. Mr. Stuart seconded the motion. Chairman Coladarci questioned whether there was enough information to 42 include in the HAIS to warrant a demolition delay. Mr. Marx noted while most of the discussion related to the 43 home’s interior, their focus should be on the home’s exterior. Ms. Van Cleave referred to the amount of 44 information available on S.S. Bemon and his son and stated she did not believe there was enough left of the 45 home’s design to require an HAIS. Mr. Marx explained the timeline in connection with the Commission’s request 46 and review of the HAIS and the 270 day delay. 47 48 A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 2: 49 AYES: Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Weaver, Wisniewski 50 NAYS: Coladarci, Van Cleave 51 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaransky 52  May 4, 2026 Page 3 1 b. Case No. 26-08-HPC - 913 Cherry Street: Review of the demolition permit application submitted for the 2 single-family residency at 913 Cherry Street. 3 Mr. Marx identified the property owners, its location, size and zoning classification with an approximate 4 construction date of 1904 with subsequent alterations. He stated the property does not appear on the Illinois 5 Historic Structures Listing. Mr. Marx stated the Historical Society indicated that the property did not have 6 architectural and historical significance and noted no public comments were received. Mr. Marx referred to the 7 corrected Attachment C which he summarized for the Commission and asked if there were any questions. 8 9 Chairman Coladarci also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then asked 10 for the applicant’s presentation. 11 12 Nick Detchev of RWA Homes stated the request is to allow demolition of the home without delay. He referred to 13 letters of support received from the neighbors and noted he initially considered renovation. Mr. Detchev stated 14 the home is not in good enough condition to save and referred to foundation issues with it being impractical to 15 bring the home up to modern day standards. He added the GFA bonus would not be practical in this instance and 16 referred to plans to document the home’s history and to consider deconstruction. Mr. Detchev described the 17 proposed home which would fit the neighborhood and asked if there were any questions. 18 19 Mr. Enck referred to the amount of teardowns in the neighborhood and the applicant’s intention to construct a 20 thoughtful home which included neighborhood feedback. The Commission Members thanked Mr. Detchev for 21 obtaining neighborhood input. 22 23 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Papoutsis questioned the home’s style which Mr. 24 Detchev described for the Commission. Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to require an HAIS. No motion was 25 made. Chairman Coladarci then asked for a motion to permit demolition without delay. A motion to allow the 26 demolition of 913 Cherry Street without delay was made by Ms. Van Cleave and seconded by Mr. Papoutsis. A vote 27 was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 28 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave, Weaver, Wisniewski 29 NAYS: None 30 NON-VOTING: Myers, Zaransky 31 32 Mr. Myers left the meeting at this time. 33 34 Other Business: 35 a. June 1, 2026 Meeting – Quorum Check. 36 The Commission Members discussed their availability. Mr. Marx identified the June agenda items which included 37 the consideration of preservation awards with only one submission received. 38 39 b. 2025 Preservation Awards – plaque update. 40 Ms. Van Cleave provided an update on the plaque status which she described for the Commission. She also 41 referred to potential copyright issues which Mr. Marx and the Commission Members discussed. The Commission 42 Members then discussed design alternatives in detail. Ms. Van Cleave stated she would ask for a revised sample to 43 be created and provide it to the Commission Members at the next meeting. Mr. Stuart offered to meet with the 44 design artist. 45 46 c. Monthly Communications for Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion and Content Decision. 47 Mr. Papoutsis informed the Commission she would continue to work on the article with regard to architects and 48 contractors. Chairman Coladarci suggested the Commission Members get a space at the farmer’s market. Mr. Marx 49 informed the Commission the new staff person would be able to provide feedback in connection with how the 50 Commission can have a presence at the farmer’s market. The Commission Members discussed whether pamphlets 51 were still available. Mr. Marx referred to the shared cost of the trolley tour with the Historical Society in the past. 52 He also provided an update in connection with supplementary information with regard to the post office building 53 and whether an HAIS should be required and what it would produce. Chairman Coladarci asked the Commission  May 4, 2026 Page 4 1 Members if Mr. Marx should pursue whether an HAIS should be done. Mr. Marx stated they already have a lot of 2 information in the Village files. 3 4 Mr. Marx stated an agenda item was created for the Commission to discuss an additional category for when the 5 preservation awards open next year relating to the existing or creating new categories. He then provided a copy of 6 the nomination form to the Commission Members. No additional new business was discussed. 7 8 Adjournment: 9 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Stuart and seconded by 10 Mr. Enck. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 11 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave, Weaver, Wisniewski 12 NAYS: None 13 NON-VOTING: Zaransky 14 The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 15 16 Respectfully submitted, 17 18 Antionette Johnson 19 Recording Secretary 20  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP - ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: MAY 28, 2026 SUBJECT: 419 SHERIDAN ROAD - ALTERATIONS TO LOCAL LANDMARK (CASE NO. 26-01-HPC)(continued) INTRODUCTION On June 1, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is scheduled to consider a request from Dirk Denison Architects (the “Applicant”), as the architect representative of Chicago Title Land Trust Company d/b/a The Land Trust Company Trust No. 9002349298 (the “Owner”) of the property located at 419 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”), for an advisory review of exterior alterations to the Subject Property, a locally designated landmark. This item is a continuation of the initial advisory review from the January 5, 2026, meeting for which the Applicant has provided updated materials to represent the scope of the project. JANUARY 5, 2026, HPC REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY The HPC reviewed a summarization of the proposed exterior alterations at their January 5, 2026, regular meeting. Commission members inquired about whether the proposed replacement windows could be steel framed to match the existing windows, rather than fabricated from aluminum. They also asked as to whether the windows proposed for replacement are original to the home’s 1928 construction or not. Additionally, the Commission members expressed concern about the proposed aluminum-framed replacement windows as having wider muntins and smaller window panes than the existing steel-framed windows, thus affecting the appearance windows’ appearance after the project’s completion. Commission members were concerned about the proposed replacement windows having smaller surface areas of glass than the existing windows. The Commission agreed to continue the case to a later meeting at the request of the Applicant to provide updated information and materials. The staff report and a meeting minutes excerpt from the January 5, 2026, meeting have been provided as Attachment B1. PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant has provided updated materials including a written narrative, descriptions, photos, product specifications, and a corresponding site plan that detail the proposed alterations to the existing residence on the Subject Property. The proposed changes would involve replacing existing windows in conjunction with a larger renovation project from earlier in 2025. The proposed alterations would involve replacing 12 exterior windows on the second floor and two windows on the first floor of the east, south, and west facades of the house. The proposed windows are meant to match the existing steel windows by using a model of Hansen Millenium Slimline G30 with powder coated aluminum frames that will be painted a greyish hue to match the color of the residence’s other window frames. Eleven of the proposed window replacements would have simulated divided light frames whereas two windows and a glass set of French doors, on the second-floor of the east elevation, would have single- pane window replacements. The Applicant states that the proposed single-pane windows are intended to match the glazing on that particular section of the house, which also contains windows with single-panes or minimal divisions. The proposed replacements of the 14 window openings are detailed in the application materials, which are included as Attachment A1. The proposed alterations comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements and do not require a building permit. 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 Page 2  landmark. c. Roof Shape. The design of the roof should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated landmark. 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 A1: Updated Application Materials Attachment B1: January 5, 2026, HPC Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt Page 3  ATTACHMENT A1 29 April 2026 419 Sheridan Residence 419 Sheridan Road Winnetka, IL 60093 TO: Christopher Marx Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 LA NDMARK S REVIEW - REPLAC EM ENT OF EXIST ING W INDOW S Mr. Marx, An evaluation of existing windows has determined that many are in poor condition and in need of replacement. The Owner has approved replacing fourteen (14) windows on the East, South and West building elevations. Dirk Denison Architects proposes using the Hansen Millennium Slimline G30 series as a suitable “in-kind” replacement that closely matches the existing window profiles. Additionally, one window on the South building elevation will be eliminated and filled in with limestone masonry cladding that matches the adjacent masonry. Attached hereto are Floor Plans identifying the windows to be replaced, Photos of the existing windows, and Shop Drawings from Hansen Millenium for the new window replacements. These materials are being submitted for the Committee’s review and approval. Appreciatively, Jacob Dodds Dirk Denison Architects  EXISTING WINDOW ELEVATION NEW WINDOW ELEVATION SHERIDAN RESIDENCE COMPARISON OF NEW AND EXISTING WINDOW PROFILES Winnetka, IL  INTERIOR WOOD STORM 2 3/4" WINDOW (NOT ORIGINAL) 1 1/2" 1/2" 2 5/8" 2" 3/4" 1 3/4" 2 1/4" 1" 4 5/8" 4" EXISTING WINDOW PROFILE NEW WINDOW PROFILE 2 1 3" = 1' 3" = 1' SHERIDAN RESIDENCE COMPARISON OF NEW AND EXISTING WINDOW PROFILES Winnetka, IL  J H  XX YY WW UU VV WINDOW TT TO BE ELIMINATED AND FILLED IN WITH LIMESTONE MASONRY CLADDING TO SS3 MATCH ADJESCENT MASONRY SS2 SS1 PP QQ1 QQ2 RR Window H Window J Window PP Window QQ Window QQ2 Window RR Windows SS1, SS2, SS3 Window UU Window VV Window WW Window XX Window YY  EXISTING EXTERIOR EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING WINDOW DOORS TO BE TO BE REPLACED TO BE REPLACED REPLACED EXISTING EXTERIOR EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING WINDOW DOORS WITHOUT EXISTING WINDOW WITHOUT MUNTINS WITHOUT MUNTINS MUNTINS WITHOUT MUNTINS REAR (EAST) ELEVATION  ATACHMENT B1 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP - ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2025 SUBJECT: 419 SHERIDAN ROAD - ALTERATIONS TO LOCAL LANDMARK (CASE NO. 26-01-HPC) INTRODUCTION On January 5, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is scheduled to consider a request from Dirk Denison Architects (the “Applicant”), as the architect representative of Chicago Title Land Trust Company d/b/a The Land Trust Company Trust No. 9002349298 (the “Owner”) of the property located at 419 Sheridan Road (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 changes would involve replacing existing windows in conjunction with a larger renovation project from earlier in 2025. The proposed alterations would involve replacing windows around the east, south, and west facades of the house. The proposed windows are meant to match the existing windows as one-for-one replacements using a model of Hansen Millenium Slimline G30 simulated divided-light windows with a greyish hue known as Amherst Grey, which is the same color as other previous window installations as part of a larger overall renovation of the home. Overall, the proposal involves 14 window replacements as detailed in the floorplans of the application materials, which are included as Attachment A. The proposed alterations comply with the Zoning Ordinance and do not require a building permit. 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. 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. Page 2 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 3  Adopted on February 2, 2026 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2 JANUARY 5, 2026 MEETING MINUTES 3 4 Members Present: Jack Coladarci, Chairman 5 Chris Enck 6 Beth Ann Papoutsis 7 Joseph Stuart 8 Patti Van Cleave 9 Paul Weaver 10 11 Members Absent: Anna Wisniewski 12 13 Non-Voting Member Present: Scott Myers 14 15 Junior Commissioner Absent: Louis Zaransky 16 17 Village Staff: Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 18 19 *** 20 21 Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks: 22 a. Case No. 26-01-HPC - 419 Sheridan Road: Advisory review of proposed alterations to 419 Sheridan 23 Road, a locally designated landmark. 24 Mr. Marx stated the application is for the locally designated landmark and summarized the previously approved 25 alterations. He also summarized in detail the proposed exterior alterations for the window replacements and 26 asked if there were any questions. 27 28 Chairman Coladarci and Ms. Papoutsis referred to the redacted information in the proposed plans. Mr. Marx 29 clarified the reasoning which related to FOIA. He also identified the window on the second floor which would be 30 blocked out. 31 32 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any questions. Ms. Papoutsis asked if there were any restrictions with 33 regard to window safety in terms of the fire code. Mr. Marx responded there are requirements for two means of 34 egress and an application would be reviewed if a building permit is being requested. No additional questions were 35 raised at this time. 36 37 Chairman Coladarci asked for the applicant’s presentation. Jayden Nettesheim of Dirk Denison Architects 38 summarized the project under construction and stated that they were advised of 14 windows which required 39 immediate attention. He stated the windows would be replaced in kind and they are working with the 40 manufacturer. Mr. Nettesheim then described the window aesthetic for the Commission. 41 42 Chairman Coladarci questioned the age of the current windows. Mr. Nettesheim responded that the windows they 43 would replace are not original to the home’s construction. He stated that the contractor initially advised the 44 windows needed to be replaced and that they did not consider storm window replacements noting the existing 45 windows being beyond repair. Mr. Enck suggested the steel casement windows may be original to the home and 46 commented on the difficulty in replacing them with casement windows. Mr. Nettesheim described the process 47 they are going through with regard to the window estimates and manufacturing as well as their discussion with the 48 Hopes manufacturer. 49 50 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this time. He 51 then called the matter in for discussion. 52  January 5, 2026 Page 2 1 Mr. Enck asked if the applicant needed to come back due to the changes from the previous approval. Mr. Marx 2 responded they may have to if they have undertaken that entire scope of work and he would have to discuss the 3 matter with the Director. No additional comments were made at this time. 4 5 Chairman Coladarci referred to the general criteria the Commission is to consider on page 4. Mr. Enck stated the 6 Commission is considering shop drawings which do not accurately reflect the proposal and described windows as 7 being a significant portion of a building’s exterior. He suggested the Commission strongly encourage the applicant 8 to go forward with a final version of what they are proposing. The Commission Members discussed how the 9 windows shown in the shop drawings compared to the window proposal previously approved. Mr. Enck stated the 10 Commission should recommend the existing framework be removed so that the windows are not downsized 11 further and commented the SDL shown on the drawings are a good thing. He also suggested the perimeter sight 12 lines of the window frames to be as narrow as possible. Mr. Nettesheim provided further information relating to 13 the window to be filled in. 14 15 Chairman Coladarci stated the Commission has discussed the remaining items under the General Criteria category 16 and asked if there was any further discussion with regard to Section 2 – Design Guidelines. No comments were 17 made at this time. He then stated the Commission would now review the findings which he read into the record. 18 Mr. Marx informed the Commission if they determine that the proposed alteration is inappropriate, it should be 19 verbalized in a finding which would require the applicant to confer with the Commission to reconcile the finding as 20 being inappropriate within 35 days and read the relevant language into the record. 21 22 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to find the proposed alterations as inappropriate and if so, to move the 23 matter to the Director. Mr. Myers asked why this matter being considered at this time since a building permit is 24 not necessary for this portion of the project. Mr. Marx responded the prior review did require a building permit 25 with a permit being issued. He stated since the applicant mentioned these windows also needed replacing, they 26 are attempting to rectify the matter in a timely fashion and are working with the manufacturer which is the reason 27 the request is being presented at the January meeting. Mr. Nettesheim informed the Commission they estimated 28 they should have a more definitive proposal within the next 1.5 months. Mr. Myers then suggested the matter be 29 paused until some of the Commission’s concerns have been mitigated by the manufacturer. Mr. Marx clarified as 30 long as an updated submission is provided prior to the February agenda packet being posted, the matter can be 31 placed on the February meeting agenda. Mr. Nettesheim stated the concerns the Commission raised are similar to 32 those they are discussing with the manufacturer. He added the most concerning windows are being addressed 33 now and the remaining windows would need to be replaced within the next 10 years. Mr. Marx stated the 34 Commission can take a vote to continue the matter since it is not tethered to a building permit which he described 35 as a unique circumstance. 36 37 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to continue the matter to the February 2, 2026 meeting. A motion to 38 continue the item to the next meeting was made by Mr. Weaver. Mr. Stuart seconded the motion. A vote was 39 taken and the motion passed, 5 to 1: 40 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Weaver 41 NAYS: Van Cleave 42 NON-VOTING: Myers 43 44 *** 45 46 Respectfully submitted, 47 48 Antionette Johnson 49 Recording Secretary 50 3. Brief Description of the Project (use extra page if needed): Rehabilitation of a 1914 (?) building. Building was significantly altered in 1929 to existing orientation. Interior gutted in 80s. Current owner restored the outside, relocated after thought garage and reworked the interior to accommodate 21st century life while still feeling like an historic home. Stucco exterior was maintained along with original stick work. New windows matched original windows in size and pane layout. 4. Approximate date of project completion: _________________________________________ 3/2024 5. Name, address, phone number and email of nominator: _____________________________ 6. Photos enclosed 7. Signature of property owner: Questions? Call or email Christopher Marx: 847.716.3587 or cmarx@winnetka.org Please submit this form together with photographs (digital) and other documentation no later than Thursday, May 28, 2026. Electronically submitted nominations and photographs are the preferred form of submission. Please email nominations to cmarx@winnetka.org. Otherwise, please mail to: Winnetka Preservation Awards Attn: Christopher Marx, Community Development Department Winnetka Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Rules: 1. Nominate your own property or as many projects as you would like, as long the owner consents to participating and signs the form. 2. The project must have been completed within the past five years. 3. Entries for restoration or rehabilitation must include at least one "before" and one "after" photo. New construction entries need only have the completed project photograph. Photo submissions should be digital. 4. Single-family residential, commercial, multi-family, and public/institutional properties are eligible. 5. Exterior projects only. 3. Brief Description of the Project (use extra page if needed): See attached document for details and photos. Thank you for your consideration. Project Type: Window Restoration 4. Approximate date of project completion: _________________________________________ November 2025 5. Name, address, phone number and email of nominator: _____________________________ 6. Photos enclosed _____________________________________ 16.3587 or cmarx@winnetka.org Please submit this form together with photographs (digital) and other documentation no later than Thursday, May 28, 2026. Electronically submitted nominations and photographs are the preferred form of submission. Please email nominations to cmarx@winnetka.org. Otherwise, please mail to: Winnetka Preservation Awards Attn: Christopher Marx, Community Development Department Winnetka Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Rules: 1. Nominate your own property or as many projects as you would like, as long the owner consents to participating and signs the form. 2. The project must have been completed within the past five years. 3. Entries for restoration or rehabilitation must include at least one "before" and one "after" photo. New construction entries need only have the completed project photograph. Photo submissions should be digital. 4. Single-family residential, commercial, multi-family, and public/institutional properties are eligible. 5. Exterior projects only. ‭333 Sunset Road, Winnetka‬ ‭Historic Preservation Application‬ ‭Our 1922 red brick Georgian is located in the Rem Park subdivision of Winnetka. It is part of a‬ ‭series of homes built along Sunset Road during the early 1920s, a period when Winnetka saw‬ ‭significant residential growth following the adoption of the 1921 Plan of Winnetka, which‬ ‭prioritized low-density residential development and green space.‬ ‭This home has the majority of its original double-hung, with divided lites in the upper sash in‬ ‭place in the home. These windows are characterized by their tall, narrow structure, with a‬ ‭6-over-1 (six panes top, one bottom). When purchasing the home in 2019, we knew the‬ ‭windows would need to be addressed as they were leaky and non-functional. Over time, the‬ ‭upper sash which should go up and down had been painted in and the aluminum storms added‬ ‭to the exterior took away from the original details of these windows.‬ ‭Working with LeonEdwards, Kenilworth IL, a bespoke carpenter shop, we meticulously restored‬ ‭each window including, utilizing the original windows high-quality, old-growth wood that is‬ ‭denser and more rot-resistant than modern lumber, thus important to restore vs. replace.‬ ‭Additionally, all individual weight pockets were re-callibrated and made fully operational. Finally,‬ ‭new copper weather striping was added to aid in energy efficiency. All original glass was‬ ‭reglazed, and where glass needed to be replaced, it was replaced with salvaged glass from‬ ‭other historical projects.‬ ‭Through this restoration project we were able to utilize the materials existing in the home,‬ ‭eliminate environmental impact, maintain the original character of the home, as new window‬ i‭nserts are smaller than the current window opening and support local craftsmen who do this‬ ‭work daily to repair and restore high quality work of homes. These windows were always meant‬ ‭to be repaired, they are component pieces, unlike new windows that more often than not,‬ ‭require full replacement.‬ ‭OLD‬ ‭RESTORED‬  , Winnetka, IL – Blending Old with New Scott Simpson Design + Build On this project, the mission of Scott Simpson Design + Build was to preserve the historic "bones" of the James L. Houghteling house while seamlessly integrating modern amenities—including a clubhouse addition and many interior updates. SSDB architect Sarah Gooden designed the updates to accommodate the lifestyle of a modern family while assuring that the aesthetic is consistent and appropriate to the age and vintage of the early 1900s Shingle Style house. The hallmark of this renovation is the undetectable transition between the original structure and the new spaces, as well as an extensive connection to the outdoors. In order to accommodate the clubhouse addition, we removed an outdated indoor pool and surrounding 2-story structure which obscured the entire western façade of the original home on the approach from the street. We also added a much-needed three-car garage and reconfigured the mudroom. To maintain overall scale with the house, we kept the additions to one story, preserving the view of the original western façade of the house on the entry sequence. Original architectural details like curved shingle brackets and the pergola surrounding the pickleball court were matched exactly, expertly tying in the new architecture to what was already there. The interior spaces were reimagined to balance high-end finishes with practical family functionality. The entertaining centers of the home—the kitchen, butler’s pantry, breakfast area, and family room—were upgraded to better match the design character of the original home, replacing the deviations of previous additions. The main kitchen features a French La Cornue range with traditional vintage styling more reminiscent of early ranges versus the more typical professional ranges common in kitchens today. We engineered a work-around to a steel column in the kitchen wall that supports an upstairs fireplace in order to create a symmetrical layout for the professional-grade refrigeration units around new beautiful leaded glass windows above the sink. We further echoed this detail by repeating leaded glass in the upper cabinets in the breakfast room and the upper cabinets above the refrigerator and freezer. The cabinetry is all Amish custom-made inset construction, keeping with the original craftsmanship expected for a home of this stature and age. The family room now has a set of French doors with views of the pool and a second set of doors that lead to stairs that finally allow access to the outdoor space, newly reconfigured with pool, patio, pickleball court and access to the clubhouse addition. The butler’s pantry space connects the existing dining room to the updated kitchen space. It also features custom inset cabinetry, finished with a mood-setting, labor-intensive, high-gloss paint that allows for warm reflections from the stunning finishes. We replaced a non-original, 1980s garden bay window with leaded glass that better matches the home’s vintage and the accents in the kitchen. Reclaiming of a foot of unused space behind a furred wall for the wet bar and removal of upper cabinets on one side now provide new space that makes the butler’s pantry even more welcoming. The original back stairs that lead down into the kitchen were enclosed, allowing a space for custom built- in cabinetry in the breakfast area, extending the kitchen zone to be a scale commensurate with the size of the house and for modern family needs. New back stairs leading to the outdoor entertaining spaces were fashioned with custom-crafted newel posts, handrail profile, and balusters that match the 1900’s era front stairs, albeit slightly taller so they meet modern-day codes. 1 May 2026  731 Prospect Avenue, Winnetka, IL – Blending Old with New Scott Simpson Design + Build The second floor was reconfigured to create a new guest suite: changing a bedroom into an ensuite bathroom, closet, and welcoming end-of-hallway window nook. We were able to repurpose an original clawfoot tub from the primary bathroom into the guest bath. The guest bath features custom vanities with Carrara marble countertops that have scalloped details that call back to the same design in other areas of the home. The original under-counter washer and dryer units were small and not suitable for an eight-bedroom home. The updated laundry room borrows space from the guest bedroom-bathroom reconfiguration to accommodate stacked dual full-size washers and dryers and a new drying rack and storage shelf that was custom designed by our in-house carpenter. The original laundry cabinetry, which is in great shape with beautiful details, was preserved along with the original Carrara countertops. Original flooring was repaired where the undercounter washer and dryer were removed, and the opening provides space for rolling laundry hampers. Every one of the home’s ten fireplaces was fully refurbished with new slab surrounds, gas log inserts, and liners to ensure they are all fully functional - for the first time in years. It is wonderful to have these staples of a vintage home warming rooms easily and beautifully. It was our privilege to work on such an important project, creating timeless cohesion throughout this stately home for a truly wonderful family and stewards of this historic beauty. Thank you for your consideration. 2 May 2026