Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting City Hall - Council Chambers June 11, 2026 6:30 PM Agenda CANCELED FOR SEVERE WEATHER PUBLIC NOTICE In accordance with the Statutes of the State of Illinois and the Ordinances of the City of Highland Park, the next regular hearing 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, June 11, 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 hearing 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 Page 1 of 61  • 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. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes A. May 14, 2026 Meeting Minutes IV. Scheduled Business A. Certificate of Appropriateness - 105 S. Deere Park Drive V. Discussion Items A. Encouraging Historic Preservation Update VI. Business from the Public (Individuals wishing to be heard regarding items not listed on this agenda) VII. Other Business A. Special Meeting will Occur on June 24, 2026 B. Next Regular Meeting will Occur on July 9, 2026 VIII. Staff Report IX. Adjournment Page 2 of 61  1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 3 OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS 4 5 6 MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2026 7 8 MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 9 10 CALL TO ORDER 11 At 6:30 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 Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Pines, & 16 Portman 17 18 Commissioner Absent: Commissioner Ehrlich 19 20 Councilmember Absent: Blumberg 21 22 Student Council Absent: Cooper Baum & Gabi Goldstein 23 24 Staff declared that a quorum was present. 25 26 Staff Present: Markle 27 28 Guests Present: Andrew Venamore, CEO/H.G.B. 29 30 Others Present: Gale Cerabona, Recorder 31 32 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 33 Special Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – April 15, 2026 34 35 Commissioner Portman moved to approve the special meeting minutes of April 15, 2026. Commissioner 36 Gonka seconded the motion. 37 38 On a voice vote 39 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Pines, & 40 Portman 41 Voting Nay: None 42 43 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 44 45 Special Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission – May 7, 2026 46 47 Commissioner Pines moved to approve the special meeting minutes of May 7, 2026. Commissioner Gonka 48 seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 14, 2026 - Page 1 Page 3 of 61  1 2 On a voice vote 3 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Pines, & 4 Portman 5 Voting Nay: None 6 7 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 8 9 SCHEDULED BUSINESS 10 1. 1442 Forest Avenue – Certificate of Appropriateness 11 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 12 • Alex Stuart House 13 • Built in 1913 14 • Landmark Designation in 1993 15 • Colonial Revival style 16 • Architect is Robert Seyfarth 17 • Background 18 o won 2025 Preservation Award 19 • Garage History 20 o existed in 1924 21 o 1932 permit application 22 • Proposed Change 23 o demolish and replace a two-car garage 24 o moving back 30’ to save Heritage tree 25 o site plan was illustrated 26 o elevations were shown 27 • Standards for COA were displayed 28 • Recommendation 29 30 Mr. Andrew Venamore, CEO, advised the garage is badly damaged, the floor is broken. The Heritage tree will 31 be saved; working with City Forester. It will be a 22x22 garage with a hip roof. Concrete will not be placed, 32 so it doesn’t damage the tree; gravel will be there. The garage will be vinyl, the house is cedar. Bringing the 33 garage back will lessen the material change. 34 35 Some HPC comments are….. 36 • Commissioner Portman asked, and Mr. Venamore said: 37 o an arborist said the tree is in fair condition. The area is heavily wooded. 38 o the path will be gravel; 30’ back. He noted Engineering and Forestry Staff discussed this. 39 • Commissioner Pines: 40 o asked if the grade will be changed. Mr. Venamore said the grade heads in the northwesterly 41 direction; at natural grade; a floating slab. 42 o asked if the roof pitch is going to match the house. Mr. Venamore said the pitch on the 43 house might be 7’ or 8’. The idea is to replace it. 44 o asked if the eve detail is going to be similar. Mr. Venamore said no. 45 o said a prefinished white Hardie Board material could be used. Mr. Venamore said the 46 interior is incredible, as the homeowners updated the house while preserving the character. 47 Cost is a factor. Some aspects will have LP. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 14, 2026 - Page 2 Page 4 of 61  1 • Chairperson Weeder: 2 o discussed LP. She strongly urges to use the smooth side of LP. Mr. Venamore said it is a faux 3 finish, not cedar, and nicely finished. 4 o said the smooth side is a better finish. Mr. Venamore said the smooth version is not often 5 available and is a bit more costly. 6 o suggested having 3 light divisions in windows, not 4; omit the horizontal muntins. 7 • Commissioner Gonka asked if the door is shorter. Mr. Venamore said yes. Planner Markle reminded 8 the garage is half of a dog kennel. 9 • Commissioner Hartinger said: 10 o pushing this back 30’ looks like the same color scheme as the house. No one will see or 11 notice it enough; won’t take away the historic element of the house. Believes the garage is 12 designed perfectly with the house. Mr. Venamore said the grade elevates heading west; less 13 visible in the back. 14 o cars in the driveway may block the garage. 15 o windows could be deleted. 16 • Chairperson Weeder said it’s much better to have natural light. Planner Markle reminded the paint 17 color is not regulated. Mr. Venamore said there was not a reason to make it elaborate. 18 19 Chairperson Weeder asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. The following came forward: 20 • Mr. Tom Hiller said he has no idea if the garage should be mimicked. He shared it feels like the 21 proposed garage is from 1960. 22 23 Commissioner Gonka moved to grant the COA as shown. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion. 24 25 On a roll call vote 26 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Pines, & 27 Portman 28 Voting Nay: None 29 30 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 31 32 2. 2012 Grange Avenue – Certificate of Appropriateness 33 Planner Markle offered a presentation: 34 • Amendment to COA from April, 2025 35 • Local Landmark in 2013 36 • Built in the 1890s 37 • Utilitarian style 38 • Previous HPC Consideration 39 o construction is underway 40 • Proposed Amendment 41 o structural flaws with cupola and dormer; proposal is to reconstruct 42 • City Inspection 43 o agrees the cupola (warped and rotated with slats missing) and dormer are in poor condition 44 • Current Condition 45 • Hardie Board – Fiber Cement 46 o National Park Service (suitable substitute) 47 • Standards for COA Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 14, 2026 - Page 3 Page 5 of 61  1 • Recommendation 2 3 Planner Markle said the Applicant is not in attendance. 4 5 Some HPC comments are….. 6 • Chairperson Weeder said Hardie Board is available in a smooth finish. 7 • Commissioner Gonka asked if the roof is asphalt shingle. Planner Markle said – asbestos. 8 • Commissioner Portman asked if the HPC is considering the cupola and dormer only. Planner Markle 9 said yes. 10 • Commissioner Gonka asked: 11 o if the roof will be removed and redone. Planner Markle said yes. 12 o how we know the roof is being matched. Planner Markle illustrated the updated plan and 13 explained what was approved and what the architect is doing. 14 • Chairperson Weeder said the drawing doesn’t match what’s there. Planner Markle said Hardie Board 15 is being used on the exterior/what would be seen. 16 • Commissioner Gonka identified the wood slats are shorter, etc. 17 • Commissioner Portman discussed Hardie Board. Planner Markle said the house was approved with 18 Hardie Board so this would match. 19 20 Consensus is the drawing does not match the proposed cupola and dormer. 21 22 • Commissioner Gonka asked if the shingles would be brought up the side, etc. It was noted Hardie 23 Board will be on the side of the dormer. Planner Markle read the proposed changes (windows, trim). 24 They noted it would be unfair to take away a past approval. 25 • Commissioner Hartinger said it needs to be constructed exactly the same, per the approval. 26 • Commissioner Gonka said, due to the reconstruction, the drawing doesn’t match what’s there 27 currently. He noted items are missing. 28 • Chairperson Weeder said the window in the dormer appears to have been replaced. 29 • Commissioner Gonka expressed it should look historic. 30 • Commissioner Pines said it is being reinvented. 31 32 Chairperson Weeder asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. The following came forward: 33 • Mr. Tom Hiller wonders if there’s a way to actually go back to see what was originally there. He asked 34 how it’s fastened and if it’s the same framing. Mr. Hiller stated copper looks good over time. 35 Chairperson Weeder said this doesn’t need to be painted much at all. Mr. Hiller said it’s very 36 expensive to have people go on the roof. 37 38 Commissioner Pines moved to approve the COA for the rebuilding of the cupola and dormer with the 39 Conditions that: 40 • the eve details and scale of the louver and proportion of the wall to the louver match what currently 41 exists. 42 • the dormer side walls be horizontally-sided to match the garage’s exterior walls. 43 • special attention be given at the base of the cupola with the pitched roof to closely match the 44 geometry; slats to match. 45 • if copper is found under the shingles, that should be replaced with copper. 46 47 Commissioner Hartinger seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 14, 2026 - Page 4 Page 6 of 61  1 2 On a roll call vote 3 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Hartinger, Pines, & Portman 4 Voting Nay: Commissioners Gonka & Greenbaum 5 6 Staff declared that the motion passed 4-2. 7 8 DISCUSSION ITEMS 9 There were no Discussion Items. 10 11 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 12 There was no Business from the Public. 13 14 OTHER BUSINESS 15 1. Next Regular Meeting is Scheduled for June 11, 2026 16 The next regular HPC Meeting is scheduled for June 11, 2026. 17 18 STAFF REPORT 19 • Preservation Incentives 20 21 Planner Markle noted City Council worked on how best to address preservation incentives at the 22 Committee of the Whole/COW meeting on April 27, 2026, and will direct Staff. 23 24 Commissioner Portman said he watched that meeting. He felt there was a lot of confusion. He 25 commends City Council in addressing this and Staff for conveying the content. 26 27 • Walking Tour 28 29 Planner Markle advised 40 people have RSVP’d for the Walking Tours on May 24 and 31, 2026. 30 31 32 ADJOURNMENT 33 Commissioner Portman moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Greenbaum seconded the motion. 34 35 On a voice vote 36 Voting Yea Chairperson Weeder; Commissioners Gonka, Greenbaum, Hartinger, Pines, & 37 Portman 38 Voting Nay: None 39 40 Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously. 41 42 Respectfully Submitted, 43 44 45 Gale Cerabona 46 Recorder 47 48 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETINGS ON APRIL 15 AND MAY 7, 2026, WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes May 14, 2026 - Page 5 Page 7 of 61  To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Date: June 11, 2026 Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness – 105 S Deere Park Drive Location: 105 S Deere Park Drive Historical Name: E. Lichtstern House Historical Status: Historic Local Landmark (1987) Structure: Style: Italian Renaissance Revival Architect: Arthur Heun Built: 1919 Petitioner: Teo Scorte 105 S Deere Park Drive, Highland Park, IL Project Architect: Richard Contreras, Barrington Pools 3906 Barrington, IL, 60011 Figure 1. Front Façade of 105 S Deere Park Drive. SUMMARY OF THE PETITION The property owner of 105 South Deere Park Drive, Teo Scorte, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an in-ground pool with automatic cover, patio, planters and retaining wall. The application was submitted on May 4, 2026. The HPC previously considered this property in October of 2024. The Commission approved modifications to the garage, driveway, and the installation of a fountain (see Attachment A). 105 S DEERE PARK DRIVE This structure was designated as a historic local landmark in 1987. The Italian Renaissance Revival home was built by Arthur Heun in 1919. Heun enlisted help from Jens Jensen to design stonework and landscaping on the property, as called out in the landmark nomination form (see Attachment B ). Page 1 of 4 Page 8 of 61 The clearing north of the arcade, where the applicant proposes to install a pool, is not credited as Jen Jensen’s work in the 1988 Landscape Survey (see Attachment C ). Furthermore, the survey says “the remaining vestiges of the original Jensen landscape are not in good enough condition or substantial enough to warrant any sort of argument of integrity. The property has no landscape integrity.” Jensen’s influence on the landscape was disrupted by a 1928 subdivision. An undated real-state plan that predates the 1928 subdivision shows what the estate would have looked like before Jensen’s design was disrupted (see Attachment D). PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The primary structure is excluded from the proposed modifications. Per the project narrative (see Attachment E ), the homeowner is proposing to install a 57’x28’ in-ground pool/spa on the open lawn, north of the arcade. The pool will be surrounded by a stone patio with a rounded edge. The patio will be made of dry-laid natural stone pavers in a random pattern. Additionally, the applicant proposes an accent masonry wall and planters to the east of the pool. The masonry wall will use regional architectural limestone. The applicant states that this limestone will be in-keeping with the masonry of the primary residential structure. The applicant has provided a site plan and renders (see Attachment F ). 1 This location previously supported an in-ground pool. The previous pool was installed in 1963 and removed in 2021 (see Attachment G, H and I) . The former pool was present during the time of the 1987 landmark nomination and is depicted in the 1988 Landscape Survey. Figure 2. View of arcade, looking north towards proposed pool location. Attachment I are approximations 1 The applicant has yet to submit for a building permit. The dimensions depicted in and may be subject to minor location and/or dimension changes based on Steep Slope Zone requirements. Page 2 of 4 Page 9 of 61  Figure 3. Proposed Pool, Spa and Patio Design, looking east. STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS The following are the Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness as listed in Section 24.030(C), which are for an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction. (1) Height. The height of the proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, 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 proposed new Structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, 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 object 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. Page 3 of 4 Page 10 of 61  (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, windows, 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 (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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings presented above, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission consider approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for pool/spa, stone wall and patio installation at 105 S Deere Park Drive or recommend changes to meet the criteria listed above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment A – 2024 COA 2. Attachment B– 1987 Landmark Nomination and Designation Materials 3. Attachment C– 1988 Landscape Survey 4. Attachment D– c. 1919-1928 Real-estate Marketing Materials 5. Attachment E– Project Narrative 6. Attachment F– 1963 Pool (pictured in 2021) 7. Attachment G– 1963 Pool Installation Permit 8. Attachment H– 2021 Pool Removal Permit 9. Attachment I– Proposed Site Plan and Renders Page 4 of 4 Page 11 of 61 DATE: October 11, 2024 REGULATED STRUCTURE: Lichtstern House ADDRESS: 105 S Deere Park Drive OWNERS: Teo Scorte ARCHITECT: Andrew Wang & Cris Gansari PROPOSED ALTERATION: 1. Garage modification and driveway fountain installation COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: October 10, 2024 ABSTAIN: N/A VOTE: 5-0 ACCEPT PROPOSAL X REJECT PROPOSAL -Plan Set, 6 pages, submitted by applicant ATTACHED DOCUMENTS: -Increasing garage parapet wall height and installing a 18” marble fountain COMMENTS: in the middle of the driveway SIGNED: Zubin Coleman, Planner II Page 1 of 1 Page 12 of 61 September 26th, 2024 Teo Scorte 105 S Deere Park Dr Highland Park, IL 60035 To Historic Preservation Commission: The house at 105 Deere Park is registered as part of the Braeside District. The existing house was built in 1919 in the Italian Renaissance style. The stone garage (work area) next to the house was built later and is not original to the house. When the garage was built, there were 2 exterior elements that were overlooked and do not match the style of the house. Those 2 elements are the clay coping on the garage parapet walls and the aluminum gutter at the back of the garage. With the current scope of work, we are planning on rectifying these issues and making sure that all elements of the exterior match the Italian Renaissance style of the main house. The scope of the work is to raise the existing masonry parapet walls of the garage and replace the existing roof. The existing garage roof is low and does not allow the owners to safely park their cars. As the drawings show, we are matching the existing stone and we will be blending it seamlessly into the existing walls. We are also replacing the clay coping with stone coping that matches the rest of the house and the stone walls that attach the garage to the house. We are incorporating a copper scupper and downspout that will oxidize over time and match the patina copper elements of the rest of the house. The end result will be a garage that looks more integral to the rest of the house. A garage that looks as if it was built in the same period as the house. We are also proposing to install a fountain in the center of the existing circular driveway. The fountain is 16’ in diameter and approximately 18’’ tall. There will be no statue in the center of the fountain just water and a spout. The fountain will fit inside of the existing grass area. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me to discuss. Thank you, Andrew Wang IL Licensed Architect – 001-015814 Page 13 of 61 Page 14 of 61 Page 15 of 61 Page 16 of 61 Page 17 of 61 Page 18 of 61 Page 19 of 61 Page 20 of 61 Page 21 of 61 Page 22 of 61 Page 23 of 61 Page 24 of 61 Page 25 of 61 Page 26 of 61 Page 27 of 61 Page 28 of 61 Page 29 of 61 Page 30 of 61 Page 31 of 61 Page 32 of 61 Page 33 of 61 Page 34 of 61 Page 35 of 61 Page 36 of 61 Page 37 of 61 Page 38 of 61 Page 39 of 61 Dear Members of the Committee, Thank you for your time & attention on this project. Over the years, we have strived to keep this property in-concert with it’s historical nature & legacy; while living & growing our family here. To that end, we are proposing the attached pool & spa & patio project to further grow our property, & lifes. With our chosen contractors & finishes, we are committed to doing things the right way – using the best people & companies & materials. As you are likely aware, this property did support a pool previously - & in the expanse of lawn we are currently posing. The initial part of this project would be finalizing the right removals of the remaining foundation / pieces. Please find as we do; an exciting, gorgeous addition to an amazing property. A property that we will continue to showcase, & to steward well. Thank you all very much in advance for your assistance & approval. Sincere regards, Teo & Esther Scorte Page 40 of 61 Page 41 of 61 Page 42 of 61 Page 43 of 61 Page 44 of 61 Page 45 of 61 Page 46 of 61 Page 47 of 61 Page 48 of 61 Page 49 of 61 Page 50 of 61 Page 51 of 61 Page 52 of 61 SITE PLAN Page 53 of 61 COA DRAWINGS 5-4-26 NOTE: BARRINGTON POOLS PROVIDES THE COVER BOX DRAIN TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE SCORTE RESIDENCE POOL DECK, THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO RUN IT AWAY FROM THE POOL DECK. 105 S DEERE PARK DRIVE, HIGHLAND PARK IL 60035 OUTDOOR, INGROUND POOL, AUTOMATIC COVER, DECK/PATIO & ACCENT MASONRY WALLS PLAN JOB: 26-004 DATE: 01-21-26 DRAWINGS BY: MLG SCALE: 1" = 20' N PROPOSED 4'x16' EQUIPMENT PAD E USIV co EXCL pa n c STONE d . WALL THE D& NOTE: FOR BAIR POOL, COPING, AUTOMATIC COVER, PATIO/DECK, RISERS AND MENT ION AND AC ACCENT MASONRY WALL BY C E BARRINGTON POOLS EASE SS IS RIAN BDIV DIVISION E LOP EP S IT UEST COVERED STONE PORCH K SU STE M E LI Z ON B E PAR PARK SU E & EQ EXISTING LOP DRIVEWAY EP S STE ACK RIAN DEER B SET PLANTER PLANTER ACCENT MASONRY WALLS ACCENT MASONRY WALLS EXISTING BARRIER FENCE TO REMAIN DEST NERS IN TO DEERE PLANTER PLANTER C. W RISER DOWN 5' WROUGHT IRON FENCE W/SELF-CLOSING, SELF-LATCHING GATES C ON RISER DOWN 5' PE W OF O ADDITION EXISTING ALK USE STEPS PLANTER PLANTER RISER DOWN TO REMAIN S NER' WAR EXISTING RESIDENCE ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE Page 54 of 61 Page 55 of 61 Page 56 of 61 Page 57 of 61 Page 58 of 61  Memorandum Date: June 11, 2026 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Maddy Markle, Planner I Subject: Encouraging Historic Preservation Update Background. At its Sep. 8, 2025 meeting the City Council (“Council”) considered a Code amendment related to Historic Preservation and directed staff to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to develop recommendations for encouraging historic preservation. At its Sep. 11, 2025 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) directed staff to research preservation incentives for discussion at its Nov. 13, 2025 meeting. At the Nov. 13, 2025 meeting the HPC discussed three monetary incentives: matching grants, tax abatements, and permit fee waivers; and two regulatory-based considerations: the number of properties required for a Local Historic District nomination, and land use regulations related to setbacks for historic properties. The HPC also discussed various penalties to encourage historic preservation. At the Dec. 11, 2025 meeting the HPC reached a consensus on which recommendations should be brought before the City Council at a Council of the Whole meeting. At the Jan. 8, 2026 meeting the HPC adopted A Resolution Recommending Formal Consideration of Ways to Encourage Historic Preservation (see Attachment A). At a March 9, 2026 Joint Special Meeting, staff presented the Commission’s recommendations to the Council. The Council indicated that the item would be further discussed at a later Committee of the Whole Meeting (“COTW”). At the April 27, 2026 COTW meeting the Council further discussed each of the HPC’s recommendations and directed staff to research the Commission’s recommendations except for extending the demolition delay period and permit fee waivers. The video and Council package from the meeting can be found here. Next Steps. Staff will develop the policy matters directed for further research, starting with Zoning Incentives, a Historic Demolition Tax, and Historic Preservation Code changes. Then, staff will research and develop the more complicated property tax assessment freeze proposal. Lastly, staff will develop a historic preservation grant program. Throughout the policy development process staff will consult the Commission for feedback as appropriate. Ultimately, all matters will be presented to the City Council for final consideration. 1 Page 59 of 61 Page 60 of 61 Page 61 of 61