Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting City Hall - Council Chambers March 12, 2026 6:30 PM Agenda PUBLIC NOTICE In accordance with the Statutes of the State of Illinois and the Ordinances of the City of Highland Park, the next regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Highland Park is scheduled to be held at the hour of 6:30 PM on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at City Hall - Council Chambers, 1707 St Johns Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois, during which meeting it is anticipated that there will be a discussion of the following items. The Historic Preservation Commission has elected to conduct the meeting entirely in- person, and without opportunity for virtual viewing or participation. Please contact the Department of Community Development – Planning Division at (847) 432-0867 for up-to- date information on the conduct of the hearing. Individuals with questions or feedback about an agenda item may email the Staff Liaison Maddy Markle at mmarkle@cityhpil.com. Comments and emails received prior to the Thursday before the scheduled meeting will be included in the meeting packet. Public comments received by 4:30 PM the day of the meeting will be read under Business from the Public. Any comments received during the meeting will be held until the end of the meeting. Individuals who wish to have their comments read into the public record are limited to 200 words or less. Public comments should be emailed and contain the following information: • In the subject line, identify, “HPC (Date of Meeting)” • Name • Address (optional) • City • Phone (optional) • Organization, agency representing, if applicable • Topic or agenda item number of interest All emails received will be acknowledged. Individuals with no access to email may leave a voice message with Maddy Markle at 847.926.1856. The City, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this hearing, or who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting facilities, email the City’s ADA coordinator Emily Taub or call at 847.926.1005. Page 1 of 276 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes A. February 12, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes IV. Scheduled Business A. 147 Central Avenue — Continuation of Review of Written Report to the Plan and Design Commission Regarding Planned Development B. 147 Central Avenue — Continuation of Partial Landmark Removal C. 818 Hill Street — Final Consideration of Landmark Nomination D. 670 De Tamble Avenue — Preliminary Consideration of Landmark Nomination E. 273 Sheridan Road — Preliminary Consideration of Landmark Nomination V. Discussion Items A. 2026 Preservation Month Events VI. Business from the Public (Individuals wishing to be heard regarding items not listed on this agenda) VII. Other Business A. Next Regular Meeting to Occur April 8, 2026 VIII. Staff Report IX. Adjournment Page 2 of 276  1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 4 5 6 MEETING DATE: Thursday, February 12, 2026 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 6:33 p.m., Chairperson Weeder called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on-site. 12 Staff was asked to call the roll. 13 14 ROLL CALL 15 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Ehrlich, Greenbaum, Pines, & Portman 16 17 Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Gonka & Hartinger 18 19 Councilmember Present: Lidawer 20 21 Student Council Present: Cooper Baum & Gabi Goldstein 22 23 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 24 25 Staff Present: Coleman & Markle 26 27 Guests Present: Tom Hiller & Peijian Sun/Petitioners, Mary Seyfarth, Linda Barbera-Stein 28 29 Others Present: Gale Cerabona, Recorder 30 31 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – January 8, 2026 33 34 Commissioner Pines moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 8, 2026. Commissioner 35 Ehrlich seconded the motion. 36 37 On a voice vote 38 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Ehrlich, Greenbaum, Pines, & Portman 39 Voting Nay: None 40 41 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 42 43 SCHEDULED BUSINESS 44 Planner Markle advised that the Applicant asked that the next two cases be continued to the March 12, 45 2026, HPC meeting. They noted the Plan and Design Commission/PDC meeting would be continued as well. 46 47 1. Review of Written Report to the Plan and Design Commission regarding Planned Development – 147 48 Central Avenue Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2026 - Page 1 Page 3 of 276  1 2 2. Continuation of Partial Landmark Removal – 147 Central Avenue 3 4 Commissioner Ehrlich commented on public comment included in the February Agenda Packet. He believes 5 the HPC cannot rule on the first two agenda items. He noted confusion regarding procedural grounds. 6 Planner Markle recommended that the Commission not discuss items without the Petitioner present and 7 stated procedural questions will be discussed further at the March HPC meeting. 8 9 Councilperson Lidawer said these cases are requested to be continued. 10 11 Commissioner Ehrlich said previous comments regarding procedure have not been responded to. Planner 12 Markle stated that Corporation Counsel has already addressed the Commission’s procedural concerns in the 13 form of a memo. The memo is included in the February Agenda Packet. 14 15 Commissioner Portman moved to continue the two cases for 147 Central Avenue to the March 12, 2026, 16 HPC meeting. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion. 17 18 On a roll call vote 19 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Ehrlich, Greenbaum, Pines, & Portman 20 Voting Nay: None 21 22 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 23 24 3. Preliminary Consideration of Landmark Nomination – 818 Hill Street 25 Commissioner Portman disclosed he lives 8-9 houses away on this street and has a friendship with the 26 owners. Corporation Counsel is aware and advised there would be no conflict. 27 28 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 29 • Summary 30 o The “Summer House” 31 o Tudor style 32 o built c. 1927 33 o architect is Harry Bengston 34 • Edith Rockefeller McCormick 35 o original owner (not primary residence) 36 o daughter of J.D. Rockefeller 37 o real-estate developer; created The Highlands 38 • Elevations were shown 39 o cedar-shingled roof 40 o fieldstone chimney 41 o hand-hewn logs (building material) may be the oldest in Highland Park 42 • Swedish Influence (culture document from Applicant was distributed) 43 • Notable Architectural Features 44 • Tudor-style Characteristics 45 o Similarities to “Storybook style” 46 • Chain of Title 47 • Alteration History Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2026 - Page 2 Page 4 of 276  1 o east, south façade modification 2 o log replacement 3 o carriage door removal; standard garage doors installed 4 • Site Plan 5 o Roof restoration – nominated for 2026 Preservation Award. Will be further considered in 6 May 2026. 7 8 Councilperson Lidawer departed the meeting at 7:07 p.m. 9 10 • Landmark Criteria (Staff recommends considering Criteria #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9) 11 • Recommendation 12 13 Petitioner/Owner, Mr. Tom Hiller appreciates Planner Markle’s presentation. He said he had no idea about 14 the history of the house when the initially moved in. The history was long forgotten at the time. They have 15 been living there for 4 years, and it’s a one-of-a-kind house. The roof and structure is a work of art. The 16 home has original Crane bathroom fixtures. Mr. Hiller advised that 1/3 of Swedish people immigrated to the 17 Midwest. He shared logs are actual. 18 19 Some HPC comments are: 20 • Commissioner Ehrlich said it’s an incredible presentation and house. He believes all landmark criteria 21 apply along with integrity. 22 23 Mr. Hiller stated the Newberry Library has minutes of meetings from around 1928 (regarding the 24 ERM Trust). He discussed the preparation/culmination of notable events (300th Anniversary in 1938) 25 in Delaware. 26 27 • Chairperson Weeder commended the Petitioner on a great summary. 28 • Commissioner Portman referred to Pages 24-25, and noted the pine trees haven’t changed. He stated 29 this home is a focal point of the Swedish movement. 30 31 Mr. Hiller said the paneling is mind boggling. He and his wife had no clue when they bought this 32 house; built like a bomb shelter. 33 34 • Commissioner Greenbaum said the architect for her house is R. Harold Zook. 35 36 Staff asked if anyone from the public wishes to speak. The following came forward: 37 • Mary Seyfarth asked how many faux-thatched roofs are like this in Highland Park. It was noted there 38 is one on Oakwood, St. Johns, and Sheridan Road. 39 40 Mr. Hiller said the number of houses in the area had this type of roof; though, they are torn off 41 now. He noted there is one on Greenwood; has to do with the number of layers. Another house is 42 on Tower Road and another by Northwestern. There are some in Palatine, Hinsdale, etc. 43 44 Petitioner/Owner, Mrs. Peijian Sun advised this roof is unique; like an ocean; a fish pattern. There is a boat 45 on the chimney (to come across the ocean). Many say this house is overbuilt. There is a Japanese burn 46 technique. The stone is granite, river stone (breaking technique rather than cutting). 47 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2026 - Page 3 Page 5 of 276  1 Another audience member came forward: 2 • Linda Barbera-Stein did an exhibit in The Highlands with this kind of house; the American Dream. 3 Housing materials were American-made and affordable. This house was a summer house. 4 5 Planner Markle displayed an aerial view as did Ms. Stein. 6 7 Ms. Stein advised there were 7-9 Tudor homes built before the crash. 8 9 More HPC comments are….. 10 • Chairperson Weeder believes this house meets Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, & 9. 11 • Commissioners Pine and Portman concur. 12 • Commissioner Ehrlich believes Criteria 2 & 8 also meet landmark criteria. 13 14 Commissioner Ehrlich moved that Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 apply as well as the grounds. Commissioner 15 Portman seconded the motion. 16 17 Referring to Criteria 2, Commissioner Ehrlich said the location of an event could be anywhere. After 18 consensus of at least 3 HPC members who disagreed that Criteria 2 applies, Commissioner Ehrlich withdrew 19 his motion. Commissioner Portman withdrew seconding the motion. 20 21 Commissioner Greenbaum moved that Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 apply, the house has sufficient integrity, 22 and a preliminary Landmark Designation is recommended. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion. 23 24 On a roll call vote 25 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Ehrlich, Greenbaum, Pines, & Portman 26 Voting Nay: None 27 28 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 29 30 Audience member, Mary Seyfarth offered rationale that Criteria 2 applies due to Edith McCormick. 31 Members of the HPC stated this is covered in Criteria 3. Mr. Hiller responded with more history on Edith 32 McCormick. 33 34 DISCUSSION ITEMS 35 There were no Discussion Items. 36 37 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 38 There was no Business from the Public. 39 40 STAFF REPORT 41 Planner Markle referenced the CMO memo about Residents’ Academy/Summer School and encouraged HPC 42 members to apply. 43 44 Planner Markle welcomed two new Student Representatives. Cooper Baum & Gabi Goldstein introduced 45 themselves and shared where they go to high school. 46 47 OTHER BUSINESS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2026 - Page 4 Page 6 of 276  1 1. Next Regular Meeting is Scheduled for March 12, 2026 2 It was noted the next regular HPC Meeting is scheduled for March 12, 2026. 3 4 ADJOURNMENT 5 Commissioner Portman moved to adjourn at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Ehrlich seconded the motion. 6 7 On a voice vote 8 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Ehrlich, Greenbaum, Pines, & Portman 9 Voting Nay: None 10 11 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 12 13 Respectfully Submitted, 14 15 16 17 Gale Cerabona 18 Recorder 19 20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ON JANUARY 8, 2026, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2026 - Page 5 Page 7 of 276  Memorandum Date: April 7, 2026 To: Plan and Design Commission From: Historic Preservation Commission Subject: 147 Central Avenue – Written Report to Plan and Design Commission Background. On January 8, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) considered the impact of the proposed Planned Development on the Historically Significant property located at 147 Central Avenue. Since the Director has determined that the property at 147 Central Avenue is a Historically Significant property, the HPC is required to provide a non-binding recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission per Sec. 150.520(E)(2) of Code. Sec. 150.520(E)(2) of Code states the Historic Preservation Commission shall (a) Review the potential impact of the proposal on the historically significant property, and (b) Submit a written report of its findings to the Plan and Design Commission and the City Council. The following findings and recommendations are the HPC’s written report, approved by the HPC at the March 12, 2026 Regular Meeting. Findings. At the Jan. 8, 2026 Regular Meeting, the HPC concluded: “The subdivision of the lot would significantly impact the historical significance of the property at 147 Central Avenue based on the historic fence, columns that make-up the gate, relocation of the new driveway and its impact on the curb appeal, and the growing density of the lot.” Specifically, the HPC finds that the wrought-iron fence and the gateposts are among the historic resources of the property, and that the Planned Development would negatively impact each of them as follows: • Wrought-Iron Fence Element o The HPC finds that the wrought-iron fence is associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embodies the Victorian landscape style, is identifiable as the work of a notable builder (Cornelius Field), and embodies 1 Page 8 of 276  Memorandum detailing that renders it visually significant. The wrought-iron fence is an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the wrought-iron fence retains sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship. o The HPC finds that the Planned Development will disrupt the historic wrought-iron fence located along the front lot line. In order to create a new driveway the applicant will have to disrupt the continuity of the historic wrought-iron fence. The HPC is opposed to the destruction of the fence to make room for a new driveway and notes that a shared driveway could aid in preserving the historic fence. • Gatepost Elements 1 o The HPC finds the gatepost elements (base and finials) are associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embody the Victorian landscape style, are identifiable as the work of a notable builder (Cornelius Field), and embody detailing that renders them visually significant. The gatepost elements are an established visual feature associated with the property. Furthermore, the gate elements retain sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship o The HPC is concerned that the Planned Development will result in the loss of the gateposts. The gateposts contain important historic elements, and have a connection to the original property owner, Cornelius Field. o At the Jan. 8, 2026 meeting an architect representing the property owner offered that the gatepost could be preserved, if that is the preference of the Commission. The HPC would like the applicant to pursue the option to preserve the historic gateposts. • Driveway Element o The HPC finds the driveway element is associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embodies the Victorian landscape style, is identifiable as the work of a notable builder (Cornelius Field), and exhibits elements of design that render it visually significant. The driveway element is an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the driveway element retains sufficient integrity of original location. o The HPC finds that the placement of the current driveway is another element of this historic resource, and therefore is opposed to changing the 1 The gatepost is located in the public-right-of-way. The HPC discussed the gatepost because the PDC has the ability to consider off-site impacts. 2 Page 9 of 276  Memorandum driveway’s placement. A shared driveway could mitigate possible negative impacts on the historic driveway placement. • Estate Setting Element o The HPC finds the estate setting is associated with a notable person (Cornelius Field), embodies the Victorian landscape style, and is identifiable as the work of a notable designer (Cornelius Field). The estate setting is an established visual feature of the property. Furthermore, the estate setting retains sufficient integrity of location and design. o The HPC finds that the open space on the property contributes to the estate setting of the Cornelius Field Property, and is integral part of this historic resource worth preserving. The proposed Planned Development will allow increasing density of the property will fundamentally diminish the estate’s setting. Recommendation. • The HPC recommends denial of the proposed Planned Development on the basis that the proposed plan will irreversibly alter the property’s historic site setting. • However, if the Plan and Design Commission recommends approval of the subdivision, the HPC recommends that the Plan and Design Commission enforce more restrictive yard setbacks on the proposed Lot B, and require the preservation of the gateposts and the wrought-iron fence, and use of the driveway in its existing location as conditions of approval. Historic Commission Consideration. Attachment 1 is the staff report that informed the HPC’s consideration of this matter and Attachments 2 and 3 are the meeting minutes from the Jan. 8, 2026 HPC Regular Meeting as well as the draft minutes from the March. 12, 2026 HPC Regular Meeting. Attachments 1. 1.8.26 HPC Staff Report 2. 1.8.26 HPC Regular Meeting Minutes 3. DRAFT 3.12.26 HPC Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Public Comment Submitted to HPC 1.8.26 5. Public Comment Submitted to HPC 3.12.26 3 Page 10 of 276  Memorandum Date: March 12, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: 147 Central Avenue – Continuation of Partial Landmark Designation Removal Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission consider Landmark Removal for the proposed “Lot B” located on the eastern half of the property at 147 Central Avenue. Previous Commission Consideration The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) previously considered this item at the Jan. 8, 2026 meeting. After some discussion about procedure the Commission moved to continue the item to the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting. The applicant requested a further continuation prior to the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting. The Commission moved to grant a continuation to the March. 12, 2026 Meeting. Application Summary Atty. Calvin Bernstein (the “Applicant”) has submitted a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) application for the property at 147 Central, on behalf of the Gale Rothner TTEE Gale Rothner Spousal Trust (see Attachment A). As part of the PUD, the applicant intends to subdivide the property into two separate legal lots of record. One of the proposed lots will contain the property’s historic main house, coach house, gardener’s cottage, greenhouse foundation, and bridge (“Lot A”). The other proposed lot will consist of an unimproved wooded area (“Lot B”). The applicant has applied to remove the landmark designation from Lot B to avoid it being subject to HPC approval as a regulated property. Without removal of the landmark designation, any new home on Lot B would be a Regulated Structure 1 and have to be reviewed by the HPC through a Certificate of Appropriateness consideration (see Attachment B). 1 Per Chapter 24, Regulated Structure is defined as “Any property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance that is subject to the provisions of this Chapter or the provisions of Section 170.040 of the building code because it (a) is a landmark, […]” 1 Page 11 of 276  Memorandum At the January 8, 2026, HPC meeting, the Commission requested further clarification concerning the procedure for concurrent PUD and landmark removal applications. Corporation Counsel has maintained their stance that the Commission’s reviews for the PUD subdivision and the partial landmark designation removal can occur concurrently (see Attachment C). Procedure for Landmark Removal The landmark removal process is initiated when an application is submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. The City already sent the property owner a letter stating the time, place, and purpose of this meeting where the application will be considered. The City has since sent a second notification letter to inform the owner of the item’s continuation to the February 12, 2026 meeting. The owner has provided consent to the landmark removal, so the next steps are as follows: The Commission should consider and discuss the following for the landmark removal: (1) If the HPC finds that the property (a) does not meet two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, or (b) does not have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, then the Commission should adopt the drafted Resolution from staff making a Landmark Removal recommendation (Attachment D). 2 a. The City Council will consider the findings, recommendations, and official record of the Historic Preservation Commission and may, by an Ordinance duly adopted, remove the Local Landmark designation status. (2) If the HPC finds that the property does meet two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, and (b) does have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, the Commission should not make a Landmark Removal recommendation. a. In the case that a Landmark Removal recommendation is not adopted by the Commission, the Landmark Removal process is complete and will not proceed to the City Council for further consideration. b. There is no formal appeal process if the Commission does not make a recommendation for Landmark Removal. 2 The applicant requested a resolution be drafted in anticipation of the Commission’s consideration of this matter. Draft resolutions are standard for every application and do not reflect a pre-determined conclusion. 2 Page 12 of 276  Memorandum c. The applicant may submit a successive Landmark Removal application to the Commission in the future with property owner consent per Sec. 24.025(G). (3) If the HPC does not have enough information to fully consider this item it may direct staff or the applicant, as appropriate to provide additional information, and make a motion to continue the item to a certain date. Staff recommend April 8, 2026, the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. (4) The Commission may also choose to continue the item until date uncertain to allow the subdivision process to conclude before considering the Landmark Removal application. Property Background The Cornelius Field Property was established c. 1875. The property’s main house was constructed by the Highland Park Building Company for Mr. Field, who was a Director of the Highland Park Building Company and Highland Park’s second mayor. Starting in 1889, the home was known as Sylvan Dells, “A Home School for Boys and Girls”, though the school later became exclusively for boys and was eventually combined with the North Western Military Academy. By 1899 the house was back in private hands, keeping the estate name of “Sylvan Dells.” The property at 147 Central Avenue was designated a Local Historic Landmark in 1985. The Historic Preservation Commission found that the property met Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4 and 6 (see Attachment E). The home has two distinct additions. The northern two-story portion is what remains of the original 1870’s farm house. The eastern section is a Victorian Gothic Revival Cottage c. 1895. To the west of the eastern section is an abutting two-story Italianate Classical wing with porte-cochere and Palladian windows in a mansard roof. In addition to a main house, the property also includes a historic coach house, gardener’s cottage, bridge, and greenhouse foundation. These structures, all located on the western half of the property, are listed as part of the 1982 National Register Multiple Resource Nomination (Attachment F) and have been subject to HPC review in past Certificate of Appropriateness applications (see Attachment G and H). 3 Page 13 of 276  Memorandum Notable landscape features include the wrought-iron fence in the front yard, a well behind the main house, the main home’s curved driveway and distinct gateposts. 3 These features were listed as part of the 1988 Highland Park Historic Landscape Survey (see Attachment I). Request for Partial Removal of Landmark Designation The applicant has submitted an application to remove the landmark designation from the newly proposed Lot B 4 in accordance with Sec. 24.025(H) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff’s review of the historic record for 147 Central Avenue finds that the property as a whole is a Regulated Historic Structure, meaning any newly-created lot will be a Regulated Historic Structure. Therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission is required for any Regulated Activity (as defined in Sec. 24.005) on the newly-created lots. The applicant seeks to remove the landmark designation from the newly created Lot B, and seeks to build a new single-family dwelling there. The applicant does not seek to remove the landmark designation associated with Lot A. The applicant asserts that the newly created Lot B will no longer satisfy the reasons or applicable landmark criteria for which the landmark designation was originally approved. Historic Resource Analysis for Lot B The following provides analysis of the historic elements on the proposed Lot B portion of the property and the adjacent right-of-way. Ice House – Not Intact Lot B may have once included the remains of a historic ice house according to the 1988 Highland Park Historic Landscape Survey, but the survey does not identify an exact location. The survey states “Ice house on edge of ravine – remnant of road to lake from ice house. Old foundation removed in 1960s.” This would seem to imply that the old ice house remnants were removed in the 1960s (Attachment I). The ice house was not included as part of the 1985 Landmark Nomination nor as part of the 1982 National Register Multiple Resource Nomination, which further supports the assumption that this structure no longer exists. 3 Staff notes the gateposts and a portion of the fence are located in the public-right-of-way. Corporation Counsel has advised that the gateposts cannot be considered as part of the landmark removal proceedings because they are not located on the landmarked property. 4 Consisting of approximately 89,726 SF or 46% of the total area of the property at 147 Central Ave. 4 Page 14 of 276  Memorandum Wrought-Iron Fence – Intact Lot B will include a portion of the property’s original wrought-iron fence (see Figure 1). The original portion is located directly to the west of the historic gateposts. The fence is noted on the 1988 Landscape Survey and is pictured in the 2020 landmark summary sheet 5 (Attachment J). Gatepost and Finials – Not Located On Landmarked Parcel Figure 1. Historic fence located on proposed The historic gatepost located near the Lot B proposed Lot B was of interest to the Commission at the Jan. 8, 2026 meeting. However, prior to the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting, staff became aware that the gatepost is not located on the landmarked property and instead lies in the public right-of- way. The location of the gatepost is clearly visible on a plat of survey completed by a licensed surveyor (see Attachment K). Corporation Counsel advises that the gatepost should not be a part of the Commission’s landmark removal consideration because it is not located on the Landmarked lot. The gate’s ownership and historicity are not relevant to this landmark removal application because it was never technically part of the landmarked parcel to begin with. 6 Additional Context in Light of Recent Questions Scope of Landmark Designation It is the City’s policy to evaluate the scope of landmark designations relative to what was considered by the City Council at the time of the designation. Staff refers to this process as a review of the historic record. In the case of 147 Central Avenue, staff found that the City Council, HPC and applicant intended to landmark the parcel, not just the main house. However, this does not automatically mean that every individual property feature has historic significance. 5 Created by: Susan Benjamin 6 The Commission can still consider the gatepost as part of the non-binding recommendation to the Plan and Design Commission because the PDC can consider off-site impacts. That application is separate from the Landmark Removal application and should be considered separately. 5 Page 15 of 276  Memorandum Staff determined that the property’s historically significant structures, relative to the 1985 landmark designation ordinance, are those named in the Landmark Nomination and or National Register Nomination. (See Attachments L and F). Staff does not consider the structures only listed as part of the 1988 Landscape Survey historically significant relative to the original 1985 landmark ordinance. The 1988 survey work was completed years after the property was designated a Local Landmark. This does not mean that these property elements are not historic nor should this finding be interpreted to imply that the Commission is prohibited from considering elements beyond those known to the City Council in 1985. Corporation Counsel has advised that the Commission may consider all historic property elements as part of the Landmark Removal consideration. The Commission must determine if the property elements located on Lot B meet Landmark Criteria and the Integrity standard. National Register Status Questions have been raised about 147 Central Avenue’s status relative to the National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”). Staff and the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) have both confirmed that 147 Central Avenue is not listed on the NR as part of a National Historic District. In August of 1982 the State received a submission for the Linden Park Place-Belle Avenue Historic District (“National District”) as part of the Highland Park Multiple Resource Nomination. This original submission included a map of the proposed National District boundary, which included 147 Central Avenue. The State returned the submission to the sender with concerns about an unclear boundary that was “artificially extended to include the Women’s club and two unidentified properties.” The submitter was asked to resubmit the nomination with a boundary that gives the district an identity that is distinct from the area surrounding it (see Attachment M). The applicant resubmitted the nomination in May of 1983. The resubmission included a letter from former HPC Chair Susan Benjamin stating “As you can see, I altered the boundaries to exclude the Women’s Club and several properties that did not contribute to the significance of the District (either historically or architecturally) along Park Avenue.” The reviewer commented on the 1983 resubmission return sheet “Boundaries have been tightened.” The resubmitted map excludes 147 Central Avenue. Presumably, 147 Central Avenue was one of the properties on Park Avenue that was removed from the final adopted National District (see Attachment N). 6 Page 16 of 276  Memorandum On July 12, 1986, property owner Martha Macleod petitioned the State to add 147 Central to the NRHP. Later that week she followed up in a separate letter stating that she will only apply for a district boundary extension if that is the recommendation of the HPC or the State. Keith Sculle, SHPO Survey and National Register Coordinator responded “After considering the matter, I recommend no further consideration for the National Register of the Cornelius Field and thank you for your patience during the discussion” (see Attachment O). This concluded the efforts to nominate 147 Central to the NRHP. The Deputy Director of the State Historic Preservation Office, Anthony Rubano, has confirmed that National Archive records show that 147 Central Avenue was not included in the final National District. Mr. Rubano explained to Staff that the State’s Historic and Architectural Resources GIS (HARGIS) erroneously lists 147 Central Avenue as part of a National District. The HARGIS map includes all the properties included in the 1982 nomination and does not reflect the 1983 boundary change. This error has led to much confusion. For example, during the 2019 Section 106 review of the Central Bridge, the State incorrectly identified 147 Central Avenue as a Contributing Property in the National District (see Attachment P). The 2020 landscape survey sheet also identifies 147 Central Avenue as being a part of the National District (see Attachment J). Staff concludes that 147 Central Avenue is not listed on the NRHP and is not included in the National District. Sources that state otherwise are the result of misinformation proliferated by HARGIS. Relationship between National Recommendations and Local Code NR status does not impact the procedure for a Local Landmark Removal. Highland Park’s preservation ordinance operates independently of the National Register and the National Park’s Services (“NPS”) recommendations. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the National Register Criteria for Evaluation are not referenced in Highland Park’s Code. Recommendations created for the purpose of National Register evaluations do not create a legal basis for preservation in the context of a Local Landmark Removal application. Local Definition of Integrity There is concern from the public that staff did not reference the NPS’s “seven aspects of integrity,” such as site setting. The NPS aspects of integrity are not considered during a Local Landmark nomination, nor during a Local Landmark removal. The only criteria considered are those found in Sec. 24.016 and Integrity as defined in Sec. 24.005. The 7 Page 17 of 276  Memorandum City Code defines Integrity as “The degree of original design and historic material remaining in place on a property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance.” Highland Park’s definition of Integrity does not call out site setting, but it does call out Landscapes of Significance. Not every site setting is a Landscape of Significance. The Code defines Landscape of Significance as “A landscape that is significant in its own right as landscape architecture and not merely as a complementary setting for a structure or a group of structures.” Commission Consideration The Commission should consider if a newly created Lot B satisfies the Landmark Criteria listed in Sec. 24.015 of Code and has sufficient integrity 7. If the Commission finds that a newly created Lot B does not satisfy two or more Landmark Criteria, or does not have sufficient integrity, then the Commission should recommend the removal of landmark designation from Lot B. 8 The Commission may consider all the Landmark Criteria listed in Sec. 24.015 of Code, not merely those found by the City Council at time of the initial landmark designation in 1985. Additionally, the Commission may consider other historic elements of the property, regardless of whether or not they were included as part of the original landmark designation. The Commission may consider whether the estate setting, driveway placement and the wrought-iron fence located on the proposed Lot B are historic resources. The gatepost located within the public-right-of-way should not be considered as it is not located on the property. Attachments A. Dec. 2025 PUD Application B. Dec. 2025 Landmark Removal Application C. Corporation Counsel Opinion D. DRAFT Resolution for Landmark Removal E. 1985 HPC Resolution F. 1982 National Register Nomination 7 Per Chapter 24, Integrity is defined as follows: “The degree of original design and historic material remaining in place on a property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance.” 8 Sec. 24.025(H)(2) states: “Under no circumstances shall the City Council remove the Landmark designation for any property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance unless it finds that the reasons for which the landmark designation was once appropriate are no longer present. Nothing herein shall be deemed or interpreted as requiring the City Council to remove the landmark designation upon such a finding.” 8 Page 18 of 276  Memorandum G. 2011 HPC COA for Cottage and Landscape H. 1986 HPC COA for Coach House I. 1988 Landscape Survey Form J. 2020 Landmark Summary Sheet K. Current Plat of Survey L. 1985 Landmark Nomination M. 1982 NR Return Sheet N. 1983 NR Return Sheet and Letter From Submitter O. Letters Between Martha MacLeod and SHPO P. Excerpt from 2019 Section 106 Report Q. Field Biography R. 1985 Landmark Ordinance S. Public Comment to HPC, 2.12.26 T. NR District Map Before and After Boundary Tightening 9 Page 19 of 276 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK Subdivision Application Letter of Situation Dated: October 7, 2025 RE: 147 Central Avenue Subdivision in Highland Park TO: Plan Commission and City Council 147 Central is also known as the Field House. 147 Central is a substantial property situated adjacent to a ravine, encompassing more than four acres of land. It was the home of Highland Park’s second mayor, Cornelius Field, and is believed to be the oldest residence in Highland Park. In addition to being mayor, Cornelius Field was a director of the Highland Park Building Company, and he built this home for himself in 1875. In 1985, the existing home was designated as landmark by the City of Highland Park. In the landmark application, the stated reason for the landmarking was due to the “eastern section Gothic Cottage, abutting it on the west is two story wing – second story contained within Mansard roof”. The property has been altered over the years, and it has been vacant for over 5 years. The current owners have been marketing the unsubdivided home and property for sale, without success, for over a year. In order to preserve the existing landmarked home, the applicant desires to subdivide the property into two very large lots. One containing the historic landmarked home and the second, the non-historical/landmark vacant area. This subdivision will allow the owner to properly market the home to allow a buyer the ability to purchase the landmark home while embracing the historical significance at a fair price. The two lots created by this subdivision are both very large and double the minimum lot size for R-4 LFOZ, however, each will contain more than four (4) sides. Due to the ravine location, it is impossible to create two lots with only four sides at this location. Thus, to subdivide, one variation is required to allow lots of more than 4 sides. Pursuant to the Subdivision Code, the Plan and Design Commission may recommend, and the City Council may grant variations so long as the variation does not affect the general plan or the spirit of the Subdivision Code (Section 151.009). The intent and purpose of the regulation set forth in the Subdivision Code is, in part, to protect neighborhood character and to provide quality neighborhoods by requiring minimum lot widths, depths and areas (Section 151.002(D)). In this case, the existing lot contains more than 4 sides, as will the newly created lots. It is important to note that many homes in this area, including 147 Central, have more than 4 sides, as these lots meander around the ravine. The newly subdivided lots comport well with the neighborhood and preserve the neighborhood character. The existing landmarked home will remain untouched and preserved for generations to come. Furthermore, the newly created lots comply with the regulations by meeting the minimum lot width, depth and area in the zoning district. Thus, the application herein meets the standards for a variation set forth in the Subdivision Code and but for the one issue, no variation will be required or needed. In sum, the proposed subdivided lots do not affect the general plan and are consistent with the spirit of the Subdivision Code. Thank you for considering this application. Page 20 of 276 Page 21 of 276 Page 22 of 276 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK Historical Preservation Review Letter of Situation Dated: December 22, 2025 RE: 147 Central Avenue Subdivision in Highland Park TO: Chairman of the Historical Preservation Commission, the Historical Preservation Commission and the City Council 147 Central is also known as the Field House. 147 Central is a substantial property situated adjacent to a ravine, encompassing more than four acres of land. It was the home of Highland Park’s second mayor, Cornelius Field, and is believed to be the oldest residence in Highland Park. In addition to being mayor, Cornelius Field was a director of the Highland Park Building Company, and he built this home for himself in 1875. In 1985, the existing home was designated as landmark by the City of Highland Park. In the landmark application, the stated reason for the landmarking was due to the “eastern section Gothic Cottage, abutting it on the west is two story wing – second story contained within Mansard roof”. The property has been altered over the years, and it has been vacant for over 5 years. The current owners have been marketing the unsubdivided home and property for sale, without success, for over a year. In order to preserve the existing landmarked home, the applicant desires to subdivide the property into two very large lots. One containing the historic landmarked home and the second, the non-historical/landmark vacant area. This subdivision will allow the owner to properly market the home to allow a buyer the ability to purchase the landmark home while embracing the historical significance at a fair price. The two lots created by this subdivision are both very large and double the minimum lot size for R-4 LFOZ, however, each will contain more than four (4) sides. Due to the ravine location, it is impossible to create two lots with only four sides at this location. Thus, to subdivide, one variation is required to allow lots of more than 4 sides. Pursuant to Section 24.025(H)(2) of the City Code, the City Council may remove the Landmark designation for any property, structure, area, object or landscape of significance if it finds the reasons for which the landmark designation was once appropriate are no longer present. Assuming the concurrent subdivision application is approved, the reasons for the landmark designation will solely remain existing home lot and not on the newly created vacant lot. As such, the reasons for the landmark designation will no longer exist on the newly created empty lot. Since the basis for the designation will no longer exist, the City Council may remove the landmark designation on this newly created lot. To be clear, the applicant is not requesting nor advocating for the removal of the Field House’s landmark designation. Instead, the new subdivision will enhance the historical home by allowing someone to purchase the historical home at a fair price providing them the financial flexibility to invest in the home’s preservation. We believe this creates a win-win situation, where the owner obtains a fair price for this large property while allowing someone to purchase the landmarked home at am attainable price. In sum, the existing landmarked home will remain untouched and preserved for generations to come. Furthermore, the newly created lots comply with the regulations by Page 23 of 276 meeting the minimum lot width, depth and area in the zoning district. As set forth above, the application herein meets the standard for removal of landmark designation set forth in the Zoning Code, and based upon the City Code, the Council would be within its authority to remove such a designation. Thank you for considering this application. 2 Page 24 of 276  350 North Clark Street Second Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-528-5200 www.elrodfriedman.com Hart M. Passman 312.528.5193 hart.passman@elrodfriedman.com Memorandum Date: February 6, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Corporation Counsel Re: Consideration of Landmark Removal – 147 Central Avenue The Community Development Department advised our office of the Commission’s inquiry, identified at its January 8, 2026 meeting, concerning the proposed removal of landmark designation for a portion of the property at 147 Central Avenue. As the Commissioners are aware, the owner of the 147 Central Avenue property has filed an application with the City for Planned Development and subdivision approval. That application contemplates the subdivision of the property into two lots, one of which (designated in the Commission’s agenda materials as “Lot A”) will contain the existing historic structures, and the other (“Lot B”) consisting of an unimproved wooded area. The owner has concurrently filed an application for removal of the existing landmark designation for Lot B. We understand that at the January 2026 meeting, several Commissioners questioned the legality of considering landmark removal for a lot that does not currently exist. Our office does not have any legal concerns at this time. In the zoning context, concurrent applications – for which the approval of one form of relief is contingent on the approval of another form of relief – are common. In this case, the owner is authorized to seek landmark designation removal for a portion of the property, and the Commission has the authority to issue a recommendation on that application. In essence, the Commission is being asked: if the City approves the subdivision of the property into two lots, would removal of the landmark designation from one of those lots satisfy the standards for removal? In the event that the subdivision is approved, the Commission’s recommendation and the removal application would be considered; if the subdivision is denied, the removal application would be deemed moot. We recommend that the Commission proceed with its consideration of the pending application. 4932-5301-1085, v. 1 1 Page 25 of 276  City of Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 2026-XX A Resolution Recommending Removal of Landmark Designation for 147 Central Avenue Lot B WHEREAS, the City Historic Preservation Commission (“Commission”) is a commission of the City created pursuant to Section 33.1701 of the "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"); and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 34-85, designating that certain real property located at the address commonly known as 147 Central Avenue in the City (“Property”) as a landmark; and WHEREAS, Gale Rothner TTEE Gale Rothner Spousal (“Owner”) is the record title owner of the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 150.505 of "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"), the Owner has filed an application with the City for approval of: (i) a planned development for the Property, and (ii) a plat of subdivision for the Property (“Zoning Relief”); and WHEREAS, as part of the Zoning Relief, Owner seeks to subdivide the Property into two separate legal lots of record, with the western portion of the Property comprising 88,808 square feet (“Lot A”), and the eastern portion of the Property comprising 89,726 square feet (“Lot B”); and WHEREAS, Lot A is improved with structures of historical significance, including the main residential structure, greenhouse foundation, gardener’s cottage, bridge, and coach house; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(H)(3) of the City Code, Owner filed an application with the Chairman of the Commission to remove the landmark designation of Lot B; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it will serve and be in the best interests of the City and its residents to recommend to the City Council removal of the landmark designation of Lot B; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Commission. SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION. The Commission finds that, upon Resubdivision of the Property: (i) Lot B will not be improved with any structures of historical significance; and (ii) the standards for landmark designation are not satisfied by Lot B. SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATION FOR LANDMARK REMOVAL. In accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 24.025(H) of the City Code, the Commission hereby recommends to the City Council removal of the landmark designation from Lot B. 4902-9357-7092, v. 3 Page 26 of 276  SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED: APPROVED: RESOLUTION NO. ____________________________________ Erica Weeder, Chairperson ATTEST: ___________________________________ Maddy Markle, Commission Secretary 4902-9357-7092, v. 3 Page 27 of 276  WHEREAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allows the City Oouncil to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/ or landscape characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landmarks; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Oomission has held a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has prepared a report summarizing the evidence at said hearing, a copy of which report is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dtermined that the Oornelius Field House, located at 147 Central Ave., P. I. N.: 16- 23- 210- 002, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landmark because it meets with Criteria # 1, # 3, # 4, and # 6 of the Commission' s " Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks"; NCW, THERIMRE, BE IT RESCUED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATIAN MMNlISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARR, LAKE ( DUMPY, ILLINOIS: That the proposed landmark, the Oornelius Field House, be recmmended to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landmark. AYES: - 5- MUM: - 0- ABSENT: - 4- PRESENT: - 0- PASSED: 7- 30- 85 APPROVED: 7- 30- 85 KAIIINORM1; RESCLUTION NO. 2- 85 Page 28 of 276  HIGHLAND PARK MULTIPLE RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET PROPERTY, NAME Cornelius Field House ADDRESS 14.7 Central .Avenue CITY/ TOWN/ VICINITY Highland Park COUNTY Lake STATE Illinois zip 60035 OWNER' S NAME Martha F-: MacLeod ADDRESS same CITY/ TOWN/ VICINITY STATE ZIP LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Deerfield Township Assessor' s Office 600 Laurel Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 T VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Lot 4,.,. Block 26 Highland Park, 'Subdivision_ .- P. I. N..- # 16- 23- 210= 002 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 3. 8 acres circa DATE OF CONSTRUCTION 1875. :, ARCHITECT AND/ OR BUILDER Cornelius Field ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IF RELEVANT) Steamboat Gothic PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Vertical -battened siding would argue for labeling the OF BUILDING AND overall structure Steamboat Gothic, however, the - south - PROPERTY facing facade is a combination of two separate styles., indicating completion at different times. ( Photographs show house had attained its present size by 1896.) The eastern section is a straightforward but slightly broad Gothic cottage with roof, running parallel to the street, intersperced by a gable. A High Victorian porch wraps around this part of the first floor to face_ south and east. Abutting this section, on the west, is an Italianate structure approximately the same size but with the second story contained ( continued on attached OVERALL CONDITION: EXCELLENT X GOOD FAIR DETERIORATED RUIN INTEGRITY: UNALTERED X ALTERED DATE AND NATURE OF ALTERATIONS: A later addition, a second - floor sleeping porch, was removed in 1985- Page 29 of 276 ALTERATIONS ( cont' d) USE: ORIGINAL USE Predominately residential } PRESENT USE Residential OUTBUILDINGS AND/ OR OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCES ON PROPERTY ( ATTACH SKETCH PLAN IF APPLICABLE) Coach House, circa 1875- 1880, on the northwest corner of the property ( address, 160 Park- Avenue). 1s Queen Anne style with a gambrel roof bisected by gambrel dormers front and continued on attached) HISTORICAL AND/ OR During the 1880s, the building served as a boys, school. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The unusually large bedroom ( second floor, southwest corner) is said to have been a dormitory dating from this period. FORM PREPARED BY Martha F. MacLeod r TEL ( 312) 433- 3353 PROPERTY NAME Cornelius Field House LOCATION 147 Central Avenue ' CITY/ TOIM/ VICMTV. Highland. Park, 1111holS FACING DATE PHOTOGRAPHER LOCATION OF NEGATIVE Page 30 of 276 FHn4-= ( 11- 78) United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet Item number page continued from " Physical'. Description:'.- e" _.__ Page 1 within a Mansard roof. Here a large Palladian window, with ample cornices and topped by a large keystone, Below bisects the front. this, on the ground floor,. is a square - fronted bay. Behind the east ` Gothic) section is the kitchen wing which is housed in an older and more simple structure, . apparently the original. farmhouse. On the west side of the front is a large porte- cochere. In 1984 and 1985 restoration of the porch -- wide front and deep side -- was carefully and authentically executed. All woodwork that needed replacement was faithfully. reproduced ( from existing work) and replaced. Porch roof was covered, and gutters and downspouts executed, in lead - coated copper. In the early 198s, the entire exterior of the building was hand stri ped with paint remove.r.- contined from " Outbuildings and/ or other..." Page 2 back. Bridge from driveway to coach house was constructed of railway trestlework ( infrastructure) and wood ( superstructure) circa 1930. Guest Houseon property was originally the potting shed ( and heating source) for a large greenhouse. The greenhouse had been razed by 1954; the potting shed was converted ( varied floor levels and furnace cellar were retained) to a guest house ; in 1967. The foundation of the old greenhouse now serves as a planted terrace. V. Page 31 of 276 1 zr,.: q' .. i,ia*, t.+.-fS'.•.? a.1.rh' -..'`, JIB it eaK' :• . 1` . . 7 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Certificate of Appropriateness DATE: June 9, 2011 NAME OF LANDMARK: Cornelius Field House ADDRESS: 147 Central Avenue NAME OF OWNER: Gale Rothner NAME OF ARCHITECT: N. Batistich Architects, Burr Ridge, IL PROPOSED REPAIR, ALTERATION, REMOVAL, CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION: 1) Replacement of two exterior stairways with concrete steps. The steps will be capped in masonry and have white wooden risers. 2) A fenced -in patio on the north end of the house. Details of the fence and pavers are attached to this COA. 3) A cedar deck will be constructed on the east side of the guest cottage. Approved plans attached. DATE OF COMMISSION REVIEW: June 9, 2011 MOTION: Commissioner Rotholz SECOND: Commissioner Fradin ABSTAIN: VOTE: 5- 0 ACCEPT PROPOSAL X REJECT PROPOSAL Details of the fence and patio pavers. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS: Approved drawings of cedar deck on the cottage. Photographs of the exterior stairs to be replaced. COMMENTS: SIGNED: Page 32 of 276  scope o WoRK 60 mvx•.. STo uE P.¢ -' moo Page 33 of 276 Proposed Fence Style for Patio Gate Style for Patio Decorative Trellis Example Page 34 of 276  Za" AAJW_el p i #*, C A ANDSCAPES 1W S A GRAND DIME PP_ FL AG TONE FLAG Ok J 1 13,A o O, ft 0 Rosetta Hardscapes accurately creates the look art! feel of mature in any application you previously unavailable in landscape block materials. Also, the use of wet -cast concrete allows imagine. This boutique line of landscape products truly amazes even the most discerning Rosetta to offer significantly improved durability over most competitive products. craftsman or homeowner. The textures, colors and shapes of these stones are like nothing else on the market today. Thank you for taking the time to review the Rosetta line of products on the following pages. Imagine the possibilities of a Rosetta solution for your next project! Let Rosetta be the catalyst BY crafting Rosetta stones with architectural - grade wet -cast concrete as opposed to the that inspires your creative process. much more common dry -cast concrete, Rosetta Hatdscapes captures a level of detail in texture Page 35 of 276  GENEZAL NOTES: F SOIL ASSUMED CONCRETE TO TO BE HAVE 3. 000 A BEA, F. S. I. ING IN 28 CAPACITY GAYS. OF 3. 000 R. S. F. S ALL STRUCTURAL GZADE LUMBER TO BE STRUCTURAL G2AOE FIR 02 5. i.F.. ALL FRAMING LUMBER TO BE ' PRESSURE TREATED' MIN. 1. 05-0 f.. w w ALL EXPOSED FINISH WOOD TO BE CEDAZ WO STAIR RIS - 25 SHALL BE 7- 3/ 4' MAXIMUM AND STAIR TREAD TO BE 10 MINIMUM CLEAR OF TREAD ABOVE. MINIMUM WID TN TO . E . L W U LL w w r O v- DIEM U o z l}fl LL w m flA1 m+ ED RARE LNm sVNS 1 6omo c L' 1, Y 1750N— FSPXRC- F " VNNM 5Tr 5 EXIST1: W nsCRT. TRn / / I w M' A1 V75mT5 T r. W JSSOW' O.G a GOiTAG cAAX T 7 L11GS31 SOL1,11WA W Z ND' OtOBXt usAr. vTDVRTO, iT s;, m ttNLLO w I ZzwZ j w QNmIU 0 nl I Z 7DAYae' LJ.I Nf! O~LL0 I W WW J SIT DV. CONC. RIE, — F} wm m Oo LL uw0 FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT - SIDE ELEVATION , '- 7 , xve w ec vx yr ao m uu2211w DECK SECTION y} OWq SWL SChL UT = i'-0' 338 { t K ECkING p 8- DA. CONCZETE PIER TO A MIN. 3- 6 BELOW GRACE DECK FRAMING PLAN L Page 36 of 276 J  r -- - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION- CERTIFICATE OF. APPROPRIATENESS - Date:. August 19,-- 1986- Name cf Landnark: Cornel:ius.-Fiel-d-. House.,( Coach. House) Address: 147 Central/•_160. P_ark.. Ave: Name of owner: _ MaetW and .Al -.MacLeod Name_ cf--dontractor-:_Peter- Nrcol.azziis.:-Carpenter and Smith` Proposed repair-,- alteration,. removal, construction or demolition: ReSub,= structureband;_foot ngs ( see a: ttached- letter. dated August 1, 1986)- Date- of 0oirm ission Review; August. 19, 1986 Motion' - Caranissianeri-LAxel rod x1Accept Rej ect Propospal Second: Commissioner Norvi;ckas w' Abstain: Cmmissioner.' Nicolazzi• Vote: All - i n-. Documents. Fa Letter from Peter- Nicola.zz.i,.to. .-A1 MacLeod - date Aug. 1, 1986 ,. Camnents: Signed eol t ,. may: T a :. i i ' ,_ . i.k.. ': C_ • F X• q• ti... , _ z _ „ { .{: , . 1n a' Y +" • t. l'.- Page 37 of 276  i Secondary Documentation or References Lar) W1yr4..45 1/, sX., na . /. k.r rr i ,. h% rs Significance Historic Association _ Historic Signif in Landscape Design Historic Signif in Culture _ Work of a Recognized Master Important Artistic Statement _ Example of Fine Craftsmanship Use of Unique Materials _ Unique Regional Expression Example of Particular Style _ Example of Particular Type Example of Particular Time _ Example of Time Sequence Other Verifiable Quality Statement of Significance ( for each type of significance) Or7, giniy14, U i., 6) Physical Desription Brief Description of Significant Design Elements Plant Materials () a kg , tyr> / u/ e. nrr H/ s n- 74, 0, rI frrn. Manmade Features JQ #1PI ' nt & u rx , Da dor),, 6wd nrvr/ nh wj (o -, m/v,/ 4r s r cl a i r J 0, h. rias., } i l/ n C.. si Dri/ Y 0 ///_ 4 fi"._ Water Is there' a ravine on this property? Yes No Page 38 of 276  Are there any critical or end ngered plant materials on this property? If yes please explain All iljy t , _.' t% r, -) i IF 7) Evaluation Condition Excellent , Good LFair _ Deteriorated _ Severely Deteriorated Changes Unaltered _( Altered < Added to _ Loss/ Removal _ Encroached Upon Z Qualilfying Statement of Condition and Change Integrity ( Does the site retain the physical characteristics that give it its historic identity; and represent and convey the type( s) of sigiiig , icance established by the sites historical context?) Location _ Design Intent Spatial Relationships/ Setting Materials _ Vegetation _ Workmanship Feeling Association Other Describe the degree to which the overall landscape and its significant I features are present today. Explain the categories of integrity noted above: M-0- / ir- ee. s Helm / TIu OXY / f.J/ J GY7 r1 M.C- iA e 4-r,L«.L f? " / + I 8) Form Prepared by: t 00-5 Address / 70 7 1R. jpi ? O -S Phone Date 7-175- 275-_ Jo Page 39 of 276 0) Photo( s) Roll Number Negative No( s). Sketch of base map or plan Please attach if on separate sheet Page 40 of 276  G.. '> YY't' ' 4^. rG{ i'; '. : . 3tr' { i] •^ r[ C': P•:% i Y' ,•( Ii ` 2!•, { ld: J p'' y. tet•., y \` t, Yi G :' C' r• 0', ` y ` l', •. l.Rr r •r • \ Cr •.'. a> r_.,. ti r• J 1 y 1! f' , . 11' .. a-:y. W• J ; a. •'.. ;`. ?. •>!.. C iZ f* •' r !. a•- '/•' 3`l`:? r•.\.: rj{\ a• fT'• 4. •rl.. i ''. Y'q. t_..-,, M` t.. t1V /• a-N rr i.. KL tri f; 3 ` j ' \ 1': ., jt di:` ` t•,+ , ri,J•:r`• ;}'. T,:. <." . / rid t: r > ter„ fy- ` . ter' '` > • a/ ' • i :.. •, y? C, O`: ,;'•. 0' r,:\'' \ f `",, L.•• F • r, . 4' 7 at> ' !.(-... ... V 9,1 ]t . 1 Y :"- \ q ' h51 tw rr'' y7j ' . • SSI) V` 9 tel i, l' _/', 1:" .^ 1• t, 0 '•.: i •n,. 1 t• fr fir-, wv'. ny rn.Lv, 1 _ f....!. t/ 1 y ' R; ". A• fi * tir y:'.-•! i M N , C. 1.: .` i , , i. S' f. pyr•, 7,!'. • e t f, 1 a... •' rT .. • ! 9r; r '. 1 !' „ a, . . 7.; i' .• Y , • P \•: f. ..-+..:.• tr .. a• a, ' :'' a- f ' 4 i'r• t• t . - `^. - w' 1" vM•• 1 th%_':',•"!', cai . fit?:a •:!, tr. i!'< %` r;. lf r'• 1,• v, \' t, ;i: . IC f tr y". 1 F•%•• ' r4• . f,,, Kh.,•. , kX11 ;. '5'.> t•;. •, ';'`:., ._•.': a.:r tl'': f•-51. is?T.+. ! i :i:: '. ! t . r . • '' :+ 1•• i• ma.. .,. J, e. . ! pi( S { y . ' y- 1 v3''' e\ !!. ', S •. _ r8,' L a. •' a,? y:,.. t rhf: a 1•.; . .' 1.: ! j:.', ti r•.. 4trJ : r" t, . 1 ' 1,' _ 4l r,.\` - , 1 •, 0. ry. ': 1 w: i • yi ' v 11 • : . ft T. r'i. R'• s. t .r.' '`. V. i r. r.•'.?, ; . t a ,>ti1:' j ar• ..\ i•,' :, l ' r., / r. ,• • 1 . _•... ']., •. f.,.. a: '. f'1a f C •• 4•.• A aa \ , rOr \' Sr •,{, ' A9 ^ 4' Iter• Qr. . Ii WA rya;- r, o. rr. . 11 r. Ir` r, f...,.. '• : pt' t` e fyl.\` q! i,. ; •' • ": 1.-"' , i'• ha •. It '., 1 :.Y._•. . r j: r' tv _ i;• ( J.. 1y , r•"sf%''.';'. ; cy t., r1•" • r. /.{ aA r • `: I f •}•' '•: I F V1 : d. . /!"{ a t ] C 1 b : f , fir , , ',•. • 1_ `. 7^': ` '' i ' ." t]'; >` ''.^.. ,. y*. 1 ; . „ 1i:: a' . , S i :- ti / 1',, r 4 . y:%- rt• r ;`: a1 tt -•'.`..' t, r' i,:;' SdJ '' '•, 7 P°`;": Q to__tt :<. t: ••^,' t ifZ' t ` K :'rte .: ,,. _' 1 o . I l.rj,j` ,h.'!L,. • /, .Y^,'':+'..,, 1^ .: :._: AAA `' s`:'.'. ' '`. `, i,'r q. ... ` ti, C% , i t';• f V % 7!.•, ' l f': 4 1 ' g l' 1, i.. , ,; 1. t a'. ' C i :.. c' •, ' • e /. : wq.' 7'`• j yr.. r C, ` ,, ', ih •. i ,. r: l - E ' t'„.. 71f O% its,. ', idr; ':, ' , r•. • ri,' •, '''._ , s ar ,.` fr'• i ' ;,.;, i'•, S.: i••.' Yr,'`• , j; },:',.A ryr' ice'\ M': f t f.,. :• I/ NJ. ai, • L!.• tl iii""• j r1r ,. Y/ qqq l• r•. t.• i•r'%•'•' - n` ' \ T l-, L' r :''ir : .'.• r,;! 1:\ 1• 1.' t 1 i•- It-l.: i y:: i/'. :• i..: l. 9+.';'+, Ca•. • * , ., `••• tf!(••\\ ) 1, p' i qq T w,. r: Js,; il . v` E' r'y *"•' `_`.' {' W'':. ''aj., ?, p 1 A.. n.. ; `',. h.C.::_ r}. 1• Y'_ 1,•' i a' f . r ''fla . c' fy: f . i +.a: t;; ti'` r.; j, ai rS1;,' _ ;. i'[}' J..;: 1•'M1:. 1e::•' - , f±.':• a,.'• .. l. I >, '* 1•, •- vv , / ` ' p r: t. .:u•..r:,?,•. 4 :.•rl'. Y,!'; :: . ..:• ''{ e' ',. g ' M' 1', r ,.J: '. 7-`' e•' : r r:' y. I r1 : f M.. ;: *'' yd':,; Fl il ri . .•.,, ?:' 4`.: I`'' • l;. 1 ; i? rtl. oi• ; . f •,,' G'•. ,_. .:+.,, •.Cvr'... F , Sj.• 1. . v: f :':;' rjj)': I • a y'. v; .. 1 > ._ :. ffi.'` ai a •' ii Sii i: . Q sAt ! ' C .. s ,, ., '• itr,>. •.. i. ar:,, i•, a. 1.`-""% 1"> 0 _:!.: f • . 1• - y . " r.> ^•! 1: I• f.-; ,• { ti ' -'''' '. l 1>'.; "'•:. i'.i.: ' .'.,•?,o a A` y. . ':, , f; 1:~-. i -,•t' H .. ' a j.•: t.• 144 Cr , . r .... '` 7' L—_ n,;:•. ••; ,• . Y - « s. y • •`• Y . :. Q .;, moi , _ ' 1. a ' ice L• _. d s.. as i `.> y:.: l 1}- --- 1111111111 .. -• - : t'!" S. 11{ _11 f•taal +__._ _ _ 1li ' J - 11:; i.::1L iljjjjL,. w . r r• . A,' . i.. . j!,rL i/// Cc':!' , i .—' T—'-—' I 1• d •-'= ;• .. --- " t- --------- -- ._. - 1'• .: • a ,' .• rJa rt••,..f `r r. ti '• >•. h r tlEii. _ : li.l: :; 1!;, I t v.. .•• ,, 1; , ' a •' ''• " • • i fly ` ! ' ,• Lz^' i c ' 1; 6' , ' ] i:Y%' Sl, ! 1,•\ , •• ,,_ ,: s• ' I I; 1 •. • r. .. ' a ;:' . p. I r , . I' .+. .. i '' al... . e ..+ r•• - firn. 1C',^'..« _ •! arr. r•_ - .."- .. r C. . l. r] 1 , Y.:. 11707: t y l•!. r11 MrrF •-, - - .. ice• n•” 11! J Page 41 of 276 FTI Ak ea not ON p: i, Ot . . ." . OWN. - VIP. utntriiiitiili 1L Page 42 of 276  z 4,:.. ,. y,:. . • J.•:•..• . '. • is ...- t•. _ ,^",? Zi:;} • '_ 5.; ' I, • e. r. ,, t.. ' S .. rr t rr ?• e`er ' i r T. ,;`. ' - y. ;+{. i, i - ,.,: f,,. t ' s F' J r•• w r. y. I t- f• 1w, t _ 1 i fit„ •, f 1" 1 F' G: moi:, I:: r. I rti ..: ' r r- 7, .": ' F c' r. r • O' P• Tj j a. 1. 1 j v Li Li t J •.), l r, I ,.! •' i. -- t e7'. ti. • 1. :.' L1l • y tib• a' 3 t • t: l' I M' S" • 5'r j rI •. t`'th. yT,•t:/• /• IC, 1, f.. rliM- { iid. ( raa r' +• ala. Y .: \. • # 1' a,.' .. qr 7. f..r o ti .. 7 7' V•- t\ t '. fir lr t` q!% \ Il'{Yr is \4^. / C.) i't rs' ' r . r, S v ef;,, }. tr..•,. t:•/ r. f - . 4.•.•; +lC f f- e/ '„'' i. ' c '') 4': i6' r' l, a•.: 1 ti..t•'%:: 7-f'J7t•• a p: r.• k-S . i. '' j ;! J'—. I•, l.`•,'-' i'. . e' t.. r.' r: Tare: ,. ti••:.. 4.. i4:,./ so f: ; 1 ys'/: 4 J1. tet T•1'v. rJa„;::=-, r. , ac. r J•, •%' ";;•` . a'.,:', 4. •%! t. 1 a,. .' j :' 1;' '{. a' J .\{... :,; 1•- 1 .. S- t• r J' 1 r. 7 4. F^ J' f s' i•: r • `+ 1 3” II4'• ll t l. I J rt; f• 7. f' i . 1+ 5 l i r,< t 1', it , ti 1 t!' J: r'•' . i 1• r:: • S j :: t:+ tC ,` tl r ( j: r , tt ' t• - lw,,. .' t .;' i i , l- q l •` t o• t1 0. OM1. Page 43 of 276  440 tee_ ._._.._.__.._..._ - _ __ .__._.__.____._.__.._.. __- _. __._ _._.._..___ ____._ G J_'3 _ Ai ve 14, a12,--rIl77 r) 'IlL 1. Page 44 of 276  ani w - ue. , a._ oGd fcu.. dw/t trr`. P-e o p( / 9bOS 517/ f __. 6-___.._... U___--.._-.._ i^cd-.1r.---`= lUs--=-•--------- --- i 1 C& y __-- 9 30 s 10 4 v w t Page 45 of 276  A• t v t f •• tar ` J : ', . siT7:ii•'. £ Ul. .'_ :. tis J' F ., , -.. ' r... 1''-! F"' l • t J; '" tAJlt J r' f , ,,, .. • T, t Q yl w J 1l`yk•{' i• t ur"%. y, 1 t'' S •''' G }{~' r1 R t+ ty JV s •) ' ( 7P r, ' 1j`` r• • IC' I i,'jp • M ! i'":/ " Y. r + r Vey,. r 4:,.- Jjp r p ' tl'' a y • y'y . e. a s ' . •.. 1 f r; I.' P f r5); f S., Ss '{ f•!L''ri •• trlt.r"` Ka ` ' tb- i• S .. Y' l);: ,•!,Jar v.y. '' y, `., 1 T". w A....!'' r,•.--..+ sd T'S s`+ - 11 . Y. S'' i.. 1 , y 1.. A ;: a ,., ' + y, it , h k a t, t rti' ':` 1• n •. vii'; ay 4. :'`';.. y`_%:•: tea,• s.,:. : 1 tiC 1-'• .:= ` I..r% _ r• f-'`a(^' lt ' rt ' y1' )! k_i +., t: i - -- r .-•.. c". 1 t• - ) y, 9Se. — ,•:' . •_ ry .^^ tiar. f 5..: y ,j. C •: : it r . - t Q"•y. l' • 04, Ly yam,,•• d,'. . y i 1 fi • fir: i.. ._ vt _ - op p fit •. ' ; a, tR'1 :• s .. r ;,. J• rt•-•• M 1• n Mrt ,` OM1 rte.> 4S d • _- . yam--:, .. T' '. ett • t .. e . ` a. y r.•. r {'•. r 1.: t I.)....• A.<. Page 46 of 276 ILI 111 . J r.. - ... y ? - .. a. 1'-•, ='/` sa 3 `_ t s, I-`: ra- tib ..°.:• J t' i F - dY - • sem y `,,• Page 47 of 276 City of Highland Park, Illinois Local Landmarks 147 Central Avenue Address: 147 Central Avenue Ordinance No.: 34-85 (08/26/85) Historic Name: Cornelius Field House Architect: Highland Park Building Company Year Built: c. 1875 Architectural Style: Gothic Revival and Italianate Secondary Structure: Original Coach House 160 Park Avenue Historic District: Linden Park Place/ Belle Avenue (NR) National Register Historic District (1982) Local Historic District National Register Property Local Landmark (1985) Comments: Identified in the 1973-1974 Illinois Historic Structures Survey; built in two sections and completed by 1896; coach house in rear; 1880’s Boys School and later a single family residence; owned by Cornelius Field, Director of Highland Park Building Company; significant owners include Albert and Martha MacLeod, members of Highland Park City Council; historic Victorian landscape. Page 48 of 276 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK ) COUNTY OF LAKE ) SS STATE OF ILLINOIS ) I, DAVID W. FAIRMAN, City Clerk of the City of Highland in the County Park, of Lake, State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am keeper of the records, ordinances, files and seal of said City, and; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 34- 85 entitled, " AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS," which Ordinance was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Highland Park on August 26, 1985; all as appears from the records in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate Seal of said City of Highland Park, this 13th day of January 1986. City Clerk Page 49 of 276 8/ 23/ 85- 1: 14 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Highland Park, pursuant to Section 24. 025 of " The Highland Park Code of 1968", as amended, did conduct a public hearing on July 30, 1985, pursuant to proper notice; and WHEREAS, following said hearing, the said Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolutions Nos. 2- 85 through 6- 85 copies of which resolutions are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit I), which resolutions contain the reports of the Commission as well as a reco mmend ation- to- the C_i_ty Council of the City of Highland Park that- tihe` Cornelius Field House, the—W] L' amb- orrn Hou" se , the Francis Ev" e.r_ e"tt- House;- the_ Charl_ es H. Lipman House, an -d` the StupeyCabin ?( hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sub"j"ect - Properties') be designated Highland Park Landmarks; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the designation of the Subject Properties will be consistent with the planning policies. and objectives of the City, will promote the welfare of its residents, and will not adversely affect the value, use, or enjoyment of any adjacent or nearby property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Highland Park believes it to be in the best interests of the residents of the City of Highland Park that the Subject Properties be designated Landmarks; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That, pursuant to Section 24. 025 of " The Highland ark Code of 1968 as amended, the following described properties be and the same are designated hereby as Landmarks: Cornelius Field House 147 Central Avenue 16- 23- 210- 002 W. Lamborn House 2360 Sheridan Road 16- 23- 210- 003 Francis Everett House 296 Linden Park Place 16- 23- 403- 030 Charles H. Lipman House 85 Roger Williams Ave. 16- 36- 204- 007 Stupey Cabin St. Johns Avenue 16- 23- 413- 018 and as such shall be subject hereafter to the provisions of Chapter 24 of " The Highland Park Code of 1968", as amended. SECTION TWO: That, as notice of the action of this City Council, the City Clerk shall forward certified copies hereof to those who nominated the aforedescribed properties as Landmarks, to the owners of record of the aforementioned Landmarks, and to the Building Department of the City of Highland Park. SECTION THREE; That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect rom and after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law. AYES: - 7- NAYS: - 0- ABSENT: - 0- PASSED: 8/ 26/ 85 APPROVED: 8/ 26/ 85 PUBLISHED: 9/ 12/ 85 ORDIZWCE NO: 34- 85 ayor ATTEST• City Cler Page 50 of 276  the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic WHEREAS, Preservation ordinance in effect which allows the City Council to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/ or landscape characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landmarks; and IMERFAAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation O mumission has held a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has prepared a report su marizing the evidence at said hearing, a copy of which report is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland -Park -Historic -Preservation Commission has dtermined that eQornelius--Field-House,- loca-ted at 147 Central Ave., P. I. N.: 16- 23- 210- 002, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria U, # 3, # 4, and # 6 of the Commission' s" Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks"; NCKF ` THEREFORE, BE IT RESCLVED BY - IiE HISZORIC PRESERVATION ( OMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARR, LAKE ( X)UNTY, ILLINOIS: That the proposed landnark, the Cornelius Field House, be recommended to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landmark. AYES: - 5 NAPES: -- 0- ABSENT: - 4- I PRESENT: - 0- PASSED: 7- 30- 85 APPIMED: 7- 30- 85 Chairman RESCLUTION NO. 2- 85 PL n A. IT PP r Page 51 of 276  Report Summarizing the Evidence Presented at the Public Hearing H. P. C. 2- 85 Public hearing no. 2- 85 was held on July 30, 1985, at the Ravinia Station, 510 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, Illinois. Said public hearing was conducted by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission to nominate the Cornelius Field House as a Highland Park Landmark. The Cornelius Field House is located at 147 Central Avenue, Highland Park. The property' s legal description is: lot 4 block 26, Highland Park subdivision. The P. I. N. is: 16- 23- 210- 002. The house was built by the Highland Park Building Company circa 1875. The eastern section is a Gothic Revival Cottage. Abutting this section is a two story wing at the west with a mansard roof. The wrap- around porch has been carefully restored. Cornelius Field was the director of the Highland Park Building Company. He built this house for himself. The Commission determined that the building meets with criteria numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the " Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landmarks". The Commission has passed resolution 2- 85, recommending to the. Highland Park City Council that the Cornelius Field House is designated as a Highland Park Landmark. Page 52 of 276  highland Park Historic Preservation Commission 1707 St. Johns Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Lw)amark N= inaticn Foca Date: 1) Name of Property ( originalifknown) : le?Iel 2) street Address; / 4'7 3) Legal description or P. I.N. ( Permanent Index N= ber frac Zbs Assessor' s Office, ip 600 Laurel Ave., Highland ark): Park).-- 4)4) Name and Address of, Property Owners) ( From Assessor' s Office): 5) Present Use: Ie.5/ denaye 6) Past Use:_ f- e,!/gjVjI C 7) Architect: 8) Date of Construction: o 9) Written statement describing property and setting forth reasons it is - eligible for Landmark designation: - - 17` ByJ :Gt1 s iS 7 t l —57 ru G't' A-.0rJ CIY S t" r' 00oal_ - .. 10) This structure -is eligible for designation on the basis .. of the following criteria - see reverse page): _ R1, ss , 31) Nmie ( s) and Adress (es) of ......:...' -..___ _ r w' .. 121 n' Applicant( s):. Names) Signature (s) ; '..: • _ Mme _ Address ( es) oe_ . 17) Affiliation (Q= dssion Member. Owner, City Council, Preservation 4 • . Organization) : Please oompletP anA vm", ... Page 53 of 276  Cri . -ria for D_e_ teminirm Hiprhland Park Landnark In making decisions about' which sites. or structures qualify as Highland Park Landmarks, the Preservation Commission will decide within 45 days whether the nominated property meets one or more of the folly,4ing criteria: Z .) Its Character, interest or value _as part of the _ development, heritage or culture characteristics of the community, county, state or. country, 2.) Its location as a site of a significant local, _ county, state or national event; 3.) Its identification with. a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the community, county, state or country; 4.) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an. architectual and/ or landscape style. valuable for the study,.. of a period, type, method of. construction or use of indigenous materials;.- aterials;. 5.)5.) Its identification as the work of a master builder,_ designer.. architect or landscape architect whose individual work has infulenced the development of the community, county, - state or. country; 6.) Its overall embodiment . of elements of design, detailing materials or. craftsmanship which renders it architecturally significant; 7- Y Its overall embodiment of design elements that make It structurally or architecturally innovative; Its unique location or singular physical characteristics that. makes it a .n established or familiar visual feature; and/ or a 9.) Its character as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of. such structures, including, + but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commierciat_-, structures, with a high level of integrity or architectual significance. Any structure, proPerty, or area that meets one or more of' the above criteria shall,•also have sufficient, integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. or restoration. Page 54 of 276 Page 55 of 276 fl Lr Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission - 1707 St. Johns Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 dation Pbm , Date.-_/ 1). Name of Property (, original ifif known) : P. r' 0g/ Ys . 2) Street Address 2_ J- 3) Legal description or P. I. N. Assessor' s Office, 600 Laurel land Number from 7 PPark nship F1l _ 16z3_ 2 o ) ao 4) Nam and Address of Property Owner( s) '( Fran Assessor' s Office):_ 14- 7 av1 ' 5) Pre ' . sent..... - _ Use, --= 4r 6) Past Use. GYP Architect 1Lai l,J4p 8) Date of Construction: 9) Written eligible statenent for Lanav=describing Property and setting forth reasons it is k. designation: 007 10) This structure ' 3s eligible for designation on the basis - of t' ze following criteria see reverse page): i1) Nmw( s) and Adress( es) of Applidant( s) .- Name( s) : A Signature( s); Address ( es) 12) Affiliation ( cm= dssion. Member. Owner. City Council, Preservation Organization) ; - Please cOMPlete and return this ford to the Highland Park Preservation COMmssion 1707 St. Johns Avenue; Highland. park, Page 56 of 276 Illinois 60035 NATI,ONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATION I RETURN SHEE ·r United St•tes Dep•rtment of Ute Interior ~tlone i t>alit Service Substant·va Review Linden Park Place/Belle Avenue Historic District (Highland Park MRA), Lake County, ILLINOIS, Working No. :!/;7,k75.2d!-o0 , Fed. Reg. Oat.e· D a t e ou e: fl~-;;-=-r-~-- --/,~ o;. -r/- ;.r:c a--- L- --·· Action: resubmission ~~=~-rp~E _REJECT _ __ nomination by person or local government owner object ion Federal Agency: ______________ appeal Substantive Review: /.ample _request appeal _ NR decision 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification SUh•• -..mu •• 4 __o~f~P~r-o_p_e_r~t-y----------------------------------------------- -- ---- ~-.~o=-w_n_e_r 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys ,... no . 7. Description Page 57 of 276 8. Significance 1 0. Geographical Data ~ o! ,_,IMN<l pr!)IMfty - - - - - au.dran;le- - - - - - UIIIT -...ceo 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification title 13. Other Maps _.)£._ Photographs Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to------------- Signed ifd &;Ac7V~rJL Date P¢>- Phone : 202 272 -350 4 Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet Page 58 of 276 .~ATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTOfiiC PLACES £VALUATION I RETURN SHEE i11111M ~.--.. ......... .a. IDIIIt•ll--••Rill .. - .. - ' ;ill ., .. I II r1er . • p 4. Owner of Property s. Loc•tlon of Leg•l Description .•. ~ _7_....h...,..,s...c..,ri_p~;.t.-l.;.o.-n_ aumm•ry p•r•~r•ph completeness - cl•rity 81ter•tlons/ lnte~rlty d•tes Page 59 of 276  ............._.......................... a. Significance ........ I ---•-"••••.. ,._.... _,.. oo'l .............. , ; ...... .: ' t . > , ' . ' 11. ........... ......,......,.......... _..... ' . 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification ._. : _,., _ : .. ... . . . . . . . . ,., _ _ OMeer . . . . . . y 13. Other _Maps -A-~ Photogt:aphs 'ffl~ ~i·1U-~ ~h~ ~ ~I, 2~ 2f.) att-d ~~~ - - Other 8. G~sJetto r / Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to --'= c::..·. t./?J.;. L. -~-JC~~r:;e..c.41-~.lll4i::.J!t./~~--- Phone: 202 272 - 350 4 Comments for any Item may be continued on an attached aheet Page 60 of 276  Highland Park Landmark Preservation Committee Offices at: WEST RIDGE CENTER, PARK DISTRICT OF HIGHLAND PARK 636 RIDGE ROAD • HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 60035 • 312-831-3810 March 10, 1983 Ms. Beth Grosvenor Office of the National Register for Historic Places National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. Dear Ms. Grosvenor: I hope the attached will clear up the questions you had on the Linden Park Place/Belle Avenue Historic District in Highland Park. As you can see, I altered the boundaries to exclude the Women's Club and several properties that did not contribute to the significance of the District (either historically or architecturally) along Park Avenue. The Women's Club probably should be nominated individually, and we intend to do that. Originally, we included all of the properties along Park Avenue - even many non- contributing properties - (those lettered, see #4, p. 8) to provide a visual pathway to Park Lane and Belle Avenue. Upon reconsideration and after discussion with the Illinois Division of Historic Sites staff, it appears we can accomplish the same end by keeping in the con- tributing residences at the corner of Park Avenue and Linden Avenue and leaving out a large number of buildings that are either recently built, altered or characterless (or a combination)and which might be considered "compatible" but are non-contributing. We've left in the 1950's Dubin Houses (#'s 23,24,25) because they are fine second (or maybe third) generation Prairie School-influenced structures. And we've retained Page 61 of 276 Ms. Beth Grosvenor Page Two some non-contributing but compatible modern homes because skirting them would really disrupt the cohesiveness of the District. None, by the way, are really intrusive. They are all newer buildings. (See "H;" it is typical.) Be sure to note that the non-contributing structures, identified by capital letters, have been identified under #4, not #7. I've included more photos, and hope they will round out the visual documentation you need ("r", "s" and "t"). As to the individual listings you had questions on. The forms, I believe, now contain the information you've requested. I've included some added several photos of the Loeb property and two of the Jensen property. If there are any further questions, I'll be happy to forward any information you need. Thanks for your guidance. Sincerely, Susan Benjamin Page 62 of 276  m m Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Old State Capitol • Springfield • 62701 September 16, 1985 Martha MacLeod 147 Central Highland Park, IL. 60035 Dear Ms. MacLeod: I understand that you wish to add the Cornelius Field House in Highland Park to the National Register and, that._the property is on the edge ofa National Register district -existing in Highland Park. Julia Sniderman,- Istaff representative for.' the Highland Park Preservation Commission, informed me of your interest. Federal regulations stipulate. t-hat boundary increases require the same documentation for a new National Register nomination ( please re- fer to the' enciosed " Instructions for - the Preparation—*.")., including photographs and and that the form justify the increase either maps; as ( 1) the discovery of information unkown at. the time of the original nomination or ( 2) an error in the original designation. An example of the text for such an increase.,. apart from maps and photos, is enclos- ed in the' sample " Sheffield Historic District Boundary Extension." , ' Should you have any questions, please contact me or Ann Swallow. We look forward -to receiving your nomination for the boundary increase. Sincer ly, Keith A. Scu le National Register Coordinator KAS: ra CC: Julia Sniderman Ann Swallow Page 63 of 276 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, 1707 ST. JOHNS AVENUE / HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 60035 Julia Sniderman Telephone 312 / 432- 0800 Staff Representative September 17, 1985 Al and Martha MacLeod 147 Central Ave. Highland Park, M. 60035 Dear Al and Martha: I have received further consultation frau Reith Skully, the National Register Ooordinator for the Illinois State Preservation Office in regards to your nomination. According to Mr. Skully, there are some problems with the nomination. Zhis surprised me because I have spoken to him about the nomination a couple of times since your initial inguiry last March. Because Mr. Skully is in charge of all of the National Register nominations in Illinois, I have asked him to advise you directly. I will be out of town from October 3 to October 15. If you' d like to discuss this further, please call me then. I did put your flyers in the Kiosks, hope your event went off well. Sincerely, Julia Sniderman Page 64 of 276  147 Central Avenue Highland Park, IL 60035 July 26, . 1, 986 11 . Keith A. Sculle Survey and - National Register Coordinator Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Old State,, Capitol Springfield, IL 62701 Dear Mr. Sculle: Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1986, regarding our request to have the Cornelius-. Field,. House considered for addition to the National Register. Your evaluation makes sense. I simply did not know enough about the subject to have anticipated it, and this possibility had not been suggested to us before, or I might have spared you the tedium of my concerns. As far as applying for an extension of the boundary to include our house in the district, I will do this only if you or our local commissioners would like to have it done. I suspect that the building has already received far more attention than it warrants. If you could have someone in your office return our papers and pictures, we would very much appreciate it. Thank you for all the time you have given us. Sincerely, Martha MacLeod Copies to Susan Benjamin Julia Sniderman Page 65 of 276  Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Old State Capitol • Springfield • 62701 August 13, 1986 Martha MacLeod 147 Central Avenue Highland Park, IL 60035 Dear Ms. MacLeod: I have received your letter of July 26, 1986, regarding the Cornelius Field House. After considering the matter, I recommend no further consideration for the National Register of the Cornelius Field and. thank you for your patience during the discussion. Enclosed please find the papers and pictures that you asked to be returned. Sincerely, Keith A. Sculle Survey and National Register Coordinator KAS; tb Enclosures cc: Julia Sniderman Page 66 of 276 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the potential adverse effects of replacing the bridge carrying Central Avenue (MUN 3115) over a Ravine approximately 0.1 miles west of Lake Michigan in Highland Park, Illinois. This bridge, identified as Structure Number (SN) 049- 6554, is listed in the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Historic Bridge List as a primary example of a concrete arch deck with filled spandrel bridge and has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and therefore, it is protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The report contains information describing the existing bridge features, its current condition, project’s purpose and need, and alternatives considered to avoid adverse effects on the existing bridge while taking measures to provide the best possible safety options for the improvements. Highland Park, IDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) understand that removing this bridge would constitute an adverse effect to the historic structure pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5. This portion of Central Avenue serves as the southern boundary of the NRHP listed Linden Park Place-Belle Avenue Historic District. Future coordination and consultation among IDOT, FHWA and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will develop design and construction commitments to avoid adverse effects to this historic district, including the contributing property at 147 Central Avenue in the northwest quadrant of the bridge. These avoidance measures will be incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this undertaking. Section 4(f) also applies to projects with adverse effects on bridges listed on or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The proposed Central Avenue Bridge project proposes to remove the existing structure and replace it with a new structure, an undertaking that will cause an adverse effect. The Nationwide Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation is applicable to this project because it meets the following criteria: 1. The bridge is to be removed with Federal funds. 2. The project will affect a historic bridge structure which is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. 3. The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark. 4. The FHWA Division Administrator determined that the facts of the project match those set forth in the Alternatives, Findings, and Mitigation sections of the Nationwide Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation. 5. Agreement among FHWA, SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has been reached through procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 2 Exhibit 5-10 Page 67 of 276 Page 68 of 276 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK COUNTY OF LAKE SS STATE OF ILLINOIS I, DAVID W. FAIRMAN, City Clerk of the City of Highland Park, in the County of Lake, State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am keeper of the records, ordinances, files and seal of said City, and; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 34-85 entitled, "AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS," which Ordinance was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Highland Park on August 26, 1985; all as appears from the records in my off ice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate Seal of said City of Highland Park, this 13th day of January 1986. Page 69 of 276 8/23/85-1:14 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Highland Park, pursuant to Section 24.025 of "The 11 Highland Park Code of 1968 as amended, did conduct a public , hearing on July 30, 1985, pursuant to proper notice; and WHEREAS, following said hearing, the said Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolutions Nos. 2-85 through 6-85 (copies of which resolutions are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit I), which resolutions contain the reports of the Commission as well as a recommendation to the City Council of the City of Highland Park that the Cornelius Field House, tne W. Lamborn House, the Francis Everett House, the Charles H. Lipman House, and the Stupey Cabin (hereinafter collectively referr e d to as "Subject Properties") be designated Highland Park Landmarks; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the designation of the Subject Properties will be consistent with the planning policies and objectives of the City, will promote the welfare of its residents, and will not adversely affect the value, use, or enjoyment of any adjacent or nearby property ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Highland Park believes it to be in the best interests of the residents of the City of Highland Park that the Subject Properties be designated Landmarks; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTI8N ONE: That, pursuant to Section 24.025 of "The Hig hland Park Code of 1968 a s amended , the foll owing described 11 , properties be and the same are designated hereby as Landmarks: Cornelius Field House 147 Ce ntra l Avenue 16-23-210-002 W. Lamborn House 2360 Sheridan Road 16-23-210-003 Francis Everett House 296 Linden Park Place 16-23-403-030 Charles H. Lipman House 85 Roger Williams Ave. 16-36-204-007 Stupey Cabin St. Johns Avenue 16-23-413-018 and as such shall be subject hereafter to the provisions of Chapter 24 of "The Highland Park Code of 1968", as amended. SECTION TWO: That, as notice of the action of this City Council, the City Clerk shall forward certified copies hereof to those who nominated the aforedescribed properties as Landmarks, to the owners of record of the aforementioned Landmarks, and to the Building Department of the City of Highland Park. SECTION THREE; That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law. AYES: - 7 - NAYS: - 0 - ABSENT : - 0 - PASSED: 8/26/ 85 APPROVED: 8/26/ 85 P UBLI S HED : 9/12/8 5 ORDrnANCE NO : 34-85 Page 70 of 276  RESCLUTIQN 'IO RE<DMMENP 'IO 'IRE CTTY <DUNOJ, 'IlIAT 'IRE OOJSE BE DESIGNATED AS A HIGffiJ@ P&Bt Lh'Il::MARK WHERF.AS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allws the Ci cy Council to designate di stinctive historic, architectural, and/or landsca:p= characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and · WHERF'AS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Corranission has held a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has preµired a rei;:ort suranarizing the e.ridence at said hearing, a COP.f of which rei;:ort is attached hereto and herecy- maae a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dtenuined that ffie CorneliBS Field Heuse, located at 147 Central Ave., P.I.N.: 16-23-210-002, is eligible for aesignation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria il, i3, :if4, and 4f6 of the Cormnission's "Criteria for Detennining Highland Park Landnarks"; Nav, 'Il!EREFORE, BE IT RESCLVID BY 'IHE HIS'IORIC mESER\TATIDN COMMISSION OF 'IHE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE CDUNrY, ILLINOIS: . That the proµ>sed landnark, the Cornelius Field House, re recommended to the Cicy Cbtmcil of the Ci~.1 of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landnark. AYES: -5- NAYES: -0- ABSENT: -4- PRESENT: -0- PASSED! 7-30-85 APPRO/ED: 7-30-85 RES<LU'l1ION NO. 2-85 1-A ~·· ~..1-- • _,, . , . , ./:,,, Page 71 of 276  RESOLOTION 'IO RE<PMMENP 'IP 'IHE CITY mmKTI;l WAT 'IBE HOOSE BE DESJGNATED AS A HIGHLl\ND PARK LANCMARK - WHERFAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allOHs the City Cotmcil to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or laridscai;e characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and WHERFA.S, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has _held a hearing on July 3 0, 1985, and has pre:tared a re:µ:>rt summarizing the e.vieence at said hearing, a a:>P.f of which re:r;ort is attached hereto and hereby mad: a µirt hereof as Exhibit A; and WH.EREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dterrnined that the • Iafil50r ouse, located at 2360 Sheridan Rd., P.I.N.: 16-23-210-003, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria #4, i5, and t6 of the Cbrranission' s "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landnarks"; NOV, 'JEEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'IEE HIS'IORIC PRESm!ATION <DMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE CDUNTY, JLLINOIS: That the protosed landnark, thew. Lamborn House, be reccmmended to the Cicy Council of the City of Highland Park for resignation as a Highland Park Landnark. · AYES: -5- NAYES: -0- ABSENT: -4- PRESENT: -0..;. PASSED: 7-30-85 ,, APPRCNED: 7-30-85 AJ?~ l ~/ U ~ - Cllairman /:~ RESCLUTION NO. 3-85 r. . .\\ ._-_.:J;. / :/ t ·' i~- !i .i '1:- 1i .· ~ . ! I . ; I . _, Page 72 of 276  RESOLUTION 'ID RECDMMEND ID IBE CITY muNm. 'lHAT 'lHE HCXJSE BE DESIGNATED "AS A HIGHL&\JD PARK LANrMARK WHERF..1\S, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservati.o n ordinance in effect which allcms the City Council to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or landsca:t;e characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and · WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Cormnission has' held a bearing on July 30, 1985, and has pretared a rei;ort summarizing the e1idence at said hearing, a CXJP.f of which re:I;Ort is attached hereto and here!:¥ nade a i:art hereof as Exhibit A; and ~, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Cormnission has dtermined that the Francis Everett H~, located at 296 Linden Park Place, P.I.N.:16-23-403-030, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria il, #3, i4 and i6 of the Commission' s "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landnarks"; NCW, '1HEREFORE, BE IT RESCLVED BY 'IBE HIS'IORIC PRESERVATION ffiMMISSION OF 'IBE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNI'Y, ILLlNOIS: ·. That the prop:>sed land:nark, the Francis Everett House, be reconunen~d to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landnark. Al'ES: -5- NAYF.s: -0- MSENT: -4--·- IRESlllT: -0- PASSED: 7-30-85 APPROlED: 7-30-85 RESCLUTION NO. 4-85 I - c_ Page 73 of 276  RESCLUTION ID RECOMMEND 'IQ 'IlIE CITY <DUNCTT. 'IF.AT 'IBE HCUSE BE DESIGNATED 'PB A HIGHIJlNl) PARK LF-.NPMARK WHEREAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Pr eservation ordiri.ance in effect which allcws the Cicy Cotmcil to oosignate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or landscai;e characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has held a hearing on _July 30, 1985, and has preµtred a rei;ort slJJ!Inarizing the evidence at said hearing, a OOP.f of which reµ:>rt is attached hereto and here!:¥ rrade a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHERE.AS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Ccmmission has dtermined that t.."1e Oiarles H. iJ;!!!an House, located at 85 Roger Williams Ave., P. I.N.: 16-36-204-007, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Land:nark because it meets with Criteria il, #4, ts, and i6 of the Commission's "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Landnarks"; Nav, 'IHEREIDRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'ffiE HISIDRIC PRESERVATION CDMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLF-ND PARK, LAKE CDUNrY, ILLINOIS: That the prop:>sed landnark, the .Olarles H. Lipnan House, be recanmended to the Cicy C.Otmcil of the Cicy of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Park Landnark. AYES: -5- NAYES: -{)- PB SENT: -4- IRES ENT: -0- PASSED: 7-30-85 APP.RO/ED: 7-30-85 RIBCLtJTION NO. 5-85 Page 74 of 276  RESCLUTION 'IO R.E<DMMENP ID 'IEE CTTY COONCIT. '!HAT 'lHE HOOSE BE DESIGNATED AS A HIGHLAND PARK L.ANDMARK WHEREAS, the City of Highland Park currently has an Historic Preservation ordinance in effect which allONs the City Cbuncil to designate distinctive historic, architectural, and/or landscape characteristics of Highland Park as Highland Park Landnarks; and WHERE.AS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation C.ommission has held! a hearing on July 30, 1985, and has pre:i;ared a re:f:X>rt summarizing the e.:vidence at said hearing, a COP.f of which reµ:>rt is attached hereto and beret¥ made a p:trt hereof ~ Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission has dtermined that the Stupey. Gtbin,- located at the east side of st. Johns Ave., between Hazel St. and Laurel st., P. I.N.: 26-23-413-018, is eligible for designation as a Highland Park Landnark because it meets with Criteria tl ~ ~4, i8, and *9 of ·the Commission's "Criteria for Determining Highland Park Lar..dnarks"; NOd, 'IHERfilORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY IBE HIS'IDRIC PRESERVATION illMMISSION OF THE CTTY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ~l<E CDDNI'Y, ILLINOIS: That the proi;x:>sed landnark, the St~y cabin, 1::e recommended to the City Council of the City of Highland Park for designation as a Highland Parik Landnark. AYES: -5- NAYES: -0- PBSENT: -4- PRESENT: -0- PASSED: 7-30-85 APPROJED: 7-30-85 ,' 7 (} ,r;-Ju~. J .f:J/4A,AA -ir,t,. ~ Chainnan (} RESCLUTION NO. 6-85 I -E Page 75 of 276 .,. ~ .... ~ ... - ~---~--- ...  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 WRITTEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting, February 12, 2026 Re: Continuation of Partial Landmark Designation Removal, 147 Central Avenue Submitted by: Kelsey Gonzalez Address: 126 Central Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Status: Neighboring Property Owner; Interested Party Date: February 12, 2026 I. INTRODUCTION Chair Greenbaum, Commissioners, and Staff: I submit this written testimony regarding the continuation of partial landmark designation removal for 147 Central Avenue (Case No. PUD-2025-00081). As a neighboring property owner at 126 Central Avenue, I have a direct and substantial interest in the integrity of this Commission’s process and the preservation of the Central East area’s historic character. On January 8, 2026, this Commission voted unanimously, 6-0, that the proposed subdivision “would significantly impact the historical significance of the property at 147 Central Avenue based on the historic fence, columns that make-up the gate, relocation of the new driveway and its impact on the curb appeal, and the growing density of the lot.” That finding was correct, well-supported, and has not been undermined by anything that has changed since January 8. What has changed is the framing. The updated agenda packet, modified less than 48 hours before tonight’s hearing, contains a staff footnote that attempts to exclude the very features this Commission relied upon in its unanimous finding. It also contains a pre-drafted resolution, requested by the applicant’s attorney, that reaches conclusions this Commission has not yet made. I respectfully urge the Commission to reject both. II. STAFF’S “TEMPORAL EXCLUSION” FOOTNOTE IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY WRONG The central issue in the updated packet is Footnote 1, which appears in both the written report to the Plan and Design Commission and the continuation memo for tonight’s hearing. Footnote 1 states: Page 1 Page 76 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 “Staff does not consider the structures listed as part of the 1988 Landscape Survey alone, historically significant (relative to the original 1985 landmark ordinance) because this survey work was completed years after the property was designated a Local Landmark.” This footnote creates a novel legal theory: that features documented after an ordinance’s adoption date cannot be considered part of the landmark. It is wrong for five independent reasons. A. The 1985 Ordinance Landmarked the Entire Property Ordinance No. 34-85, adopted August 26, 1985, designates “Cornelius Field House, 147 Central Avenue, PIN: 16-23-210-002.” That PIN encompasses the full 4.10-acre parcel, not merely the main residence. HPC Resolution No. 2-85 found the property met Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4, and 6. Criterion 4 explicitly addresses landscape style. Criterion 6 protects “overall embodiment of elements of design, detailing, materials or craftsmanship.” These criteria plainly encompass gateposts, wrought-iron fencing, and a historic carriageway driveway, all features that have existed on this property since the 1870s. The 1988 Landscape Survey did not create their significance; it documented features already present at the time of designation. B. Highland Park’s Own Conduct Confirms the Broader Scope Staff’s own memo acknowledges that the HPC reviewed the coach house in 1986 (one year after landmark designation) and the gardener’s cottage and landscape in 2011. These are structures and features located across the wider property, not merely in the footprint of the main house. For forty years, the City exercised regulatory jurisdiction over outbuildings, landscapes, and site features at 147 Central Avenue. It is inconsistent, and legally untenable, to now claim that features documented three years post- ordinance are not part of the landmark when the City has treated the entire property as a Regulated Historic Structure for four decades. C. Staff’s Own January 8 Memo Contradicts This Footnote The January 8, 2026 staff report, written by the same staff who authored tonight’s memo, concluded: “After review, Staff concludes that the property at 147 Central Avenue is a Regulated Historic Structure in its entirety.” Staff cannot simultaneously conclude the property is a Regulated Historic Structure “in its entirety” and then insert a footnote excluding features that fall on Lot B because they were documented in 1988. These positions are mutually exclusive. The Commission should rely on the conclusion reached after full review of the historic record (the “in its entirety” finding), not a footnote that contradicts it. D. Staff’s Own Research Proves These Features Are Significant Page 2 Page 77 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 The very same memo containing Footnote 1 devotes three pages to documenting the significance of the gateposts and wrought-iron fence. Staff researched the Smithsonian Institution’s publications on pineapple finials. Staff consulted local historian and author Julia Johnas, who confirmed the gateposts “indicated the location of the carriageway entrance” and that “the pineapple design reflected Field’s New England antecedents.” Staff photographed and documented wrought-iron remnants at the base of the gateposts, confirming their historicity. Staff concluded these features “point to the historic significance of the gatepost and finials” and that “the wrought-iron remnants further indicate the gatepost’s historicity.” Staff then inserted a footnote disclaiming the significance of the same features it just spent three pages proving are significant. The Commission should trust the substance of staff’s research, not a footnote that contradicts it. E. The Footnote Inverts Preservation Law Under nationally accepted preservation standards, including the National Park Service criteria referenced in Highland Park’s own code, integrity is evaluated based on how a property conveys its significance at the time of review, not based on which features happened to be cataloged on the date an ordinance was adopted. The seven aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) are assessed when a decision is being made. A survey conducted in 1988 is evidence of what existed; the survey did not bring these features into being. The gateposts were placed by Cornelius Field in the 1870s. They existed in 1985. They exist today. A 1988 survey documenting them does not diminish their significance. It confirms it. III. THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARGUMENT FAILS ON ITS OWN TERMS The applicant may present a plat of survey or similar documentation tonight to argue that the gateposts and wrought-iron fence are located within the public right-of-way rather than on the private property. Even accepting this factual claim for the sake of argument, the conclusion the applicant draws from it does not follow. The ROW argument actually cuts against de-landmarking, not in favor of it. First, location within the public ROW does not sever the features’ association with the landmark property. Chapter 24 of the Highland Park Code defines a “Regulated Structure” as “any property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance.” Landmark Criterion 8 protects features constituting “an established or familiar visual feature.” The gateposts are the defining visual feature of this estate’s entrance, visible from Central Avenue, documented in the 2020 Landmark Summary Sheet, and relied upon by this Commission in its January 8 finding. Their significance to the landmark property is a function of historical association and visual character, not of which side of a property line they happen to sit on. Features located just beyond a property boundary that are integral to the landmark’s character and setting remain relevant to the landmark analysis. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards make clear Page 3 Page 78 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 that “setting” is one of the seven aspects of historic integrity, and setting by definition extends beyond the footprint of a building or the boundary of a parcel. Second, if the features are in the public ROW, the City owns them. It would be extraordinary for the City to argue that features it owns, associated with a landmark it designated, researched and documented by its own staff as historically significant, are irrelevant to the landmark determination. Public ownership should afford these features greater protection, not less. The City cannot disclaim interest in features it holds in trust for the public. Third, the ROW argument, if accepted, would create a perverse loophole. Any landmark with character-defining features located partly or wholly in the public ROW (fences, walls, gateposts, landscape plantings, historic sidewalks) could have those features declared irrelevant to the landmark analysis. This would strip significance from the very elements that often define a historic property’s relationship to its street and neighborhood. Fourth, regardless of where the gateposts sit relative to the property line, the fact remains that the estate setting, the driveway, and the wooded landscape on proposed Lot B are on the private property. Even if the Commission were to conclude that the gateposts and fence are outside the landmark boundary (which I do not concede), the estate setting and historic driveway are not in the ROW. Those features alone are sufficient to satisfy landmark criteria and deny de- landmarking. IV. THE PRE-DRAFTED RESOLUTION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE The agenda packet includes Draft Resolution No. 2026-XX recommending removal of landmark designation from Lot B. Footnote 3 of the staff memo states: “The applicant requested a resolution be drafted in anticipation of the Commission’s consideration of this matter.” This resolution was drafted at the request of the applicant’s attorney before this Commission has deliberated. It contains the finding that “the standards for landmark designation are not satisfied by Lot B,” a conclusion this Commission has not reached. Section Two of the resolution states: “The Commission finds that, upon Resubdivision of the Property: (i) Lot B will not be improved with any structures of historical significance; and (ii) the standards for landmark designation are not satisfied by Lot B.” These are findings for the Commission to make after deliberation, not conclusions to be presented pre-packaged for a vote. The presence of this resolution in the packet before deliberation creates the appearance that the outcome has been predetermined. I respectfully ask the Commission to set aside this pre-drafted resolution and, if it determines a resolution is warranted after full deliberation, to direct staff to draft one reflecting the Commission’s own conclusions. Page 4 Page 79 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 V. THE APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY’S FRAMING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY STAFF The Commission should be aware that the analytical framework in Footnote 1 mirrors arguments advanced by the applicant’s attorney, Calvin Bernstein, at the January 8 hearing. The meeting minutes record Mr. Bernstein stating that “the fence and gate were added after the property was landmarked.” Staff’s Footnote 1 adopts the identical argument: that features from the 1988 survey are not significant “because this survey work was completed years after the property was designated.” Similarly, Mr. Bernstein stated at the January hearing that “there is no evidence since 1985 that HPC or City Council extended landmarking to Lot 2.” This narrow reading, that the landmark covers only what was explicitly named in 1985, ignores forty years of HPC jurisdiction over the full property and is contradicted by staff’s own “in its entirety” conclusion. Yet this framing now appears in staff’s analysis. Combined with the pre-drafted resolution requested by the applicant’s attorney and the Corporation Counsel memo solicited after the January hearing to overcome Commissioner objections, a troubling pattern emerges: the applicant’s legal strategy strongly appears to have been operationalized through staff materials presented as neutral analysis. This Commission has the independence and the duty to evaluate the evidence on its own terms. VI. THE LEGAL STANDARD HAS NOT BEEN MET Section 24.025(H)(2) of the Highland Park Code provides: “Under no circumstances shall the City Council remove the Landmark designation for any property, structure, area, object, or landscape of significance unless it finds that the reasons for which the landmark designation was once appropriate are no longer present.” The reasons for which the landmark designation was once appropriate have not disappeared. The property’s status as Highland Park’s oldest residence, built by the town’s second mayor and director of the Highland Park Building Company, meeting Criteria 1, 3, 4, and 6, remains present today in every feature of this property, including the features on proposed Lot B: the gateposts placed by Cornelius Field, the wrought- iron fence embodying Victorian landscape style, the historic carriageway driveway, and the estate setting that defines the property’s character. The applicant is not demonstrating that the reasons for designation “are no longer present.” The applicant is proposing to create a new lot line and then arguing that the reasons do not apply to the newly created eastern parcel. But you cannot manufacture the conditions for de-landmarking by subdividing a landmarked property and then claiming the new lot lacks significance. The lot lacks significance only because the applicant drew a line through the middle of a landmark. That is circumvention, not compliance with the statutory standard. Page 5 Page 80 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 VII. THIS COMMISSION’S JANUARY 8 FINDINGS REMAIN VALID Five weeks ago, this Commission found unanimously that the subdivision would “significantly impact the historical significance” of 147 Central Avenue. The written report to the Plan and Design Commission, included in tonight’s packet, memorializes those findings in detail: • The wrought-iron fence is associated with Cornelius Field, embodies Victorian landscape style, retains sufficient integrity, and the Planned Development “will disrupt the continuity of the historic wrought-iron fence.” • The gateposts “contain important historic elements, and have a connection to the original property owner, Cornelius Field.” The Planned Development “will result in the loss of the gateposts located on the proposed Lot B.” • The driveway placement is “another element of this historic resource,” and the Commission is “opposed to changing the driveway’s placement.” • The estate setting “contributes to the estate setting of the Cornelius Field Property, and is integral part of this historic resource worth preserving.” The subdivision “will fundamentally diminish the estate’s setting.” These findings directly describe features on proposed Lot B. They satisfy multiple landmark criteria. They demonstrate sufficient integrity. Nothing about the property has changed since January 8. The gateposts still stand. The fence still runs. The driveway still curves. The estate setting still exists. If these features supported a unanimous finding of significant historical impact five weeks ago, they support denial of de- landmarking tonight. VIII. NATIONAL REGISTER CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY STATUS CANNOT BE IGNORED 147 Central Avenue has contradicting status as an actual contributing property to the National Register-listed Linden Park Place-Belle Avenue Historic District. Commissioners should be aware that in May 2019, the Federal Highway Administration’s Section 106 documentation, along with memorandum from the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office, for the Central Avenue Bridge replacement explicitly identified this property as requiring protection: “Future coordination and consultation among IDOT, FHWA and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will develop design and construction commitments to avoid adverse effects to this historic district, including the contributing property at 147 Central Avenue.” The federal government required Highland Park to avoid adverse effects to this property when a bridge was replaced across the street. Yet the applicant’s own materials make no mention of this status, and staff’s analysis does not evaluate whether de-landmarking a portion of a National Register contributing property is consistent with Highland Park’s Page 6 Page 81 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 preservation obligations. This omission is significant and should not be ratified by this Commission. IX. THE PRECEDENT IS DEVASTATING Highland Park has 76 local landmarks and 163 contributing properties in five National Register historic districts. If this Commission recommends de-landmarking a newly created lot carved from Highland Park’s oldest landmarked estate, the following precedent is established: any owner of a landmarked property on a large lot can subdivide, de-landmark the new parcel, and develop without preservation review. Landmark designation becomes protection for building facades only, not for the lot configurations, spatial relationships, and landscape settings that give landmark structures their historic meaning. X. REQUESTED ACTION I respectfully request that the Historic Preservation Commission: 1. Set aside the pre-drafted Resolution No. 2026-XX, which was requested by the applicant’s attorney and contains findings this Commission has not made. 2. Reject Footnote 1’s temporal exclusion theory, which contradicts staff’s own “in its entirety” finding, contradicts staff’s own research documenting the significance of the gateposts and fence, and inverts accepted preservation standards. 3. Find that proposed Lot B satisfies Landmark Criteria based on the gateposts, wrought-iron fence, historic driveway placement, and estate setting, the same features this Commission identified on January 8. 4. Decline to recommend landmark removal from Lot B, finding that the reasons for which landmark designation was once appropriate are still present. 5. Reaffirm its January 8 finding that the subdivision would “significantly impact the historical significance” of this property, and formally communicate this finding and opposition to the Plan and Design Commission and City Council. XI. CONCLUSION This Commission exists to protect Highland Park’s historic resources. You are being asked tonight to recommend stripping landmark protection from half of Highland Park’s oldest residential estate, a property that has been intact since 1875, landmarked for forty years, and identified by the federal government as requiring protection from adverse effects. The gateposts with their pineapple finials still mark the entrance Cornelius Field designed. The wrought-iron fence still defines the property’s frontage. The driveway still traces the path of carriages from 150 years ago. The estate setting still evokes what Highland Park was when its second mayor built this house for his family. Page 7 Page 82 of 276  Case No. PUD-2025-00081 | HPC Hearing: February 12, 2026 Nothing about why this property was landmarked has changed. The only thing that has changed is that someone wants to draw a line through the middle of it. If this property, with maximum protections, maximum significance, and maximum historical importance, can have its landmark stripped through subdivision, then Highland Park’s preservation program protects nothing. Where does Highland Park draw the line, if not here? Respectfully submitted, Kelsey Gonzalez 126 Central Avenue Highland Park, Illinois 60035 February 12, 2026 cc: Plan and Design Commission City Council of the City of Highland Park Karl Burhop, Senior Planner Official Record, Case No. PUD-2025-00081 Page 8 Page 83 of 276 Page 84 of 276 Page 85 of 276  Memorandum Date: 3.12.26 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: Landmark Nomination – 818 Hill Street Location 818 Hill Street Historical Name None Historical Status Not Surveyed Structure Style: Tudor Style with Elements of Swedish Folk Design Architect: Harry Bengston Builder: Harry Bengston Built: c. 1927 Petitioners Thomas Hiller and Peijian Sun 818 Hill Street, Highland Park IL Summary of the Nomination The owners of 818 Hill Street have nominated their property for a local landmark designation (see Attachment 1). The applicants believes this property is eligible for landmark designation because of its contributions to the development of the City, association with notable persons, associations with a notable builder, architectural style, and innovative construction methods. The residence at 818 Hill Street, designed c. 1927 by Harry Bengston, is a Tudor Style cottage with Swedish folk influences. The property was originally developed and owned by a trust associated with Edith Rockefeller-McCormick, the daughter of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller. The home is a part of the Highlands development and is the only structure of its style sub-type in Highland Park. Previous Consideration At the previous Feb. 12, 2026 meeting the HPC considered a preliminary landmark designation recommendation for the property at 818 Hill Street (see Attachment 2). The discussion included information about the original owner, Edith Rockefeller McCormick, the Tudor and Storybook Styles, and the property’s Swedish design details. The Commission also considered the integrity of the current property. The Commission made a motion to find: • The property at 818 Hill Street satisfies Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. • The property at 818 Hill Street has sufficient integrity of design. Based on these findings the Commission moved to adopt a preliminary Landmark Designation Recommendation. • Motion Carried 5-0: 1 Page 86 of 276  Memorandum o In favor: Weeder, Greenbaum, Pines, Ehrlich, Portman o Opposed: None o Absent: Gonka, Hartinger Information regarding the previous Feb. 12, 2026 meeting can be found here: https://highlandparkil.portal.civicclerk.com/event/364/overview Finding of Fact Staff drafted Findings of Fact (see Attachment 3) detailing how the property at 818 Hill Street satisfies Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. The Commission is asked to review the Findings. If the Commission determines they are consistent with the discussion and vote on this matter from the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting, then the Findings of Fact should be approved by a majority vote. The Findings, together with the Resolution Making a Preliminary Landmark Designation, will represent the HPC’s recommendation to the City Council on this landmark nomination. Planning Report Section 24.025 of the City Code establishes the process for approving a local historic landmark. Subsection (C) reads as follows: “Request for Planning Report: Upon adoption of a resolution making a preliminary landmark designation recommendation, the Commission shall request a report from the Director of Community Development that evaluates the relationship of the proposed designation to the City's comprehensive plan and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. The report shall be submitted to the Commission within 60 days of the request and the Commission shall make such modifications, changes, and alterations to the report concerning the proposed landmark designation as it deems necessary in consideration of any recommendation of the City's Director of Community Development made in the report….” Pursuant to the Code above, staff has drafted a planning report discussing the Comprehensive Plan and the Historic Preservation Plan. Staff finds the designation of the property as a landmark is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan to “preserve neighborhood character.” The Planning Report is included as Attachment 4 to this report. Public Testimony The petitioners Thomas Hiller and Peijian Sun were present at the Feb. 12, 2026 HPC meeting to answer any questions that the commission had. Highlands’ researcher Linda Barbera-Stein shared additional information about the Highlands development and spoke favorably about the nomination. Community member Mary Seyfarth advocated for the Commission to apply additional Landmark Criteria to the property and spoke favorably of the nomination. 2 Page 87 of 276  Memorandum Landmark Nomination Process Outline The landmark process is initiated when a nomination form is submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. The owner has provided consent to the landmark designation and the first two steps of the process were completed at the last meeting: (1) The Commission discussed the landmark nomination at the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting and found that the property (a) meets two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, and (b) has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. (2) The Commission adopted a resolution making the preliminary recommendation. As a result, the property became a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alteration. (3) Staff has drafted Planning Report evaluating the relationship of the proposed designation to the City’s Master Plan and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission reviews the Planning Report following the adoption of the Resolution making the preliminary recommendation, which occurred at the previous meeting. (4) At the meeting on March 12, 2026, the Commission shall review the Planning Report, Findings of Fact, and determine whether to recommend a landmark designation to City Council by approval of the Findings. (5) The City Council will consider the findings, recommendations, and official record of the Historic Preservation Commission and may, by an Ordinance duly adopted, designate the subject property as a Local Landmark. Recommended Action The Historic Preservation Commission is asked to review the Planning Report and consider the staff-drafted Findings of Fact. The Commission can approve the Findings or make amendments and add conditions as needed. The Findings will constitute the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. 3 Page 88 of 276  Memorandum Attachments: 1. Landmark Nomination 2. Resolution 2026-002 3. Findings of Fact 4. Planning Report 4 Page 89 of 276 Page 90 of 276 Page 91 of 276 Page 92 of 276 Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness Below are the standards considered by the Historic Preservation Commission when awarding Certificates of Ap- propriateness for Additions/Alterations and New Construction. This is an abbreviated version of Sections 24.030 (C) and (D) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance: 1) Height. The height of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, struc- tures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related. 2) Proportion of front façade. The relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. 3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors of the pro- posed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, ob- jects, and places to which the building is visually related. 4) Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. 5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of the proposed new Structure or ob- ject to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. 6) Rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections of the proposed new Structure to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. 7) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the façade of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related. 8) Roof shapes. The roof shape of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related. 9) Walls of continuity. Facades and property and site structures, such as masonry walls, fences, and landscape masses, shall, when it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. 10) Scale of a structure. The size and mass of the proposed new Structure in relation to open spaces, win- dows, door openings, porches, adjacent structures, and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. 11) Directional expression of front elevation. The proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional character. 12) Destruction or alteration of historic features. The distinguishing historic qualities or character of a Property, Structure, site or Object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The Alteration of any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Historic Preservation Application Page 4 of 10 Page 93 of 276 Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness Continued 13) Archaeological and natural resources. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological and natural resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 14) Architectural compatibility. In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. 15) Use compatibility. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a Regulat- ed Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure that requires minimal alteration of the Regulated Structure or a Contributing Regulated Structure and its environment, or to use a Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure for its originally intended purpose. 16) Maintenance of Time Period Appearance. All Regulated Structures or Contributing Regulated Struc- tures shall be recognized as products of their own time and so alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance than is properly attributable to the particular Regulat- ed Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure that is being altered shall be discouraged. However, contemporary design for Alterations and additions to Regulated Structures or Contributing Regulated Structures shall not be discouraged when such Alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, visual, aesthetic, archaeological or cultural material, and such design is com- patible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure, neighborhood or environment. 17) Significance of changes made in the course of time. Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure and their environments. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 18) Sensitivity to distinct features. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship or artistry, which characterize a Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure, shall be treat- ed with sensitivity. 19) Repair to deteriorated features. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material need not be identical to but should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures; 20) Surface cleaning. The surface cleaning of Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historically, visually, aesthetically, culturally or archaeologically significant materi- als used in such Landmark, Regulated Structure, or a Contributing Regulated Structure shall not be undertaken; 21) Wherever possible, additions or Alterations to a Regulated Structure or Contributing Regulated Structure shall be done in such manner that if such additions or Alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Landmark, Regulated Structure, or Contributing Regu- lated Structure would not be impaired. Historic Preservation Application Page 5 of 10 Page 94 of 276 Local Landmark Designation Process WHAT IS THE HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC WHAT IS A HIGHLAND PARK LOCAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCE? LANDMARK? The Highland Park Historic Preservation Ordinance The City of Highland Park is empowered by ordinance provides a mechanism to identify and preserve the dis- to designate objects, structures, buildings, districts and tinctive historic, architectural and/or landscaping fea- sites as local landmarks if they have aesthetic, architec- tures of Highland Park that represent the City’s cultur- tural, cultural and/or historic value. Highland Park’s lo- al, social, economic, political and architectural history. cal landmark designation affords properties more pro- By encouraging preservation, rehabilitation and res- tection than state or national landmarking programs toration, the City fosters civic pride in the beauty and do. Once a property is locally designated, any exterior noble accomplishments of the past as represented in alteration, construction, demolition or removal requir- Highland Park’s landmark buildings and historic dis- ing a building permit is reviewed by the Historic Pres- tricts. Preservation efforts enhance the attractiveness of ervation Commission. The review process is handled the City to its residents, home buyers, tourists, visitors in a timely fashion and careful consideration is given and shoppers, and thereby support to the owner’s needs. The Commis- and promote business, providing sion works as a resource for owners economic benefit to the City. of landmark properties. Property owners can rely on the Commis- sion’s technical expertise to aid WHAT IS THE HISTORIC them in developing their plans. Fur- PRESERVATION thermore, Staff is assigned to land- COMMISSION? mark homeowners, giving them a dedicated City advocate. The Preservation Ordinance created a need for the Historic Preservation WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF Commission in 1984. The Commis- OWNING A HIGHLAND PARK sion is composed of nine citizens, LANDMARK? Henry Towner House c.1990 appointed by the mayor, with a 133 Laurel Ave  Colonial Revival demonstrated interest, knowledge, Architect Unknown Highland Park landmarks receive ability, experience, and expertise in Landmarked: 2000 community-wide recognition and architectural restoration, rehabili- protection. A certificate signed by tation, and local history. the Mayor is presented to the own- er(s) of a landmark property containing a statement of The Commission meets at 7:30 PM every third Thurs- significance. Because Highland Park’s Historic Preserva- day at City Hall to carry out its responsibilities, which tion Ordinance is certified by the Illinois State Historic include making recommendations to the City Coun- Preservation office, landmark owners are eligible for tax cil on preservation issues, identification of landmark benefits. State legislation provides an eight year proper- buildings and areas, and review of alterations to land- ty tax assessment freeze for owners of single family res- marks. The Commission also presents a variety of pub- idences that are substantially rehabilitated, following lic awareness programs, informing residents on the im- the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. portance of preserving historic resources. For more information on the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program call the Local Government Services Co- Note: Meeting dates vary. If you would like to attend ordinator at the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency a meeting, call the Department of Community Devel- at (217) 785-4512. Landmark homes receive support opment to confirm the date and time: (847) 432-0867. from the Historic Preservation Commission and may be eligible for special City-sponsored incentives. Relative to any possible effect landmarking will have on the re- sale value of your house, we suggest you call a Realtor. Historic Preservation Application Page 6 of 10 Page 95 of 276 Local Landmark Designation Process Continued CAN ALTERATION, CONSTRUCTION OR WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING DEMOLITION OF A DESIGNATED LOCAL HIGHLAND PARK LANDMARKS? LANDMARK OCCUR? In making decisions about whether a nominated prop- Once a site or structure has been designated as a local erty qualifies as a Highland Park Landmark, the Pres- landmark, the property is subject to Commission ap- ervation Commission will consider the criteria listed proval for exterior alterations, construction or demoli- below (Section 24.015): tion plans requiring a building permit. Interior work is 1) It demonstrates character, interest or value as part of the never reviewed by the Commission. Unless specifically development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the landmarked or it impacts the exterior, interior work City, county, state or country; is not reviewed by the Commission. Generally, build- ing permits are required for any action other than ba- 2) It is the site of a significant local, county, state or national event; sic maintenance and upkeep. This review process is an effective way to protect and preserve Highland Park’s 3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly historical and architectural heritage and provides an ex- contributed to the development of the City, county, state cellent opportunity for property owners to receive free or country; design review and technical advice from the Commis- 4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architec- sion. It is unlikely that demolition tural and/or landscape style valuable for of a landmark home will ever be the study of a specific time period, type, allowed. method of construction or use or indige- nous materials; ABOUT HIGHLAND PARK 5) It is identifiable as the work of a no- table builder, designer, architect, artist, Highland Park is predominantly or landscape architect whose individual a suburban residential communi- work has influenced the development of ty characterized by fine examples the City, county, state, or country; of many significant architectural 6) It embodies, overall, elements of de- styles dating from the 1870s to sign, detailing, materials, and/or crafts- the present. Excellent Victorian manship that renders it architecturally, structures stand side-by-side with visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally Prairie School residences, historic “Thorneycote” c.1901 significant and/or innovative; revival style buildings and Interna- 215 Prospect  Howard Van Doren Shaw 7) It has a unique location or it possess- tional Style homes. Some are very National Register of Historic Places es or exhibits singular physical and/or Landmarked: 1987 aesthetic characteristics that make it an large; others are quite modest. But all contribute to the rich fabric of established or familiar visual feature; Highland Park architecture, which 8) It is a particularly fine or unique ex- illustrates not a single period of outstanding signif- ample of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, icance, but a broad overview of the development of including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or architectural styles. other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical and/or community In 1984, the City Council passed the Highland Park significance; and/or Historic Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of this 9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archae- Ordinance is to promote the educational, cultural, ological qualities. economic and general welfare of the community by The nominated property must also demonsrate suffi- protecting the City’s heritage. This overview is not cient integrity of location, design, materials, and work- intended to be a substitute for City Ordinance Chapter manship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabil- 24: Historic Preservation. The Ordinance is available itation and any nomination must include the written in its entirety for download, through the Department consent of the owner for the landmark designation. of Community Development, or from the City Clerk. Prepared by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission, August 2007 (updated December 2018) Historic Preservation Application Page 7 of 10 Page 96 of 276 Determination of Significance/Demo Review Info GENERAL INFORMATION The following outlines the demolition Permit process. Please refer to Sectio 170.040 of the Highland Park Code for additional information. 1) All demolition applications for residential structures in Highland Park Zoning Districts R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R5A, R6, R7, RM1, and RM2 are subject to a historic preservation review by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission. 2) The Commission meets on the second Thursday of every month at 7:30 pm. The meetings are held in the Pre-Session Meeting Room on the second floor of Highland Park City Hall, located at 1707 St. Johns Avenue. 3) Demolition applications must be received at least 21 days (three weeks) before the meeting date of the Commission at which the historic preservation review occurs. This deadline is important, so please factor it in to your timeline. 4) An owner or owner’s representative must attend the Historical Preservation Commission meeting at which the historic review of the Demolition Application is scheduled. This individual should be able to answer questions about the recent history and condition of the residential structure(s) in question and authorized to speak on behalf of the applicants. 5) Photographs are required as part of the demolition permit application. However, additional exhibits may be presented at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to document the current condition of the structure(s). This may include addi- tional photographs or technical information demonstrating structural and historical integrity. PROCESS At the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting, City Professional Staff will present a brief historical summary of the property for which you have submitted a Demolition Application. The Commission will have a chance to ask questions of Staff. The owner or his representative will also have the opportunity to address the Commission with any comments or additional information. The Commission will discuss the building or structure proposed for demolition and determine which, if any, of the nine Landmark Criteria in the City Code under Section 24.015 are satisfied (See Local Landmark Designation Process for Criteria). If the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the Structure that is the subject of the Demolition Application satisfies: • Four or more of the Landmark Criteria, and has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, or workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or Rehabilitation, then a mandatory 365-day Review Period commences on the date that the complete demolition permit application was submitted to Highland Park’s Building Division. • Three or two of the Landmark Criteria, and has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, or workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or Rehabilitation, then a mandatory 180-day Review Period commences on the date that the complete demolition permit application was submitted to Highland Park’s Building Division. • One or none of the Landmark Criteria, or does not have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, or workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or Rehabilitation, in which case the Application for Demolition shall be processed. Please note the following: 1) No “Regulated Activity” (demolition or any other action that requires a building permit) may take place during this review period. 2) During either a 180-day or 365-day review period, the Commission may receive nominations to designate the building or struc- ture as a local historic landmark. 3) There is an appeal mechanism whereby the City Council can reduce a 365-day review period to 180 days. 4) The Historic Preservation Commission has the authority to terminate a demolition delay based on a set of specific standards. Please speak with City Staff for more information on the City Council appeal and the possibility of requesting a termination. Historic Preservation Application Page 8 of 10 Page 97 of 276 Page 98 of 276 Page 99 of 276  818 Hill St Background • Two months after Edith Rockefeller McCormick passed away (August 1932), an AT&SF rail executive and wife purchased 818 Hill St. They and subsequent owners had no connection to Swedish-Finnish immigrant communities, art, history, culture, etc. • The historical context of the house, sailing ship plaque, builder, vanished from memory. Local folklore filled the vacuum. • Also vanished, until very recently, a Rosetta Stone like article in a section of the 1928 Chicago Tribune “Home Builders Department”. Chicago Tribune August 26 1928 • The article and drawing are on next two pages • It contains an interview with the builder, Harry Bengston, a Winnetka resident and Swedish immigrant. • Harry Bengston lived in close proximity to Andrew Paulson and Carl Bengston, Swedish immigrants, who built five “whimsical Swedish-style houses” in Winnetka. • Article includes • Ink or line drawing • Swedish roots and themes • Steam-bent false thatched cedar roof • 1st floor plan • Chimneys and fireplaces • Swedish log house lower level • Stucco upper level • Walk through description • Decor, light fixtures, central hot water heat • Field stone base • Building materials • Article does not touch upon • Historical context • Architectural classification • Swedish Grace • Nordic folklore • Sailing ship plaque • Copper fish and iron weather vane Page 100 of 276 Page 101 of 276 Notes about the drawing are on last page, for example, there are words above the garage. Historic Preservation Review Application • See following pages below for narratives responding to the following criterion 1) It demonstrates character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state or country; 4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction 6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, detailing, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative; 7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature; 9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities Page 102 of 276 1) It demonstrates character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state or country; Swedish-Finnish American Tercentenary 1938: This was the commemoration of the 300th year anniversary of the landing of Swedish and Finnish settlers near Wilmington Delaware. The planning for the event started 20-years earlier in 1918. Recall: 818 Hill St was built 1927-1928 Major themes of the 1938 Tercentenary were the Kalmar Nyckel sailing ship, Swedish log houses, and Swedish art and hand crafts. • Swedish-Finnish log houses • Swedish-Finnish are credited with bringing log houses and joinery to the US • The 1938 Tercentenary highlighted the “Lower Swedish Cabin” of “New Sweden”. • See notes below. • Floor to above roof river stone chimney at one end of the living room • Kalmar Nyckel • The ship in the plaque is the “Swedish Mayflower” that bought Swedish and Finnish settlers to the US. In the figure it is the circle on the chimney. Below the ship are two large fish and on the perimeter are sea horses, anchors, and fish hooks. • The plaque is ceramic low relief sculpture. • The US Mint and Royal Mint in Stockholm issued coins with engravings of the Kalmar Nyckel and dated 1938. The Swedish government provided the US Mint with a model of the Kalmar Nyckel. The US Mint held an engraving bake-off, which drew 40-entries. Carl Schmidt, a Smithsonian engraver, German immigrant, and student of Carl Milles, won the bake-off. A exact copy of that model is in Stockholm’s National Maritime Museum. • See next page for a comparison. Svante Nilsson engraved the medallion on the right side of the page. • The Kalmar Nyckel sailed west from Kalmar Sweden to what is now Wilmington Delaware On the coins, the Kalmar Nyckel faces right to left: Cartographic west. • On the plaque, the Kalmar Nyckel faces left to right: Geophysical west. • Swedish arts and craftsmanship • See notes below on Swedish Grace. • Scandinavian Connection to the Sea • Wavy rows of shingles the false thatched cedar roof can be viewed as crashing waves on a sea. Further superimposed are other waves crossing rows of shingles. • The waves of the roof, copper fish above weather vane, and sailing ship plaque and sea life below and on the perimeter serve to convey the profound connection of Scandinavia to the sea. Page 103 of 276 Page 104 of 276 Swedish Grace Movement 1910-1930: Swedish Grace involved Nordic folklore, myths, nature-centric motifs, Swedish hand crafts including hand-pounded metal objects and ceramics, along with modern interior design and house technology. Swedish Grace is a movement, not a specific type of art nor technique. The “Living Room at Ulriksdal Palace” historically embodies Swedish Grace. • Nordic and Scandinavian folklore • Scandinavian and Nordic folklore involve moons and quarter moons, and on the lower half of the Dutch front door are four engraved quarter moons connected via decorative grooves. • Above the garage is a hand-pounded copper fish that looks like salmon atop a wrought-iron weather vane: A connection to Nordic and Scandinavian folklore. • Plaster and stucco work • Swedish Grace liked plaster craftsmanship, durability, simplicity, borrowed from antiquity. • The exterior upper level stucco is imprinted with large floral-like patterns. The fronts of the dormer and trim around the windows is stucco. • Gable soffits are curved stucco that follows the curved roof arches • Ornate plaster walls and ceilings throughout the house are imprinted with geometric and repetitive surface surface decorations, no two square inches similar. • The living room has a vaulted partial barrel plastered ceiling, also with the surface decoration imprints mentioned right above. • The dining room has a substantial plaster crown molding. • Wood craftsmanship • The living room wainscoting is Japanese Burnt Cypress. • Japonisme is a French term for late 19th and early 20th century influence of Japanese art in Europe. Japonisme impacted Swedish Grace. • The Japanese Burnt Cypress technique, which the Tribune article outline, is known as Yakisugi aka Shou Sugi Ban. It dates back to 18th century Japan. • Curved mill work flows around doors and curved plaster walls. • Diamond and round medieval like doors with small dungeon like windows. • Dining room mahogany wainscoting. • Quarter moon engravings on front door noted above. • Sunburst wood decorative design of eyebrow windows. The eyebrow windows are the low curved windows around which the roof curves; they are a hallmark of Storybook Houses. Within the eyebrow windows are radiating bars that mimic a rising or setting sun. • According to the Tribune article the staircase balustrade is handmade. It matches the balustrade of the internal living balcony. • Gymnasium maple floors: Sleeper boards between subfloor and the top tongue and groove. The living room is 10” wide alternating 6” wide rustic oak. • Other craftsmanship • Hand pounded iron chandelier, as described in the Tribune. It is resting in the attic. • Hand pounded metal sconces, mostly iron but a couple are brass. The hand pounded metal sconces have a medieval castle theme (Spanish Revival). • Hand pounded copper fish noted is intact with green patina. • Faience was popular in the Swedish Grace Movement and other styles of the era. The ship plaque is of the Kalmar Nyckel is faience low relief sculpture. • The 1920s bathrooms, extended fireplace hearths, and front vestibule are all faience ceramic tile of the “The Mosaic Tile Co”. Page 105 of 276 4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction • False Thatched Cedar Roof Tudor Revival • The book “A Field Guide to American Houses” documents “False thatched cedar roof” as a rare kind of Tudor Revival. • The revival architectures were European inspired, American created. • Storybook House and Cotswold Cottage are types of “False thatched cedar roof” houses. • Storybook House • Storybook House is a Hollywood creation that spread elsewhere in the US. Many books on Storybook Houses of the 1920s exist. • Medieval like doors: arched, diamond, square top. Heavy wood and batten. Iron or medieval hardware. Many with small or tiny castle or dungeon like windows in doors, arranged to mirror door shapes • Whimsical shutters (non working). • Steep, steam bent, wavy cedar roof resembling traditional thatch, undulating surfaces flowing around eyebrow windows and arched dormers with apron sides. • Asymmetry everywhere: Gables, internal floor plan, each room, and so forth. • Medieval like wall sconces. • The forests around Magra Sweden inspired the enchanted forest and cottage of “Snow White and Seven Dwarfs” plus other films. Magra was the hometown of lead Disney animation illustrators such as Gustaf Tenggren, a Swedish immigrant. • Stockbroker Storybook House • Stockbroker Storybook House was associated with the Chicago North Shore. It was poplar among wealthy, industrial, merchant, and, stockbrokers. • The living room balcony, partial barrel ceiling, fireplace, and dedicated quarters for a live-in maid point to affluent persons, and therefore, points at the house being a Stockbroker Storybook House. Page 106 of 276 6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, detailing, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative; Steam-bent False Thatched Cedar Roof • The defining feature of the house is the roof. Each shingle is hand cut to fit, potentially after being steam bent. • Shingles in a horizontal rows have a wave like exposure. Exposure means not covered by other shingles of higher rows of the roof. That causes each row to look like a wave. There are waves seemingly run at diagonals, crashing into each other. The wave patterns are subjective, an art unto themselves. • The first roof endured 60-years. The second roof made it 40-years. • This is the third roof on the house. We and Cedar Roofing Company went well out of our way to replace the second roof with a third one that would last +60-years. • A first step is use of 18” perfection Western Redwood shingles from old growth Crown forests on Vancouver Island. A second step is use of a chemical treatment to ward off insects, moss, algae, etc. • The shingle are typically stacked 5-6 deep: Most area of every shingle is hidden below shingles of rows higher on the roof. • After a century, virtually all the original under structure of the storybook thatched roof was intact. In places where the roof leaked, surface wood was replaced. Note: There is no plywood involved in the roof. • Complex framing and curved surfaces provide the undulating, rolling, convex, concave surface. Ditto, the aprons of Storybook House dormers. The framing itself is sometimes rounded; other framing is built out above lower framing. Smaller pieces of wood, potentially angled, are nailed to curved framing to create curved surfaces. Shingles are cut after being steam bent to fit, one by one, to fit the curves. • There is a very involved copper flashing around windows, dormers, roof protrusions, the chimney, the ridge, the tops of dormers, etc. • There are ice shields to meet Highland Park codes and Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau requirements. • The Tribune states that the first roof was 9-shingles deep. The shingles were very likely protected with something called “Creo-Dipt”, a preservative and stain. Photos of that roof are black and white, but it looks like the current roof. • The first roof was due to William N Cramer of Hinsdale. He did all other steam bent false thatched cedar roofs back in the day. So it includes cedar thatched roofs in Hinsdale, Park Ridge, Palatine, Western Springs, Evanston, Highland Park, and more. Bill Cramer worked with Harold Zook, an architect who made the false thatch cedar roofs famous. These days the roofs are sometime called “Zook Roofs”. Bill Cramer was part of a 4-generation family of roofers. • Bill Cramer was awarded a US Patent for roof innovations (patent US1803998A). Cedar Roofing Company created a short video of the roof replacement • https://vimeo.com/user5295986/review/1100307973/6dac03c305 Page 107 of 276 River stone chimney, fireplace, and masonry • The living room chimney is composed of many kinds of solid round river stones. The river stones are on the living room internal side, from floor to ceiling, and ground to above the roof. • The river stones do not hold up the chimney. It has an internal brick structure. The same is true of a fireplace in the first floor hallway. • Recognizing the Swedish settler log house, there is wrought iron crane swing arm to support a Dutch oven over the fire. • Brick piers support 6x8 horizontal beams below the living and dining room floors, including a wall that supports the cantilevered balcony and part of the second story of the house. The joists, beams and brick piers are quite robust. • The Tribune article also mentions the field stone foundation wall. The stones are individually cut and mortared to a part of outside of the above ground foundation. The foundation holds up the house, not the field stones. Swedish Hewn Log House • The Swedish and Forest Finns worked with hewn logs, meaning squared off flat on four sides. • The 180-year old hewn logs of the first floor of 818 Hill St are from a Mundelein log cabin built ca 1840, razed in the 1920s, and then transported here for this house. • The vast majority of the hewn logs on this house are original • Observation: The original log house from Mundelein must have been fairly large because on this house, the hewn logs run a full length of wherever they are going. For example: there is one single continuous log above the two car garage, from one wall to the opposite. It is not like standard shorter logs are blocked together, as with siding, for example. • The house holds up the logs, walls, and roof, not the other way around. • The corners are “box joint” also called “square joint”. • Zooming in on the ink drawing, one can see the corner box joints • Swedish and Forest Finn settlers back in the 1600s made use of other kinds joints at corners. • Box joint corners can be internally reinforced, which is sometimes why they are liked over other corner joints. We have not taken any part to look at the corner joints on this house. Page 108 of 276 Architectural Illusions • The 4” thick field stone foundation wall provides a believable illusion of an old field stone foundation. The fields stones do not support anything. • The 4” field stones are mortared to an 8” thick above ground part of a below ground 12” foundation. • The hewn logs, corner joinery, and chinking provide a provide a believable illusion of a Swedish log house. The hewn logs do not support anything. • The hewn logs are fasted to the house frame. • The field stones and hewn logs are the same width, so it appears that the hewn logs rest on top of a field stone foundation. • There are hewn logs look like cantilevered supports of the living room balcony • The balcony holds up the hewn logs, not the other way around. • From the outside the chimney looks like historic chimneys of Swedish log houses. Fireplace with wrought iron crane swing arm supports a Dutch oven. There is an ash pit that is inaccessible at the bottom. There is a second fireplace in a first floor hallway. • Since the house has centralized heat and a kitchen, and originally, live-in maid quarters, the fireplaces are focal point décor. • False thatched cedar roof: Self descriptive • The shutters are decorative wood, angled consistent with the whimsical nature of storybook. Page 109 of 276 7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature; • Steam bent false thatched cedar roof storybook houses are rare kinds of Tudor Revival. • The Swedish and Finnish influences makes the house even more unique in an already rare category. • We have discovered that the house is well-known. 9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. • The house is about Swedish immigrant history, Swedish art and culture, and was attuned to Swedish Tercentenary planning. And to “Stockbroker Storybook House” of the greater North Shore of Chicago. • No effort was spared inside and out. Page 110 of 276 Notes on Tribune article drawing: • It has unexpected words in a white circular cloud-like space above the garage. The wide dots form part of the perimeter of a circle. See a zoomed in snip from the figure below. • On an upward diagonal in the circle is the word “Log” in cursive handwriting. Significant zoom may be needed to unravel the pen stroke of the cursive ‘L’. • Harry Bengston liked cloud-like framing perhaps to convey the idea of a dream house. • Below the word “Log”, visible without zoom, is yet another word • At first glance, it looks like the word “YES”. However, the ‘s’ is followed by ‘t’, all in the same heavier ink. • Looking at the first two letters as Old English calligraphy ‘n’ and ‘e’ run together followed by ‘s’ and ‘t’, the letters spell “nest”. “Run together” may be printing press artifact. • One begins to wonder: • Is it a pun: “Log nest” in place of “Love nest”? • Is it actually saying “YES” to log houses? Or written like that to be both “yes” and “nest”? • Is it some subliminal message to the couple on the windy stone sidewalk? • Aside • Fairly visible are bold numbers 7 & 8. The house was constructed in 1927-8. • There may be yet other handwriting, for example, on the chimney. • We are looking for an actual paper copy to digitize. • The drawing is accurate • One can see dormer aprons and large eyebrow dormer curved roof mostly hidden behind trees. The west roof ridge rises to “jerkin-head gable” and roof ridge facing south. • The sailing ship’s white sail and dark images below match the orientation of sails and two large fish below the ship. • The corner box joints, hewn logs, and field stone are very accurate. • Is it a photo projected to paper using halftone, popular for newspapers of the time, and then further enhanced by hand? Or was it entirely done by a talented artist? • There are a couple of minor oversights, but otherwise, it is remarkably accurate. Page 111 of 276 Restoration of century old art-like houses is very challenging. • Cedar Roofing Company was able to replace the second roof with new one that is historically accurate and quite close to the robustness of the original roof. Understanding how such a roof is constructed, where old growth shingles originate and are treated, “the waves”, modern roof codes, steam bending, the understructure, is comparable to graduate thesis. • Cedar Roofing Company 2-minute video of the roof replacement • DiVinci restored plaster walls ceilings, crown molding, and stucco. The vertical, sloped, curved plaster walls and exterior stucco have historic imprinted surface decorations that was variously falling apart. Myriad unknown coatings on plaster and efflorescence, confounded us. Swedish Grace plaster crown moldings may possess simplicity, but they are not simple to repair. Same is true for engraved doors. • Elite Chimney and Masonry (St Charles) restored masonry, chimneys, fireplaces, and cleaned up the ship plaque. River stones simply fell out and rolled to the ground. Some modernization to meet codes. Boring holes from the inside to exactly exit between river stones through many layers of brick, clay tile, and more. Yet masonry in the house is very challenging to access to repair. Who financed the house? • Although the physical lot is part of the Mrs Rockefeller McCormick Properties land purchase that is “The Highlands”, the house itself has no relationship to Krenn & Dato Construction, its in-house architect, etc. • Krenn & Dato recruited a multi lingual sales force that included Swedish and other Scandinavian. • Despite being across the street from the Krenn & Dato widely advertised Tudor Revival model home, the house was not on their marketing bus tour, nor mentioned in their monthly newsletter nor vast newspaper advertising. • One thing for certain, Harry Bengston was well connected. Page 112 of 276 818 Hill St Narrative (continued) (3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, county, state or country; Conveyance record mystery • Question: Who owned the lot and house at 818 Hill St prior to William and Ethel Hilton? • All Krenn & Dato’s Highland Park addition lots sold 1925 through the mid 1930s seemingly arrive to Chicago Title & Trust from nowhere. • Recorder office conveyance records may indicate Dato as the Grantor, but in that case there is no clue how Dato received them in the first place. • Newspaper real estate transaction abstracts cite Chicago Title and Trust as the Grantor • It always seems that the other half of the transaction is somehow lost across the board • Benjamin Rosenthal land tract • The December 11 1923 meeting is where the ERM Trust decides to buy the Benjamin Rosenthal land tract. • In the process the ERM Trust decides to create a trust to hold the land tract being purchased. • Trust #13675 • The ERM Trust meeting minutes of December 11 1923 do not report the trust number because the trust has yet to be created at that time. • Reading the deeds for all lots from Krenn & Dato’s Highland Park addition, we see they originate from Trust Number 13675, dated Eighth day of August 1924. • So this is the trust specified to be created in the December 11 1923 ERM Trust meeting. • Missing years of ERM Trust meeting minutes • ERM Trust meeting minutes for 1927 and 1928 are missing. However, there is no proof that the lost meeting minutes ever reported the number of the trust. • See following pages for meeting minutes, Hilton deed, and other example deeds Review • Harry Bengston builds the Storybook House at 818 Hill St in 1927 and 1928 • We know this fact from the August 16 1928 Chicago Tribune “Home Builders Department” article on the house. The article includes an ink drawing of the house viewed from Hill St. The author of he article obviously interviewed Harry Bengston • As an aside, Harry Bengston worked with Mrs Edith Rockefeller McCormick Properties because he ended up in insolvency court with Edward Dato et al regards a property in Sheridan Manor, Lake Forest. So they all knew each other. First owner • William and Ethel Hilton purchased the house and lot a month after ERM passes away. Their purchase originates from Trust Number 13675, dated Eighth day of August 1924 • Harry Bengston built a Storybook House on a lot owned by Edith Rockefeller McCormick. • ERM never sold the lot and house. It would not be sold for another 4-5 years. This was a month after after she has passed away. • Edith Rockefeller McCormick is the first owner of 818 Hill St • William and Ethel Hilton are the second owners. • Harry Bengston is not part of Krenn & Dato Building Contractor Company. Aside: William Cramer installed the steam bent false thatched cedar roof. He worked with/for Harold Zook. • 818 Hill St is across the street from the Krenn & Dato model home. The model home is on their real estate sales bus tour, their advertising, in the same time frame. Yet, 818 is never mentioned. Page 113 of 276 Page 114 of 276 Page 115 of 276 Page 116 of 276 Lot 1: William and Ethel Hilton, October 1932 = 818 Hill St Page 117 of 276 Lot 114: CT&T to Herman Ritow, August 10th 1928 Page 118 of 276 Lot 112: CT&T to Petter Iversen, November 12th 1925 Page 119 of 276 Lot 85: CT&T to Fred Heine, May 31st 1927 Page 120 of 276 Lot 56: CT&T to Rudolph Gran, August 30th 1929 Page 121 of 276 Lot 98: CT&T to James O’Brien, May 28th 1928 Page 122 of 276 Lot 91: CT&T to Carl Sulzer, August 3rd 1931 Page 123 of 276  Time Comparisons ● First roof (1928-1989): Tribune ink drawing of house from Hill St. See narrative. ● Third roof (2025): Detailed video of roof and entire house ● https://vimeo.com/user5295986/review/1100307973/6dac03c305 ● The next two slides compare the south side before and after 1990 ● Identical camera positioning while varying one “parameter” is challenging. ● While the three roofs visually look identical, they are not. Page 124 of 276  Time Comparisons ● Next two slides: South side before and after 1990 ● Before 1990: Photos on left half of next two slides ● After 1990: Photos on right half of next two slides ● Today: Refer to narrative and watch the video on first slide. ● Note: The stucco was restored after the video whereas the roof and masonry are before. In reality, one may have to “zoom in” to see numerous core problems and what was being restored. Or be inside the house itself. Page 125 of 276 Before 1990 After 1990 Page 126 of 276 Before 1990 After 1990 Page 127 of 276  Door and Window on South Side ● Butler pantry, kitchen, maid’s bedroom are merged. ● Double window becomes a door and a single window becomes a double window. Back door is replaced with a matching door. ● Some logs over 100-years have had to be replaced as the logs were already ~150-years old in 1990. 2nd roof looked like 1st roof. Any “new” logs are identical dimensions w/ distressed age. ● Refer to “before and after slides”: The south side exterior historical appearance is intact. Page 128 of 276  Maid’s Bath ➙ Laundry ● 1993-1996: Maid’s bathroom morphed into laundry ● This changed the level of that floor to match the level of the back door. It is the south east back corner of the house. ● This did not affect the exterior of the house. Original maid’s bathroom window stays. Page 129 of 276  Other Three Sides of 818 Hill St ● Backdoor on east side replaced as outlined above. ● Original garage doors were carriage with original hewn logs. The carriage doors were approximately 60-years old whereas the hewn logs on the garage doors were much older. ● Today, one can order “DIY carriage garage doors”. Such doors have steel frames and one “builds up” starting with the frame. Mechanical questions exist. Practical matter: Snow will block carriage garage doors. ● Restoring 818 Hill St has involved lots of almost non existent present-day skill sets. Contrarily, replicating original doors is a one-of-a-kind project. Page 130 of 276 Page 131 of 276 Page 132 of 276 Page 133 of 276 Page 134 of 276 Page 135 of 276  FINDINGS OF FACT Recommending Landmark Designation of 818 Hill Street Section 24.025 Landmark Designation Procedures Pursuant to Section 24.025(D) of the City Code, the Historic Preservation Commission (“Commission”) shall make a determination to recommend a landmark designation to the City Council including findings of fact relating to the criteria for designation that constitute the basis for its decision. Criteria for Landmark Designation 1. It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state, or country. Finding. The Commission finds that the property at 818 Hill Street (“property”) is a strong example of a structure and site that demonstrates character, interest, and value as part of the development of the City. The property’s structure and site setting are representative of the early development in the Highland Park “Highlands” subdivision. The property is among one of the first parcels developed as part of the Highlands and retains its original developmental characteristics. The site setting typifies the private, wooded lots that characterized the Highland’s early years. The Commission has identified trees on the lot that are original to site. Additionally, the Commission finds the residential structure on the property exhibits elements of Swedish Folk design, such as hand-hewn logs, a river-stone chimney, faux-thatched roof, ship painting, and fish weathervane. The Commission finds that these elements exemplify the influence Scandinavian immigrants have had on the development, cultural character, and heritage of the City. 2. It is the site of a significant local, county, state, or national event. N/A 3. It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, County, State, or Country. Finding. The Commission finds that the property at 818 Hill Street has a strong association with Edith Rockefeller-McCormick. Rockefeller-McCormick was the daughter of prominent oil executive J.D. Rockefeller. She was locally and nationally known for her analysis of Jungian phycology, real estate development business, and philanthropy related to the Brookfield Zoo. At one point, she was the world’s richest woman. 1 1 End of a Princess. (1932, September 5). Times Magazine. Page 1 of 4 Page 136 of 276  Rockefeller-McCormick is responsible for the development of the Highlands 23 and is known to be the original owner of the property located at 818 Hill Street. The Commission strongly feels that Rockefeller-McCormick was a notable person who contributed to the development of the City, County, State and Country. Furthermore, the Commission finds that Rockefeller-McCormick had clear associations with the property. 4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. Finding. The Commission finds the primary residential structure at 818 Hill Street (“structure”) is a representative example of a rare Tudor Style subtype. The Tudor Style reached its peak in Highland Park in the 1920s, post World-War I. The War exposed American soldiers to European architecture and contributed to an interest in European design. The style seeks to mimic late-medieval Old World architecture. Tudor homes commonly have multi-gable roofs, stonework, wood timbering, horizontal plans, and prominent chimneys. The structure possesses all of these characteristics. Furthermore, the structure possesses a faux-thatched roof. The roof resembles a straw thatched roof, but in actuality is composed of steam-bent cedar wood shingles. According to “A Field Guide to American Houses,” faux-thatched roofs are an uncommon Tudor Style subtype. 4 The Commission strongly feels that the structure is representative of an exceedingly rare Tudor subtype, and deserves to be preserved. 5. It is identifiable as the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, artist, or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, County, State, or Country. Finding. The Commission finds that the structure is the work of notable builder and designer Harry Bengston. Bengston was a Swedish immigrant who built custom Swedish inspired homes along the North Shore. Bengston’s work at 818 Hill Street was featured in a 1928 Chicago Tribune news article. 5 The article describes Bengston as “a man who is a dreamer, an artist, and a builder, a man who constructs unique, artistic homes without a finished blueprint, creating each room and detail as he goes along.” 2 Edith Rockefeller McCormick | Landmarks Illinois. (2021, July 29). Landmarks Illinois. https://www.landmarks.org/women_built_type/edith-rockefeller-mccormick/ 3 Ross, A. F. (2020). Edith: The Rogue Rockefeller McCormick. Southern Illinois University Press. 4 McAlester, V., & McAlester, A. L. (1984). A field guide to American houses. Page 369. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA0139195X 5 Bargelt, L. (1928, August 26). House of Hand Hewn Logs Built without Plans; Picturesque Sweden and Yankee Conveniences. Chicago Sunday Tribune, 3. Page 2 of 4 Page 137 of 276  The Commission finds that Bengston was a master craftsman whose works had an influence on the North Shore region. The Commission strongly feels his work at 818 Hill Street should be preserved since it is the only home he designed in Highland Park. 6. It embodies, overall, elements of design, details, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative. Finding. The Commission finds that the structure embodies many design details and materials that render it architecturally, visually, aesthetically and culturally significant. The structure’s hand-hewn log veneer, river stone chimney, ship painting, and faux-thatched roof all possess singular historical significance. The Commission finds that these elements exhibit an uncommonly high level of craftsmanship. Additionally, the Commission finds that these elements are connected to traditional Swedish design and therefore possess unique cultural significance. 7. It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. Finding. The Commission finds the structure possesses multiple singular characteristics that make it an established and familiar visual feature. Such features include its unusual faux-thatched roof, the ship painting located on the river-stone chimney, and the hand-hewn log veneer. The structure’s location on a prominent corner lot further makes it an established and familiar visual feature. 8. It is a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical, and/or community significance. N/A 9. It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. Finding. The Commission finds that the hand-hewn logs on the structure are repurposed from an 1830’s cabin in Mundelein. The age of these logs rival those of the Stupey Cabin, Highland Park’s oldest building (c. 1847). The Commission feels the logs have rare age-value and possess historical and archeological qualities that render it significant. Such materials could provide valuable insight into the cultural behaviors of peoples from the 1830s, and should be preserved. Integrity: Has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. Page 3 of 4 Page 138 of 276 Finding. The Commission finds the property at 818 Hill Street retains sufficient integrity of design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. The structure located on the site is easily identifiable as the same structure that was built in 1928, as is the surrounding landscape. The structure largely retains its original height, massing, floorplan, solid-to-void ratio, materials, design details and site setting. The Commission finds the integrity of the property is more than sufficient to merit its preservation. By Code, any proposed individual landmark must meet two or more landmark criteria and have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. The property at 818 Hill Street has been found to meet seven landmark criteria, while retaining sufficient integrity to qualify for local Landmark designation. Page 4 of 4 Page 139 of 276  Memorandum Date: 3.12.26 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: Planning Report – 818 Hill Street Location 818 Hill Street Historical Name None Historical Status Not Surveyed Structure Style: Tudor Style with Elements of Swedish Folk Design Architect: Harry Bengston Builder: Harry Bengston Built: c. 1927 Petitioners Thomas Hiller and Peijian Sun 818 Hill Street, Highland Park IL Administrative History At the Feb. 12, 2026 Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) meeting the HPC considered a preliminary landmark designation recommendation for the property at 818 Hill Street. The discussion included information about the original owner, Edith Rockefeller McCormick, the Tudor and Storybook Styles, and the property’s Swedish design details. The Commission also considered the integrity of the current property. The Commission made a motion to find: • The property at 818 Hill Street satisfies Landmark Criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. • The property at 818 Hill Street has sufficient integrity of design. Based on these findings the Commission moved to adopt a preliminary Landmark Designation Recommendation. The motion carried 5-0. The Commission directed staff to draft Findings of Fact and a Planning Report per the requirements of Sec. 24.025(C) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which will be considered at the meeting on March 12, 2026 Regular Meeting. Property Description The property is a densely vegetated corner lot located within the Highland Park “Highlands” subdivision. The site is improved with a c. 1927 Tudor Style residence (“structure”). The structure exhibits details and craftsmanship inspired by Swedish Folk Design. The structure is characterized by its horizontal plan, faux thatched roof, hand-hewn log veneer, prominent river- stone chimney, and painted ship detail. The structure and site setting both share an association with notable Chicago socialite, philanthropist, Jungian analyst, and real-estate developer, Edith Rockefeller McCormick. 1 Page 140 of 276  Memorandum Findings of Architectural and Historic Significance The Historic Preservation Commission discussed a landmark nomination for the property at the Feb. 12, 2026 meeting and made the preliminarily determination that the property met seven Landmark criteria (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9) and met the integrity requirement. The following analysis of the standards reflects the Commission’s Findings of Fact for the nomination: 1. It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state, or country. Finding. The Commission finds that the property at 818 Hill Street (“property”) is a strong example of a structure and site that demonstrates character, interest, and value as part of the development of the City. The property’s structure and site setting are representative of the early development in the Highland Park “Highlands” subdivision. The property is among one of the first parcels developed as part of the Highlands and retains its original developmental characteristics. The site setting typifies the private, wooded lots that characterized the Highland’s early years. The Commission has identified trees on the lot that are original to site. Additionally, the Commission finds the residential structure on the property exhibits elements of Swedish Folk design, such as hand-hewn logs, a river-stone chimney, faux- thatched roof, ship painting, and fish weathervane. The Commission finds that these elements exemplify the influence Scandinavian immigrants have had on the development, cultural character, and heritage of the City. 2. It is the site of a significant local, county, state, or national event. N/A 3. It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, County, State, or Country. Finding. The Commission finds that the property at 818 Hill Street has a strong association with Edith Rockefeller-McCormick. Rockefeller-McCormick was the daughter of prominent oil executive J.D. Rockefeller. She was locally and nationally known for her analysis of Jungian phycology, real estate development business, and philanthropy related to the Brookfield Zoo. At one point, she was the world’s richest woman. 1 Rockefeller-McCormick is responsible for the development of the Highlands 23 and is known to be the original owner of the property located at 818 Hill Street. 1 End of a Princess. (1932, September 5). Times Magazine. 2 Edith Rockefeller McCormick | Landmarks Illinois. (2021, July 29). Landmarks Illinois. https://www.landmarks.org/women_built_type/edith-rockefeller-mccormick/ 3 Ross, A. F. (2020). Edith: The Rogue Rockefeller McCormick. Southern Illinois University Press. 2 Page 141 of 276  Memorandum The Commission strongly feels that Rockefeller-McCormick was a notable person who contributed to the development of the City, County, State and Country. Furthermore, the Commission finds that Rockefeller-McCormick had clear associations with the property. 4. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. Finding. The Commission finds the primary residential structure at 818 Hill Street (“structure”) is a representative example of a rare Tudor Style subtype. The Tudor Style reached its peak in Highland Park in the 1920s, post World-War I. The War exposed American soldiers to European architecture and contributed to an interest in European design. The style seeks to mimic late-medieval Old World architecture. Tudor homes commonly have multi-gable roofs, stonework, wood timbering, horizontal plans, and prominent chimneys. The structure possesses all of these characteristics. Furthermore, the structure possesses a faux-thatched roof. The roof resembles a straw thatched roof, but in actuality is composed of steam-bent cedar wood shingles. According to “A Field Guide to American Houses,” faux-thatched roofs are an uncommon Tudor Style subtype. 4 The Commission strongly feels that the structure is representative of an exceedingly rare Tudor subtype, and deserves to be preserved. 5. It is identifiable as the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, artist, or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, County, State, or Country. Finding. The Commission finds that the structure is the work of notable builder and designer Harry Bengston. Bengston was a Swedish immigrant who built custom Swedish inspired homes along the North Shore. Bengston’s work at 818 Hill Street was featured in a 1928 Chicago Tribune news article. 5 The article describes Bengston as “a man who is a dreamer, an artist, and a builder, a man who constructs unique, artistic homes without a finished blueprint, creating each room and detail as he goes along.” 4 McAlester, V., & McAlester, A. L. (1984). A field guide to American houses. Page 369. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA0139195X 5 Bargelt, L. (1928, August 26). House of Hand Hewn Logs Built without Plans; Picturesque Sweden and Yankee Conveniences. Chicago Sunday Tribune, 3. 3 Page 142 of 276  Memorandum The Commission finds that Bengston was a master craftsman whose works had an influence on the North Shore region. The Commission strongly feels his work at 818 Hill Street should be preserved since it is the only home he designed in Highland Park. 6. It embodies, overall, elements of design, details, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative. Finding. The Commission finds that the structure embodies many design details and materials that render it architecturally, visually, aesthetically and culturally significant. The structure’s hand-hewn log veneer, river stone chimney, ship painting, and faux-thatched roof all possess singular historical significance. The Commission finds that these elements exhibit an uncommonly high level of craftsmanship. Additionally, the Commission finds that these elements are connected to traditional Swedish design and therefore possess unique cultural significance. 7. It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. Finding. The Commission finds the structure possesses multiple singular characteristics that make it an established and familiar visual feature. Such features include its unusual faux-thatched roof, the ship painting located on the river-stone chimney, and the hand-hewn log veneer. The structure’s location on a prominent corner lot further makes it an established and familiar visual feature. 8. It is a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical, and/or community significance. N/A 9. It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. Finding. The Commission finds that the hand-hewn logs on the structure are repurposed from an 1830’s cabin in Mundelein. The age of these logs rival those of the Stupey Cabin, Highland Park’s oldest building (c. 1847). The Commission feels the logs have rare age-value and possess historical and archeological qualities that render it significant. Such materials could provide valuable insight into the cultural behaviors of peoples from the 1830s, and should be preserved. 4 Page 143 of 276  Memorandum Integrity: Has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. Finding. The Commission finds the property at 818 Hill Street retains sufficient integrity of design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. The structure located on the site is easily identifiable as the same structure that was built in 1928, as is the surrounding landscape. The structure largely retains its original height, massing, floorplan, solid-to-void ratio, materials, design details and site setting. The Commission finds the integrity of the property is more than sufficient to merit its preservation. By Code, any proposed individual landmark must meet two or more landmark criteria and have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. The property at 818 Hill Street has been found to meet seven landmark criteria, while retaining sufficient integrity to qualify for local Landmark designation. Historic Preservation Commission Policy The Historic Preservation Commission adopted a Preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation on Feb. 12, 2026. Resolution No. R002-2026 (see Attachment X) designates the property at 818 Hill Street in it’s entirely as a Regulated Structure. No building permits or demolition permits shall be issued per Section 24.025(B)(3): “Upon adoption of the resolution making a preliminary landmark designation recommendation, and until provided otherwise in this Chapter, the nominated Property, Structure, Area, Object, or Landscape of Significance shall be a Regulated Structure.” The permit moratorium described above will conclude upon final disposition of the proposed local Landmark. Historic Preservation and the City of Highland Park Master Plan The City of Highland Park Master Plan recommends that the City “sustain a philosophy of preservation,” adding a call to “maintain Highland Park’s sense of place, character, and history; maintain quality of architecture in residential and public structures,” preserving “the quality of residential neighborhoods” and protecting the City’s “natural, historic and physical resources.” The property at 818 Hill Street is located in the Master Plan’s North Central District. The plan’s North Central District was approved in February 2001 and recognizes the important of maintaining neighborhood character. The plan’s vision statement says current and future City leaders should consider how to “preserve existing neighborhood character by promoting large lot sizes, maintain housing diversity and strictly enforce zoning regulations” The property at 5 Page 144 of 276  Memorandum 818 Hill Street is representative of the large-lot suburban development the Master Plan aims to preserve. Historic Preservation and the City of Highland Park Historic Preservation Plan The City of Highland Park adopted its first ever Historic Preservation Plan in 2022. One objective listed in the plan is to identify properties that could potentially be landmarked and increase the number of landmarked properties. This home’s local landmark nomination aligns with the vision of the Historic Preservation Plan due to its historic significance, as found by the Commission. Recommendation Based on the information presented, the Department of Community Development recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission continue with the Landmark Designation of the property at 818 Hill Street. Following the adoption of the Resolution recommending Landmark Designation, the Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. 6 Page 145 of 276  Memorandum Date: 3.12.26 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: Preliminary Landmark Designation – 670 De Tamble Avenue Location 670 De Tamble Avenue Historical Name Arthur Vetter House Historical Status Contributing – 2006 Bob-O-Link Survey Structure Style: Tudor Revival – Cotswold Cottage Influences Architect: N/A Builder: Arthur Vetter Built: 1928 Petitioners Kenneth and Marcia Kotula 670 De Tamble Avenue Summary of the Nomination The owners of 670 De Tamble Avenue, Kenneth and Marcia Kotula, have nominated their property for a local landmark designation (see Attachment A). The Kotulas have lived in the home since 1985. The applicants believe their property is eligible for landmark nomination because it exemplifies a notable architectural style, contributed to the development of the City, and has associations with notable persons. The residence at 670 De Tamble is a Tudor Style English Vernacular Type designed and constructed in 1928 by the original owner, Arthur Vetter. The residence is also the birthplace and childhood home of Daniel A. Vetter, a notable war veteran and former Highland Park City Council member. The residence exemplifies the typical details of the Tudor Style and exhibits detailed craftsmanship. In 2003 the current owners won a Highland Park Preservation Award for their restoration of the property. The 2006 Bob-O-Link survey rates the structure as “Contributing” and notes that the structure has significant architectural features. Figure 1. Front Façade, 2025 1 Page 146 of 276  Memorandum Vetter Family Arthur Vetter Arthur Vetter was a local electrician and owner of “Vetter Electrical Services.” In 1928 he and his wife Mabel Vetter built the house at 670 De Tamble Avenue. Vetter is listed as the contractor on the building permit (see Attachment B). Vetter is documented as living in the home from 1928 to 1954. Arthur and Mabel were active members of the Bethany Church on McGovern and Laurel. Mabel regularly hosted church gatherings at their De Tamble home (see Attachment C). Daniel Vetter In 1928, the Vetters gave birth to their son Daniel, a third-generation Highland Park resident. Daniel Vetter is described in the book Highland Park; The First Hundred Years, as “one of Highland Park’s most civic minded citizens” (see Attachment D). Daniel Vetter was a veteran of both WWII and the Korean War. He was the president of the Highland Park Jaycees, a civic development non-profit. He also served as an executive board member with the local electrical union. In 1959 he received the Highland Park Distinguished Service Award and was declared “the most outstanding young man in Highland Park.” The state Governor personally acknowledged his works with the Jaycees and other local groups twice. Additionally, Vetter sat on the Highland Park City Council between 1963 and 1967. During his term he was a strong advocate for the construction of the pedestrian bridge at the intersection of the Skokie Highway and Deerfield Road. He pushed for the construction of the bridge to ensure the safety of children who needed to cross the highway to get from their homes to the Highland Park recreation center, pool and library. The bridge still exists today and stands as a testament to Vetter’s commitment to public safety. Ownership Chain of Title • 1928-1954 Arthur and Mabel Vetter • c. 1954-1957 Daniel and Helen Vetter • c. 1957-1957 John and Gilberte Nash • c. 1857-1964 James and Nema Whitehouse • 1964-1981 Max and Frieda Segall • 1981-1985 Pamela and Kirk Vogen • 1985-Present Kenneth and Marcia Kotula The chain of title at 670 De Tamble Avenue starts with Arthur Vetter, the builder and original owner. His son, Daniel Vetter, possessed the property between 1954 and 1957. Afterwards, the property was purchased by John and Gilberte Nash. There is a gap in the deeds between Nash and the next owners, James and Nema Whitehouse. 1 1 John and Gilberte Nash appear on dozens of deeds in the historic record, as both buyers and sellers. The Nash’s were most likely developers or investors. Staff does not believe the Nash’s ever lived at 670 De Tamble Avenue. 2 Page 147 of 276  Memorandum James Whitehouse was the Worshipful Master of Highland Park’s Masonic Lodge. 2 Highland Park – The First Hundred Years says that Whitehouse was a WWI veteran and worked for the Public Service Company of Northern Illinois for over 40 years. Nema Whitehouse was assistant principle at Lincoln School (see Attachment D). The property was subsequently owned by Max and Freida Segall, Pamela and Kirk Vogen, and finally the current owners, Kenneth and Marcia Kotula. Complete chain of title documentation can be found in Attachment E. Architecture The residence at 670 De Tamble Avenue is a two-story single-family home with an asymmetrical façade. The entire structure is wood framed with a brick veneer and stone details. The roofline is primarily side-gabled with a catslide front gable projection located on the left-hand side. The front entryway sits within the projection and is flanked to the left by a bay window. There is an attached garage set back from the projection. The back and side elevations feature prominent brick chimneys. Tudor Revival Style The residence at 670 De Tamble shows a strong adherence to a Tudor Revival aesthetic concept. The home’s unique brickwork, stone tabbing, multi-gabled roofline, catslide gable, prominent chimney, narrow windows and rounded front door are all characteristics of the Tudor Revival Style. There are 37 Tudor Revival Style structures in the 2006 Bob-O-Link Survey area including the residence at 670 De Tamble Avenue (see Attachment F). The Tudor Revival Style reached its peak in Highland Park between 1910 and 1930. The Style was popularized after WWI and is loosely based on English vernacular building traditions. The English Cotswold Cottage a common model for modest Tudor Revival homes. 2003-2004 Preservation Award In 2004 the applicants received a preservation award from the City for their compatible second story addition (see Attachment G). The applicant took care to mimic the structure’s original brick bonds and mortar as well as the home’s copper features. Figure 2 depicts the home in 2003 while the second story addition was in progress. Materials Figure 2. Construction of back addition, 2003. Historic materials • Brick veneer • Stone lintels 2 A “Worshipful Master” is the highest ranking position in a Freemason Lodge. 3 Page 148 of 276  Memorandum • Stone tabbing • Weeping mortar • Arched wood front door Modern materials • Modern replacement windows • Modern dormer • Modern back addition Alterations • 2003- Second story addition on back of house • 2003 - Window on right-side of front façade replaced with paired glass door • 2008- Fire repairs o Second story widow replacement • 2008 – Dormer added on front-facade side-gable The residence at 670 De Tamble Avenue was restored twice, once in 2003 and again in 2008. In 2003 a back addition was added to the residence. The addition connects the original 1928 garage to the main structure. The addition is not highly visible from the public right-of-way. As previously stated, the property owner won a preservation award for this second story addition. In 2008 a further restoration took place following a fire. The applicant says, “In 2008 we had a house fire which caused enough damage that the structure’s entire interior was replaced including floors, walls, ceilings, electrical, water, doors, windows and mechanical. The extent of the damage had us consider razing the structure and moving on. However, we decided to rebuild because of our love for Highland Park’s community. Perhaps our home could last another 100 years!” A dormer was added to the side gable located on the front façade during the 2008 work. Despite the two restorations, the residence at 670 De Tamble has largely retained its historic massing, solid-to-void ratio, and architectural details such as the brick veneer, weeping mortar, copper accents, stone lintels and stone tabbing. Important identifying features such as the catslide gable and chimney are intact. Figure 3. 670 De Tamble in 1957 before Landmark Criteria alterations. The property at 670 De Tamble Avenue may meet the following Landmark Criteria: 1, 3, 4, and 6. 4 Page 149 of 276  Memorandum Sec. 24.015 Criteria for Landmark Designation. The following is a list of the criteria to be considered in the designation of a Property, Structure, Area, Object, or Landscape of Significance as a Landmark: (1) It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state, or country. (2) It is the site of a significant local, county, state, or national event. (3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, County, State, or Country. (4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. (5) It is identifiable as the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, artist, or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, County, State, or Country. (6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, details, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative. (7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. (8) It is a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical, and/or community significance. (9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. Landmark Nomination Process Outline The landmark process is initiated when a nomination form is submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. At this point, the property owner has already been sent a letter stating the time, place, and intent of this meeting where the nomination will be considered. The owner has provided consent to the landmark designation, so the next steps are as follows: (1) The Commission should consider and discuss the landmark nomination. If the HPC finds that the property (a) meets two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, and (b) has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, then the Commission should direct Staff to draft a Resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation. (2) The Commission should consider the resolution making the preliminary recommendation. Should the HPC adopt the resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation 5 Page 150 of 276  Memorandum recommendation, the house becomes a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alteration. (3) Staff will draft a Planning Report evaluating the relationship of the proposed designation to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Report will be presented to the Commission following the adoption of the Resolution making the preliminary recommendation. (4) At a subsequent meeting, the Commission shall review the Planning Report, Findings of Fact, and make a determination to recommend a landmark designation to City Council. (5) The City Council will consider the findings, recommendations, and official record of the Historical Preservation Commission and may, by an Ordinance duly adopted, designate the subject property as a Local Landmark. Recommended Action The Historic Preservation Commission is asked to discuss and consider the preliminary landmark designation for 670 De Tamble Avenue. If the nomination is to be given a positive recommendation for approval, the Commission must find that the structure meets two or more of the criteria set forth in Section 24.015 and have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. If the nomination is given a positive recommendation, the Commission is asked to consider A Resolution Making a Preliminary Landmark Designation Recommendation for 670 De Tamble Avenue Should the Commission adopt the resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation, the house becomes a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alteration. 6 Page 151 of 276  Memorandum Attachments: A. Landmark Nomination B. Building Permits C. Newspapers D. Pages from “Highland Park – The First Hundred Years.” E. Chain of Title F. 2006 Bob-O-Link Survey G. 2003-2004 Preservation Awards H. Real Estate Cards 7 Page 152 of 276 January 23, 2026 670 De Tamble Ave Landmark Designation We are hopeful that our house might be honored as a Local Land Mark. Our 1928 home will be 100 years old soon and since it has been our residence since 1985, we are proud to promote what is an “American Cotswold” style: cedar shake roof retained and maintained ; weeping mortar; copper gutters and downspouts. The house was awarded the 2004 Highland Park Historic Society Rehabilitation Award for our seamless appearing two story addition which mirrors the original brick/mortar and copper features. We are also a National Wildlife Federation Certified Wildlife Habitat featuring added trees, native plantings attracting birds, bees, butterflies, and bunnies. In 2008 we had a house fire which caused enough damage that the structure’s entire interior was replaced including floors, walls, ceilings, electrical, water, doors, windows and mechanical. The extent of the damage had us consider razing the structure and moving on. However, we decided to rebuild because of our love for Highland Park’s community. Perhaps our home could last another 100 years! Thank you for assistance. Ken Kotula Page 153 of 276 March 5, 2026 I wish to thank the committee for its review of my application for a Local Landmark designation. We have lived in Highland Park since 1976, and over 40 years at 670 De Tamble Ave, Highland Park, IL 60035. When it was time, we added an addition in 2004 that earned the HP Historical Rehabilitation Award. In 2008, a fire gutted our house to the point that the entire interior had to replaced. We decided to stay and rebuild instead. While researching to plan the building design, I uncovered a date etched into wet concrete that read October 28, 1928. Further research yielded the name of an Arthur Vetter who first lived in the house and displayed and sold light fixtures from the garage. Further research found that Arthur’s son, Daniel was born and raised in our house and was elected an HP City Councilman in 1951. Daniel Vetter was instrumental in securing the construction of the Skokie Valley Road overpass near Deerfield Road. 670 De Tamble Ave will be 100 years old in 2028. From ashes to a renewed life, this “American Cotswold” could stand another 100 years. Ken and Marcia Kotula Page 154 of 276 Page 155 of 276 Page 156 of 276 Page 157 of 276 Page 158 of 276 Page 159 of 276 Page 160 of 276  e_ dLAe / / Cad -6Z 6- e , Qe ‘, z',,. izZe, e 2u. Page 161 of 276  Td• / e_ Xs,e. 670 17 z- Application for Street Number City of Highland Park, Illinois 19 " Application is hereby made for street number for the following '' described property: Give legal description — lot, fractional lot, block, subdivision, etc.) The house is located feet 6111- ill - 411e East - West - North South lot line and faces on Street. The folio number on my water bill is 1AQQ 1. 5. /. a,, k0 Page 162 of 276  14 r ( S u ca i) Page 163 of 276 File under S OWNER' NAME BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT To be filled out in ink Permit No R9 41 Highland Park, I11., Z /% g ,/ / The undersigned. /- ee4 hereby applies to the building department of the City of Highland Park, Ill.,for a permit to erect, ter, construct, or enlarge the structure or part thereof herein described, and if granted the permit applied for will comply with all requirements of the city ordinances relating there a pay th; fee required b such ordinances. This building is to be used for the purpose of _ an d located on / 31.&- i Lot _-- - ` ? ck Subdivision o b' St and constructed of c. of stories, / feet wide, 5 Z- feet long; and a.— Basement. There will be feet high, consisting of rooms, attic, Bath, / f Lavatories, J Toilets, Sinks, / Laundry Tubs, other plumbing s p J Fl. Dr. The building will be heated by - c a- Zo+ Lighted by 4 N- Ventilated , fire escapes will be The items are more fully set forth in the plans submitted with this application, the estmate of the cost of the work contemplated includes plumb- ing, heating, wiring, and all construction work necessary to complete the structure and for the purpose of making this estimate the following qantities were used: Plumbing complete $ Painting $ Heating $ Electric Wiring Mason Work $ Carpenter Work $ Cords of Stone M Brick Cu. Yds. Concrete If reinforced Sq. Yds. Plaster M feet Lumber Other Work $ o{ This estimate is Address / 9 9' 374 x! t + . Phone Z z : 2 -- The owner is mide by J r. Address 71 Phone General Contractors Address Phone Address Phone___ . - Subcontractor v Electrician Address Phone Plumber Address Phone Address Phone Architect Address Phone No error or in either the plans or application, whether said plans or application has been approved by the omission building inspector or not shall permit or relieve the applicant from constructing the work in any other manner than that provided for in the ordinances of this city relating thereto. The applicant having read this application and fully understanding the intent thereof declares that the statements made are true to the best of knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner 1 Address L" Phone BUILDING LINE RECORD NOTE: This application shall be accompanied by Building Line record when required by the Commissioner of Build- ings. The Building Line Record shall be: An accurate plat of the block in which the premise of the applicant for a certificate of occupancy is located ( one side of the street only) drawn to scale on tracing cloth cut to the size of this application and in ink with a left margin of 11 inches. On it show: ( 1)) Front line of premises and depth of block to rear line. (2)) Street wall line of all buildings. ( 3) Distance of each street wall from front line, indi- cating if wall is of porch, bay, or main wall. ( 4) Use of each building. ( 5) Location of the premises of applicant, and ( 6) Points of the compass. This plat must be signed by the owner. Use sheet this size if additional space is needed) Street Wall: The main wall of a building nearest to and facing on a street, including sun parlors, but not in- cluding bay windows nor ground story porches nor piazzas that are not closed in.) Page 164 of 276 Decription of A. E. Vetters building lot at 556 Detamble Ave. in the city of Highland 7ark, I11. Permit ! It. All t1- ose parts of lots 21 & 22 in block 5 in ' i~ evrood Park S' 7b. of part of S. E. 1/ 4 of See. 26T 431, R12 E of 3rd P. M. and Block 88, City of Highland Park, I11. Described as fo? lows Beginning zsxz at a point in the S. Ely' line of said lot 21, said point being 160' S. 71y from the 3. Ely corner thereof; then N. Wly parellel with the Ely line of said lot 21, 104' to the N. Wly line of said lot 21; thence S. W1y in the N. 71y line of lot 21, 46. 7';thence N. Wly 57' to a point in the N. Wly line of lot 22 in the aforesaid block 5, said point being 501chord measure) N. Ely from the S. W. corner of said lot 22; then S. Wly 50' ( chord measure) to. the 1. corner of said lot 3.? 22 thence S. Ely 162. 45' to place of beginning, all in the city of Highland ark, Lake County, Illinois. Page 165 of 276  Permit No ) ( 94-9 Building Department, City of Highland Park No. s St. " Lot 1- Block Sub. Draw below, to scale, plat of lot, locating all buildings and show distances from buildings to lot lines. Sho verage building line of existing houses in block. 7/ 21' 0 4- Signature.:,, 4.....,,,.. z y....... t. =..) l'. Page 166 of 276 File under OWNER' S NAME 4/ 1, Pfe BUILDING' DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT To be filled out in ink Permit 7911 No/ The undersigned / 7/ 4-/-- 47-- e--- 6,//-,, 4.-- Highland hereby applies to the building department Park, Ill., - / 107 6,/ Z,. 2 f of the City of Highland Park, I11., for a permit to erect, alter, construct, or enlarge the structure or part thereof herein described, and if granted the permit applied for / 76 will comply with all requirements of the city ordinances relating thereto and pay the fee re uired by such ordinances. This building is to be used for the purpose of SAP / v 77-/ 1, C.__..__ • Gs?_ 9—and located on Lot Block` " 7 - Subdivision i ' Ali h - No. , 6 35- 5- St. _/2e 1 l oil.?le ...... 7, L/'/ and constructed eiLe"/" of _./lC_,._ of / stories, - 7 / feet wide 4 /''" feet long, and D feet high, consisting of 1 MOMS, attic, o Basement. There will be Bath, Lavatories, Toilets, Sinks, Laundry Tubs, other plumbing FI. Dr. The building will be heated pf , by _ elec- r Ventilated , fire escapes will be by . hea 7dt... Lighted The items set are more fully forth in the plans submitted with this application, the estimate of the cost of the work contemplated includes plumb- oL. ing, heating, wiring, and all construction work necessary to complete the structure This estimate is made by - 00. Address Phone The owner is . 1 Et/_' e," 14,, Address Phone General Contractor 2 Address Phone Subcontractor Address Phone Electrician . aadiY Address Phone Plumber Address Phone Architect Address Phone No error or in either the plans or application, whether said plans or application has been approved by the omission building not shall permit or relieve the applicant from constructing the work in any other manner than inspector or that provided for in the ordinances of this city relating thereto. and fully understanding the intent thereof declares that the statements The applicant having read this applicatio_ made are true to the best of -_.. Signature of Owner Address 4 1P . ... d .. e i. BUILDING LINE RECORD NOTE: This application shall be accompanied by Building Line record when required by the Commissioner of Build- ings. The Building Line Record shall be: An accurate plat of the block in which the premise of the applicant for a certificate of occupancy is located ( one side of the street only) drawn to scale on tracing cloth cut to the size of this application and in ink with a left margin of 1% inches. On it show: ( 1) Front line of premises and depth of block to rear line. ( 2) Street wall line of all buildings. ( 3) Distance of each street wall from front line, indi- cating if wall is of porch, bay, or main wall. ( 4). Use of each building. ( 5) Location of the premises of applicant, and ( 6) Points of the compass. This plat must be signed by the owner. Use sheet this size if additional space is needed) Street Wa11: The main wall of a building nearest to an d facing on a street, including sun parlors, but not in- cluding bay windows nor ground story porches nor piazzas that are not closed in.) Page 167 of 276  A Permit No. / E 71, Building Department, City of Highland Park No. St. Block Sub. Draw below, to scale, plat of lot, locating all buildings and show distances from buildings to lot lines. Show average building line of existing houses in block. 87 / G 4/ JP 3-., dPfCrii . 7 De %,, /- 0' Signature Page 168 of 276  Jo . TW e ' uTou - TM Jo s d li' j Z I L 6 F i pres r 407 p i o t r o )ou T T O4_u2Ili' oT zN n 4. ti* Jo vomeapTu TaogTitoso CDoT OUOla: l11.og2, t • :) ' TJ au 1?- u-!= Tog y o?T , C aria. r j9 i. 1 g- T for - oUTt1 . TTs OT `TL°. a v; C1' g [ aT g ' G J O ; . : ' JC, _ n ot1_{.^1) i' 17- o <: 3t. 661 SS UTt uT 12- t , 1:F. I 17. 4 s JO Tc t. ooT Tou 1, 1--. --- c, i R' . C GUT eta: 0ToT ua 1,- r uT Jo TT > o s zTod za, . c._s uT q. i:,: • % JOO Jo Tot. I l u.UJOO ' ' TIT - T%'.• T 92 S ' es key ac c - a 0'_.. ,,. co: ITI Sulos e Dire ooS o.. S a qo1. T` o e oq- ` c ( 1.3ouou, mAG,. o" c{ Jo ' DU-' ' T7 etq . auTI . 1L; E .. T . . eTT uT g. 914 oe:. 9-- q. s4° T nI RTE try 1 ( aocosxj luToc etq T vma-.- ic7ala. srot; 9T MOIJ dT?KIL ° 1T7•? TImoaoj l.. j Jo s JO J1 3c: Yt 4° jo a; 7q,. JO ATVs TIA ocu: .kzz• RI - i3 ` 1— I1 T of? o)XUPS i c; U ^ P. t uoT . s 1 1-oSOT- uTu - Logi ToTI- uT 88 )[ Log T7Lzt c" JO Jo rag e1Ied cry 0t!:. u4, Ttosa ITV O TE 2uTaq j loT 47 g , . U iL° ot 9 T1a.h v Page 169 of 276  D. UU 15529 1° HIGHLAND PARK - HIGHLAND ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION`'' CITY OF PARK, APPLICATION FOR A S HEREBY' MADE PERPlUT I: No. 3q 6 6 D/////;//// ryryryry- TO _ DL CONSTRUCT F ' I- ALIR "' REPAIR ` WRECK" ISSUED B LA GP; (-/. r `„v ADDRESS OF PROPOSED WORK TAM?L DE: DATE 7 DATE APPROVED 2- 6 7 APPROVED LOT NUMBER BLOCK NUMBER SUB DIVISION ESTIMATED COST ( EXCLUSIVE OF LAND) PERM INDEX NO. Die/ Ucv, BUILDING USE PP/ 2©/ 1- e LIVING UNITS ZONING FIRE DISTRICT CONST, CLASS Frontage Lot Area Bldg. Area Parking Area No Row Y MAX. HEIGHT USE GROUP APPEAL CASE BEDROOMS BATHS EXT. WALL CONST. Th - x OWNER WHEN 6d, " COMPLETED E61 LL - PRESENT ADDRESS PHONE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS REAR ARCHITECT / PHONE PLAN NO. 3 SIDE SIDE eLJGKTo/ , C- 8o, 6g FRONT GOA RAL CONTRACTOR Ai s ADDRESS 6 PHONE s EXCAVATOR ADDRESS LICENSE STREET OCCUPANCY FEE t7 MO CONCRETE CONTRACTOR ADDRESS LICENSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEE$ CC.$ 00 1- CARPENTRY ADDRESS 00 MASONRY ADDRESS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY $ " •" 0 STRUCTURAL IRON ADDRESS DRIVEWAY PERMIT FEE c. 00 PLASTERER OR DRYWALL ADDRESS WRECKING FEE 00 ROOFING CONTRACTOR ADDRESS 00 ARCHITECTURAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS GU - D yy'' 1lyy'' POS 7(a 1 NUMBER TOTAL FEE RESTORATION AND GUARANTEE DEPOSIT CHARGES RELEASE APPROVED AMOUNT RELEASED PROPOSED FOUNDATION GRADE INI RELATION TO CURB OR CROWN OF STREET NOTE: Additional applications shall be filed and permits obtained before starting on the plumbing work. sewer and water taps and stubs, electrical work, sidewalk construction, Heating and/ or Air Conditioning work and such other work for which permits maybe required. The Guarantee Deposit provides for replacement of any existing improvements damaged by reason of the work and for the maintenance of the public streets and surround- ing property in a clean and orderly condition. Any work done by the city to repair or maintain such conditions will be deducted from said deposit. A street obstruction bond is re- quired whenever use is made of any portion of the City street, including walks. parkway and/or paving. CONDITIONS: This permit authorizes only work for which a FEE has been noted and paid. The contractor shall construct work in accordance with the description set forth in the application, plans, and specifications and no error or omission in said application, plans, and specifications, as filed whether approved or not, shall relieve the permittee from conforming with the Building Code of Highland Park, Illinois and all other pertinent ordinances in the installation, alteration, or repair work of any such work. NOTICE OF UNDERGROUND PUBLIC UTILITY Before FACILITIES: excavating. grading or ANY other work below the surface of the ground, the undersigned is responsible to notify the following utilities, securing location of and protection for all underground public utility facilities. ,. NORTH SHORE GAS CO. 432- 6000 r C // y / l d0 Al c To h COMMON WEALTH EDISON CO. 432- 2900 ILL. BELL TELEPHONE CO. 611 REPAIR SERVICE OWNERS SIG. CITY WATER & SEWER DEPT. 432- 0804y, jEXT. THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED WITH THE EXPRESS STIPULATION THAT IF THE EXISTING SIDEWALK IS IN BAD REPAIR IT SHALL BE RELAID AT THE OWNER' S EXPENSE. FILE Page 170 of 276  I HO Y• Sr\ A131 . DAYS. WITHIN PLETE RRECT PLEASE TO S AS LISTED ARE AND MISSING OR INCOMPLETE AS NOTED ARE ITEMS FOLLOWING THE ISSUED. WAS BY, REQUIRED, PERMIT BUILDING THE WHICH N PLANS THE WITH ACCORDANCE IN COMPLETED SUBSTANTIALLY BEEN HAS REPAIR OR N CONSTRUCTION, THE THAT AND BER PER BUILDIN AS REPAIRS THIS BY COVERED NS SUCH WEREOR BUILDINGS, STRUCTED C NEWLY TO APPLICABLE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THE CITY THIS NFORMS TIALLY SUBSTAN- BUILDING THE THAT AND PREMISES ABOVE THE INSPECTED DATE THIS HAVE I THAT CERTIFY TO IS THIS COIaa Cav MOD EN1IBSPUYESLCDT1ITIOOSN: XWWI EID OIIH P31ON Npc E OO? E1 LOR CO OM 1021d NOIR1DIUPO3A NUM MIT ON- COTO N3d21VD A OF D I L A TS D31 LTAEICOA2EIO1d I DATE TOR GENERAL CON TR AC OSVW OWNER TE STRUC TUR RESS OF DATE Od S SSUED OS NOI11aNOD OOJ ONII N PARK, ND OF CITY CERTIFICA ROV ED OF APPO C U P A N C Y Nav S1V 4N El NO11D3dSNI311S SION 1H NOILD3dSNI HIGHLA ILLIN OIS IODNI G 31va A113 AO EDIH IJ. INI v- w3a I11I o. 8 1I S fl NOI1VaNfl S11YM 9 NIV2la ' 3111 S9d1S 1N3W3SV8 - S9V1S ADD3OV2IVO -8 30YdO ' A ONIWV NOI1D3dSNI 0 A2IN El A211 1331S ONI113S G 32114 Id N11`/ NOI173dSN 32114 ONIJ IdVd AVM) NOIIVMOIS3M El A N d3a" 3SV31321 SAVM3AIaa Y7-47 NOI1D3dSNI321 3OMVHD l Z M ONI SlOOd D ONINOZ 3DNVI1dW NG R sor ssS Page 171 of 276 Q, 96 9- _- 1928 Page 172 of 276  win w111 pN?ach. 1934 1i..1han1 EY&nflelieal Church Laurel and McGo,·ern R,v. H. F. Siem1en, - Put.Or Thun,day: The Woman's M isslonary Soci•lY "ill meol today 2:30 at th• home or llr•. A. E. Vetter. De 11111 • Avenue ,1111 ladIn of th• churc are inY'ited t.O r.ttend. Sund,y: Sunday School at 9:-15 un- Sunday: SundA)' School al 9:�5 under the dlr .. 1ion or Mr. WilUam Guyot. llornln1t worship 11 11 a.m. with the Rev. J. JI. Taylor preach­ ing lhe ,.,, mon. Hi, oobje<l will be "The Way o( Lite." Tho Rev. �lr. Taylor doc• nol Med an Introduc­ tion lo th.- p..-ople ot thl• commun- 1ty. We invite hi• mnny friend■ to come and hear him. Thero wUI be no eveninil itervi�t"s durinr the monlh or Au11u1t, Wedn(.'sildAy. Our mtd-wt�k: t1crvicc will take ploc• Wodnel!day eve­ nink al 8 p.m. ltiss Evelyn Snyder w,11 have thure of the meeting. All arp tordially i n,·itod to attend. Barrington Cnm p: Friday c,• ening th• 17th will be tlhe openi1>1 •erv­ k\! of the Barrington ramp ,n�tinK for thl• yesr. Bi•hop L. H. Seaj!cr and Rev. II. M. Page Lints 173 willofbe the 276 J1rincipa 1 spe.ak�re. 1943 Page 174 of 276 1963 Bob Cushman And Mose Mason Sixteen years of dedicated service to Highland Park wiU come to a close on Tuesday as Mayor Robert S. Cushman and Councilman Barrett (Mose) Mason complete their eight yea. terms of office. They deserve the grateful thanks of all High­ land Parkers. Both Mr. Cushman and Mr. Mason had established longl records of community service when they stood for election in 1 1955. Ascendancy to Mayor and Councilman was a natural I course for these men. They are oriented to serving their fellow­ man and their community. The success of Council-Manager form of government here is due, in large measure, to the Mayor and Councilmen who I wero elected in 1955. It was they who carefully screened appli•,1 cations for Highland Park's first City Manager and wisel Yi ,;·, chose Ralph Snyder. They then made the necessar.y adjust• ments from the Commission form of government which made 1 the Council-Manager plan work. And in 1955, the Mayor was Bob Cushman. The Councilmen were Mose Mason, Fred Gie- ser, William Hutchinson, Edward Stern and Kenneth Lacy. Bob Cushman will step aside next week for newly-elected , Mayor Fred Gieser. Fred Gieser, who was originally elected i to the City Council in 1951, and Mose Mason will be replacedj< as Councilmen by Samuel Lawton and Daniel Vetter, who were ; elected last week. , The NEWS pays tribute to these men, their predecessors, ; I and those who will follow as Mayors and Councilmen. Their 1 task is never easy. Their rewards are always minimal. High- l land Park is lucky to have them! Page 175 of 276 1932 Page 176 of 276 Overpass Request Receives Final 1963 V r . Council Approval Tl Ria:hl•nd Park Councllmcn OnaJ. M lied a resoluUon IA.st week request- le Ing lhe Wike County H,lghway De- u, par<m(!nt through 1he Lake County Board or SupC!rviwrs lo pr«ecd tu lmmediatc.ly lo design and con• bl. struet a pedestrian O\·erp.as.s for Skokie hiahway near Deerfield u road. sl, A strong supporter of the proJ- dJ cet, Councilman Daniel 'f"&lD, es, hJ tltnatc.'<I ther-e aA: over 2.000 tam• w mes residing we.,st or the highway c; who are virtually isolated from lb thefr tchools, libnry, rccreatlonal facilities a.nd shc,pplng dl.st.rlN.s on the east side except by automobile sc travel, tJ u To Appropriate SO� � Ii Siocc th(! grade separation And 01 interchange !ltructure makes no A provisfon for thie safety and pro - al t«tlon ol pedes.tr1•N wootln1 to y C'r03s the hi.gh••ay from r.asl to v. west. and becaus.e the public safety and we.lh:re demands a safe and con,·cnif!nt me.an, of J)C(lcstrlan j,, ae:c:-cu o,·er the h.i,ghway, the resc,.. luUon wa.s unanimously passed by s counell members. A' This aetlon w..u lhe result or a d: rttommenda.tion b y t h e La k e County Highway Committee. spon• v. &Ol'C'd by member, RAymond J. Sbeahen and Samuel s. Smllh of w Deerfield townshi.p, to approprlaite � SO per «int of the cost of a t>edes• g 1 lrla.n o\fcrpau, The resolutlom stated "that the P CilY Council of Highland Parlt r , l; ··,. by :iffirm.l it& desire and will- � ln�o,.,.,. '" appro;prtate funds to the I ex!•·... '1e remaJnlng 50 per c;eot of the cost of said i.mpro,tt-• !I,· ment," nnd rcqoc.sted priority be given lo the project. County Hig.h\VJY Superintendent si )tel Am!itUtt tstimate$ the O\'Cf• h pass at $40,000 but City Mnnq;er Ralph Snyde:r aa.id the cost may be ti closer to $60,000. Snyder believes the cit:)"i share 10 construct the C:ro,slng c:in Page be paid 177from mot.or j of 276 fuel tax funds.  Attached in Tree to a No Image Available Name Arthur E Vetter Arthur E Vetter Document Information V • Deceased • GTVQ-NZV Collection Information Arthur E Vetter·s Spouses and Children OPEN ALL United States. Socia I Security Numerical Similar Records Identification FilesINUMIDENJ].1936- Daniel Arthur Vetter Son M Highland Par*. Illinois, United "' No similar records were found. 2007 States cite This Record Name Daniel Arthur Vetter "United States, Social Securitv Numerical Alias Daniel A Vetter Identification Files (NUMIDENT). 1936-2007". Sex Male FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1 :1 :6 Birth Date 29 February 1928 v KQH-ZLHT: Sun Oct 19 03:43:29 UTC 2025), Entry for Daniel A Vetter and Arthur E Vetter. Birthplace Highland Par*, Illinois, United States Copy Citation Social Program Application Date June 1943 v Residence Place Green Valley, Pima, Arizona, United States Death Date 31 March 2006 V Race White Parent Name Arthur E Vetter Second Parent·s Name Mabel Oestreich Event Type Social Program Correspondence Mabel Oestreich V Page 178 of 276 Page 179 of 276 Page 180 of 276 Page 181 of 276 Page 182 of 276 Page 183 of 276 Page 184 of 276 Page 185 of 276 Page 186 of 276 Page 187 of 276 Page 188 of 276 Page 189 of 276 Page 190 of 276 Page 191 of 276 Page 192 of 276 Page 193 of 276 Page 194 of 276 Page 195 of 276 Page 196 of 276 Page 197 of 276 Page 198 of 276 Page 199 of 276 Page 200 of 276 Page 201 of 276 Page 202 of 276 Page 203 of 276 Page 204 of 276 Page 205 of 276 Page 206 of 276 Page 207 of 276 Page 208 of 276 Page 209 of 276 Page 210 of 276 Page 211 of 276 December 4, 2003 Kenneth Kotula 670 DeTamble Highland Park, IL 60035 Re: Fourteenth Annual Preservation Awards Dear Kenneth Kotula, Congratulations! Your property at 670 DeTamble has been nominated by Lou Natenshon to be considered for a Preservation Award in the category of: Rehabilitation This awards program was established by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission to publicly recognize the time and effort that Highland Park citizens have put into the preservation and maintenance of their properties. Award categories for the Preservation Awards include properties that exemplify rehabilitation, restoration, adaptive re-use, and historically sensitive new construction. Below is the information submitted to us: Architect Lou Natenshon Contractor Illinois Quality Builders Brief Description Two story addition to rear of house If you choose to accept this nomination three judges with expertise in the field of architecture and historic preservation will view the nominated homes Saturday, January 10th, 2004. If you would like to provide the judges with any architectural plans or photos please contact Larry Shure at the Department of Community Development at 926-1853. Likewise, if you'd prefer not to accept the nomination at this time please let us know. Details will follow as plans for the Preservation Awards are finalized. Sincerely, Michael Behn, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission Page 212 of 276 PRESS RELEASE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, IL 1707 St. Johns Avenue; Highland Park, IL 60035 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: January 20, 2004 From: Larry Shure, Planner I (847) 432-0867 Staff Liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission Highland Park Preservation Award Winners Announced The Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission is pleased to announce the recipients of the Fourteenth Annual Highland Park Preservation Awards. This awards program was established to publicly recognize the time and effort that Highland Park citizens have put into the preservation and maintenance of their properties. Highland Park residents were encouraged to nominate properties that they believe are architectural treasures of the city. This year, several properties were nominated in the category of rehabilitation. In January a jury of professionals in the fields of architecture and preservation toured the nominated properties and selected four winners and two honorable mentions. This year's distinguished jury was comprised of Vince Michael, Director of the Historic Preservation Program at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Bill Tyre of the Society of Architectural Historians, and Chip Hackley of Hackley/Lang Architects in Kenilworth. The winners of the Fourteenth Annual Highland Park Preservation Awards are: REHABILITATION 24 Scott Loop Cohn Residence Architect: Guedtner & Melichar, Archts. 1251 St. Johns Avenue Kelm Residence 670 DeTamble Kotula Residence Architect: Louis Natenshon. 251 Oakland Muntean Residence Architect: Louis Natenshon Page 213 of 276 Honorable Mentions for Rehabilitation 1199 Lincoln Lavin Residence Architect: Louis Natenshon 658 Central Avenue Cheeky Storefront Architect: G. Allen Brin Mayor Michael Belsky and the Historic Preservation Commission will honor this year's recipients at an awards ceremony, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10th at the Highland Park Community House at 1991 Sheridan Road. Recipients of the Preservation Award will receive a framed certificate that recognizes their outstanding achievements. The Historical Society will also present their own awards for the hosts of their 2003 Annual House Tour. The Historic Preservation Commission congratulates this year's winners! For further information, contact Larry Shure at the City of Highland Park, 432-0867. Page 214 of 276 Page 215 of 276 Page 216 of 276 Page 217 of 276 Page 218 of 276  CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION MAKING A PRELIMINARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION FOR 670 DE TAMBLE AVENUE WHEREAS, on January 23, 2026, pursuant to Section 24.025(A) of "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"), Kenneth and Marcia Kotula (collectively known as the “Owner”), the record title owners of that certain real property located at the address commonly known as 670 De Tamble Avenue in Highland Park, Illinois ("Property"), submitted a written nomination to designate the Property as a landmark; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(1) of the City Code, a public meeting of the Commission to consider preliminary landmark designation of the Structure was held on March 12, 2026 notice of which meeting was delivered on February 17, 2026 to the Owner; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, to make a preliminary landmark designation recommendation for the Structure, the Commission must, by resolution duly adopted: (i) find that the proposed landmark designation satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code; and (ii) determine that the Property has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation; and WHEREAS, the Property demonstrates value as part of the development and cultural character of the City; and WHEREAS, the single-family residential structure on the Property was built in the Tudor Style, and includes many of the architectural features of that style; and WHEREAS, the Property was the birthplace and childhood home of notable person Councilmember Daniel Vetter who contributed to the development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Property exhibits elements of fine design, detailing, materials and craftsmanship that render it architecturally significant; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the proposed landmark designation of the Property satisfies the criteria for landmark designation set forth in the City Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, as follows: SECTION ONE: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Historic Preservation Commission. SECTION TWO: PRELIMINARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION. In accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, the Commission hereby: (a) finds that the Structure satisfies the criteria for landmark designation set forth in Sections {00116884.1} Page 219 of 276  CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24.015(1), 24.015(3), 24.015(4), 24.015(4) and 24.015(6) of the City Code; and (b) determines that the Structure has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. Pursuant to such finding and determination and Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, the Commission hereby makes a preliminary recommendation to designate the Structure as a landmark. SECTION THREE: EFFECT OF DESIGNATION. In accordance with and pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(3) of the City Code, upon the effective date of this Resolution, the Structure will be considered a "Regulated Structure," as that term is defined pursuant to Section 24.005 of the City Code. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED: APPROVED: March 12, 2026 RESOLUTION NO. ____________________________________ Erica Weeder, Chairperson ATTEST: ___________________________________ Maddy Markle, Commission Secretary {00116884.1} Page 220 of 276  Memorandum Date: March 12, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: Preliminary Landmark Designation – 273 Sheridan Rd Location 273 Sheridan Road Historical Name Marshall L. Johnson House Historical Status “Significant” 2003 Braeside Survey Structure Style: French Eclectic Architect: Unknown Landscape Architect: Marshall Johnson Builder: Unknown Built: c. 1935 Petitioners Kimberly and Barry Schliesmann 273 Sheridan Road, Highland Park Figure 1. Front Façade, 2025 Figure 1. Exterior Façade, 2025. Courtesy Connie Dornan. Summary of the Nomination Kimberly and Barry Schliesmann have nominated their property at 273 Sheridan Rd for a Local Landmark Designation (see Attachment A). They believe their property is worthy of such a designation because of its unique architectural details and associations with landscape architect Marshall Liston Johnson. The property is rated “Significant” in the 2003 Braeside Architectural Survey (see Attachment B). This is the highest rating a structure can receive, and indicates that it should be considered for a Local Landmark Designation. The property is also featured in 1973 Illinois Historic Structures (IHS) 1 Page 221 of 276  Memorandum Survey, and was given an “Outstanding” rating (see Attachment C). For HPC review purposes, Staff does not regularly refer to the 1973 IHS Survey or other State surveys. However, Staff referenced the IHS Survey to emphasize the historic nature of this home and add further credibility to its landmark nomination analysis. Marshall Liston Johnson Marshall Liston Johnson was a landscape architect who resided and worked in Highland Park. He is most well-known as Jen Jensen’s son-in-law, office manager, and successor. Johnson was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota in 1892. He graduated from Cornell University in 1915. In 1917, he was drafted in WWI and was stationed in France. He was awarded the Croix de Guerre, a prestigious French Military award, for capturing German soldiers. He began working for Jensen in 1919 upon his return from France. In 1935, Johnson would take over Jensen’s practice and continue his work following Jensen’s move from Highland Park to Ellison Figure 2. Marshall Johnson Bay, Wisconsin. He worked on projects such as Highland Park’s Rosewood Park and Gardner’s Memorial, as well as Chicago’s Columbus Park. He had longstanding relationship with the Ford Company and designed the Ford Greenfield Village and Dearborn Inn landscapes. In 1933, Johnson designed the Ford Pavilion landscape for the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair. 1 In his free time, Johnson was one of the City’s most enthusiastic tree advocates. Johnson served as member of the Highland Park Men’s Garden Club and the Highland Park Park’s District. Deeds show that Johnson was the Parks District President in 1957 (see Attachment D). A 1940 newspaper chronicles Johnson’s effort, as a member of the Men’s Garden Club, to plant 1500 trees for Arbor Day (see Attachment E). As part of his 1945 run for Park’s District Board, Johnson took out a large newspaper ad asking for the end of “ruthless tree slaughter” (see Attachment F). Johnson is recorded as residing at 273 Sheridan Rd (formerly 2141 Oak Knoll Terrace) as early as 1940 in census records (see Attachment G). The landscape design and architecture of 273 Sheridan Rd. suggests that Johnson was the original owner of the property and was personally involved in both the landscape design and architecture. Johnson resided at the property up until 1966, a year before his death. Architectural Style The residential structure at 273 Sheridan Rd is a two-story single-family dwelling with an asymmetrical façade and multi-gable roof. There are three hipped dormers within the front-façade’s side gable. The main structure is clad in a light-colored masonry veneer. A front-gabled projection 1 Marshall Liston Johnson | TCLF. (n.d.). https://www.tclf.org/pioneer/marshall-liston-johnson 2 Page 222 of 276  Memorandum located on the northern side of the exterior façade features an expanse of metal-framed windows as well as diamond brickwork in the front gable. The main massing has a recessed entry with curved walls. To the right of the entry there are three metal casement windows with stone tabbing over the window heads. The windows have rough-edged stone sills. The south façade features an integrated two-car garage bordered by five-point arches. Over the garage there is a recessed window. The recessed window features a curved masonry detail that matches the front entryway. The gable itself is clad in a rough horizontal board with a zig-zag trim. Existing photos of the structure have been compiled into Attachment H. French Eclectic The 2003 Braeside Survey labels the structure at 273 Sheridan Rd as Tudor Style, but Staff believes that French Eclectic is the more appropriate categorization. The French Eclectic Style was most common in Highland Park between 1920 and 1940 following the return of soldiers from France after WWI. The style, which is related to other historical styles such as Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival, sought to mimic the designs of Medieval and Renaissance France. French Eclectic homes can either be formalized or resemble irregular farmhouses. 2 Figure 3. Apremont, France, 1909 The style is characterized by a hipped or steeply pitched gable roof, light colors, casement windows, hipped dormers, and prominent side chimneys. The residence at 273 Sheridan Rd exhibits these characteristics. 273 Sheridan Road’s prominent gables, light masonry, casement windows, hipped dormers, and large chimney resemble the vernacular dwellings in Apremont, France, where Johnson was stationed during WWI (see Attachment I). The homes in Apremont are modest rectangular dwellings with light masonry and high pitched gable roofs and hipped gable dormers, depicted in Figure 3. Staff determined that it’s likely Johnson’s experience in France informed the design of 273 Sheridan Road. 2 McAlester, V., & McAlester, A. L. (1984). A Field Guide to American Houses. 3 Page 223 of 276  Memorandum Landscape Style The landscape at 273 Sheridan Road was designed by Johnson and embodies the Prairie Landscape Style. The design is not overly formalized. Instead, it mirrors the natural beauty of the prairie through its use of low-lying stonework, open spaces and native plants. The landscape at 273 Sheridan Road is defined by its open character, framing of space, and use of horizontal stone layers. The property retains its original stone outcroppings, paths and vegetative framing of space. Additionally, the property retains its original lamppost located to the west side of the driveway. The same stone that’s used in the landscape outcroppings is also used as stone sills on the residential structure. This implies that Johnson had some level of design control over the home as well as the landscaping. Figure 4. 273 Sheridan Rd Stone Materials Outcroppings, 2007 Historic Materials • Brick veneer • Wood siding in gables • Brick chimney • Stone tabbing • Metal casement windows • Stone sills • Stone outcroppings • Stone pavers • Metal lamppost Replacement Materials • Modern roofing material • Modern driveway material • Modern fence • Filled in covered porch on rear elevation Alterations Figure 5. 273 Sheridan Rd Lamppost, 2026 It appears that a covered porch on the rear elevation was filled in with glass windows. The City has no record of when this alteration occurred. The alteration is not visible from the public-right-of-way. Overall, the property largely retains its original historic characteristics. 4 Page 224 of 276  Memorandum Ownership Chain of Title • C. 1935-1966 Marshall L. Johnson and Edith Johnson • C. 1966-2026 David M. Michaelson and Annette K. Michaelson • 2026- Present Kimberly and Barry Schliesmann Complete chain of title documentation is compiled in Attachment J. Landmark Criteria The home at 273 Sheridan Road may meet the following Landmark Criteria: 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Sec. 24.015 Criteria for Landmark Designation. The following is a list of the criteria to be considered in the designation of a Property, Structure, Area, Object, or Landscape of Significance as a Landmark: (1) It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, county, state, or country. (2) It is the site of a significant local, county, state, or national event. (3) It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, County, State, or Country. (4) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and/or landscape style valuable for the study of a specific time period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. (5) It is identifiable as the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, artist, or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, County, State, or Country. (6) It embodies, overall, elements of design, details, materials, and/or craftsmanship that renders it architecturally, visually, aesthetically, and/or culturally significant and/or innovative. (7) It has a unique location or it possesses or exhibits singular physical and/or aesthetic characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature. (8) It is a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure or group of such structures, including, but not limited to farmhouses, gas stations or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity and/or architectural, cultural, historical, and/or community significance. (9) It possesses or exhibits significant historical and/or archaeological qualities. Landmark Nomination Process Outline The landmark process is initiated when a nomination form is submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. At this point, the property owner has already been sent a letter stating the time, place, 5 Page 225 of 276  Memorandum and intent of this meeting where the nomination will be considered. The owner has provided consent to the landmark designation, so the next steps are as follows: (1) The Commission should consider and discuss the landmark nomination. If the HPC finds that the property (a) meets two or more Landmark Criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code, and (b) has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation, then the Commission should direct Staff to draft a Resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation. (2) The Commission should consider the resolution making the preliminary recommendation. Should the HPC adopt the resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation, the house becomes a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alterations. (3) Staff will draft a Planning Report evaluating the relationship of the proposed designation to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Report will be presented to the Commission following the adoption of the Resolution making the preliminary recommendation. (4) At a subsequent meeting, the Commission shall review the Planning Report, Findings of Fact, and make a determination to recommend a landmark designation to City Council. (5) The City Council will consider the findings, recommendations, and official record of the Historical Preservation Commission and may, by an Ordinance duly adopted, designate the subject property as a Local Landmark. Recommended Action The Historic Preservation Commission is asked to discuss and consider the preliminary landmark designation for 273 Sheridan Rd. If the nomination is to be given a positive recommendation for approval, the Commission must find that the structure meets two or more of the criteria set forth in Section 24.015 and have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or rehabilitation. If the nomination is given a positive recommendation, the Commission is asked to consider A Resolution Making a Preliminary Landmark Designation Recommendation for 273 Sheridan Rd. Should the Commission adopt the resolution making a preliminary Landmark Designation recommendation, the house becomes a “Regulated Structure” with the associated protections against demolition and alteration. 6 Page 226 of 276  Memorandum Attachments: A. Local Landmark Nomination B. 2003 Braeside Architectural Survey Form C. 1973 IHS Survey Form D. 1957 Deed - Parks District Documentation E. 1940 Newspaper F. 1945 Newspaper G. 1940 Census H. Current Conditions I. Apresmont Architecture J. Chain of Title K. Johnson Military Service Documentation 7 Page 227 of 276 Page 228 of 276 Page 229 of 276 Page 230 of 276 Page 231 of 276 Page 232 of 276 Page 233 of 276 Page 234 of 276 Page 235 of 276 Page 236 of 276 Page 237 of 276 Page 238 of 276 Page 239 of 276 Page 240 of 276 Page 241 of 276 Page 242 of 276 Page 243 of 276 Page 244 of 276 Page 245 of 276 Page 246 of 276 Page 247 of 276 Page 248 of 276 Page 249 of 276 Page 250 of 276 Page 251 of 276 Page 252 of 276 Citation: "Lake, Illinois, United States records," images, FamilySearch (https:// www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9MB-Q37V?view=index : Feb 20, 2026), image 680 of 977; United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Image Group Number: 005459569 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9MB-Q37V?view=index Page 253 of 276 Page 254 of 276 Page 255 of 276 Page 256 of 276 Page 257 of 276 Page 258 of 276 Page 259 of 276 Page 260 of 276 Page 261 of 276 Page 262 of 276 Page 263 of 276 Page 264 of 276 Page 265 of 276 Page 266 of 276 Page 267 of 276 Page 268 of 276 Page 269 of 276  Form 1 1030 REGISTRATION CARD No 78 11.4mershelle Siston odnarn Age, in yrs. Name in (Given 25 REGISTRAR'S REPORT 12-2-29-A lall 2 144 5 See. relesf hon Chicap Se (City) 2 short medium, Tall (specify of Stender medigm, or stout (wlich)1 lende 20 lau Caler al eree? at lig Bald! 3 Date of birth (Mouth) 16 (Day) 1892 3 Has person lost arm, leg, hand, foat, or eyes, oris he otherwise or both disabled (specify)? No Are you (1) a natural-born citizen, (2) a naturalized citizen, (3) an alien, (4) or have you declared your 4 kantieat ortysluhit anatural brin citign I certify that my answers are true, that the person register t. Paul l.d. registered has read his own 5 you born! Minnessta (State) (Natie answers, that I have witnessed his signature, and that all of his answers of which I have knowledge are true, except as follows: 6 If not a citizen, of what country are you a citizen or subject? I rupt. of Landscape Construction Bywhom esmppyed? Where empred ? Have you a 815- Jensen 64 ther, mother, wile, child under 12, or a sister or brother under 12, solely dependent on you for Precinct 99. Abigul ideng (Signature of registrar) Ward 9 suppor! (specify which)7 no 25 Chicags 10 Nesid ie hars Hingle aie State Delinois ene (Date of regis What military service have you had? branch 11 Rank Nation or State Local Board 12 Do you claim exemption from draft (specily grounds)? No Division No. 57, Chi I affirm that I have verified above answers and that they are true. cago AA If 7075 No. Clark St.. Chicag AlrffricPe o, Ill. t ic anrs ear an aonn i of des i so co rn fth cen f (Signature or fats) e is t, Page 270 of 276 Citation: "Illinois, United States records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-814V-989F?view=index : Feb 20, 2026), image 4227 of 5680; United States. National Archives and Records Administration,United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Atlanta Branch. Image Group Number: 005248474 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-814V-989F?view=index Page 271 of 276  NAMES, PRESENT AND ABSENT, AND All present RANK. and mustered except those (Commissioned and noncommissioned officers accord- WHEN ENLISTED. indicated in REMARKS. ing to rank. Surnames of all enlisted men will this column precede Christian names. Privates of each class in by the word alphabetical order.) 1 ABSENT GRACE JANES R.. AUG 27 1917 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O. AUG 27 1917 GRAFE HENRY W.,. AUG 8 1917 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O. AUG 27 1917 GUELTIG, CHABLES.E.., AUG 1917 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.О. AUG 27 1917 IASS GND TO CO nt V.O.C. GUNDERSON, HENRY, AUG 27 1917 AUG 27 1917 AS GND CO nE V.0.C. GUSTIN ALPHEUS, AUG 1917 AUG 27 1917 ‫עכ‬ AHG 917 GND TO CO V.0.0 AUG 27-1917 CUSTIN ROBERT V... HARRIS HOLLY P. 1917 ASOGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O. AUG 271917 AUG 917 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.C AUG 27 3 HEPFER AN JR. WILLIAN S ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O AUG 22 1917 HEPZOG BERTRAM. ALIC 1917. HANILTON. JOHN W. AUS 30 1917 ASSGND TO CO PER v.O.c.O. AUG 30 1917 HIELD, HORACE Н., AUG 27 1917 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O. AEL & S HUBERT, ROLLAND E. AUG 27 1917 ASSGND TO CC ER V.O.C.O. AUG 2%.1917 HULBERT, PAUL C., AIG 272192 ASOGND TO CO FER V.O.C. ANG 1917 HUTCHESON, RODERIC.. AUG 27 19 ASSOND TO CO EPER V.O C.0 MIG 27 1917 HUTCHINSON, ALFRED H., ASSGND TO CO FER V.0.C AUG 27 1917 INGWERSEN HENRY, ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.O AUG 27 1917 JAMES, RAYMOND м., ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.O. A6 27 191/ AUG 2.7-ic ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C. 2.7 1917 JANSEN. PHILIP. UG 27 JOHHSON, MARSHALL LISTON AUG 27 ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.0. AUG 27 1917 KEARNEY THOMAS 116.27 ASSGND TO CO FER v.O.C.O. AUG 27 191/ KENNERLY, JAMES P., 14UG 27 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O AUG 27 1917 KUGLER. JAMTS S. AUG 27 1917 ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.O. AHG 27 1917 LAFFEY. JAMESE.. AUG 27 ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.O.AUG 27-1917 ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.O. AUG 27 LARSEN, HANS C., AUG 27 141/ 1917 ASSGND TO CO PER V.O.C.O.ALG 27.1917 LEVIS, WILLIAM E.. LEY, JAMES J. ASSGND TO CO FER V.O.C.O. AUG 27 1917 LILLARD, PAUL ASSONO TO CO PER V.O.C.O. AUG 27 1917 LINSLEY, CLYDE M. ASSCND TO CO PER V.O.C.O AUG 27 1917 8-2657 Do not write in this space. See Instruction 5. Page 272 of 276 Citation: "United States records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3CL-Y6ZD?view=index : Feb 20, 2026), image 68 of 1882; United States. National Archives and Records Administration. St. Louis Missouri. Image Group Number: 106381510 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3CL-Y6ZD?view=index Page 273 of 276 Page 274 of 276  CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION MAKING A PRELIMINARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION FOR 273 SHERIDAN ROAD WHEREAS, on February 11, 2026, pursuant to Section 24.025(A) of "The Highland Park Code of 1968," as amended ("City Code"), Kimberly and Barry Schliesmann (collectively known as the “Owner”), the record title owners of that certain real property located at the address commonly known as 273 Sheridan Road in Highland Park, Illinois ("Property"), submitted a written nomination to designate the Property as a landmark; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(1) of the City Code, a public meeting of the Commission to consider preliminary landmark designation of the Structure was held on March 12, 2026 notice of which meeting was delivered on February 23, 2026 to the Owner; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, to make a preliminary landmark designation recommendation for the Structure, the Commission must, by resolution duly adopted: (i) find that the proposed landmark designation satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Section 24.015 of the City Code; and (ii) determine that the Property has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation; and WHEREAS, the Property demonstrates value as part of the development and cultural character of the City; and WHEREAS, the single-family residential structure on the Property was built in the French Eclectic Style, and includes many of the architectural features of that style; and WHEREAS, the landscape of the Property was designed and constructed in the Prairie Landscape Style, and includes many of the design features of that style; and WHEREAS, the landscape of the Property was designed by notable landscape architect Marshall L. Johnson whose individual works had an influence on the City; and WHEREAS, the Property was the home of notable person Marshall L. Johnson who contributed to the development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Property exhibits elements of fine design, detailing, materials and craftsmanship that render it architecturally significant; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the proposed landmark designation of the Property satisfies the criteria for landmark designation set forth in the City Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, as follows: {00116884.1} Page 275 of 276  CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SECTION ONE: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Historic Preservation Commission. SECTION TWO: PRELIMINARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION. In accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, the Commission hereby: (a) finds that the Structure satisfies the criteria for landmark designation set forth in Sections 24.015(1), 24.015(3), 24.015(4), , 24.015(5), 24.015(6) and 24.015(7) of the City Code; and (b) determines that the Structure has sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation. Pursuant to such finding and determination and Section 24.025(B)(2) of the City Code, the Commission hereby makes a preliminary recommendation to designate the Structure as a landmark. SECTION THREE: EFFECT OF DESIGNATION. In accordance with and pursuant to Section 24.025(B)(3) of the City Code, upon the effective date of this Resolution, the Structure will be considered a "Regulated Structure," as that term is defined pursuant to Section 24.005 of the City Code. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED: APPROVED: March 12, 2026 RESOLUTION NO. ____________________________________ Erica Weeder, Chairperson ATTEST: ___________________________________ Maddy Markle, Commission Secretary {00116884.1} Page 276 of 276