WINNETKA LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING June 5, :00 p.m.

Transcription

1 WINNETKA LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING June 5, :00 p.m. On Monday, June 5, 2017 the Landmark Preservation Commission will convene a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Winnetka Village Hall, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois. AGENDA 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of May 1, 2017 meeting minutes. 3. Review of the Revised Historical Architectural Impact Study (HAIS) for the principal structure at Lincoln Ave. and Elm St. (Fell Building). Case No Preliminary Review of the Application for Demolition of the single family residence at 1416 Edgewood Ln. Case No Preliminary Review of the Application for Demolition of the single family residence at 1031 Cherry St. Case No Preliminary Review of the Application for Demolition of the single family residence at 966 Pine Tree Ln. Case No Preliminary Review of the Application for Demolition of the single family residence at 635 Blackthorn Rd. Case No Discussion of 2017 Preservation Awards. 9. Old Business. 10. New Business. 11. Adjournment. Note: Public comment is permitted on all agenda items. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that all 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) ; T.D.D. (847) ). 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois Administration and Finance (847) Fire (847) Police (847) Community Development (847) Public Works (847) Water and Electric (847)

2 DRAFT LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 1, 2017 MEETING MINUTES Members Present: Non-Voting Member Present: Members Absent: Village Staff: Louise Holland, Chairperson Chris Enck Anne Grubb Beth Ann Papoutsis Paul Weaver Brian Wolfe Andy Cripe Laura Good Michael D Onofrio, Director of Community Development Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant Call to Order: Chairperson Holland called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Holland stated that the first item on the agenda is the approval of the April 3, 2017 meeting minutes. She asked if there were any changes or additions to be made to the minutes. No comments or changes were made at this time. Chairperson Holland then asked for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Weaver and seconded by Mr. Enck to approve the April 3, 2017 meeting minutes. The vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. Preliminary Review of the Application for Demolition of the Single Family Residence at 824 Boal Pkwy. Case No Steve Dimakos introduced himself to the Commission as the purchaser of the property. Chairperson Holland asked Mr. Dimakos if they have plans to demolish the existing home. Mr. Dimakos confirmed that is correct and informed the Commission that they have plans to build a new home. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any questions. Ms. Grubb asked if there was an addition on the side. Mr. Dimakos indicated that he is not sure what that is. Ms. Grubb asked if it may have been added later.

3 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Dimakos responded possibly. He then stated that you cannot walk into the home and that it is microbially unsound. Mr. Weaver agreed that the home is in very poor condition and that the home is not inhabitable. Mr. Dimakos stated that there is mold throughout the home and that there are holes in the walls to the exterior. He also stated that during the showing, they were told that they were not allowed inside the home. Chairperson Holland stated that she is sure that the home is not habitable but that one of the problems she had with this home is that it was originally designed by Lawrence Perkins. Mr. Dimakos stated that he did know about that. Chairperson Holland informed Mr. Dimakos that he was an internationally known architect who designed Crow Island School and received many awards. She stated that Perkins & Will were the foremost architects in Chicago for many years. Mr. Dimakos informed the Commission that there are other problems with the home and referred to the basement and the number of other issues in the home. Chairperson Holland stated that she had no problem with that and that the eventual demolition of the home is probably done. She stated that the problem the Commission has is that if the home has historic value and there is a history, the Winnetka Historical Society said that if the Commission determines that in order to determine architectural design, the Historical Society would support further research into the Perkins & Will connection to the home while the home has architectural importance due to its connection with the nationally recognized firm of Perkins & Will, the Winnetka Historical Society has been unable to confirm who at Perkins & Will was primarily responsible for the design. Chairperson Holland then asked the Commission if they had any comments. Chairperson Holland then stated that another historic connection is that Boal Parkway was originally dedicated in 1926 for Mr. Harris Boal, a prominent Winnetka resident and Chicago realtor. She also stated that five of the homes built on this street were built and owned by Mr. Boal and members of his family. Mr. Dimakos stated that is one of the reasons they selected their architect and that they are trying to keep with the theme of the neighborhood. Chairperson Holland again asked if there were any comments from the Commission. Ms. Grubb stated that it was noted that the property is in the flood plain and asked if that meant that you cannot build a home with a basement. Mr. Dimakos responded that you can and that he has become an expert. He informed the Commission that if you put in a basement, there are a significant amount of restrictions including

4 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 3 a long lead time to get FEMA approval. Mr. Dimakos then stated that they would have to put in a floodable crawl space in, which meant that the home would be built on stilts and that it would be built 3 feet up above the flood plain which would allow water to pass underneath the home. Ms. Grubb then asked about the big tree in the front of the home. Mr. Dimakos responded that they intend to keep as many trees as possible. He also informed the Commission that they have hired a landscape architect to go through and keep as many as possible. Ms. Grubb commented that the home looked fine until you get to the possible addition which may have been added on in 1961 or Mr. Dimakos indicated that he thought the home was built in Chairperson Holland and Ms. Grubb confirmed that the home was built in Chairperson Holland confirmed that there was an addition in 1951 and an addition in She asked if there were any other comments from the Commission. Ms. Papoutsis asked if the new home would have a similar footprint even though the home would be elevated. She also asked if it would be set back the same. Mr. Dimakos stated that the setback would be 57 feet in accordance with the requirements and that the side lot would have 15 feet and that because of the flood plain, they would have to have a retention pond. He then stated that the existing home has quite a large footprint and that they would not exceed the footprint of that home although it may be reconfigured a little bit. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Weaver stated that the provenance of the home is unbelievable and the connections to the architects but that having been inside the home and in this particular case, you would probably agree that the home is in bad shape and has had many years of neglect. He indicated that he did not know how that affected the Commission s decision. Mr. Dimakos stated that he has gone in the home but that his wife has not. He explained to the Commission that the home has deteriorated to the point where most of the wood is rotten and that there is black mold throughout the home. Mr. Cripe stated that as a practical matter, that is something that should be considered and referred to whether they wanted someone to go into the home for any purpose. Mr. Dimakos added that there is asbestos in the home. Chairperson Holland then asked if there were any comments from the audience. No comments were made by the audience at this time. She then asked for a motion.

5 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 4 Ms. Grubb moved to grant the issuance of the demolition permit for 824 Boal Parkway. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weaver. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. AYES: NAYS: NON-VOTING: Enck, Grubb, Holland, Papoutsis, Weaver, Wolfe None Cripe Preliminary Review of the Application for Demolition of the Single Family Residence at 467 Provident Ave. Case No Kate Huff introduced herself to the Commission as the owner of the property. Chairperson Holland asked Ms. Huff if she would be replacing the home with a single family home. Ms. Huff confirmed that is correct. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any questions from the Commission. A Commission Member asked if the home was still occupied. Ms. Huff responded that the previous owner was very ill and his nephew showed them the home. She added that the home is in very bad shape. Ms. Grubb asked how long has it been since anyone had lived in the home at all. Ms. Huff stated that it may have been a month and a half. Ms. Grubb commented that the home has looked like this for 10 years. She also described the home as a cute home. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any other comments from the Commission. A Commission Member stated that there is a very big tree in the front of the property and asked if they planned on saving it. Ms. Huff stated that they would do everything they could. Ms. Grubb then asked what kind of home would they put there. Ms. Huff stated that the new home would be approximately 3,000 square feet. Ms. Grubb noted that the lot is very narrow. Chairperson Holland then asked if there were any comments from the audience. No comments were made by the audience at this time. She then asked for a motion.

6 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 5 Mr. Weaver moved to grant the issuance of the demolition permit for 467 Provident. The motion was seconded by Ms. Papoutsis. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. AYES: NAYS: NON-VOTING: Enck, Grubb, Holland, Papoutsis, Weaver, Wolfe None Cripe Review of the Historical Architectural Impact Study (HAIS) for the principal structure at Lincoln Ave. and Elm St. (Fell Building). Case No Lara Ramsey introduced herself to the Commission as a principal with Ramsey Historical Consultants and the author of the HAIS. Chairperson Holland stated that she had a number of questions and first asked the Commission if they had any questions. She stated that she noticed that the letters about the National Register eligibility and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and stated that there is enough evidence to warrant a National Register nomination. Ms. Ramsey agreed that it has been considered eligible for the National Register. Chairperson Holland then stated that it is her understanding that anyone can nominate for the National Register and that it does not have to be the owner. Ms. Ramsey confirmed that is correct. She informed the Commission that there is a difference between a building being determined as eligible for the National Register and being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She stated that being determined eligible is the first step in that process and that it also triggers a Section 106 review at the state level which is a process of remediation for an historic property. Ms. Ramsey stated that if there are certain permits pulled or federal or state money used and to go through that process, it only has to be determined eligible for the National Register but not listed on the National Register. She stated that they have deemed that at this point, that it has enough architectural and historic significance to be eligible but that it has not been listed on the National Register. Chairperson Holland stated that once that is done and it is submitted to Washington and approved, the owner of the property, but not the nominee, is able to have a tax benefit on their individual personal income tax. Ms. Ramsey agreed that there is a federal income tax credit program that is available for owners of properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and that it gives a 20% income tax credit for a substantial rehabilitation of the property that follows the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation which are not as strict as restoration standards but that they allow for change to be made to the building. She then stated that they wanted to ensure that the character and refined elements of the building remain intact and that once the owner of the property goes through that process, then they can get the tax benefit. Chairperson Holland asked if there is no permanent prohibition on the demolition of a building listed on the National Register.

7 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 6 Ms. Ramsey confirmed that is correct unless the property is doing something that requires state or federal funding or permitting and in that case, it would trigger the 106 review process. She stated that otherwise, there is no restriction on the demolition or alteration of a property that is listed to the National Register of Historic Places. Chairperson Holland asked as opposed to a national or local landmark. Ms. Ramsey confirmed that is correct. Chairperson Holland also stated that she had a question with regard to Ms. Ramsey s listing under Neighborhood Character. She noted that the building at 545 Lincoln Avenue was eliminated and on the listing, Ms. Ramsey went to 544 to 550 and she called it a nontraditional French eclectic building built in Chairperson Holland stated that it was the first commercial building built in Winnetka that was a first Tudor building built in Winnetka and that Edward Bennett coming to Winnetka in 1915 to begin the process of the plan of Winnetka looked at this building at 545 Lincoln Avenue and that they knew that building s history and that it was about to become landmarked in She then stated that Mr. Bennett quoted that is what all commercial buildings should look like. Chairperson Holland stated that the building is not a nontraditional French eclectic building but that it is a Tudor building. Chairperson Holland then stated that the next question she had referred to the Neighborhood Context on page 9 of the report. She read from the report that neighborhood context is considered to include all commercial buildings within the One Winnetka proposed development, as well as the Hadley Institute, 711 Oak Street, the north side of Elm Street between Lincoln and Arbor Vitae and both sides of Lincoln between Elm Street and the Lincoln Avenue commuter parking lot. Chairperson Holland noted that Ms. Ramsey eliminated the four single family residences on Maple Street. She asked Ms. Ramsey if she would not call that neighborhood context. Ms. Ramsey responded that for the purposes of this study, she tried to limit the context to commercial buildings. Chairperson Holland then referred to the Neighborhood Impact section and stated that certainly those four single family residences are part of the neighborhood impact. She stated that Ms. Ramsey s conclusions on Evaluation of Neighborhood Impact state that the demolition of any or all of the buildings within the One Winnetka development parcel including the Fell Company store complex would not create a significant negative impact on the overall character of the east side of the commercial core as long as the building or buildings replacing the subject complex were compatible with the existing commercial development along Elm and Lincoln in massing, scale and relationship to the street. Chairperson Holland then stated that massing and scale for the buildings Ms. Ramsey referred to on Elm and Lincoln are not compatible to the plans of One Winnetka or the Winn. Ms. Ramsey stated that she agreed with that comment.

8 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 7 Chairperson Holland stated that the other question would go back to the Evaluation of Architectural Significance section and that the report says Walter Sobel s design is an excellent example of small scale execution of some of the most influential ideas of American architectural modernism in the mid to late 20 th century. She went on to read that although necessarily restrained by the scope, the project Sobel created two dynamic and elegant buildings that are both distinctive from and compatible with the surrounding early 20th century commercial buildings. Chairperson Holland indicated that there is a conflict there. Ms. Ramsey stated that she would like to clarify her evaluation of the neighborhood impact versus evaluation of the architectural significance of the building. She stated that the Fell Company store is undoubtedly architecturally significant for its design. Ms. Ramsey then stated in terms of its relationship with other buildings to the commercial core on the east side and as a part of a cohesive grouping of similar styles or periods of construction, it does not meet those criteria. She stated that the significance of the building is not because of its relationship to a group of buildings that is cohesive stylistically or through a period of time. Ms. Ramsey stated that all of the buildings on this block and within the One Winnetka block are all from various time periods and have had various alterations. Ms. Ramsey went on to state that when the Fell building was built in the 1960 s, it was designed as many modern buildings were to visually break with the stylistic patterns of the commercial center. She stated that Winnetka has a lot of Tudor revival and historic revival buildings which is its stylistic character but that the buildings on this block do not fit in with that but that they do fit in terms of their massing and scale. Ms. Ramsey then referred the Commission to the north side of Elm and the street on Lincoln north and that it is more cohesive in terms of style and in terms of period of construction and that it then breaks down as you cross Elm on the south side of Lincoln. She also stated that those buildings do continue that rhythm of the streetscape and rhythm of massing. Ms. Ramsey concluded by stating that while those buildings do not fit that character within that group, the building itself is without a doubt architecturally and historically significant. Chairperson Holland stated that she had one more observation and noted that the Historical Society says that no historic events took place at the Fell store complex. She then stated that she has lived here for 50 years and that with regard to tuxedos, they all came from Fell and that the family was very much a part of the historic component of the community for a long time. Ms. Ramsey agreed with Chairperson Holland s comments. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Grubb commented that it would be sad to see it go down. She then stated that the mass is what is cohesive to the other side of the street. Ms. Grubb also stated that they have heard lots of comments on those buildings for years and that it is unique and that the more you read about it, you realize how much thought went into it.

9 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 8 Ms. Ramsey stated that she agreed that the design is unique and encapsulates many of the ideas of modernism and is a small package appropriate for downtown. She also stated that at the time it was built, it was a time where they did see a lot of chain stores fleeing traditional downtowns. Ms. Ramsey then stated that the fact that they built the building there, which was built in the late 1960 s when there were not a lot of chains that wanted to stay, was really a testament to the Fell commitment to the community. She described it as a lovely tribute to Winnetka. Mr. Enck stated that it was great to learn more about the history and to see the historic photos of the building. He then stated that a lot of the complex is empty and to see the original renderings showing what it was at one point when it was not neglected over the years and commented that it is neat to see that. Mr. Enck also stated that in recent years, it has gotten tarnished in its view by a lot of people. Ms. Ramsey referred to the outside and interior photos. Mr. Weaver stated that it is a very detailed report and that he was impressed by what went into it. He also stated that he remembered shopping at Fell as a kid and that he had pleasant memories. Mr. Weaver also referred to the stores on Elm in the basement and concluded that he is sorry to see it go. Mr. Wolfe stated that he had nothing further to add. Ms. Papoutsis stated that she is certainly sorry to see it go. She described it as a very significant piece of architecture in the community by a family who lived in the area. Ms. Papoutsis also stated that Mr. Sobel is a local architect who was very celebrated. She then stated that for that reason, she appreciated all of the detail and work in the report but that she agreed with Chairperson Holland s points raised that it is necessary to have an accurate report of this building since it is significant to the community. Ms. Papoutsis added that she did feel that it is necessary to have an addendum with the points raised and which she agreed with even if it is something on behalf of the Commission. Chairperson Holland stated that is the only thing they can do and it is their job to determine if the HAIS is complete. She then asked if there were any comments from the audience. Richard Sobel stated that his father, Walter Sobel, designed the building and that he has spoken many times about the importance of the building and other issues. He also stated that he has worked with Lara Ramsey and Peter Milbratz to provide material for it. Mr. Sobel stated that he had two sets of comments, the first of which related to the report on the significance of the building. He then stated that following up on Chairperson Holland s comments about the questions on the report, as much as is in the report, he did not believe that it is a cogent or coherent report representing the building and the other structures in the area. Mr. Sobel also referred to the Benkert building and that his father worked for Benkert. He indicated that the report itself needed to be extended so much such as to include letters from professional organizations which are AIA, Landmarks Illinois, etc. and the three of them are not included in the appendix or the analysis. Mr. Sobel indicated that there should be a separate section about

10 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 9 these. He also referred to letters from James Bailey and Mary Brush who are professional preservationists and that they make the case to extend the report in ways that the Commission needs to consider. Mr. Sobel noted that all of the letters were previously submitted to the boards and that Ms. Ramsey should make sure that she has copies. Mr. Sobel went on to state that there has been a great deal of media coverage and that there is substantive information in that media coverage and referred to an article in the Tribune on March 8th which talks about the controversy and the importance of the building. He also referred to permitting and that there are a lot of permits here and that the permits for the Elm Street stores are not included. Mr. Sobel also stated that this report gives background on his father as a commercial architect and residential architect but it overemphasizes his court room work. He noted that his father did many stores and referred to Old Orchard, downtown, nationwide, etc. and that he really was a commercial architect. Mr. Sobel also stated that these elements show up in his residential buildings and that there is a discussion of the Wack-Prince home. He reiterated that there needed to be more discussion of his father s significance. Mr. Sobel stated that one of the important reasons for preserving this store is that it is the last example of his mid-century modernist architecture in Winnetka although there are other Fell buildings in Winnetka. He agreed that there is a good discussion of the building and referred to the criteria for eligibility on the National Register is both the architectural significance of the building and the people associated with it. Mr. Sobel stated that Chairperson Holland mentioned the Fell stores and the people who shopped there and that his father himself deserves a section because of the fact that the building itself is worth preserving because of the connection to him. He then referred to his father s reference in the report as a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects and that you can only become a Fellow in the FAIA for exceptional work and exceptional contributions. Mr. Sobel noted that his father was president of the Chicago chapter and nationally known for his commercial and residential architecture as well as other accolades. He stated that he felt the importance of preserving the building goes in his biography. Mr. Sobel informed the Commission that he was asked by Ms. Klaassen to provide the letters of eligibility that need to be part of the report and why it is eligible. He reiterated that the report is incomplete and that it would be beneficial to extend the time for it to be revised. Mr. Sobel also stated that the contradiction that Chairperson Holland pointed out and the issue of neighborhood context need to be resolved and a clear recognition of its historical significance. Mr. Sobel stated that he would also like to add that the Fell store is really a mall and that someone alluded to the fact that it was built at a time when malls and shopping centers were destroying downtown and that the Fell family was willing to invest in downtown Winnetka for exceptional development. Mr. Sobel stated that this is a real statement to them and the importance to Winnetka. He noted that the two sections of the building are actually one and are unified by a plaza. Mr. Sobel stated that it is very important and referred to Chairperson Holland s and Ms. Papoutsis comments and that the time frame should be extended for the report. Mr. Sobel went on to state that with regard to the substance of the building and why it is important architecturally and historically and why there would be a strong negative impact on

11 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 10 Winnetka and the neighborhood but the regional and the eligibility for the National Register talks about how this is really a nationally important building. He then referred to the comparison to the Rudolph building and the mid-century modernist building wording is missing from the report and that it is a unique example of that. Mr. Sobel reiterated that it is nationally important and that as the building is better and better known, more people would come to look at it. He then stated that the conclusion that Chairperson Holland read is clearly that this is an historic building and that it is architecturally significant. Mr. Sobel stated that the report should highlight it more and that if the additional things are added and his comments, it would highlight it even more. Mr. Sobel then referred to the ties to the Fell family and why they were willing to build such an unusual building. He stated that they usually deal with history looking backward but that his father looked at history looking forward. Mr. Sobel stated that building such an unusual building was an act of faith. He then stated that the report needs more time to be revised and that it is his opinion that the Commission should entertain a motion to have the time to have a more complete report. Mr. Sobel again referred to the letters from the AIA, Landmarks Illinois, docomomo and others which make a clear case for the architectural and historical significance of the building and the clear negative impact if it were to be demolished. He then stated that the Commission should definitely not approve any demolition permit, especially not at this meeting or any because it meets that criteria. Mr. Sobel also stated that there needed to be time and a mandate to explore alternatives to demolition in a context for the recommendation of this Commission. Mr. Sobel then stated that as a footnote and in a community like Winnetka, there will be very negative environmental impacts on the neighborhood and the community if the building was torn down. He stated that the building was built and designed to be built up and that the report needs to highlight the completeness of the plans and visual drawings of what it would look like if the commercial and residential units were added which are exactly what the One Winnetka plan is. Mr. Sobel stated that a buyer could turn the existing plans into a development and that it could be back on the market and generate revenue quickly. Mr. Sobel then referred to his father and his uncle who was a bridge engineer and again referred to the tremendous environmental impact on the neighborhood if the building is torn down in terms of pollution, noise and disruption. He informed the Commission that he checked with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and that as of last week, they had not received anything in terms of downtown in connection with permitting and that it would be important for the Commission to inquire into that with regard to delaying any decision on a demolition permit. Mr. Sobel reiterated that he hoped that the Commission would extend the time to complete the report and notation of the architectural significance and that the community would recognize the importance of this Commission in making that decision which is the important mission of landmark preservation for the Village. Chairperson Holland asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Sobel. No questions were raised by the Commission at this time. She then asked if there were any other comments. Peter Milbratz introduced himself to the Commission as an architect working on the issues relating to the Fell building with Mr. Sobel. He stated that he would like to clarify first that it is

12 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 11 accurate to say that while the building was not given landmark status, it is eligible for landmark status which indicates that the quality of the building as the same as those who achieve that status. Mr. Milbratz stated that second, the report indicates that the Fell building is unique to Winnetka and that it has historical and architectural significance and is not mentioned in the conclusion. He stated that those aspects comply with the 5 or 6 items in the criteria of buildings which should be preserved are also not in the conclusion and that if it is not the intention of the report to write off the whole thing, it should be clarified. Rob Newman, 610 Sheridan, informed the Commission that he did research on his own and referred to the comments on the report and others. He commented that the report is too long and that it did not need to be an encyclopedia and that it should only relate to the significance or insignificance of the building. Mr. Newman referred to the requirements of the report presented to the Commission and that nowhere did it say that it should be a full encyclopedia of everything that Walter Sobel produced and that to add more to the report is too much. Mr. Newman stated that it should be limited to the Fell building and the significance or insignificance of the building and the effects on the surrounding area and not an entire history of what Walter Sobel did. He stated that it actually goes into the residential development that Walter Sobel did, which is not relevant to this discussion since they are talking about a commercial development. Mr. Newman stated that he had a few points and began by stating that this discussion has been going on for a long time. He stated that he would like to highlight that while One Winnetka came and presented its plans that it came to the forefront as to whether the Fell building should be saved or not. Mr. Newman stated that in a lot of ways, Mr. Sobel has been pushing his agenda on the Village. He stated that he understood that and that his father was a great physician but that he is not on the National Register of Historic Places and did not win any awards. Mr. Newman described Mr. Sobel as an interested party and that he had a lot of time to purchase the building and make it into an historic site and that it was not done. He stated that no one stepped forward to do that. Mr. Newman also stated that there was a lot of time before the development came forth and even before the NTP discussion where the discussion did not come up and that the Fell building could have been demolished at that time. Mr. Newman stated that suddenly, it is a matter of historic importance and that he disagreed. He then identified himself as a lawyer and stated that it is important to realize that in the legal world if you have an interested party you have to look at them in that way. Mr. Newman added that his name and his father s name and its importance would be held up higher if the building is saved. Mr. Newman went on to state that he loved modernism and modern architecture. He also commented that he liked the Fell building. Mr. Newman then referred to a comment made about buying suits there and indicated that it is irrelevant to the architectural importance of the building. He also stated that the fact that the building is eligible for the National Register is very different than it being on the National Register. Mr. Newman then commented that while the Fell building is interesting, he did not feel that it is significant and that it is not significant historically. He stated that there are words and law and ordinances that have to be discerned and that the word significant has certain importance which

13 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 12 is different than interesting. Mr. Newman referred to the many homes and buildings which have been torn down or changed in Winnetka that have not been deemed significant and that it did not mean that it is to be saved from a historical standpoint. Mr. Newman informed the Commission that he was at the Winnetka Community House a few weeks ago and saw the plaque that stated that the building was registered on the National Register of Historic Places. He stated that clearly is an historic building which is a part of the community and that when you think about the Fell building in that way, he questioned whether it had the same stature and if it is truly significant in that way. Mr. Newman stated that he came to the conclusion that while it is important, it is not significant in the same ways as the Community House. Mr. Newman stated that he had some other thoughts, but first stated that there is a risk with the Fell building and referred to the development in the community as being very important and stopping development based on whether or not it is significant or an important building and incorrectly finding a ruling from this Commission and not allowing it to be demolished or getting in the way of it in any way sends the wrong signal to the investor community. He stated that it is a slow, arduous process and that he is not saying that they should not take the time to think through the issues. Mr. Newman then stated that he has been watching development in other neighboring communities go up much quicker such as in Highland Park and that somehow, the Village is not able to move forward. Mr. Newman then stated that part of it is that they have sent the wrong message to the developer community. He added that you will see down the road that it will be slower to develop because they have sent the wrong signal and that they have hesitated too much and that they have allowed outside parties to come in and slow the process down. Mr. Newman then stated that with regard to the Community House, he looked up the National Register of Historic Places in Cook County and pulled the list of everything outside of Chicago and read a list of buildings which are actually on the National Register. He stated that he would identify those in the surrounding communities and first referred to the Baha i Temple which is at the top of the list and which is a significant building in Wilmette. He stated that the next one on the top of the list is the Anita Willets Burnham log home which is clearly significant. Mr. Newman then referred to the Community House which is significant and important. Mr. Newman indicated that he is trying to put it in the context and that he is hearing a mincing of words and that they are not looking at the required words that the Commission is supposed to rule on which is the word significant. Mr. Newman then referred to Crow Island School which is significant and that it became the design nationwide for many schools. He then stated that the William Glasner home in Glencoe on Sheridan Road and the Greeley home in Winnetka are significant. Mr. Newman also identified the Glenview Naval Air Station Hangar as significant. He then identified the Hyatt House Hotel in Lincolnwood which was placed on the National Register and that it came up tonight as being demolished. Mr. Newman identified the Kenilworth Club as significant along with the Henry Demarest Lloyd home on Sheridan Road as significant. He identified the Marshall Field & Company store in Oak Park as significant as well as the William Junkett (sp?) home in Winnetka. Mr. Newman stated that they have to focus on commercial and that the rest are all homes, none of which are in Winnetka. He also referred to the Frank Lloyd Wright studio

14 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 13 and school in Oak Park and that these are the types of things on the list. Mr. Newman concluded by stating that they have to understand and apply what is significant and that it is his hope that he brought some light on the difference between what is nice and important to keep as opposed to what is important and significant. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any other comments. David Trandel, 505 Sheridan Road, stated that he had a couple of points that he would like to clarify. He began by stating that the Village asked them to do a study specifically on the properties involved and that they expanded the study to include the Hadley School and 711 Oak voluntarily. Mr. Trandel then stated that to further expand the study is unwarranted and is a delay tactic which is not productive. Mr. Trandel stated that he wanted to make it clear that they would be vehemently opposed to the expansion of the report and questioned when it would stop if it is allowed to continue. Mr. Trandel stated that he is not sure how much experience anyone here has on the adaptive reuse of an historic building and stated that it is not easy. He informed the Commission that he has been involved in two significant projects from beginning to completion, one of which is 208 S. LaSalle which was a $440 million adaptive reuse of the Daniel Burnham building. Mr. Trandel described them as challenging and significantly over budget. He stated that they had the benefit of being in downtown Chicago and that it turned out spectacular. Mr. Trandel also noted that they did a large historic tax credit in a deal with Chevron and that he is very well versed with tax credit and the challenges which the IRS is putting forth with that. Mr. Trandel also stated that they have to be qualified real estate expenditures or QREs which have to be approved. He also stated that if it is on the National Register, the expenditures have to be approved and would have to go through an arduous process. Mr. Trandel then stated for the sake of sensibility, he would like to suggest what if there was a viable option. He first informed the Commission that they completed the adaptive reuse of 11 S. LaSalle and which was a $160 million project. Mr. Trandel noted that Lucien LaGrange was the architect on both projects and on One Winnetka. Mr. Trandel stated that the point is that they have looked at every building that they have owned. He noted that they are not optioning the property or taking other people s time or money to facilitate some agenda. Mr. Trandel noted that they own the property and have a monthly obligation every month. Mr. Trandel then stated that while Mr. Sobel is remarkable for his perseverance, the Fell building has been there for 40 or 50 years and that it has had plenty of time to be considered significant and that all of this could have been done on Mr. Sobel s money as opposed to on his and his investor s money. Mr. Trandel stated that he found it interesting that now they are having a discussion about the relevance and the significance of a structure that is not commercially viable. He informed the Commission that they explored it in depth and that if there was a way to make it work, they would have done it and that they have done it in the past. Mr. Trandel stated that it is incumbent on them as citizens and developers to try to use what is there and to make it work. He stated that their objective is not to just knock stuff down and reiterated that the building itself is not

15 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 14 commercially viable. Mr. Trandel described the design of retail as it is configured on Elm as an abomination. He stated that while Walter Sobel s design is impressive as it relates to this particular instance, it is not particularly effective. Mr. Trandel then stated that when you talk about using the existing structure, the design would result in a highly inefficient building with less than 70% efficiency and that it cannot get built. He noted that Walter Sobel s design was geared toward one and two bedrooms and that the market wants bigger units, none of which can be accommodated from that structure. Mr. Trandel also stated that it is an important distinction to say while Walter Sobel did some great work, but that as it relates to the context of the commercial building, it did not fly. Mr. Trandel went on to state that he is curious that after all of this time has gone by and when NTP came through 10 years ago, there was all this time for the Commission to act and that they did not act and that now as it relates to their project, it is costing them more capital and more time and expenses and they now trying to determine that a building which has stood empty for many years and referred to the fact that they did try to lease the building with Cushman & Wakefield but that there was no interest, it reiterated the fact that it is not commercially viable. Mr. Trandel stated that unless they are in the business of shrining buildings for the sake of shrining them, this is a commercial district first and foremost and that the litmus test should be first if the building is commercially viable or not. He then stated that while he has applauded Mr. Sobel for his admiration of his father, this is the 21 st public meeting. Mr. Trandel then stated that if you listen to what people are talking about as it relates to memories and the significance of the building, those are real. He stated that the question is how do you best manifest those memories and preserve them so that they can carry them on. Mr. Trandel then stated that he has talked to Mr. Sobel and that it is incumbent on them as a developer to create a memory and lasting impression of the Fell building and to Walter Sobel and that they would encourage building on the memory and significance of the Fell building and what it did. He concluded by stating that can be accomplished in some creative way. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any questions for Mr. Trandel. No questions were raised by the Commission at this time. Mr. Sobel informed the Commission that he is a political scientist besides being a son and that he has written about foreign policy and citizenship and other issues. He then stated that he has a conception on democracy that coincides with a lot of the process of what is going on around this building. Mr. Sobel then referred to the law of effective interest which states that those people who are affected by something have a right to have a say. He then stated that Mr. Trandel obviously has an affected interest here and that he is an interested party and he has the right to say what is going on as well as him. Mr. Sobel then stated that in terms of community events, he informed the Commission that there was another somewhat significant event which occurred in the building after it was no longer the Fell building which was the campaign for Dold for Congress and victory party and that there was a lot of publicity for the building since it was the campaign headquarters. He also stated that there were a lot of interesting ideas for alternative uses such as a community center or

16 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 15 community theater. Mr. Sobel then stated that if as much money and time had been spent marketing the building and building on top of it, you would see a viable and active building and you would see a much more vibrant network and neighborhood. He stated that it is not just preserving a memory. Mr. Sobel stated that with regard to the word significant, that is not just the point. He noted that one of the criteria for not granting a permit is significant negative architectural and historical impact on the Village and the community. He stated that the impact is clear and that to demolish the building would have a significant impact on the architecture of Winnetka and the neighborhood. Mr. Sobel also stated that the report makes it clear that that criterion is met. He concluded by asking the Commission to deal with this and discuss whether the report needs to be redone. Chairperson Holland stated that there needed to be a statement as to why they sit around this table. She then stated that the Village of Winnetka sought in the 1980 s to create a Landmark Preservation Commission for the Village whose duty was to look at all requests for demolition. Chairperson Holland noted that they can only do one thing which is to delay. She then stated that they are not trying to delay the project. Chairperson Holland also stated that as you can see by the size of Ms. Ramsey s report, it is quite complete although there are portions missing. She reiterated that the Commission did not have an agenda to delay. Chairperson Holland stated that they have to do what the ordinance of the Village tells them they can and that is to accept the report. She stated that once the report is accepted, then a demolition permit is given by the Community Development Department. Chairperson Holland stated that they are not making any statements as to whether it is an important building or a significant building. She stated that the building can be torn down and that they need a history of what was there and that is how the Commission treats every single request which comes to them. Chairperson Holland indicated that not every building needs an HAIS and described this as the largest project for the Village since the railroad tracks were lowered in She stated that the Commission has a duty to have a history of what was there. Chairperson Holland then stated that with regard to a two month delay, they can decide to delay to complete or add to the report. She stated that the demolition permit will be granted. Chairperson Holland then noted that Lake Forest has one a year delay. She also stated that she agreed with Mr. Trandel that they have been through a lot of meetings. Chairperson Holland reiterated that they are not trying to delay the project and that they are looking at the report Ms. Ramsey gave them. She concluded by stating that if they feel that the report should be added to, they would ask Ms. Ramsey to add to it and come back to the Commission at the June or July meeting and then grant the demolition permit. Chairperson Holland reiterated that they want a history of what was taken down. Mr. Sobel stated that in connection with the time period, it needs to be defined before any permit is approved. He then asked if there will be discussion about extending the report before it is completely voted on.

17 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 16 Chairperson Holland stated that if the Commission feels that the additions to the report are sufficient and vote, they would ask Ms. Ramsey to expand on the report. Mr. Sobel stated that when they come back, do they have to evaluate whether there would be a significant negative architectural and historic impact. Chairperson Holland stated that either way, they cannot stop the project. She stated that the Commission can say that there would be a negative impact on the neighborhood, but that as long as the HAIS is complete, they have to abide. Mr. Sobel stated that he is not sure in terms of the reading he has. He referred to the Commission s and Chairperson Holland s comments and others and that it is clear that the report is not complete. Chairperson Holland stated that they are discussing that tonight. Mr. Sobel again encouraged the Commission to extend for the reasons outlined. Chairperson Holland asked if there was any other discussion. Mr. Weaver stated that he had nothing to add and that there is a lot of detail in the report. He agreed that there are points that could be added and additions to be made. Mr. Weaver stated that they can wait to the next meeting to approve the report. Mr. Cripe stated that there is misconception about the process. He stated that he would like to clarify that the review as part of the ordinance is part of a process and larger approval period by the Village and other boards and the Village Council as a whole. Mr. Cripe then stated that the Commission requesting an HAIS is an important component but that it is not what is delaying the project from moving forward. He indicated that there are a number of other approvals that happen along the way. Mr. Cripe stated that he did not want the Commission to be blamed for stopping the momentum on the project. He then stated that he agreed that they should have the best and most accurate report possible. Mr. Cripe stated that this project is different than a lot of others and that what has been going on with previous developments is much different than the residential demolition applications before the Commission. He added that there has been a lot of discussion about this in the past as well as alternative uses and proposals which did not usually happen with smaller projects. Ms. Grubb stated that she read through the whole thing and commented that she enjoyed reading about Walter Sobel and Winnetka history. She suggested that they make the small changes and get on with it. Ms. Grubb then stated that they all feel a great affinity toward the building which came up in the 1960 s taking the place of shopping centers. She reiterated that they should go forward with what they agreed to do and to make the changes and move on. Ms. Papoutsis stated that she is also in agreement. She then stated that the purpose here and the Commission s duty is never to delay a project. Ms. Papoutsis stated that she also agreed that it is a significant building to the community and that they do need an accurate record of it. She added

18 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 17 that they do not want to make the process more difficult than it has been and that they all are in agreement with that. Mr. Enck stated that the purpose of a delay at this point would be twofold. He stated that it would be to revise the HAIS and to have the opportunity to explore alternative ideas. Mr. Enck stated that in this case, after going through the process, the project going forward would trigger the 106 process and that any action by the Commission did not mean that the building would be demolished in the near future. He noted that there are other hurdles which are longer than the 60 day delay anyway. Ms. Papoutsis then stated that any Commission decision would not delay that which is already in the works. Chairperson Holland stated that her concern related to the wholeness and accuracy of the report. She then stated that once the building is gone they want to know what was there. Chairperson Holland noted that they do that with all HAIS projects before them. She then asked for a motion to accept the HAIS the way it is or to ask Ms. Ramsey to add to it in certain areas that the Commission pointed out and to come back. Chairperson Holland added that the applicant would not be breaking ground before June. Mr. Trandel referred to there being a big difference and that they are expecting to start in September. He stated that if they get close to the winter, it would be a problem. Mr. Trandel agreed that they would not be beginning in June. Chairperson Holland again asked for a motion. Mr. Enck asked did they know at what point the 106 process and other reviews happened. Ms. Klaassen stated that they are still completing the engineering plans. She also stated that they still have to go through the final plan review process with all of the boards which are usually pretty quick reviews. Mr. D Onofrio stated that the question is what is the following procedure for planned development. He noted that the applicant got preliminary approval in January and that they made an application for the Commission to consider the demolition application. Mr. D Onofrio noted that they are close to completing what they need in order to initiate the final planned development process. He stated that they are getting the engineering plans approved and that then it would go to the state agencies which triggered the review by the state. Mr. D Onofrio noted that they would be wrapping up engineering as it goes to the state. He stated that then, it would go back to the Plan Commission, the DRB and the ZBA for consideration of final approval. Mr. D Onofrio stated that the process would then go to the Village Council and that the process bumped up to September. Mr. D Onofrio stated that he would also like to add the fact that there are a couple of steps and that if they were to ask for additional information, it should be clear what additional information they wanted from them. He stated that second, if so, the next time it comes back, they would be

19 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 18 down to two options which is the way the code was written. Mr. D Onofrio stated that the Commission can recommend approval or issue a 60 day delay to explore alternatives to demolition. Mr. Sobel reiterated that they should redo the report and explore other issues. Ms. Grubb asked if there could be discussion conditions. Chairperson Holland referred to the areas where they felt that the report is not accurate. Ms. Grubb referred to the impact on the neighborhood and the homes in that triangle. Chairperson Holland referred to Maple on the same block and identified four homes on Oak which are 500 Oak and 520 Oak and that it ends with four homes and the home at the corner of Elm and Maple. She also questioned whether there should be an additional biography of the Fell family in the report. Ms. Grubb stated that there is plenty. Mr. Cripe stated that the ordinance required the discussion of architectural significance. Mr. Enck stated that he felt the report is fine. Chairperson Holland then stated that the letters have to be included from the AIA, Landmarks Illinois, James Bailey, Mary Brush and docomomo. Ms. Ramsey asked if they wanted the clarification to be included in the narrative or if they just want the letters themselves. Chairperson Holland responded that it should be included as part of the report. Mr. Sobel suggested the inclusion of the analysis of the criteria behind the writing of the letters. Chairperson Holland stated that they would provide those names and copies of the letters. Mr. Sobel agreed that would be fine. Mr. Cripe stated that Ms. Ramsey does not have to comment on people s opinions. Mr. Sobel stated that there should also be inclusion if there is media coverage. He stated that the criteria for which the articles and letters were written gets to the heart of the architectural and historical significance. Mr. Newman stated that the report should be about the significance of the Fell building but not everything he produced. He stated that he has a great respect for his work but that the report should be about the Fell building and referred to tax dollars and people s time. Mr. Newman

20 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 19 asked where do you draw the line. He added that having an encyclopedia and book on Walter Sobel s work is wonderful but that this is not the right venue. Mr. Cripe stated that further input is not required. Chairperson Holland noted that Ms. Ramsey will receive those letters mentioned by Mr. Sobel. She asked if there were any other areas. Mr. Enck stated that they are talking about minor changes and not the rewriting of the report. He suggested that at the end of Evaluation of Impact section, they should clarify that line that Chairperson Holland mentioned to be clearer. Ms. Ramsey asked the Commission if they would like her to consider the building in terms of the neighborhood impact and that the ordinance required the consideration of the impact of the building which is the reading in the report. She also referred to the replacement building to be addressed as raised by Chairperson Holland. Chairperson Holland stated that is in Ms. Ramsey s last sentence and that they have always considered the neighborhood impact when they ask for an HAIS. She confirmed that they should elaborate and make that clear. Chairperson Holland stated that it is saying that the buildings have to be compatible among the commercial development of Elm and Lincoln in terms of massing, scale and relationship to the street. She noted that massing and scale do not equate. Chairperson Holland also suggested that 545 Lincoln be added. Chairperson Holland asked if there were any other comments. No additional comments were made at this time. She then asked for a motion to elaborate on the HAIS and for it to come back at the June meeting. Ms. Grubb moved for the elaboration on the HAIS and for the applicant to come back in June with the items mentioned. Ms. Papoutsis stated that they should make sure that there is a quorum. Mr. Enck seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. AYES: NAYS: NON-VOTING: Enck, Grubb, Holland, Papoutsis, Weaver, Wolfe None Cripe OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Holland stated that with regard to the trolley tour, 70 people signed up. She informed the Commission that they took last year s poster and used it and changed the date. Chairperson Holland stated that it would take place on May 21, 2017 with two sessions and that Nan Greenough would participate. She stated that the people who responded are excited and then referred to the sign up locations. Chairperson Holland added that the preservation awards judging would take place on June 17, The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

21 Draft Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 20 Respectfully submitted, Antionette Johnson, Recording Secretary

22 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAIS REVIEW IMPACT DETERMINATION MEETING TO: FROM: Landmark Preservation Commission Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant DATE: April 24, 2017 (Reissued May 23, 2017) REFERENCE: Lincoln Ave. and Elm St. (Fell Building) Case Number At the May 1, 2017 meeting the Commission found that the following information should be added or corrected in the HAIS: 1. The Evaluation of Neighborhood Impact should include the four single-family residences on Maple St. between Oak and Elm Streets; 2. The letters from professional organizations (i.e. AIA Chicago, Landmarks IL, docomomo, Mary Brush, James Bayley) should be added; 3. The conclusion of the Evaluation of Neighborhood Impact is conflicting and should be revised; Lincoln Ave. should be added to the Neighborhood Character Inventory with the correct date of construction and architect of record. It is the duty of the LPC to determine whether the HAIS is complete and if so whether the proposed demolition will result either in the loss of a building or structure that is of historic or architectural significance or in the significant alteration of the architectural character of the immediate neighborhood. The Winnetka Historical Society has reviewed the HAIS in its entirety and believes it to be complete. In accordance with Section of the Village Code, the Commission is to enter findings on the following issues: a. whether the HAIS is complete; b. whether the proposed demolition will have a significant negative architectural or historical impact on either the Village as a whole or on the immediate neighborhood; and c. whether demolition should be delayed in order to explore alternatives to total demolition. In making its determination, the LPC shall consider the following: a. the HAIS; b. the preliminary property history study; c. comments of the Winnetka Historical Society on the HAIS; d. any other information, comment or evidence received by the LPC at the impact

23 determination meeting or at the preliminary review meeting. The determination of the LPC shall be supported by findings of fact based on the entire record. A building or structure shall be considered to be historically or architecturally significant if the LPC determines that it meets one or more of the following standards: a. the structure exhibits a high quality of architectural design without regard to the time built or historic associations; b. the structure exhibits a high quality of architectural design that is not the result of a change or a series of changes in the original structure; c. the structure exemplifies an architectural style, construction technique or building type once common in the Village; d. the structure exhibits an unusual, distinctive or eccentric design or construction technique that contributes to the architectural interest of its environs as an accent or counterpart; or e. that the property has been designated a landmark pursuant to Chapter of the Village Code, has been included in the most recent Illinois Historic Structure Survey conducted under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Conservation, or has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Illinois Register of Historic Places. 2

24 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA MAY 10, 2017 HISTORIC & ARCHITECTURAL IMPACT STUDY: LINCOLN AVENUE/ ELM STREET FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX BUILT ARCHITECT: WALTER SOBEL PREPARED BY: LARA RAMSEY RAMSEY HISTORIC CONSULTANTS 1105 W. CHICAGO AVENUE, #201 CHICAGO, IL 60642

25 PAGE 1 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX ORIGINAL ARCHITECT: WALTER H. SOBEL PIN: LANDMARK STATUS OF THE PROPERTY: Not designated a local landmark by the Winnetka Landmark Preservation Commission, nor is it in a locally designated historic district. Not listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places or as a contributing structure in any National Register Historic District. Determined eligible for individual listing to the National Register of Historic Places by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency in ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED: Permit #8299 May 24, 1967 Construct one-story and basement commercial building (511 Lincoln Avenue), cost $500,000 Owner: Samida Company Architect: Walter H. Sobel No Permit # March 3, 1969 Wreck commercial and apartment buildings (Elm Street) Owner: Samida Company (The Fell Trustee) ALTERATION PERMITS ISSUED: No Permit # (no date) Renovate two bathrooms for ADA approval storefront (726 Elm Street) Permit #B (no date) Make exterior non-structural concrete repairs and replace existing concrete stair with steel stair at existing commercial structures and parking deck (511 Lincoln Avenue), cost $20,000 Owner: Samida Company Permit #6213 May Install air conditioner and driveway (511 Lincoln Avenue) Owner: Samida Company Permit #8803 May 13, 1970 Complete store interior (730 Elm Street), cost $6500

26 HAIS, FELL COMPANY COMPLEX PAGE 2 Owner: Samida Company Architect: Bonesz, Mass, Baccola Permit #8891 March 16, 1971 Build a storage room in the underground parking area of a commercial building (511 Lincoln Avenue) Owner: Samida Co. Permit #9747 October 11, 1977 Remodeling basement office space of a commercial building (732 Elm Street), cost $11,000 Owner: Samida Company Architect: Patterson Dental Co. Permit #9747 October 20, 1977 Remodel basement office space commercial building (732 Elm Street), cost $11,000 Owner: Samida Company Architect: E. A. Anderson Co. Permit #11162 February 24, 1986 Remodel interior of commercial building (511 Lincoln Avenue), cost $30,000 Owner: Abe Fell c/o Samida Architect: Susan Rakstang Permit # November 27, 1990 Receptacles and lighting for new work shop (511 Lincoln Avenue) Owners: Joseph Fell/The Fell Company Permit #12722 July 5, 1991 Interior remodeling (511 Lincoln Avenue), cost $2,500 Owner: Samida Partnership Permit #12723 July 5, 1991 Interior Remodeling (732 Elm Street), cost $4,000 Owner: Samida Company Permit #13233 March 11, 1993 Install interior partitions in commercial space, cost $500 Owner: Samida Permit #13236 March 26, 1993 Construct interior partitions (728 Elm Street), cost $2,000 Owner: Samida Permit #13326 July 8, 1993 Interior remodel/interior wall partition (511 Lincoln Avenue), cost $1,500 Owner: Samida Co. No permit # January 7, 1997

27 PAGE 3 Interior remodeling (732 Elm Street), cost $5,800 Owner: Kenneth Melin HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX No permit # February 23, 1999 Carpeting for women s dress shop (726 Elm Street) Permit #B March 2003 Interior bath remodeling (732 Elm Street), cost $5,800 Owner: Samida Co. No permit # August 5, 2007 Commercial buildout, new walls (728 Elm Street) No permit # February 12, 2008 Interior remodeling (730 Elm street), cost $2,500 Owner: Irwin Cohen Permit #B October 6, 2011 Commercial remodel (728 Elm Street), cost $72,000 Permit #FS1124 October 13, 2011 Commercial interior renovations, fire protection system (728 Elm Street), cost $4,200 Permit #B October 19, 2011 Remove interior drywall partitions (511 Lincoln Avenue), cost $2,000 Architect: Airoom Architects and Builders

28 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 4 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ALTERATIONS Site and Location The Fell Company Store complex, designed by Chicago architect Walter H. Sobel and erected between 1967 and 1969, consists of two buildings separated by a surface-level and below-ground parking deck. The complex is located on a single parcel within Block 24 of the Winnetka Subdivision, which is a commercial block at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Elm Street at the southeast edge of Winnetka s central business district. Surrounding the complex on the block are several commercial buildings dating from the 1920s to the 1970s Lincoln Avenue Site Plan for Lincoln Avenue and Elm Street The building at Lincoln Avenue, which originally housed the Fell Company Store, is located at the south end of the parcel and was completed in The building is a steel-frame structure that is oriented to the west line of the parcel, with its principal (west) façade facing Lincoln Avenue at an angle. The front (west) façade features an angled firststory window wall deeply recessed behind the second story, which is Lincoln Avenue Front (West) Façade supported by square concrete columns. The main entrance to the store is at the north end of the window wall and features a pair of stained wood doors with vertical glazed panels and substantial wood handles with rounded corners. Transom windows at the top of the entry mimic the vertical glass panels on the doors. Thin, decorative wood slats cover the space above the storefront windows. A solid brick panel marks the second story of the façade; the panel

29 PAGE 5 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX is ornamented with a grid of subtly projecting header bricks. The brick panel rests on a painted concrete beam that extends past the panel to connect to two fullheight concrete columns at the northwest and Lincoln Avenue Recessed West Storefront (right); North Façade (Left) southwest corners of the building. A second concrete beam tops the wall of the front façade. Narrow openings mark the space between the brick panel, top concrete beam, and corner columns. The north end of the façade is recessed east of the storefront and features a projecting display window Lincoln Avenue South Façade The north façade is clad in the same variegated red brick featured on the front façade and is topped with a painted concrete parapet ornamented with a series of thin, vertical incised lines. Two large, single-light windows are located at the west end of the facade and are topped with vertical wood slats. East of these windows is a secondary entry bay flanked by brick piers that extend above the concrete parapet. The entrance is protected by a concrete, flat-roof entry porch. The metal and glass door is flanked by two large sidelights; a concrete beam separates the entry from a three-part window above. A concrete walkway with metal railings leads east to the front of the building. The east section of the north façade features clerestory windows at the upper mezzanine level of the building, and a concrete cantilever above the entrance from the below-level garage to the ground-level parking lot north of the building. A small loading dock, recessed employee entrance, and opening to the below-grade parking level are located along the south façade. The interior of the building is divided into four separate levels. The main, ground-floor level is accessed Lincoln Avenue Main Level, View West

30 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 6 through the main west and secondary north entrances. The main floor is a single, open space, with concrete ceiling beams supported by square concrete columns. The walls on this level are exposed brick and concrete. The floor is mainly carpeted, with the exception of four rectangular blocks of glazed brick that connect the front entrance, north entrance, and staircase to the upper mezzanine. The north entrance features a vestibule that contains the elevator on its east wall, and a staircase to the lower-level mezzanine and below-ground garage on its west wall. At the east end of the building, the main floor divides into upper and lower mezzanines. The upper mezzanine is open to the main floor of the building, and is accessed by a short flight of stairs just south of the elevator bay. Stairs to the lower mezzanine are located just south of the stairs to the upper mezzanine. From the lower mezzanine, a short stair at the north end of the floor leads to a lower level under the main floor of the building, which originally housed inventory space. The interior of the building has largely been stripped of decorative elements and finishes. Large, nonhistoric boxed light fixtures and smaller cylindrical fixtures are located between the ceiling beams on all three levels. The stairs leading to the lower mezzanine, as well as the north staircase, feature original metal and wood railings Elm Street Lincoln Avenue Main Level and Upper Mezzanine, View East (above); North Staircase (left) The second building at Elm Street was completed between 1969 and This building shares many design features with the first building at 511 Lincoln Avenue, including the flat roof, recessed first story storefront level, concrete and brick exterior, and bronzed Elm Street Front (North) Façade aluminum storefront windows. The Elm Street building contains eight storefronts on the ground floor, and additional below-grade commercial space that was originally a combination of storage space and smaller studio or commercial space. The storefront level is recessed behind the façade; openings in the walkway in front of the storefronts allow light into the below-grade spaces. The first-story storefronts all feature their original bronzed aluminum windows and wood plank doors with three vertical glazed panels. The railings around the openings to the below-grade spaces are also original. Metal staircases at the east and west ends of

31 PAGE Elm Street South Façade The interior of the Elm Street Building is largely not historic. All storefront HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX the façade lead to the below-grade level. Angled window-walls on this level are divided by concrete piers. The south façade of the building contains secondary storefronts to the commercial spaces, with similar bronzed aluminum plate glass windows and plank doors. A concrete walkway with metal railing runs along the storefront level, but does not feature the openings to the basement level that are seen on the north façade. The below-grade entrances on this façade are simpler, with single doors spaced along a brick exterior wall. Access to the below-grade garage is located at the east end of this façade Elm Street Typical First-Floor Interior (left); Center Garden-Level Commercial Interior (middle); Garden-Level Walkway, North Façade (right) interiors have been remodeled over the years, and no interior fixtures or finishes appear to be original. Additional Planned Phases for the Fell Company Store Complex Walter Sobel s original design for the Fell Company Store complex included plans to expand the original store and single-story Elm Street building with additional floors of office space or residential units. Drawings of the project from 1971 indicate that the building schedule for the development was originally planned as follows: Phase I of the development was the construction of the main store on Lincoln Avenue. Phase II included building an additional two floors of Lincoln Avenue 1971 Rendering Showing Outline of Proposed Upper Stories

32 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE Site Plan Showing Proposed Phases of Construction Plans for the proposed second story of the Elm Street building contained a mix of one-bedroom, one-bath and two-bedroom, two-bath units. The alternate plan for the second story included three large office suites. Although the 1971 drawings don t show a plan for a third story on the Elm Street building, earlier drawings from 1969 indicate that, at least at some point in the design process, a third story of apartments was planned for the development. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The area surrounding the Fell Company Store complex was originally subdivided in the 1860s, apartments above the existing store. Phase III and IV involved the erection of the two commercial levels and two residential levels of the Elm Street building. Sobel also included an alternative design for office space on the second-floor level of the Elm Street building. Ultimately, the schedule was rearranged to allow for the commercial spaces in both buildings to be built first, with residential upper floors planned for a future date. It is unknown why the Fell family decided against expanding the property to include a residential or office component. Apartments in the proposed second and third stories of the main store building were largely two-bedroom, one-bath units with combined living and dining spaces. The west units on the second story and the west and north units on the third story included open terraces Plan of Proposed Second Floor Residential Level for Lincoln Avenue as part of the Village of Winnetka Subdivision, which is a subdivision of part of Section 21. The block on which the complex sits constitutes the southeast corner of Winnetka s central business district, which is centered along Green Bay Road and the Metra Line (formerly the Chicago and Northwestern Railway) roughly between Pine Street and Oak Street. This area is the largest of three commercial districts located in the Village the Hubbard Woods business district is located at the north end of the Village, and the Indian Hill commercial district is at the south end. The block on which the complex sits is located just east of the railroad tracks, with Lincoln Avenue running northwest from Oak Avenue to Elm Street along its west side. Originally, Lincoln Avenue did not continue south of Elm Street; block 24 extended much farther west, with a narrow street named Carlton Court running north from Oak Street to the middle of the block, and the electric rail line extending across the remainder of the block. When the Village invested in grade separation in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Lincoln Avenue was also extended south to Oak Avenue, and the

33 PAGE 9 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps 1938 (left) and 1950 (right) west section of what is now 740 Elm Street was demolished to make way for the new street, which is wider than the section north of Elm Street. Development along Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue is typical of most streets within the business district. Most properties are built up to the lot line, with concrete and brick sidewalks and diagonal street parking available on both sides of the streets. Mature trees and plantings mark the sidewalks on both streets, and several restaurants provide outdoor seating areas in the public space outside of the buildings. East, north, and south of the subject area, commercial development gives way to residential; the railroad provides a physical barrier with the west side of the central business district; dense vegetation screens the below-grade tracks from Lincoln Avenue. For the purposes of this study, neighborhood context was considered to include all commercial buildings within the proposed One Winnetka development, as well as the Hadley Institute for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the 4-story apartment building at 711 Oak Street, and four single-family residential structures on the west side of Maple Street between Oak and Elm Streets, all of which are on the same block as the One Winnetka parcel. Also included in the neighborhood context area was the north side of Elm Street between Lincoln Avenue and Arbor Vitae Road and both sides of Lincoln Avenue between Elm Street and the Lincoln Avenue commuter parking lot. Photos and basic information (date of construction, architectural style, architect) on these buildings are included in a table at the end of this report. More detailed information on the buildings included on the parcel of the proposed One Winnetka development is given below. Within this commercial area, the vast majority of commercial buildings (eight of the 21 total buildings, not including the subject complex) are Tudor-Revival-style One or Two-Part Commercial Blocks dating from the 1920s. Three other buildings the garage building at Elm Street, a two-story commercial building with Colonial detailing, and a Neo-Classical One-Part Commercial Block also date from the 1920s. Post-World -War-II buildings include a Colonial Revival freestanding office building at 575 Lincoln Avenue, the Hadley School for the Blind at 700 Elm Street, Conney s Pharmacy at Elm Street, and the remodeled commercial block at 740 Elm Street, The commercial building at 515 Lincoln Avenue dates from 1977, and the apartment complex at 711 Oak Street from Two commercial blocks along the west side of Lincoln Avenue appear to be historic buildings that have subsequently remodeled. The newest structure within the context area is Winnetka Galleria, which was erected in 2001 on the west side of Lincoln Avenue. The four residential structures along Maple Street date from

34 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 10 PROPERTIES WITHIN ONE WINNETKA DEVELOPMENT PARCEL Elm Street Date Built: 1922 Original function/use classification: Commercial Garage Current function/use classification: Vacant/Not in Use Original Architect: Robert M. Hyde Elm Street Original Owner: W. H. McKillip Original Permit: 7/18/1922 one story brick garage (public) ; Cost: $18,000 The building at Elm Street in Winnetka, Illinois was erected in 1922 as a garage and repair shop. The one-story brick building features a bow-truss roof that is covered with asphalt sheeting. Brick parapet walls partially conceal the roof along all four facades. The front parapet wall above the storefront level, as well as the north ends of the east and west facades of the building, are painted. The building features a single storefront at its east end, and a west-end bay that is enclosed with floor-to-ceiling glass panels. The entry to office space within this bay is recessed from the front façade. Applied ornament along the storefront level appears to date from the mid-20 th century or later. Brick geometric ornament is visible along the front façade above the storefront level, but is slightly obscured by the paint. The interior of the building contains a collection of office suites created through partition walls that reorganized the original open space of the garage. Fixtures and materials in these spaces including the flooring, walls, trim, doors, and windows are not historic. The original truss roof is obscured by dropped ceilings throughout the building. The garage was originally constructed for William H. McKillip, and designed by Robert M. Hyde. It is unknown if McKillip was the original operator of the garage, or was just the builder. By the 1930s, the garage was under the ownership of Y. S. Abel, who operated Abel Battery & Ignition Service in the building. After World War II, the building was converted into office space. Later occupants included the realty firm Goelzer & Wilde in the 1960s, and Gilbert Raynor Associates in the 1970s and 1980s. Conney s Pharmacy, Elm Street Date Built: c Façade and Storefront Alteration: 1959

35 PAGE 11 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX Original function/use classification: Commercial Current function/use classification: Commercial Original Architect: Unknown Original Owner: Unknown Original Permit: N/A Alteration Permits: #72 (5/14/1959) new storefront and remodeling; Cost $8,000; Owner: Leo Conney; Architect: Ernst Benkert The building at Elm Street in Winnetka, Illinois was erected c the building replaced an earlier two-story commercial block that was demolished to accommodate the extension of Lincoln Avenue. The one-story brick structure as originally built was a typical commercial block, with a flat roof, brick exterior, and side-by-side storefronts. A modern, single storefront replaced the original paired storefronts on the front façade in The new storefront featured a large center storefront window wall flanked by a recessed entry bay to the west, and a smaller window bay to the east. Large granite tiles covered the new façade. The current front façade is essentially unchanged from the 1959 remodeling. Interior fixtures and finishes appear to date from the 1970s or 1980s, and are not historic. The building s long-term tenant is Conney s Pharmacy, which has occupied at least some of the space within it since its construction. Leo Conney purchased an existing pharmacy located in a two-story commercial block at the southeast corner of Elm Street and the Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad in In 1940, the building was destroyed in a fire, and Conney s Pharmacy relocated to a storefront next door. 1 When the subject building was completed in the mid-1940s, the pharmacy moved into one of the storefronts. In 1959, Leo Conney developed plans to expand the business into the adjacent storefront, and hired local architect Ernst August Benkert to design a modern façade with a single storefront. Benkert, a local architect, was known for his 1930 design for the Sunset School in Winnetka. 2 Leo Conney retired in 1973 and sold the pharmacy; the new owners retained the name Conney s Pharmacy. 740 Elm Date Built: 1947 Original function/use classification: Commercial Current function/use classification: Vacant/not in use Conney s Pharmacy, Elm Street Original Architect: Monroe Bowman & Associ- 740 Elm Street

36 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 12 ates Original Owner: Leonard H. Roach Original Permit: #5452 (8/30/1947) Construct two-story face brick commercial building ; Cost: $20,000 The commercial block at 740 Elm Street in Winnetka, Illinois was originally part of a 19th-century commercial building located at the west end of Block 24 in the Winnetka Subdivision. When the Village invested in grade separation in the late 1930s and early 1940s, they also extended Lincoln Avenue south from Elm Street along the new below-grade railroad tracks; the construction of this new street cannibalized part of a three-story brick commercial block erected on the south side of Elm Street in the 1890s, leaving the east end intact. The current iteration of that building dates from The building occupies a corner lot, with a short, angled, northwest-facing entry bay with longer north and west facades facing Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue. The building is two stories tall, with a shallow, fauxmansard roof recessed behind a stone-capped brick parapet wall. The exterior of the building is buff brick, with a stone water table at the first story. The building is regularly fenestrated, with large, slightly recessed window openings divided by simple, two-story brick piers. The second-story window openings house multilight metal fixed and casement windows; single-light windows fill the first-story openings. The main entrance to the building is at the northwest façade, and features a non-historic metal and glass door and transom. A secondary entrance along the west façade of the building, which features painted brick and a nonhistoric glass and metal door with Colonial Revival surround, appears to be a later alteration. All visible interior fixtures and finishes in 740 Elm Street are non-historic, including carpeting throughout the first and second floors, dropped ceilings, doors, and built-in display cases. Recent flooding has damaged much of the interior. The building at 740 Elm Street was built for local real estate developer Leonard H. Roach. Roach was the owner of the Prouty Block, which occupied the parcel at the southeast corner of Elm Street and the Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad. After the relocation of the rail lines and the extension of Lincoln Avenue south of Elm Street in the mid-1940s necessitated the demolition of the block, Roach built a new building at the southeast corner Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue. Roach commissioned local architect Monroe Bengt Bowman to design the structure. A native of Chicago, Bowman received a degree from the Armour Institute of Technology in 1924 and worked in the offices of Chicago architects Benjamin Marshall and Holabird & Root. Bowman left Holabird & Root to open a design firm that manufactured avant-garde metal furniture in The brothers furniture designs were included in Philip Johnson and Henry-Russel Hitchcock s groundbreaking exhibition, Modern Architecture: International Exhibition which opened in 1929 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. 3 The brothers disbanded the firm several years later, and Monroe Bowman continued to practice architecture, designing mainly industrial and commercial structures, as well as several high-rise apartment buildings in Chicago. 4 The design of 740 Elm Street is a modest example of Bowman s work, with Art Deco and Art Moderne elements including a lack of exterior ornament, metal multi-light casement windows, and vertical brick piers between window bays. Early occupants of the building are unknown. Phototronics, a photography and camera business, occupied

37 PAGE 13 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX the building from the 1960s to Lincoln Avenue Date Built: 1977 Original function/use classification: Commercial Current function/use classification: Vacant/ Not in Use Architect: Otis Associates Original Owner: James Otis Lincoln Avenue Original Permit: #9743 (10/11/1977) Construct commercial building ; Cost: $121,500 The commercial building at Lincoln Avenue was built in 1977 and designed by local architecture firm Otis Associates. The building is a two-story brick structure with flat roof and irregular massing. The front (west) façade of the building features a north-end entry to the first-story commercial space, and a recessed south end corner entry leading to the second-floor office spaces. Both entries feature metal and glass doors and transoms; single-light sidelights also flank the north-end entrance door. The first story of the front façade features single-light metal windows separated by brick piers. A corner window marks the front end of the recessed south end entry. Slanted brick bulkheads mark the areas under the first-floor windows. The second story of the front façade is regularly fenestrated with a row of single-light metal windows with soldiercourse sills. Similar windows are also seen on the south façade of the building. The north façade of the building exhibits no window or door openings. The rear (east) façade faces onto an interior parking lot in the center of the block, and features a handful of single-light windows. Interior fixtures and finishing in the building are non-historic. The flooring in both the first-floor commercial space and the second-floor offices is carpeted. The first floor is mostly open, with exposed ceiling joists and mechanical ductwork, dropped light fixtures, and partition walls that end below the ductwork and light fixtures. The second floor features a central corridor with offices on either side. The offices and corridor feature dropped ceilings and fluorescent lights; simple painted trim and door casings are the only decorative elements on this floor. ARCHITECT OF THE FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX: WALTER H. SOBEL, AIA The Fell Company Store complex was designed by Walter Howard Sobel, a Chicago architect whose career spanned over seventy years. Sobel is best known for his designs of courthouses he designed or consulted on the design of over 200 courthouses throughout the United States. Sobel also served on the American Institute of Architects (AIA) task force on court planning in the 1970s, and edited two books on court house de-

38 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 14 sign as a collaborative effort between the American Barr Association and the AIA. Sobel was also known for over a dozen designs for temples throughout the Midwest. Although not often mentioned in published works on Sobel s career, he had considerable experience with space planning for retail spaces, and designed multiple interiors for a number of Chicago-area retailers, including Joseph Shoes, Broadstreet Menswear, Benson- Rixon, C. D. Peacock Jewelers, and, most notably, the Fell Company. Walter Sobel was born in Chicago on July 25, His father was an owner in Newman & Sobel, a manufacturing business that made women s clothing in a factory at the corner of Van Buren and Franklin Streets in Chicago. The business went under during the Depression, around the same time that Walter Sobel graduated from high school. After studying engineering at Northwestern University on a scholarship, Sobel transferred to the Armour Institute (now the Illinois Institute of Technology) and graduated with a degree in architecture in Sobel began his architectural career working for Winnetka architect Ernst Benkert. Benkert, whose office was located on Elm Street in the Village s business center, was best-known for his design for the Sunset School in Winnetka. 6 In 1937, Sobel began work for architect John Van Bergen, who had worked with Frank Lloyd Wright before starting his own practice. Under Van Bergen, Sobel designed an addition to Walter Howard Sobel ( ) the Braeside Elementary School in Highland Park, which was originally designed by Van Bergen. Sobel also designed remodelings for the Ravinia and Lincoln Schools. 7 With no other work available from Van Bergen after the school commissions, Walter Sobel sought freelance work in Chicago. On a trip with an uncle to Miami in 1940, Sobel met the grandson of renowned industrial architect Albert Kahn. Sobel worked briefly for Kahn in 1940 and 1941 before joining the Navy in Walter Sobel was assigned to the USS New Mexico, a battleship that was first commissioned in 1918, and participated in shore bombardments in battles throughout the Pacific during World War II. In January of 1945, while bombarding the Philippine island of Luzon, the ship was attacked by a Japanese kamikaze plane, the first of several attacks that the ship would endure until the end of the war. The attack left 30 dead and 87 wounded among them Sobel, who sustained traumatic injuries including shrapnel wounds to his eyes. 9 Walter Sobel was discharged from the Navy in September 1945 and returned to Chicago, where he began an architectural partnership with J. Stewart Stein that continued until In 1957, Sobel and his family moved into the Frank J. Baker House, a Frank Lloyd Wright design in Wilmette; around the same time, he moved into a new office in the penthouse of Riverside Plaza in Chicago. 10 Sobel gave up the office in the early 2000s, but continued to work from his home office until his death in In addition to his design work, Walter Sobel was also very active within Chicago s architectural community. He taught continuing education courses for the AIA from 1946 to 1966, and architectural programming at

39 PAGE 15 IIT from 1984 to Sobel was active within the AIA; he became a fellow in 1967, and also served as the president of the Chicago chapter. 11 In addition to the Outstanding Merit Award for Planning and Design of a Junior Department Store from the National Association of Store Fixture Manufacturers and the Institute of Store Planners, which he was awarded in 1970 for the Fell complex, Sobel also won an Illumining Engineers Society Award in 1953 for the illumination installation in the Highland Park Fell Company Store. Sobel also received other recognition for his work, including an award for the B Nai Abraham Zion Temple in Oak Park by the Fine Hardwood Association in 1960; and the AIA New England 2002 Honor Award for Design for his consulting work on the US Post Office and Courthouse in Old San Juan. Walter Sobel s Work in the North Shore HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX Although a complete accounting of Walter Sobel s body of work has not yet been made, materials provided by Sobel s son Richard, including job lists, photographs, and a collection of index cards with job information, have allowed for a partial list of Sobel s commissions within the North Shore to be compiled for the purposes of this report. Based on this information, it appears that most of Walter Sobel s work within Winnetka and neighboring North Shore communities was largely limited to single-family residences, a small number of commercial buildings (including the subject property), and storefront and interior remodelings within existing commercial buildings. In Winnetka, five single-family homes are known to have been designed by Sobel (this number only includes new construction, 1248 Ash Street (1950) not remodelings of existing homes). Of theses, four have known addresses. These four homes were built between 1937 and 1950 and represent both Sobel s early career before World War II and the beginnings of his post-war partnership with J. Stewart Stein. Three of these homes the Joe Grais House at 1248 Ash Street, the Bunge House at 191 Scott Avenue, and the Hirsch House at 321 Sunset Rd are still standing. The fourth, at 922 Cherry Street, has been demolished and replaced with a Neo-Traditional design. All three houses are handsome, well-executed examples of the type of streamlined historic revival-style designs popular throughout the country in the years before and after World War II. The Hirsch House 191 Scott Avenue (1937) on Sunset Road is a particularly fine modernized Colonial Revival-style house. The symmetrical façade, multi-light double-hung windows, and oversized en-

40 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE Sunset Road (c. 1945) A substantial part of Walter Sobel s work in the North Shore consisted of space planning and interior designs for retail companies. Early in his architectural career, Sobel worked on single-store remodelings for a number of various commercial clients in and around Chicago, including Klein s Sporting Goods and Irving Brown s Dress Shop. Beginning in the mid-1940s, Sobel and his partner J. Stewart Stein also began to take try surround with broken pediment are all hallmarks of earlier 20th-century examples of the style, while the low pitch and close eaves on the hipped roof, the second-story bay windows, and the geometric recessed brickwork pattern flanking the entry are more modern touches. Among the most modern of Sobel s residential designs in the North Shore is the Wack-Prince House at 303 Richmond Road in Kenilworth. Built in 1950, the house features multiple levels and rooflines, as well as a variety of exterior materials, including skintled brick, wood siding, and vertical wood plank siding. Commercial Designs 303 Richmond Rd (1950) C. D. Peackock Store (unidentified location), 1963 [courtesy of Richard Sobel] commissions from larger retail operations with multiple locations. Among the first to commission the firm was the Fell Company. According to Sobel s job logs, the first commission he received from the company was for a new front for the existing store at 511 Central Avenue in Highland Park in Over approximately 50 years, Walter Sobel acted as architect for the Fell Company, first as part of Sobel & Stein, and later under his solo firm. Sobel also designed several residences for the Fell family, including a house for company founder Sam Fell and his wife Ida in Highland Park in After the establishment of his solo practice in 1960, Walter Sobel continued to cultivate

41 PAGE 17 Renderings for Benson-Rixon store in River Oaks Shopping Center [courtesy of Richard Sobel] HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX chain stores as clients. Clothing store Benson-Rixon first began work with Sobel in 1955, and used him to design stores in the Ford City Mall in Chicago and Old Orchard shopping center in the 1960s, as well as re-design floors of their flagship store on State Street. 13 C. D. Peacock, a Chicago-based jewelry retailer, hired Sobel to design stores in Oakbrook shopping center and Old Orchard, and to remodel their State Street store. Joseph Shoes also retained Sobel to design eight of its stores in and around Chicago in the mid-to-late 1960s, including locations in Oakbrook, Old Orchard, and River Oaks. 14 The renderings for the Benson-Rixon River Oaks store [left] exhibit some of the design elements that Sobel would later use in the Fell Company store at Lincoln Avenue in Winnetka, including the division of space into upper and lower mezzanines, the use of vertical wood slats above the storefronts, and heavy wood doors with vertical glazed panels. 15 While his storefront and interior designs were relatively numerous, there are far fewer purpose-built commercial properties on the North Shore that can be attributed to Walter Sobel. With the exception of the subject property, all of the Fell Company stores in Winnetka, from its first that opened in the 1920s to the Green Bay location, were existing buildings with commercial spaces that Sobel remodeled. The same is true of the Highland Park and Glencoe stores. In 1970, Sobel was commissioned to expand and extensively renovate an existing one-story commercial building at 3520 Lake Avenue in Wilmette for the Government Employees Insurance Company. He designed a steel frame structure that enclosed the existing building and added a second story; the frame, encased in concrete, is visible on the exterior, with brick and glazed panels in between the structural elements. The building is still standing, and retains its exterior integrity. 16 Another extant example of a freestanding building designed by Walter Sobel in the area is the Florasynth Laboratory building, erected in 1958 at 3720 Touhy Avenue in Skokie. Although constructed as a lab and manufacturing building and not a commercial space, the structure nonetheless shares a design sensibility with the subject property, including the use of brick and concrete, and the direct expression of the structural frame

42 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 18 Drawing of Remodeling of the Government Employees Insurance Co. The Bremen Bank & Trust took advantage of Sobel s phased design for their building in Tinley Park. The original building was completed in 1965 and included an expansion plan for a second floor that was based on projected rate of growth for the bank. However, the bank exceeded that projection, requiring Sobel to design a new second-story addition that was twice as large as his original plan. 18 The Government Employees Insurance Company today West Leyden High School, a massive $7 million complex featuring seven wings centered around a one-acre center courtyard, was not built as a phased project like the Bremen Bank. Instead, Sobel designed the classrooms with moveable interior walls of steel and baked enamel that could be repositioned to accommodate the changing needs of the school. 19 Walter Sobel s phased and flexible designs were in keeping with his expertise and emphasis on space planning in other areas like courthouse design. It also reflected his interest in futurism and in environmentally friendly design. Sobel wanted his buildings to serve the clients needs not just at the time they were on the exterior. 17 Flexible and Expandable Designs As with the Fell Company complex at Lincoln and Elm Streets, many of Walter Sobel s buildings were designed to accommodate for future expansions or changes in the uses of space, which allowed for the buildings to grow and evolve with the inhabitant. His design for the Government Employees Insurance Company in Wilmette was built to allow for the construction of a third story which, like the Fell complex s upper floors, was never built. Florasynth Lab Building (1968) in drawing from the Chicago Tribune (above) and today (below)

43 PAGE 19 built, but well into the future. HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX EVALUATION OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The Fell Company complex is architecturally significant in the Village of Winnetka as the finest post-world- War-II commercial design in the Village s commercial center. The complex is also the only commercial design within the Village by noted Chicago architect Walter Howard Sobel, who was best known for his extensive experience with and knowledge of courthouse design, but who also designed a significant number of commercial interiors for chain stores throughout Chicagoland. The complex exhibits excellent exterior integrity, with very few alterations. Typical of most commercial buildings, the interior of both the Lincoln Avenue and Elm Street structures have been updated and modernized over the years, with relatively few original features remaining. Walter Sobel s design for the complex is an excellent example of the small-scale execution of some of the most influential ideas of American architectural modernism in the mid-to-late 20th century. Although necessarily restrained by the scope of the project, as well as its location centered within a built-up commercial block within a small central business district, Sobel created two dynamic and elegant buildings that are both distinctive from and compatible with the surrounding early-20th-century commercial buildings. Sobel s design for the Lincoln Avenue building incorporates elements inspired by the International- Style modernism originated by Mies van der Rohe and widely disseminated throughout the United States in the post-world War II period, as well as American Brutalism, an architectural response to rigid formality of the International Style that emphasized monumentality and plasticity of form, along with the use of highly textural materials, most often concrete and brick. The building is oriented along the orthogonal grid, which places it at a slight angle to Lincoln Avenue and presents multiple views of the facades as one travels along the street. The initial impression of the building is one of an almost Classical order and clarity the building s structure is expressed on its exterior, with the concrete columns and beams creating a frame for the brick-clad panel along the front façade. The storefront level of the building, deeply recessed behind the front façade, is reminiscent of the pulling in of the first floor of many International-Style buildings to fully reveal the supporting columns. The use of applied exterior ornament, seen throughout Winnetka s 1920s Tudor-Revival-style commercial blocks, is eschewed instead, skillful manipulation of the exterior materials create visual interest, including the subtle skintled brickwork on the front panel above the storefront level, and the varying treatments of the concrete columns and beams. Especially notable are the square concrete columns at the front of the building, which were sand-blasted to reveal the aggregate pattern beneath this detail is very much in keeping with other Brutalist designs, which often featured either raw concrete or concrete with the aggregate exposed. The vertical wood slats used above the windows on the front and north facades add yet another textural element to the façade, and call to mind the vertical corrugated concrete of Paul Rudolph s Yale Art and Architecture Building. While Sobel s designs for the GEICO building and Florasynth Lab building are more straightforward designs featuring clearly articulated structural frames, the design for Lincoln Avenue shows the influence of Brutalist architecture in its manipulation of the exterior form. In addition to the recessed storefront level,

44 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 20 the front façade of the building is further broken up by openings placed between the front brick panel and the concrete corner columns and beams. This separation between the brick panel and concrete elements prevents the panel from overwhelming the façade. The concrete cantilevered sections on the north and south facades, as well as the secondary entry along the north façade, give further visual interest and break up the massing of the building. The Elm Street building, although not as varied in its exterior form as Lincoln, repeats many of its design elements, including the recessed storefront level, Yale Art and Architecture Building skintled brick panel above the storefronts along the north façade, and concrete beams and columns. Sobel s design for this multi-storefront building, which faces a historic block of 1920s Tudor-Revival buildings along the north side of Elm Street, references the traditional design of commercial blocks from the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a series of eight storefronts grouped in four mirror-image pairs. The storefront entries are recessed behind the display windows, a common configuration seen in many older commercial blocks. Sobel s departure from this traditional storefront form came at the building s garden level below, which featured openings to street level at regular intervals. The concrete walkways to the first-floor storefront entrances are essentially bridges over the garden level, which, although not very noticeable from street level, become apparent when viewed from the garden level. The south façade, facing the interior courtyard and garage, is more straightforward, with the recessed first-floor and garden-level storefronts pulled behind the façade to reveal regular square columns. Storefronts on the ground level of this façade are similar to what is on the north façade. Although clearly influenced by Brutalist architecture, Lincoln and Elm Street are relatively restrained compared to well-known examples of the style. The hallmark of Brutalist buildings is their monumentality. Built for Regenstein Library, University of Chicago large institutions or corporations, most of the best-known examples are single buildings that are massive in scale. Walter Netsch s design for the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago, as well as some of the high-rise buildings that were part of his overall design of the University of Illinois at Chicago s Circle Campus, give a good sense of the monumental nature of most Brutalist designs. Sobel s buildings for the Fell Company interpreted Brutalist tenets within a more modest framework, with great success. The Fell Company Store Complex and Post-War Retail The Fell Company Store complex is also significant as a thoughtfully-designed response to the problems facing many suburban and small-town commercial cores in the years following World War II. With the Fell family committed to remaining in downtown Winnetka, Sobel designed a complex that would provide a similar experience to that of the outlying shopping centers on a more modest scale. Central to this plan was off-street parking, which Sobel largely concealed from view within the center of the parcel, with access to the modest garage running along the south side of the Lincoln Avenue building. Easy access to both the Elm

45 PAGE 21 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX Street storefronts and the Fell Company Store building were provided from the garage. The main entrances to both stores invited pedestrian shoppers in with large, open display windows. The interior of the Lincoln Avenue building was spacious, modern, and efficient, and was very similar to many of Sobel s designs for other stores located in surrounding shopping centers, with the main floor, upper mezzanine, and lower mezzanines providing separate areas for different departments while retaining an open feel to the interior. Although many of the original decorative elements have been removed, the store s interior arrangement of space remains; the secondary staircase, as well as some original lighting fixtures in the mezzanine areas, also remain intact. The storefront building along Elm Street provided potential space for the Fell Company to expand if needed, and the design for the Lincoln Avenue building also allowed for future commercial expansion along the north façade in addition to the residential expansion 844 Spruce Street (upper left); 853 Spruce Street (upper center); 970 Green Bay Road (upper right); 736 Elm Street (lower left); 515 Lincoln Avenue (lower center); 560 Green Bay Road (lower right) above. Sobel s well-considered plan for the complex helped the Fell Company to remain in downtown Winnetka for decades after its construction. Other Post-War Buildings in Downtown Winnetka The Fell Company complex is one of a relatively small number of Post-World-War II commercial buildings located within Winnetka s commercial centers. A windshield survey of the central business district and the commercial corridor along Green Bay Road in Hubbard Woods to the north and Indian Hill to the south, found only a handful of buildings included in Winnetka s commercial areas: two free-standing commercial buildings from the 1970s at 844 and 853 Spruce Street a 1950s one-story commercial building at 970 Green Bay Road in Hubbard Woods the two-story Contextualist design at 515 Lincoln Avenue from the late 1970s Conney s Pharmacy, a 1950s storefront remodeling of an earlier One-Part Commercial Block at 736 Elm Street a four-story building originally built in 1928 with a 1970s remodeled front at 560 Green Bay Road Among these buildings, the Fell Company Store complex is unique in its overall quality of design.

46 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 22 OWNERSHIP HISTORY: THE FELL COMPANY The Fell Company (Samida Corporation) The sole owner of the Fell Company Store complex in Winnetka from the completion of the first building at Lincoln Avenue in 1968 until the sale of the property in 2007 was the Fell Company. This family business, begun by Samuel Fell in the early 20th century, owned and operated a small chain of men s clothing stores in several North Shore towns and became a well-known institution within these communities. The Fell Company was founded in 1913 by Samuel Fell. Fell was born on March 15, 1880 in Grobno, at the border between Russia and Poland. He immigrated to the United States in 1908 and settled in Chicago, where he opened a menswear business along Milwaukee Avenue. 20 In 1913, Fell moved to Highland Park and established the Fell Company store in a small storefront on St. Johns Avenue. Although business was slow at first, the proximity of Highland Park to Fort Sheridan proved to be an unexpected boon for the store. According to Abe s son Joe Fell, soldiers just discharged from service in World War I began coming to the store in droves because it was close to the Army base. 21 Abe Fell in front of his Chicago storefront [Winnetka Historical Society] W i n o g r a d, He had thought about going into banking, but he was just too much of a people person. One day he realized that halfway between Evanston and Highland Park was Winnetka. It just struck him as a great place to open a new Fell store. 22 With his father s blessing, Abe Fell opened the second Fell Company store at 786 Elm Street in Winnetka, at the corner of Green Bay Road, in The business gradually gained loyal customers in the Village, and in 1930 it moved to a storefront in a Tudor-Revivalstyle commercial block at 811 Elm Street. 23 Samuel Fell continued to manage the Highland Park location as the company expanded. With the Great Depression came financial difficulties. Samuel Fell was evicted from the store on St. Johns Avenue in Highland Park when he failed to make rent. Sam s younger brother Milton, who had opened a shoe store on Central Avenue in the early 1920s, allowed him to move his inventory into a corner of his store until things improved. In the late 1930s, a pair of stores on Central Avenue between 1st and 2nd Streets owned by Ernest With the Highland Park store prospering, the idea of opening a Fell Company store in Winnetka was brought forward by Abe Fell, Sam s oldest son. A recent graduate from Northwestern University with a degree in economics, Abe often took the train from Evanston to Highland Park. According to his daughter Bitsy Fell Abe Fell [Winnetka Historical Society]

47 PAGE 23 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX Schultz. According to Milton, Schultz agreed to modernize and rent it to us, so that Sam s clothing store and my shoe store would be under one roof with two separate businesses. 24 The brothers moved into the building in Samuel Fell was given a 99-year lease on the property and he rented the second storefront to Milton. Eventually, Sam Fell purchased the building, and it remained as the Fell Company s Highland Park location until it closed in The Fell Company weathered the depression, and continued to expand its operations further. The company opened a third location at 332 Park Avenue in Glencoe in In the early 1950s, the family purchased a two-story commercial block built in the 1910s at 520 Green Bay Road in Winnetka. Walter Sobel redesigned the larger commercial space to house the Village s main store; the store at 811 Elm Street was reorganized as a boy s clothing store. Around the same time, Sobel also modernized the Highland Park store. The New Fell Company Store in Winnetka In the early 1960s, the Fell Company purchased property on the block at the southeast corner of Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue with an eye for developing the parcel for a modern commercial space that would combine Winnetka s main store and boy s store under one roof. By this time, Samuel Fell had retired as president of the Fell Company, and Abe had succeeded him to the position. For the design of the new building, the family again turned to Walter Sobel, who had done at least some design work on all of the company s locations and was the considered the company architect by the family. Sobel put forward a plan for two buildings on the site the first, a building facing Lincoln Street for the company s main store, the second, a one-story building with multiple separate storefronts along Elm Street. Sobel s plan also included upper-level residential expansions of the two commercial buildings to be added in separate phases. Construction on the Lincoln Avenue building began in 1967 and was completed the following year. The Elm Street building was erect in Although Sobel continued to work on various iterations of the proposed residential phase of the development for years, the upper floors were never added to either building. Fell Company Store, Lincoln Avenue [courtesy of Richard Sobel] The Fell Company s decision to build a pair of modern retail buildings in the heart of Winnetka s downtown was unusual given the commercial land-

48 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 24 scape of the period. In the years following World War II, rapid suburban expansion and an ever-growing reliance on the automobile changed the shape of retail throughout the United States. Railroad suburbs and other small towns saw their commercial centers threatened by auto-oriented shopping centers sprouting up in undeveloped areas close to newly-opened interstates. In northern Cook and southern Lake counties, large shopping centers were built on farmland surrounding Edens Expressway, which opened in Among the earliest were Old Orchard and Edens Plaza, both of which opened in These new shopping centers offered a curated selection of stores set within modern and spacious surroundings, along with ample free parking. An article in the March 3, 1956 edition of the Chicago Tribune, detailing six new shopping centers to open in and around the city within the next year, stated that these developments would include parking spaces for over 20,000 cars. 25 Communities along the North Shore, like towns across the country, had already been grappling with the increasing problem that the automobile posed to their central business districts for decades. In Wilmette, one of the first auto-oriented shopping centers, called Spanish Court (now Plaza del Lago) opened along Sheridan Road to much fanfare. In the 1921 Plan of Winnetka Edward Bennett and the Winnetka Plan Commission recommended the widening of roads to relieve car traffic and taking up sections of existing blocks around Green Bay Road for parking. This included the proposed design of Block 24, on which the Fell Edens Expressway with Old Orchard Shopping Center in background Company building was later built. Bennett suggested that the Village utilize the center of this block for garages which will be reached from an alley or minor street running from Oak Street to Elm Street. It is important that some convenient area should be provided where garages can be built off of the principal business streets. With the frontage of the eastern half of the Prouty Block rearranged as indicated, and eventually covered by stores, the garages placed in the center of the block would be concealed from view and wholly unobjectionable. 26 Over forty years after the plan s publication, Bennett s idea for this interior parking garage would be brought to reality in the Fell Company complex. The general response in most communities was to update or modernize existing downtown commercial blocks and to add as much parking as possible within the existing commercial district to accommodate shoppers in cars. Nevertheless, these changes couldn t prevent existing chain stores from either relocating from suburban downtowns to the new peripheral shopping centers, or opening additional stores there. Walter Sobel s own list of commissions for new commercial spaces in Old Orchard, Oakbrook, and other shopping centers from Chicago-based chain stores like Benson-Rixon, C. D. Peacock, and Joseph Shoes illustrates the allure of these developments in the post-war period. Unlike many of these chain stores, the Fell Company had built its business exclusively within the North Shore, and the family s deep ties to the area led them to resist relocating. In Winnetka, Abe Fell was a fixture of the community, serving as a Village trustee, Rotary Club president, and as a board member of the Winnetka Human Relations Commission. A fan of high school sports, Abe Fell was also a fixture at New Trier sporting events, keeping a folding chair in the back of his car in case he came upon a game and wanted

49 PAGE 25 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX to stop and watch. The Fell company often hired teachers from the high school for jobs during the summer, as well as students, many of whom developed a life-long attachment to Abe Fell and the store. 27 The Fell Company also had experience in building up and retaining business in the face of fierce outside competition. In an article on the company published in the September 20, 1966 edition of the Winnetka Talk, the family described how they had been able to build a successful business while competing with stores in Chicago:...they do admit it was difficult to draw trade away from the Chicago stores, for businessmen liked to buy where they worked. But by keeping up with the latest fashions and offering good service and fair prices, Sam Fell began to build one of the few successful men s stores which have no Chicago location. They have been offered both Chicago and shopping center locations, but the Fells have chosen to stay where they are. 28 Recent History of the Fell Company The Fell Company retained its presence in the North Shore in its Highland Park and Winnetka locations through the turn of the 21st century. However, big-box retailers and online sales led to a slow decline. In 2001, the Fell Company closed its Highland Park location and rented out the space to Borders Books and Music. After the bookstore closed, the family sold the property. The Lincoln Avenue store remained open until 2007, when the family sold the property to New Trier Partners. 29 EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE The Fell Company Store Complex was evaluated for its historical significance as associated with important persons, organizations, or events. In order to evaluate the historical significance of the property, one needs to look at each owner through time and evaluate his or her individual contributions and significance. For a property to be considered historically significant, it must be associated with a person or organization considered historically significant nationally, within the State of Illinois, or within the context of the Village of Winnetka. The building must also be closely associated with the person or organization and correspond with the period of the person or organization s significance. Furthermore, a building could be historically significant as the location of an event of particular significance. According to the Winnetka Historical Society and the results of our research, no known historic events had taken place at the Fell Company Store Complex. The Fell Company Store complex is historically significant for its associations with the Fell Company, a family-run clothing chain with a longstanding presence in several North Shore communities, including Winnetka. Founded in Highland Park in 1913, the Fell Company expanded into Winnetka in the late 1920s, and became a fixture of the business district. Managed by Abe Fell, oldest son of founder Samuel Fell, the Fell Company stores in Winnetka were able to thrive, despite competition from Chicago retailers. Abe Fell was an active and dedicated member of the Village, serving as Village trustee, Rotary Club president, and as a board member of the Winnetka Human Relations Commission. The company s commitment to the community was evident in the family s decision to build a new store in Winnetka s downtown, even as other chain stores along the North Shore fled to newly-constructed shopping centers in undeveloped areas close to the Edens Expressway. Although the company changed locations several times in its 80 years in Winnetka, the complex at

50 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 26 Lincoln Avenue and Elm Street contained the only purpose-built stores that were ever constructed for the Fell Company. In Winnetka, the company had previously occupied commercial spaces within existing buildings at 786 and 811 Elm Street in the 1920s and the 1930s-40s, and at 520 Green Bay Road in the 1950s. The same was true of their other stores in Highland Park and Glencoe. The Lincoln/Elm complex was also the last of the Fell Company stores to remain open, and was the company s only store from 2001 to EVALUATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT The 23 buildings on the north and south sides of Elm Street (700 block) and the east and west sides of Lincoln Avenue (500 block), including the subject complex at Lincoln Avenue and Elm Street comprise the bulk of the central business district east of the railroad. With the exception of Lincoln Avenue Street, the freestanding office building at 575 Lincoln Avenue, the Hadley Institute for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and the Winnetka Galleria on the west side of Lincoln Avenue, all of the commercial buildings within the area share a similar relationship to the street, with front facades built up to the lot line. All buildings within this area have been constructed at a similar scale, ranging from one to three stories. Within this area, the north side of Elm Street and the east side of Lincoln Avenue north of Elm Street make up an architecturally cohesive collection of one-, two-, and three-story commercial blocks. Although the west side of Lincoln Avenue also contains a number of historic revival-style buildings, the presence of the Winnetka Galleria and other non-historic buildings precludes it from being included in this architectural group. The residential section of the neighborhood area, the four houses on the west side of Maple Street The northwest end of Block 24, which includes the Fell Company complex and the four other commercial buildings that are on the parcel of the proposed One Winnetka development, consists of a mixture of commercial buildings dating from the 1920s to the 1970s. East of the parcel is the Hadley Institute for the Blind and Visually Impaired, a two-story institutional building from 1958; south of the parcel is a four-story apartment building erected in Because the six buildings within the parcel are not linked stylistically or by a period of construction, they cannot be viewed as part of a cohesive grouping based on those criteria. However, all of the buildings within the One Winnetka Development parcel are visually compatible with the rest of the commercial area to the north along Elm and Lincoln Avenues, exhibiting similar massing, scale and materials. It is the consultant s opinion that the replacement of the Fell Company Complex and the four surrounding commercial buildings with the One Winnetka development as proposed would have a negative impact on the overall character of the commercial area east of the railroad. The center town-homes section of the One -Winnetka development facing Elm Street does take into consideration the scale, architectural style, and relation to the street of the buildings to the north the fourth floor is set back from the street wall, and the treatment of the north façade mimics the multiple, smaller commercial blocks found elsewhere in the commercial district. However, the height of the west building facing Lincoln Avenue, and the east building on Elm Street are not compatible with the scale of the existing commercial district.

51 PAGE 27 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX CONCLUSION It is the consultant s opinion that the Fell Company complex is architecturally significant in the Village of Winnetka as the finest post-world-war-ii commercial design in the Village s commercial center. The complex is also the only commercial design within the Village by noted Chicago architect Walter Howard Sobel, who designed a significant number of commercial interiors for chain stores throughout Chicagoland. The complex exhibits excellent exterior integrity, with very few alterations. The building is also historically significant for its associations with the Fell Company, a family-run clothing chain with a longstanding presence in several North Shore communities, including Winnetka. The complex contained the only purpose-built stores that were ever constructed for the Fell Company, and was also the last of the company s stores to remain open. In evaluating overall neighborhood impact of the demolition of the Fell Company complex, it is the consultant s opinion that the replacement of the Fell Company Complex and the four surrounding commercial buildings with the One Winnetka development as proposed would have a negative impact on the overall character of the commercial area east of the railroad, primarily due to the height and overall scale of the east and west buildings within the proposed development.

52 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 28 Endnotes: 1 Theresa Hera, Conney s Pharmacy: A Winnetka Prescription for Over 70 Years. Printed in Winnetka Historical Society Gazette Fall (accessed January 12, 2017) 2 A 1930 Little Red Schoolhouse, Chicago Daily Tribune, August 31, 1930, part 2, p Monroe B. Bowman, Interview with Betty J. Blum, Winnetka, Illinois, July 28, Interview compiled under the auspices of the Chicago Architects Oral History Project, the Ernest R. Graham Study Center for Architectural Drawings, Department of Architecture, the Art Institute of Chicago. 4. Ibid. 5. Walter Sobel Oral History Interview, March 27, Interview by Aaron Pylinki, p Chicago Daily Tribune, August 31, 1930, part 2, p Walter Sobel Oral History Interview, p Ibid, p Marc Simmons, Trail Dust: USS New Mexico Saw Lots of Action in World War II, Santa Fe New Mexican, August 22, Posted on (accessed April 2, 2017) 10 Walter Sobel Oral History Interview, p Kathy Rootliffe, Walter Sobel, Architect and Futurist, Dies at 100, Wilmette Life, June 26, 2014, p Job Cards and Job Lists compiled by Walter H. Sobel, In collection of Richard Sobel. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Insurance Firm Begins Remodeling of Offices, Chicago Tribune, May 28, 1970 p. N Lab Building Going Up, Chicago Tribune, November 24, 1968, p. D3. 18 Tinley Pk. Bank to Double Space, Chicago Tribune, October 16, 1977, p. B Recall Little Red Schoolhouse? Here s Modern Version. Chicago Daily Tribune, may 8, 1960, p. NW1. 20 The Lakeside Annual Directory of the City of Chicago, 1913 (Chicago: The Chicago Directory Company, 1913), p Interview with Joseph Fell, August 25, 1999, Jane Lord Interviewer, Winnetka Park District conference room, p Edie Kasten, Fell Co. Clothing Store Well-Suited to Winnetka; 4 Mr. Fells follow in original s footsteps, Chicago Tribune, Febuary 4, R. L. Polk & Company s North Shore Directory, 1929 (Chicago: R. L..Polk & Co., 1929), p. 919; R. L. Polk & Company s North Shore Directory, 1931 (Chicago: R. L. Polk & Co., 1931), p. 24 Milton Fell, My Business Venture in Highland Park, unpublished manuscript in collection of Winnetka Historical Society, p Ernest Fuller, Six Shopping Centers Will Opened by 1957, Chicago Tribune, March 3, 1956, p. B5. 26 Plan of Winnetka (Winnetka, IL: The Winnetka Plan Commission and the Winnetka Village Council), 1921, p Edie Kasten, Fell Co. Clothing Store Well-Suited to Winnetka; 4 Mr. Fells Follow in Original s Footsteps. Chicago Tribune, February 4, 2004.

53 PAGE 29 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX 28 Margaret Herguth, Treating People Nice: One Key to Fell Success, Winnetka Talk, September 15, 1966, p The Fell Company Closes, Winnetka Talk, December 27, 2007, p. 5. Sources: 8 Chicagoans are Honored by Architects. Chicago Tribune, June 6, 1967, p. E8. A 1930 Little Red Schoolhouse. Chicago Daily Tribune, August 31, 1930, part 2, p. 10. Bowman, Monroe B. Interview with Betty J. Blum, Winnetka, Illinois, July 28, Interview compiled under the auspices of the Chicago Architects Oral History Project, the Ernest R. Graham Study Center for Architectural Drawings, Department of Architecture, the Art Institute of Chicago. Building Permit Records. Village of Winnetka, IL, Department of Community Development. Clothing Chain will Open 6th Unit Thursday. Chicago Daily Tribune, September 23, 1954, p. W4. Drug Company to Build New $300,000 Unit. Chicago Daily Tribune, December 27, 1957, p. B4. Fell, Joseph. Interview with Joseph Fell. Interview by Jane Lord, August 25, In collection of Winnetka Historical Society. Fell, Milton. My Business Venture in Highland Park, unpublished manuscript in collection of Winnetka Historical Society. Fell Co. Announces Plans: Shopping, Apartment Complex to Rise Here. Winnetka Talk, June 30, 1966, p. 1. The Fell Company Closes. Winnetka Talk, December 27, 2007, p. 5. Fuller, Ernest. Six Shopping Centers Will Opened by 1957, Chicago Tribune, March 3, 1956, p. B5. Fuller, Jack. Architects Seek to Bring Courtrooms Up to Date. Chicago Tribune, October 20, 1974, p. 46. Hardwood Design Entries Displayed. Chicago Daily Tribune, March 27, 1960, p. WE. Henry, Alan P. Veteran Architect Continues to Build. Wilmette Beacon, may 8, 2013, p. 16. Hera, Theresa. Conney s Pharmacy: A Winnetka Prescription for Over 70 Years. Printed in Winnetka Historical Society Gazette, Fall conneys-pharmacy/ (accessed January 12, 2017). Herguth, Margaret. Treating People Nice: One Key to Fell Success. Winnetka Talk, September 15, 1966,

54 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 30 p. 20. Insurance Firm Begins Remodeling of Offices. Chicago Tribune, May 28, 1970 p. N11. Jacobs, Jodie. Fell s: 80 Years Old and Still Offering Values. Chicago Tribune, August 29, 1993, p. L_B1. Job Cards and Job Lists compiled by Walter H. Sobel, Private collection of Richard Sobel. Kasten, Edie. Fell Co. Clothing Store Well-Suited to Winnetka; 4 Mr. Fells Follow in Original s Foot steps. Chicago Tribune, February 4, Lab Building Going Up. Chicago Tribune, November 24, 1968, p. D3. The Lakeside Annual Directory of the City of Chicago, Chicago: The Chicago Directory Company, Loring, Kathryn. Suburban Charm-City Convenience. Chicago Daily Tribune, June 8, 1958, p. C46. Megan, Graydon. Architect Focused on Future of Profession. Chicago Tribune, June 15, 2014, p. 29. Million Dollar Complex Planned for Winnetka. Chicago Tribune, July 14, 1966, p. E2. Myers, Mary. Winnetka Mall Makes Mixed Appeal. Winnetka Talk, August 19, 1971, p Obituary. Abe Fell. Chicago Tribune, April 14, O Donnell, Maureen. Prolific Architect; Survived WWII Kamikaze Attack. Chicago Sun-Times, June 19, 2014, p. 45. Peacock Jewelry Salon to Stress French Period. Chicago Tribune, June 9, 1968, p. E1. Phase Two of Shopping Area Begun. Chicago Tribune, July 6, 1969, p. D3. Plan of Winnetka. Winnetka, IL: The Winnetka Plan Commission and the Winnetka Village Council, R. L. Polk & Company s North Shore Directory, Chicago: R. L..Polk & Co., R. L. Polk & Company s North Shore Directory, Chicago: R. L. Polk & Co., Recall Little Red Schoolhouse? Here s Modern Version. Chicago Daily Tribune, may 8, 1960, p. NW1. Rodtliffe, Kathy. Walter Sobel, Architect and Futurist, Dies at 100,. Wilmette Life, June 26, 2014, p. 15. Samida Co. New Store Complex, Phase III. Job # Blueprints prepared by Walter H. Sobel, February 19, Private collection of Richard Sobel.

55 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 31 Samida Co. Various drawings, Job # 66-25, 68-25, and Drawings prepared by Walter H. Sobel, July 27 August 5, Private collection of Richard Sobel. Schroedter, Andrew. Family Clothing Store Ends Long Run; Loyal Customers of Fell Company Lament the Closing of Store That Outfitted Generations of Boys and Men on th enorth Shore. Chicago Tribune, October 9, 2007, p. SC. Simmons, Marc. Trail Dust: USS New Mexico Saw Lots of Action in World War II, Santa Fe New Mexican, August 22, Posted on (accessed April 2, 2017). Temple to Rest on Dust of Old. Chicago Daily Tribune, January 13, 1963, p. N_A5. Tinley Pk. Bank to Double Space. Chicago Tribune, October 16, 1977, p. B11. Sobel, Walter. Walter Sobel Oral History Interview. Interview by Aaron Pylinki. March 27, In collection of Pritzker Military Museum. Veteran Has Always Made the Grade. Cambridge Chronical, November 9, 2006 [no page number, in collection of Richard Sobel]. Wiffen, Marcus and Frederick Koeper. American Architecture Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, Wilmette Building to Expand. Chicago Tribune, June 28, 1970, p. E3. Work to Begin on Beth Emet Synagogue Hall. Chicago Tribune, May 30, 1963, p. N4. Work to Start on Synagog in Skokie Dec. 22. Chicago Daily Tribune, December 12, 1957, p. N8.

56 PAGE 32 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX LARA RAMSEY, RAMSEY HISTORIC CONSULTANTS LARA RAMSEY, president of Ramsey Historic Consultants, Inc. (RHC), has extensive experience working with municipalities and individual property owners in Illinois on a wide variety of historic preservation planning projects. Before forming RHC with her sister and partner Emily Ramsey in August of 2014, Ms. Ramsey served as Survey Coordinator for Granacki Historic Consultants for 10 years. Ms. Ramsey has prepared numerous historic resource surveys, National Register nominations for individual properties and historic districts, HABS documentation, and local landmark designation reports. She also has extensive experience assisting homeowners in procuring historic preservation tax incentives for rehabilitation, and in analyzing historic structures as part of demolition permit review for several local municipalities, including Winnetka. Ms. Ramsey holds a BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an MS in Historic Preservation from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. She meets the Secretary of the Interior s professional qualification standards in the field of architectural history as outlined in the Federal Register.

57 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 33 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER INVENTORY ADDRESS STYLE DATE ARCHITECT LINCOLN AVENUE (Excluding Buildings in One Winnetka Parcel) Lincoln Avenue/ Elm Street Two-Part Commercial Block Tudor Revival Lincoln Ave. Two-Part Commercial Block Tudor Revival 1913/1937 Chatten & Hammond c Lincoln Ave. One-Part Commercial Block 1925 Doerr, William P. Tudor Revival 575 Lincoln Ave. Freestanding Commercial 1946 Wetzel, H. E. & Assoc. Colonial Revival 586 Lincoln Ave. Colonial Revival 1921 Bowen, Howard Lincoln Ave. One-Part Commercial Block Neo-Classical 1923 Huzagh, Ralph 574 Lincoln Ave. Two-Part Commercial Block c Colonial Revival/French Eclectic Lincoln Ave. Neo-Traditional (Classical) Lincoln Ave. Two-Part Commercial Block c Tudor Revival Lincoln Ave. Neo-Traditional (French Eclectic) c. 1920/ remodeled Lincoln Avenue Two-Part Commercial Block c Neo-Tudor 711 Oak Street (NE corner of Lincoln) Apartment Building 1984 ELM STREET (Excluding Buildings in One Winnetka Parcel) Elm Street Two-Part Commercial Block 1929 Edward N. Clark Tudor Revival 727 Elm Street One-Part Commercial Block Tudor Revival 1935 Suter, W. Lindsey Elm Street Two-Part Commercial Block 1922 Alstrom Tudor Revival 739 Elm Street * Tudor Revival (Bank) 1922 Shopbell, Clifford 700 Elm Street Institutional Modern 1958 Stanton & Rockwell * Local Landmark

58 HAIS, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX PAGE 34 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER INVENTORY ADDRESS STYLE DATE ARCHITECT MAPLE AVENUE 500 Maple Ave.* Georgian Revival Maple Ave. Colonial Revival/Craftsman c Maple Ave. New Traditional Colonial Revival 1989 Schnur, James 528 Maple Ave. Colonial Revival c * Local Landmark

59 PAGE 1 Elm Street North Side Elm Street Elm Street North Side 727 Elm Street Elm Street North Side Elm Street Elm Street North Side 739 Elm Street

60 HAIS REPORT, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PHOTOS PAGE 2 Elm Street North Side/Lincoln East Side Elm Street/ Lincoln Avenue Elm Street South Side 700 Elm Street Elm Street South Side/Lincoln Avenue East Side 740 Elm Street Elm Street South Side 736 Elm Street

61 PAGE 3 Elm Street South Side Elm Street Lincoln Avenue East Side 515 Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue East Side Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue East Side Lincoln Avenue

62 HAIS REPORT, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PHOTOS PAGE 4 Lincoln Avenue East Side 575 Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue West Side 586 Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue West Side Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue West Side 574 Lincoln Avenue

63 PAGE 5 Lincoln Avenue West Side Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue West Side Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue West Side Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue West Side 540 Lincoln Avenue

64 HAIS REPORT, FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PHOTOS PAGE 6 Oak Street (intersection at Lincoln Avenue) 811 Oak Street Maple Street West Side 500 Maple Street Maple Street West Side 508 Maple Street Maple Street West Side 520 Maple Street

65 PAGE 7 Maple Street West Side 528 Maple Street

66 RESEARCH FOR VILLAGE OF WINNETKA MAY 10, 2017 COMPILED BY LARA RAMSEY, RAMSEY HISTORIC CONSULTANTS FELL COMPANY STORE COMPLEX Letters of Support for Preservation of the Fell Company Complex

67 November 19, 2015 To the Chair, Design Review Board, Village of Winnetka Re: "An Opportunity for Revitalizing Winnetka and the Iconic Fell Store," Dear DRB Chair and Members: The Village of Winnetka has a wonderful opportunity to develop the Fell site by adaptively reusing the distinctive current Fell building and adding new construction to the mix. These will enhance the experience of visiting downtown Winnetka. The Fell building, which won an international design award, is already designed to receive two additional floors of residential space atop the existing building, and it also presently has an underground parking area. The new development proposal requires the costly demolition and removal of an award winning building, so that another building can be built in its place--to accomplish very similar purposes--why? Adaptively redeveloping the Fell Building would: --retain and iconic, award winning building, planned for additional floors --Not require a zoning variances as the alternative proposed buildings are 4 stores or less --incorporate existing drawings and specification for the residential units that can be easily updated. --not require demolishing the Fell building, including the lower levels, a very expensive undertaking --not require excavating for the new building, avoiding significant environmental and neighborhood disruptions --not requires rebuilding the first floor retail space, providing significant cost saving and permitting use sooner There are also significant economic and tax benefits to explore for developing on historic income-producing properties. Landmarks Illinois, the American Institute of Architects (Chicago) and Docomomo preservationist all endorse the importance of adaptively reusing and preserving the iconic Fell Building. In short, adaptively reusing the Fell Building can produce significant architectural and development benefits with cost- and environmental-savings for the developer and community. --This can be an architecturally and financially successful, "cost-effective" solution for the project and the community, within existing zoning and height limits Wouldn't this be better for the Village and citizens of Winnetka, all thing considered?. We hope community members will communicate to the Zoning Board (onewinnetka@winnetka.org) before or at its November 16 meeting the importance of enhancing the Fell store as part of the development process. Please find attached a schematic of how the current Fell Buildings (on both Lincoln and Elm) can be adaptively reused and remain within the zoning code height restrictions We ask the Board to encourage the developers to consider the adaptive reuse of the current buildings for retaining the village character and remaining within the zoning ordinances. Peter Milbratz Richard Sobel Fell s Future

68

69

70

71

72 April 11, 2011 Mr. Joe Adams, Chair Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Winnetka Village Hall Re: New Trier Development, The Fell Co. Site Dear Mr. Adams, We would like to make a few comments to supplement my letter to the ZBA on January 10, 2011, which we ask to be included in the formal record. Our architectural practice has consistently stressed planning for near, mid and long term. The Fell Company Buildings were all planned to add 2 stories, office and apartments. One alternative of all apartments, with the light weight construction now available, would make 3 stories feasible today. Parking is already provided as originally required. We also recommended to the Village that additional parking could be located on west side or Lincoln by reducing the right of way to that on Lincoln north of Elm Street. We also suggested that with cooperation of the then Chicago Northwestern Railroad, now Metra, a multi level parking structure could be developed to also provide commuter parking and additional revenue for the Village. The New Trier Partners submittal is back to 2 levels of parking, though it previously considered 1 level. However, below grade parking is far more costly then on grade and the parking provided (104 for spaces for 31 units) is in excess (3 1/3 spaces per unit) to the Village requirements. We respectfully ask the ZBA and NTP to consider alternatives. When I learned that the Fell Family had sold the property to New Trier, I contacted New Trier partners and had a very cordial conversation with him, but he since left the firm. We also had a very cordial meeting with the members of the architecture firm. As we have explained to the Village Councils and New Trier Partners, we want to assists. We believe there are as yet unrealized benefits of using the existing 1 story and basement designed to add 3 stories has been ignored. It would save million of dollars and would have been approved 2 years ago, with condo prices more nearly in line with today s market. We note that the firm currently leasing the property has called it the Ironic Fell Building, and identified alternative uses. Previously, it was the headquarters for the winning Dold for Congress campaign. We encourage the Board, Council and developers to consider the continuing value of these types of adaptive reuse. We also request that the Board correct the minutes of the January 10, 2011 meeting to note that we requested a complete Preservation Review. We request again that the ZBA and Village Manager prepare a written statement about the procedures to be followed in this review. This

73 needs to discuss the issue that no building or demolition permits can be issued until the Preservation Review is completed and full funding for the entire construction is demonstrated and guaranteed. Thank you for your consideration. We hope our points can be considered and addressed by the Board and Council. We continue to be ready to assist in the development for the betterment of the Village of Winnetka. Sincerely, Walter H. Sobel, FAIA and Assoc. Distinguished Research Professor College of Architecture Illinois Institute of Technology Walter H. Sobel, FAIA

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF DEMOLITION APPLICATION PRELIMINARY REVIEW TO: FROM: Landmark Preservation Commission Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant DATE: May 26, 2017 REFERENCE: 1416 Edgewood Ln. Case No An application for demolition was received April 27, 2017 for the removal of the single-family residence at 1416 Edgewood Ln. The residence was built in The owners at that time were Lundquist & Nelson. B. J. Burns is the architect of record. The structure is not a national, state, or local designated landmark. Research by the Winnetka Historical Society does not show that the home has historic architectural significance or evidence of significant ownership. In accordance with Section of the Village Code, the Commission is required to determine whether the building and/or property is of sufficient historic or architectural merit to warrant conducting an HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. Upon completing the preliminary historic and architectural review, the LPC shall enter preliminary findings on the issue of whether the demolition permit application affects a building or property that has sufficient architectural or historic merit to warrant conducting a full HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. In making its determination, the LPC shall consider the following: 1. The preliminary property history study (information on the original building, date of construction, name of property, architect and owner, current photographs of the property, list of work on the property for which the Village has issued a permit); 2. Comments of the Winnetka Historical Society; 3. Any other information, comment or evidence received by the LPC at the preliminary review meeting. If the LPC finds that the HAIS is warranted, it shall so notify the Director of Community Development and shall order the applicant to conduct such study. If the LPC finds that an HAIS is not warranted, it shall notify the Director of Community Development that it finds no historic or architectural grounds for delaying the demolition. The preliminary determination of the LPC shall be supported by findings of fact based on the record. The findings of fact shall include statements as to whether or not the building or property has architectural merit, historical significance, both, or neither. The LPC shall require an HAIS for any demolition permit application that meets any of the following LPC Agenda Packet p. 1

85 criteria: 1. The property or structures have been designated a landmark pursuant to Chapter of the Village Code; 2. The property or structures have been included in the most recent Illinois Historic Structure Survey conducted under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Conservation; 3. The property or structures have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Illinois Register of Historic places; and 4. The property or structures have sufficient architectural or historical merit to warrant a full HAIS prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The Director of Community Development may delay the issuance of a demolition permit for up to 60 days if one or more building or demolition permits for primary structures have been approved for properties, for which work is continuing, on either side of the right-of-way block face and/or alley along which the property is located, or if the Director determines that a delay is necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts in the neighborhood Currently, there are no building or demolition permits for new primary structures on the block. The Director has determined that a delay is not necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts within the neighborhood. 2 LPC Agenda Packet p. 2

86 Date: April 27, 2017 Village of Winnetka DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M To: From: Winnetka Historical Society Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant The Landmark Preservation Commission will consider a request to demolish the primary structure located at 1416 Edgewood Ln. on June 5, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Please return any available information regarding the architectural or historical significance of this structure to my attention on or before May 25. If you have any questions please send to aklaassen@winnetka.org or call me at Preliminary Property History Study/Village Hall Records: Building Permits Issued: Date Type Owner Architect Build a 2-story frame and brick Lundquist & Nelson B. J. Burns veneer residence Build a 1-story frame garage. Carl Victor Hanson, Sr. N/A Other Pertinent Village Documentation/Information: Winnetka Historical Society Response: Research by the Winnetka Historical Society doesn t show that the home has historic architectural significance or evidence of significant ownership. By: T. Beecham Date: LPC Agenda Packet p. 3

87 LPC Agenda Packet p. 4

88 LPC Agenda Packet p. 5

89 LPC Agenda Packet p. 6

90 LPC Agenda Packet p. 7

91 LPC Agenda Packet p. 8

92 LPC Agenda Packet p. 9

93 LPC Agenda Packet p. 10

94 LPC Agenda Packet p. 11

95 Edgewood Ln. LPC Agenda Packet p. 12

96 LPC Agenda Packet p. 13

97 LPC Agenda Packet p. 14

98 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF DEMOLITION APPLICATION PRELIMINARY REVIEW TO: FROM: Landmark Preservation Commission Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant DATE: May 30, 2017 REFERENCE: 1031 Cherry St. Case No An application for demolition was received May 3, 2017 for the removal of the single-family residence and detached garage at 1031 Cherry St. The residence was built in The owner at the time of construction was Joseph D. Ballard. Herman H. Lackner is the architect of record. The structure is not a national, state, or local designated landmark. Research by the Winnetka Historical Society does not show that the home has historic architectural significance or evidence of significant ownership. In accordance with Section of the Village Code, the Commission is required to determine whether the building and/or property is of sufficient historic or architectural merit to warrant conducting an HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. Upon completing the preliminary historic and architectural review, the LPC shall enter preliminary findings on the issue of whether the demolition permit application affects a building or property that has sufficient architectural or historic merit to warrant conducting a full HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. In making its determination, the LPC shall consider the following: 1. The preliminary property history study (information on the original building, date of construction, name of property, architect and owner, current photographs of the property, list of work on the property for which the Village has issued a permit); 2. Comments of the Winnetka Historical Society; 3. Any other information, comment or evidence received by the LPC at the preliminary review meeting. If the LPC finds that the HAIS is warranted, it shall so notify the Director of Community Development and shall order the applicant to conduct such study. If the LPC finds that an HAIS is not warranted, it shall notify the Director of Community Development that it finds no historic or architectural grounds for delaying the demolition. The preliminary determination of the LPC shall be supported by findings of fact based on the record. The findings of fact shall include statements as to whether or not the building or property has architectural merit, historical significance, both, or neither. LPC Agenda Packet p. 1

99 The LPC shall require an HAIS for any demolition permit application that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The property or structures have been designated a landmark pursuant to Chapter of the Village Code; 2. The property or structures have been included in the most recent Illinois Historic Structure Survey conducted under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Conservation; 3. The property or structures have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Illinois Register of Historic places; and 4. The property or structures have sufficient architectural or historical merit to warrant a full HAIS prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The Director of Community Development may delay the issuance of a demolition permit for up to 60 days if one or more building or demolition permits for primary structures have been approved for properties, for which work is continuing, on either side of the right-of-way block face and/or alley along which the property is located, or if the Director determines that a delay is necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts in the neighborhood Currently, there are no building or demolition permits for new primary structures on the block. The Director has determined that a delay is not necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts within the neighborhood. 2 LPC Agenda Packet p. 2

100 Date: May 5, 2017 Village of Winnetka DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M To: From: Winnetka Historical Society Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant The Landmark Preservation Commission will consider a request to demolish the primary structure located at 1031 Cherry St. on June 5, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Please return any available information regarding the architectural or historical significance of this structure to my attention on or before May 25. If you have any questions please send to aklaassen@winnetka.org or call me at Preliminary Property History Study/Village Hall Records: Building Permits Issued: Date Type Owner Architect Build a 2-story frame residence. Joseph D. Ballard Herman H. Lackner Build a 1-story two car garage. Joseph D. Ballard Owner Alter single family residence. Mrs. Joseph D. Ballard Owner Build detached garage. Mr. Mayes E. Kitzmiller N/A Other Pertinent Village Documentation/Information: Winnetka Historical Society Response: Research by the Winnetka Historical Society doesn t show that the home has historic architectural significance or evidence of significant ownership. By: T. Beecham Date: LPC Agenda Packet p. 3

101 LPC Agenda Packet p. 4

102 LPC Agenda Packet p. 5

103 LPC Agenda Packet p. 6

104 LPC Agenda Packet p. 7

105 LPC Agenda Packet p. 8

106 LPC Agenda Packet p. 9

107 LPC Agenda Packet p. 10

108 LPC Agenda Packet p. 11

109 LPC Agenda Packet p. 12

110 LPC Agenda Packet p. 13

111 LPC Agenda Packet p. 14

112 LPC Agenda Packet p. 15

113 LPC Agenda Packet p. 16

114 LPC Agenda Packet p. 17

115 LPC Agenda Packet p. 18

116 LPC Agenda Packet p. 19

117 LPC Agenda Packet p. 20

118 Cherry St. LPC Agenda Packet p. 21

119 LPC Agenda Packet p. 22

120 LPC Agenda Packet p. 23

121 LPC Agenda Packet p. 24

122 LPC Agenda Packet p. 25

123 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF DEMOLITION APPLICATION PRELIMINARY REVIEW TO: FROM: Landmark Preservation Commission Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant DATE: May 30, 2017 REFERENCE: 966 Pine Tree Ln. Case No An application for demolition was received May 4, 2017 for the removal of the single-family residence at 966 Pine Tree Ln. The residence was built in The owner at the time of construction was Irvin A. Blietz. Donald F. Gibbs is the architect of record. The structure is not a national, state, or local designated landmark. Research by the Winnetka Historical Society does not show that the home has historic architectural significance or evidence of significant ownership. In accordance with Section of the Village Code, the Commission is required to determine whether the building and/or property is of sufficient historic or architectural merit to warrant conducting an HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. Upon completing the preliminary historic and architectural review, the LPC shall enter preliminary findings on the issue of whether the demolition permit application affects a building or property that has sufficient architectural or historic merit to warrant conducting a full HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. In making its determination, the LPC shall consider the following: 1. The preliminary property history study (information on the original building, date of construction, name of property, architect and owner, current photographs of the property, list of work on the property for which the Village has issued a permit); 2. Comments of the Winnetka Historical Society; 3. Any other information, comment or evidence received by the LPC at the preliminary review meeting. If the LPC finds that the HAIS is warranted, it shall so notify the Director of Community Development and shall order the applicant to conduct such study. If the LPC finds that an HAIS is not warranted, it shall notify the Director of Community Development that it finds no historic or architectural grounds for delaying the demolition. The preliminary determination of the LPC shall be supported by findings of fact based on the record. The findings of fact shall include statements as to whether or not the building or property has architectural merit, historical significance, both, or neither. The LPC shall require an HAIS for any demolition permit application that meets any of the following LPC Agenda Packet p. 1

124 criteria: 1. The property or structures have been designated a landmark pursuant to Chapter of the Village Code; 2. The property or structures have been included in the most recent Illinois Historic Structure Survey conducted under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Conservation; 3. The property or structures have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Illinois Register of Historic places; and 4. The property or structures have sufficient architectural or historical merit to warrant a full HAIS prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The Director of Community Development may delay the issuance of a demolition permit for up to 60 days if one or more building or demolition permits for primary structures have been approved for properties, for which work is continuing, on either side of the right-of-way block face and/or alley along which the property is located, or if the Director determines that a delay is necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts in the neighborhood Currently, there are no building or demolition permits for new primary structures on the block. The Director has determined that a delay is not necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts within the neighborhood. 2 LPC Agenda Packet p. 2

125 Date: May 8, 2017 Village of Winnetka DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M To: From: Winnetka Historical Society Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant The Landmark Preservation Commission will consider a request to demolish the primary structure located at 966 Pine Tree Ln. on June 5, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Please return any available information regarding the architectural or historical significance of this structure to my attention on or before May 25. If you have any questions please send to aklaassen@winnetka.org or call me at Preliminary Property History Study/Village Hall Records: Building Permits Issued: Date Type Owner Architect Construct a 1-story residence. Irvin A. Blietz Donald F. Gibbs Convert open porch into living quarters. Mr. & Mrs. Allen E. Clark Owner Other Pertinent Village Documentation/Information: Winnetka Historical Society Response: Research by the Winnetka Historical Society doesn t show that the home has historic architectural significance or evidence of significant ownership. By: T. Beecham Date: LPC Agenda Packet p. 3

126 LPC Agenda Packet p. 4

127 LPC Agenda Packet p. 5

128 LPC Agenda Packet p. 6

129 LPC Agenda Packet p. 7

130 LPC Agenda Packet p. 8

131 LPC Agenda Packet p. 9

132 LPC Agenda Packet p. 10

133 LPC Agenda Packet p. 11

134 LPC Agenda Packet p. 12

135 LPC Agenda Packet p. 13

136 LPC Agenda Packet p. 14

137 LPC Agenda Packet p. 15

138 LPC Agenda Packet p. 16

139 LPC Agenda Packet p. 17

140 LPC Agenda Packet p. 18

141 LPC Agenda Packet p. 19

142 LPC Agenda Packet p. 20

143 LPC Agenda Packet p. 21

144 LPC Agenda Packet p. 22

145 LPC Agenda Packet p. 23

146 LPC Agenda Packet p. 24

147 Pine Tree Ln. LPC Agenda Packet p. 25

148 LPC Agenda Packet p. 26

149 LPC Agenda Packet p. 27

150 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF DEMOLITION APPLICATION PRELIMINARY REVIEW TO: FROM: Landmark Preservation Commission Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant DATE: May 30, 2017 REFERENCE: 635 Blackthorn Rd. Case No An application for demolition was received May 4, 2017 for the removal of the single-family residence at 635 Blackthorn Rd. The residence was built in The owners at the time of construction were Bartholomew & P. Andreae. L. G. Hallberg is the architect of record. The structure is not a national, state, or local designated landmark. The Winnetka Historical Society comments are as follows: This home is attributed to the architect L. G. Hallberg, or L. G. Hallberg & Son. Hallberg was a prominent architect, well documented and AIA affiliated and active during the latter part of the 1800s and early 1900s. He is recognized as a pioneer in concrete construction and has been referred to as the father of reinforced concrete. His son, L. G. Hallberg Jr., was affiliated with Hallberg s architectural firm. Based on the date of presumed construction of 1920, it is unclear the degree to which L. G. Hallberg Sr. would have been involved in the design of 635 Blackthorn, given his death in Given the lack of determination in the architectural record and based on the rest of our research, we do not believe the home to have historic architectural significance, or evidence of significant ownership. In accordance with Section of the Village Code, the Commission is required to determine whether the building and/or property is of sufficient historic or architectural merit to warrant conducting an HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. Upon completing the preliminary historic and architectural review, the LPC shall enter preliminary findings on the issue of whether the demolition permit application affects a building or property that has sufficient architectural or historic merit to warrant conducting a full HAIS prior to issuance of the demolition permit. In making its determination, the LPC shall consider the following: 1. The preliminary property history study (information on the original building, date of construction, name of property, architect and owner, current photographs of the property, list of work on the property for which the Village has issued a permit); 2. Comments of the Winnetka Historical Society; 3. Any other information, comment or evidence received by the LPC at the preliminary review meeting. If the LPC finds that the HAIS is warranted, it shall so notify the Director of Community Development and shall order the applicant to conduct such study. LPC Agenda Packet p. 1

151 If the LPC finds that an HAIS is not warranted, it shall notify the Director of Community Development that it finds no historic or architectural grounds for delaying the demolition. The preliminary determination of the LPC shall be supported by findings of fact based on the record. The findings of fact shall include statements as to whether or not the building or property has architectural merit, historical significance, both, or neither. The LPC shall require an HAIS for any demolition permit application that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The property or structures have been designated a landmark pursuant to Chapter of the Village Code; 2. The property or structures have been included in the most recent Illinois Historic Structure Survey conducted under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Conservation; 3. The property or structures have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Illinois Register of Historic places; and 4. The property or structures have sufficient architectural or historical merit to warrant a full HAIS prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The Director of Community Development may delay the issuance of a demolition permit for up to 60 days if one or more building or demolition permits for primary structures have been approved for properties, for which work is continuing, on either side of the right-of-way block face and/or alley along which the property is located, or if the Director determines that a delay is necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts in the neighborhood Currently, there are no building or demolition permits for new primary structures on the block. The Director has determined that a delay is not necessary to prevent undue congestion and noise impacts within the neighborhood. 2 LPC Agenda Packet p. 2

152 Date: May 8, 2017 Village of Winnetka DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M To: From: Winnetka Historical Society Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant The Landmark Preservation Commission will consider a request to demolish the primary structure located at 635 Blackthorn Rd. on June 5, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Please return any available information regarding the architectural or historical significance of this structure to my attention on or before May 25. If you have any questions please send to aklaassen@winnetka.org or call me at Preliminary Property History Study/Village Hall Records: Building Permits Issued: Date Type Owner Architect Build 2-story residence. Bartholomew & P. L. G. Hallberg Andreae Build 2-story frame & stucco garage Dr. Elbert Clark W. F. Yukes (sp?) with servants quarters Construct addition and remodel residence. Mr. & Mrs. Martay Stephen Guerrant Other Pertinent Village Documentation/Information: Winnetka Historical Society Response: This home is attributed to the architect L. G. Hallberg, or L. G. Hallberg & Son. Hallberg was a prominent architect, well documented and AIA affiliated, and active during the latter part of the 1800s and early 1900s. He is recognized as a pioneer in concrete construction and has been referred to as the father of reinforced concrete. His son, L. G. Hallberg Jr., was affiliated with Hallberg s architectural firm. Based on the date of presumed construction of 1920, it is unclear the degree to which L. G. Hallberg Sr. would have been involved in the design of 635 Blackthorn, given his death in Given the lack of determination in the architectural record and based on the rest of our research, we do not believe the home to have historic architectural significance, or evidence of significant ownership. By: T. Beecham Date: LPC Agenda Packet p. 3

153 LPC Agenda Packet p. 4

154 LPC Agenda Packet p. 5

155 LPC Agenda Packet p. 6

156 LPC Agenda Packet p. 7

157 LPC Agenda Packet p. 8

158 LPC Agenda Packet p. 9

159 LPC Agenda Packet p. 10

160 LPC Agenda Packet p. 11

161 LPC Agenda Packet p. 12

162 LPC Agenda Packet p. 13

163 LPC Agenda Packet p. 14

164 LPC Agenda Packet p. 15

165 LPC Agenda Packet p. 16

166 LPC Agenda Packet p. 17

167 LPC Agenda Packet p. 18

168 LPC Agenda Packet p. 19

169 LPC Agenda Packet p. 20

170 LPC Agenda Packet p. 21

171 LPC Agenda Packet p. 22

172 LPC Agenda Packet p. 23

173 LPC Agenda Packet p. 24

174 LPC Agenda Packet p. 25

175 LPC Agenda Packet p. 26

176 LPC Agenda Packet p. 27

177 LPC Agenda Packet p. 28

178 LPC Agenda Packet p. 29

179 LPC Agenda Packet p. 30

180 LPC Agenda Packet p. 31

181 LPC Agenda Packet p. 32

182 LPC Agenda Packet p. 33

183 LPC Agenda Packet p. 34

184 LPC Agenda Packet p. 35

185 LPC Agenda Packet p. 36

186 LPC Agenda Packet p. 37

187 LPC Agenda Packet p. 38

188 LPC Agenda Packet p. 39

189 LPC Agenda Packet p. 40

190 LPC Agenda Packet p. 41

191 LPC Agenda Packet p. 42

192 LPC Agenda Packet p. 43

193 LPC Agenda Packet p. 44

194 LPC Agenda Packet p. 45

195 LPC Agenda Packet p. 46

196 LPC Agenda Packet p. 47

197 LPC Agenda Packet p. 48

198 LPC Agenda Packet p. 49

199 LPC Agenda Packet p. 50

200 LPC Agenda Packet p. 51

201 LPC Agenda Packet p. 52

202 LPC Agenda Packet p. 53

203 Blackthorn Rd. LPC Agenda Packet p. 54

204 LPC Agenda Packet p. 55

205 LPC Agenda Packet p. 56

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216 Subject Photo Page Main File No Page #14 Borrower Brian & Emilee Wolfe Property Address City 864 Bryant Ave Winnetka County Cook State IL Zip Code Client Speedy Title & Appraisal Review Services LLC Subject Front 864 Bryant Ave Sales Price 1,280,000 Gross Living Area 3,773 Total Rooms 11 Total Bedrooms 6 Total Bathrooms 3.1 Location N;Res; View N;Res; Site sf Quality Q2 Age 98 Subject Rear Subject Street Form PICPIX.SR "WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc ALAMODE

217 Photograph Addendum Main File No Page #15 Borrower Brian & Emilee Wolfe Property Address City 864 Bryant Ave Winnetka County Cook State IL Zip Code Client Speedy Title & Appraisal Review Services LLC Kitchen Living Room 1st Floor Powder Room Family Room Front Foyer Dining Room Form PICSIX2 "WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc ALAMODE

218 Photograph Addendum Main File No Page #16 Borrower Brian & Emilee Wolfe Property Address City 864 Bryant Ave Winnetka County Cook State IL Zip Code Client Speedy Title & Appraisal Review Services LLC 2nd Floor Hall Bathroom 2nd Floor Bedroom 2nd Floor Master Bathroom 2nd Floor Bedroom 2nd Floor Bedroom 3rd Floor Bedroom Form PICSIX2 "WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc ALAMODE

219 Photograph Addendum Main File No Page #17 Borrower Brian & Emilee Wolfe Property Address City 864 Bryant Ave Winnetka County Cook State IL Zip Code Client Speedy Title & Appraisal Review Services LLC 3rd Floor Loft 3rd Floor Hall Bathroom 3rd Floor Bedroom 3rd Floor Bedroom South Side of Subject Garage Form PICSIX2 "WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc ALAMODE

220 Photograph Addendum Main File No Page #18 Borrower Brian & Emilee Wolfe Property Address City 864 Bryant Ave Winnetka County Cook State IL Zip Code Client Speedy Title & Appraisal Review Services LLC Basement Rec Room Furnace Comments: Comments: Basement Laundry Area Water Heater Comments: Comments: Form PICFOUR "WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc ALAMODE

221 864 Bryant After Photos

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245 Preservation Award nomination 500 Maple Street, Winnetka Long-term project to restore the original appearance of the house (project completed within the 5- year rule) Year 2010: Remove (60-year-old?) asbestos roof tiles (in full hazmat gear), plus 2 older shingle roofs, replaced with cedar shingles, similar to the original roof Remove aluminum soffit, scrape and paint bead board eaves, replacing material when necessary Add copper gutter and downspouts, replacing old galvanized (this was an upgrade, not a restoration) Year 2014: Railings: add brick corner posts with limestone caps and balls and painted wood railings, based on a 1940 s photo (attached) At the public sidewalk on Maple St, brick/limestone pillars that match were added to create definition at the front entrance to the yard (the pillars are at seating height to create the possibility for stoopsitting, Winnetka style) Architect for railings and pillars: Ken Behles of Behles+Behles, 818 Church St, Evanston, IL 60201; Phone: (847) Contractor for all work: Lynch Construction, 100 N Skokie Hwy, Ste A, Lake Bluff, IL (847) Landscape: Tom Klitzkie, Nature s Perspective, Evanston, Explanation The railings were removed in the 1970s because of rotted wood and the need for massive repairs. Ghosts from the pillar bases were visible under the garden rooms roofing material. The Winnetka Historical Society discovered the old photos from real estate ads. This told us what the original railings looked like. The quoined brick, limestone capped corner posts are very unusual, continuing the quoined motif of the brick corners of the garden rooms below. Earlier (early 90s), large aluminum sliders were replaced with French doors, closer to the original look of the house Plastic shutters were replaced with functional wooden shutters. Overgrown foundation plantings were removed and replaced by plantings of a suitable scale (early 2000s)

246

247

248