Historic Preservation Commission
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · January 5, 2026
Minutes
Adopted on February 2, 2026
1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
2 JANUARY 5, 2026 MEETING MINUTES
3
4 Members Present: Jack Coladarci, Chairman
5 Chris Enck
6 Beth Ann Papoutsis
7 Joseph Stuart
8 Patti Van Cleave
9 Paul Weaver
10
11 Members Absent: Anna Wisniewski
12
13 Non-Voting Member Present: Scott Myers
14
15 Junior Commissioner Absent: Louis Zaransky
16
17 Village Staff: Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
18
19 Call to Order & Roll Call:
20 Chairman Coladarci called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Commission Members
21 present.
22
23 Public Comment:
24 No public comment was made at this time. Mr. Marx confirmed no additional written comments were received.
25
26 Approval of Minutes:
27 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any comments or corrections in addition to those made by Mr. Enck or for
28 a motion to approve the December 1, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to approve the December 1, 2025,
29 minutes, as amended, was made by Mr. Enck and seconded by Ms. Van Cleave. A vote was taken and the motion
30 unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
31 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave, Weaver
32 NAYS: None
33 NON-VOTING: Myers
34
35 Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks:
36 a. Case No. 26-01-HPC - 419 Sheridan Road: Advisory review of proposed alterations to 419 Sheridan
37 Road, a locally designated landmark.
38 Mr. Marx stated the application is for the locally designated landmark and summarized the previously approved
39 alterations. He also summarized in detail the proposed exterior alterations for the window replacements and
40 asked if there were any questions.
41
42 Chairman Coladarci and Ms. Papoutsis referred to the redacted information in the proposed plans. Mr. Marx
43 clarified the reasoning which related to FOIA. He also identified the window on the second floor which would be
44 blocked out.
45
46 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any questions. Ms. Papoutsis asked if there were any restrictions with
47 regard to window safety in terms of the fire code. Mr. Marx responded there are requirements for two means of
48 egress and an application would be reviewed if a building permit is being requested. No additional questions were
49 raised at this time.
50
51 Chairman Coladarci asked for the applicant’s presentation. Jayden Nettesheim of Dirk Denison Architects
52 summarized the project under construction and stated that they were advised of 14 windows which required
January 5, 2026 Page 2
1 immediate attention. He stated the windows would be replaced in kind and they are working with the
2 manufacturer. Mr. Nettesheim then described the window aesthetic for the Commission.
3
4 Chairman Coladarci questioned the age of the current windows. Mr. Nettesheim responded that the windows they
5 would replace are not original to the home’s construction. He stated that the contractor initially advised the
6 windows needed to be replaced and that they did not consider storm window replacements noting the existing
7 windows being beyond repair. Mr. Enck suggested the steel casement windows may be original to the home and
8 commented on the difficulty in replacing them with casement windows. Mr. Nettesheim described the process
9 they are going through with regard to the window estimates and manufacturing as well as their discussion with the
10 Hopes manufacturer.
11
12 Chairman Coladarci asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this time. He
13 then called the matter in for discussion.
14
15 Mr. Enck asked if the applicant needed to come back due to the changes from the previous approval. Mr. Marx
16 responded they may have to if they have undertaken that entire scope of work and he would have to discuss the
17 matter with the Director. No additional comments were made at this time.
18
19 Chairman Coladarci referred to the general criteria the Commission is to consider on page 4. Mr. Enck stated the
20 Commission is considering shop drawings which do not accurately reflect the proposal and described windows as
21 being a significant portion of a building’s exterior. He suggested the Commission strongly encourage the applicant
22 to go forward with a final version of what they are proposing. The Commission Members discussed how the
23 windows shown in the shop drawings compared to the window proposal previously approved. Mr. Enck stated the
24 Commission should recommend the existing framework be removed so that the windows are not downsized
25 further and commented the SDL shown on the drawings are a good thing. He also suggested the perimeter sight
26 lines of the window frames to be as narrow as possible. Mr. Nettesheim provided further information relating to
27 the window to be filled in.
28
29 Chairman Coladarci stated the Commission has discussed the remaining items under the General Criteria category
30 and asked if there was any further discussion with regard to Section 2 – Design Guidelines. No comments were
31 made at this time. He then stated the Commission would now review the findings which he read into the record.
32 Mr. Marx informed the Commission if they determine that the proposed alteration is inappropriate, it should be
33 verbalized in a finding which would require the applicant to confer with the Commission to reconcile the finding as
34 being inappropriate within 35 days and read the relevant language into the record.
35
36 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to find the proposed alterations as inappropriate and if so, to move the
37 matter to the Director. Mr. Myers asked why this matter being considered at this time since a building permit is
38 not necessary for this portion of the project. Mr. Marx responded the prior review did require a building permit
39 with a permit being issued. He stated since the applicant mentioned these windows also needed replacing, they
40 are attempting to rectify the matter in a timely fashion and are working with the manufacturer which is the reason
41 the request is being presented at the January meeting. Mr. Nettesheim informed the Commission they estimated
42 they should have a more definitive proposal within the next 1.5 months. Mr. Myers then suggested the matter be
43 paused until some of the Commission’s concerns have been mitigated by the manufacturer. Mr. Marx clarified as
44 long as an updated submission is provided prior to the February agenda packet being posted, the matter can be
45 placed on the February meeting agenda. Mr. Nettesheim stated the concerns the Commission raised are similar to
46 those they are discussing with the manufacturer. He added the most concerning windows are being addressed
47 now and the remaining windows would need to be replaced within the next 10 years. Mr. Marx stated the
48 Commission can take a vote to continue the matter since it is not tethered to a building permit which he described
49 as a unique circumstance.
50
51 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to continue the matter to the February 2, 2026 meeting. A motion to
52 continue the item to the next meeting was made by Mr. Weaver. Mr. Stuart seconded the motion. A vote was
53 taken and the motion passed, 5 to 1:
January 5, 2026 Page 3
1 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Weaver
2 NAYS: Van Cleave
3 NON-VOTING: Myers
4
5 Ms. Van Cleave explained her position to the Commission in that they are asking the applicant to modify what they
6 have already found and agreed the shop drawings do need to be updated. Mr. Enck further clarified his position
7 stated earlier. He also asked Mr. Nettesheim to provide a comparison of the shop drawings against the measured
8 profiles when they are available. Chairman Coladarci asked the Commission Members if they would like to change
9 their vote based on the discussion. Ms. Papoutsis asked if it is possible to hold a special meeting in the event the
10 updated drawings are finished prior to the next meeting date. Mr. Marx stated he would have to discuss it with the
11 Director or Jack. Chairman Coladarci indicated a special meeting would not speed up the process and would not
12 change the outcome. He confirmed there was no change in the Commission Members’ vote.
13
14 Other Business:
15 a. February 2, 2026 Regular Meeting – Quorum Check.
16 The Commission Members discussed their availability. Mr. Marx advised the Commission Members of the items on
17 the February meeting agenda.
18
19 b. 2025 Preservation Awards - Award Plaque Update.
20 Ms. Van Cleave identified a sample of the original plaque and provided an update on the plaques to be made along
21 with 3-D renderings. The Commission Members were in support of the proposal. Ms. Van Cleave and Mr. Enck also
22 provided an update with regard to the Crow Island renovation addition. Ms. Van Cleave stated she is working with
23 Laurie Peterson to draft an article to include in the next quarterly update. Mr. Marx advised the Commission
24 Members of the deadline.
25
26 c. Monthly Communications For Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion and Content Decision.
27 Mr. Marx stated in an addition to the Crow Island article, if anyone had a draft of an article for the Commission to
28 review for the next meeting, to provide it to him a week before the next meeting. Mr. Weaver referred to an
29 article written in connection with landmarked homes’ historical status and the architects and homeowners who
30 won awards. He stated the Historical Society also has The Winnetka Talk digital archives and he would speak with
31 them again. Mr. Marx advised the Commission Members they are in the process of attempting to digitize
32 information for the Village’s home files. Ms. Van Cleave stated she would suggest to Mary and Megan and the
33 Historical Society with regard to holding a workshop for homeowners to find out more information regarding their
34 homes’ history.
35
36 Adjournment:
37 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Stuart and seconded by
38 Ms. Van Cleave. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
39 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Papoutsis, Stuart, Van Cleave, Weaver
40 NAYS: None
41 NON-VOTING: Myers
42 The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
43
44 Respectfully submitted,
45
46 Antionette Johnson
47 Recording Secretary
48
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
January 5, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Winnetka Village Hall - 510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of December 1, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes
4. Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks
a. Case No. 26-01-HPC - 419 Sheridan Road: Advisory review of proposed
alterations to 419 Sheridan Road, a locally designated landmark.
5. Other Business
a. February 2, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
b. 2025 Preservation Awards - Award Plaque Update
c. Monthly Communications For Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion
and Content Decision
6. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Packet
Village of Winnetka
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
January 5, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Winnetka Village Hall - 510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of December 1, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes
4. Alterations to Locally Designated Landmarks
a. Case No. 26-01-HPC - 419 Sheridan Road: Advisory review of proposed
alterations to 419 Sheridan Road, a locally designated landmark.
5. Other Business
a. February 2, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
b. 2025 Preservation Awards - Award Plaque Update
c. Monthly Communications For Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion
and Content Decision
6. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Page 1 of 35
1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
2 DECEMBER 1, 2025 MEETING MINUTES
3
4 Members Present: Jack Coladarci, Chairman
5 Chris Enck
6 Beth Ann Papoutsis
7 Joseph Stuart
8 Patti Van Cleave
9 Anna Wisniewski
10
11 Members Absent: Paul Weaver
12
13 Non-Voting Members Absent: Scott Myers
14
15 Junior Commissioner Absent: Louis Zaranski
16
17 Village Staff: Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
18
19 Call to Order & Roll Call:
20 Chairman Coladarci called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Commission Members
21 present.
22
23 Public Comment:
24 No public comment was made at this time. Mr. Marx confirmed no written public comments were received.
25
26 Approval of Minutes:
27 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to approve the November 3, 2025 meeting minutes. A motion to approve
28 the November 3, 2025 minutes was made by Ms. Van Cleave and seconded by Mr. Enck. A vote was taken and the
29 motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
30 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Stuart, Van Cleave, Wisniewski
31 NAYS: None
32
33 Demolition Permit Applications:
34 a. Case No. 25-17-HPC - 43 Indian Hill Road: Review of the demolition permit application submitted for the
35 single-family residence at 43 Indian Hill Road.
36 Mr. Marx identified the applicants who are contract purchasers with the property ownership being a trust. He then
37 identified the property’s location, size and zoning classification with a construction date of approximately 1975 and
38 subsequent alterations which he summarized. He stated the property does not appear on the Illinois Historic
39 Structures Listing. Mr. Marx stated the Historical Society indicated that the property did not have architectural and
40 historical significance and noted a new building construction permit application has been submitted. He then
41 stated no public comments were received and asked if there were any questions.
42
43 Chairman Coladarci asked if the building permit had been filed with the County. Mr. Marx responded if it was, they
44 do not have those records and suggested the Commission take the Historical Society’s review into account as to
45 whether the original permit from the 1970’s is important. Mr. Enck informed the Commission the property is
46 adjacent to a property the Commission reviewed last month. Mr. Marx confirmed there are no other adjacent
47 homes under construction. No additional questions were raised at this time.
48
49 Chairman Coladarci asked for the applicant’s presentation. Milena Birov of Heritage Builders stated they have
50 drawings available for the new construction. Ms. Papoutsis asked what is the style of the new home. Ms. Birov
51 responded it would be a traditional home with a lot of windows. Chairman Coladarci asked what is the condition
52 of the existing home. Mrs. Birov responded the home was unsuccessfully listed on the market and is in need of
53 remodeling. She stated it would be more economical to build a new home as opposed to remodel the home in a
Page 2 of 35
December 1, 2025 Page 2
1 desirable manner. Ms. Papoutsis asked if the new home would have a deep basement or sport court. Chairman
2 Coladarci asked if the home is in the flood plain. Ms. Birov confirmed it is not. No additional questions were raised
3 at this time.
4
5 Chairman Coladarci called the matter in for discussion and asked the Commission if they felt an HAIS would be
6 appropriate. Ms. Wisniewski asked if this home is one of the newer homes in Indian Hill. Chairman Coladarci
7 provided additional information with regard to the home being part of a group or development. The Commission
8 Members and Mr. Marx discussed to the Sanborn map. Mr. Marx indicated the area may have been incorporated
9 into the Village post war which may be the reason the Village’s records are not as thorough. The Commission
10 Members decided the home did not warrant an HAIS.
11
12 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to grant the demolition permit. A motion to approve the demolition permit
13 for 43 Indian Hill Road as presented was made by Ms. Van Cleave and seconded by Mr. Enck. A vote was taken and
14 the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
15 AYES: Coladarci, Enck, Stuart, Van Cleave, Wisniewski
16 NAYS: None
17
18 Other Business:
19 a. January 5, 2026 Meeting – Quorum Check.
20 The Commission Members discussed their availability. Mr. Marx advised the Commission Members of the January
21 agenda items.
22
23 b. 2025 Preservation Awards - Award Plaque Update.
24 Mr. Marx provided the Commission Members with an update on the plaque status.
25
26 c. Monthly Communications For Historic Preservation Commission - Discussion and Content Decision.
27 Mr. Marx informed the Commission the deadline for the quarterly report is December 18, 2025 and noted there
28 was no information to review for this meeting. He suggested the next blast include information regarding next
29 year’s preservation awards and provided an update on the Village Hall renovation as well as the bench
30 replacement project. Mr. Marx asked the Commission Members for any information they would like to have
31 reviewed at the January meeting for the Commission’s review be sent to him.
32
33 Mr. Enck asked what happened to the trolley tours. Mr. Marx responded they have not been done since Covid and
34 that he can ask if it would be resumed and would provide more information to the Commission. Mr. Enck
35 suggested it be brought back as a positive aspect with regard to the Commission’s duties. The Commission
36 Members discussed past trolley tours and tours done in other communities. Ms. Papoutsis suggested yard signs be
37 used for landmarked properties. Chairman Coladarci agreed that idea should be pursued. Mr. Enck offered to
38 research and provide additional to Mr. Marx prior to the next meeting.
39
40 Adjournment:
41 Chairman Coladarci asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Enck and seconded by
42 Ms. Papoutsis. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
43 AYES: Coladarci, Mr. Enck, Stuart, Van Cleave, Wisniewski
44 NAYS: None
45 The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
46
47 Respectfully submitted,
48
49 Antionette Johnson
50 Recording Secretary
51
Page 3 of 35
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP - ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2025
SUBJECT: 419 SHERIDAN ROAD - ALTERATIONS TO LOCAL LANDMARK
(CASE NO. 26-01-HPC)
INTRODUCTION
On January 5, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is scheduled to consider a request from Dirk
Denison Architects (the “Applicant”), as the architect representative of Chicago Title Land Trust Company
d/b/a The Land Trust Company Trust No. 9002349298 (the “Owner”) of the property located at 419 Sheridan
Road (the “Subject Property”), for an advisory review of exterior alterations to the Subject Property, a locally
designated landmark.
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant has provided a written narrative along with descriptions, photos, and product specifications
that detail the proposed alterations to the existing residence on the Subject Property. The proposed changes
would involve replacing existing windows in conjunction with a larger renovation project from earlier in 2025.
The proposed alterations would involve replacing windows around the east, south, and west facades of the
house. The proposed windows are meant to match the existing windows as one-for-one replacements using
a model of Hansen Millenium Slimline G30 simulated divided-light windows with a greyish hue known as
Amherst Grey, which is the same color as other previous window installations as part of a larger overall
renovation of the home. Overall, the proposal involves 14 window replacements as detailed in the floorplans
of the application materials, which are included as Attachment A. The proposed alterations comply with the
Zoning Ordinance and do not require a building permit.
COMMISSION REVIEW
Exterior alterations of designated landmarks are subject to an advisory review by the HPC. The criteria to
consider when conducting an advisory review of alterations are as follows:
1. General Standards:
a. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance;
b. Reasonable effort shall be made to use the building, structure, object or site for its originally
intended purpose or to provide a compatible use which requires minimal alteration,
relocation or demolition;
c. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, object or site should
not be destroyed. The alteration, relocation or demolition of any historic material or
distinctive architectural feature should be avoided except when necessary to assure an
economically viable use of the property;
Page 4 of 35
d. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a
building, structure, object or site should usually be maintained and preserved;
e. Deteriorated architectural features should whenever possible be repaired rather than
replaced. If replacement is necessary, the new material should match as closely as
practicable the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other
visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features, where possible,
should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or
pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different
architectural elements from other buildings, structures, objects or sites;
f. The surface cleaning of buildings, structures, objects or sites should be undertaken with the
gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods which will damage the
architectural or historic features and building material shall be discouraged.
g. New buildings and structures and the alterations and relocation of existing buildings or
structures shall not be discouraged when such work does not destroy significant historical or
architectural features and is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of
the property or neighborhood.
h. Alterations, relocations and demolitions which do not affect any significant exterior
architectural or historic features of the building, structure, object or site as viewed from a
private street, a courtyard open to the public or a public street, place or way should generally
be permitted;
i. Demolition of a designated landmark shall be discouraged if the building, structure or
property, as the case may be, is economically viable and can yield reasonable return in its
present condition or can be made economically viable and yield reasonable return after
completion of appropriate alteration, relocation, renovation or restoration work.
2. Design Guidelines:
a. Height. The height of any proposed alteration should be compatible with the architectural
style and character of the designated landmark.
b. Proportions of Windows and Doors. The proportions and relationships between doors and
windows should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the designated
landmark.
c. Roof Shape. The design of the roof should be compatible with the architectural style and
character of the designated landmark.
d. Scale. The scale of the structure should be compatible with the architectural style and
character of the designated landmark.
e. Directional Expression. The dominant horizontal or vertical expression of the facades should
be compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark.
f. Architectural Details. Materials, textures, colors and architectural details should be
compatible with the original architectural style or character of the designated landmark.
g. Appurtenances. Appurtenances including, but not limited to, signs, fences, accessory
buildings or structures, permeable and impermeable surfaces should be compatible with the
original architectural style or character of the designated landmark.
h. Other. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission may consider the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Page 2
Page 5 of 35
FINDINGS
The HPC shall determine whether the proposed alterations will be appropriate or not appropriate to the
preservation of the Subject Property. Considering the alterations, does the HPC find that the Subject Property
continues to meet the criteria for designation as a locally designated landmark?
If the HPC determines that the proposed alterations are inappropriate, it shall make recommendations to the
Applicant concerning changes, if any, in the proposed alterations which would cause the HPC to reconsider
its determination and shall confer with the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Page 3
Page 6 of 35
Page 7 of 35
Page 8 of 35
Page 9 of 35
Page 10 of 35
Page 11 of 35
Page 12 of 35
Page 13 of 35
Page 14 of 35
Page 15 of 35
Page 16 of 35
Page 17 of 35
Page 18 of 35
Page 19 of 35
Page 20 of 35
Page 21 of 35
Page 22 of 35
Page 23 of 35
Page 24 of 35
Page 25 of 35
Page 26 of 35
Page 27 of 35
Page 28 of 35
Page 29 of 35
Page 30 of 35
Page 31 of 35
Page 32 of 35
Page 33 of 35
Page 34 of 35
HPC Monthly Communications Ideas – January 5, 2026
1. 615 Elm Street – Landmark Status
2. Architects and contractors who specialize in restoring vintage homes
3. Winnetka Preservation Award recipients’ testimonials for preservation
4. Solid Rock House, 82 Essex – materials reuse and architectural archiving
5. 1207 Whitebridge Hill Road – Landmark Nomination
6. Historic Home Preservation tools
7. Children’s architectural activities
8. Winnetka Historical Society architectural listing
9. Guest spot at farmer’s market for outreach
10. Addition to Crow Island School, a historically and architecturally significant property
11. Availability of information on homes at Winnetka Historical Society
Page 35 of 35