HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2006EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily
Guthrie, and Susan Rundle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer Betsy Hohman, and Thomas Prairie
OTHERS PRESENT: Polly Hawkins, Jack Crocker, Rick Erickson, Brian Kittle, Alan Baxter,
Chasity McKinney, Meg Foster, Grant Davis, Robert Zuber, Michael
Whinston, Tom Resnick, Barbara Resnick, Tiffany Danielle, James
Murray, Michael Niazmand, Albert Savocchi
PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair
STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz
I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION
Chris Carey, Chair. called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. A quorum of six members was present at
7:30 p.m. Staff present: Carlos Ruiz.
II. PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS ELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
Election of 2006 Preservation Commission Officers
The nominees are Chris Carey, Chair, Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair, and Mary Brugliera, Secretary.
Because Jordan Cramer did not respond officially to his nomination, the Commission tabled the election
until February 7, 2006 (special meeting)
III. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Check List
The Commission discussed a proposed and more speck check list of required materials for applications
for Certificate of Appropriateness. Stan Gerson said he has two concerns: missing site plans when there
is a change of the building's foot print, and missing proposed elevations. An ad -hoc committee (Gerson
and Guthrie) will work with staff to further develop the proposed check list.
B. Definition of garages front elevation
Action: The Commission tabled discussion on this issue to February 7, 2006.
IV. COMM UNICATIONSIREPORTS
A. 1722 Central Street (Landmark) — Proposed restoration as part of a planned development
John Crocker and Polly Hawkins discussed with the Commission their Intention to purchase the house at
1722 Central Street, an Evanston Landmark, and restore it. This is part of a plan development Involving
the site of the movie theaters at 1700-1720 Central Street, adjacent to 1722 Central Street to the east.
Evanston Preservation Commission
January 24, 2006 — Minutes
Pape 2
Mr. Crocker explained that they would like to demolish the existing addition to the east of the landmark
house, restore the historic structure and build a one-story garage structure behind the landmark house for
a new building to the east on the movie theater site.
Carlos Ruiz asked Mr. Crocker if he planned to consolidate both sites, because the Preservation
Ordinance defines that landmark designations presumptively include the lot(s) of record associated with
the structure designated as a landmark. Mr. Crocker said yes, but he would not be interested in the
Commission's review of the new building. Commission members suggested that Mr. Crocker restore the
landmark first (Including the demolition of the addition) and then proceed with the planned development
separately. Commission members agreed that restoring the landmark house was a desirable outcome
and the demolition of the addition would not be objected. Mr. Crocker noted that he will find out what
options he may have in regard to delaying the consolidation of the lots. Mr. Crocker and Ms. Hawkins
agreed to return in front of the Commission with their decision at the February 21, 2006 meeting.
Vl. OLD BUSINESS
1. 2407 Sheridan Road (Landmark/LSHD) —Replace steel windows with aluminum windows on
west elevation only (Alteration]
a) Presentation by Owner/Applicant
Brian Kittle of Northwestern University and Rick Erickson of Aubourn Corporation said last month they
presented replacement aluminum windows with air conditioning units being at the top portion of the
window openings. At the Commission's suggestion, they concluded that putting the air conditioners on
the lower portion of the window openings is more appropriate. Mr. Erickson mentioned configurations: A
(upper window is fixed and the air conditioner is on the lower panel); B (additional ventilation over the air
conditioner and smaller casement); and C (they will provide a full height casement window and take that
out for added stock and install glass and panel In that opening, which will give the University the
possibility In the future, if the air conditioners were removed, to have a casement operable vent. Mr.
Erickson said configuration A is part of the main frame, whereas C they will take out the vent in the field
and glaze in a piece of glass and panel on site.
b) CommissionlStaff Questions
1. Which are the least expensive and the most preferred options?
Answer: Option A is the least expensive; C Is the most expensive. B is the preferred option.
2. What color are the windows and what kind of muntins?
Answer: Dark grey or fashion grey. The exterior applied muntins will match the sight lines and width
dimension of the existing.
3. Are the windows double glazed and are the screens in the interior?
Answer: Yes. The screens are behind the window crank.
4. Do the muntins have a profile or are they flat and do the windows come with simulated divided lights?
Answer: The muntins have a putty bead profile similar to the existing. The aluminum windows are 2-
114" deep and there is not enough room for the SOLs.
5. How much bigger are the aluminum attached panes than the profile of the steel windows and are the
proposed sash dimensions the same as the existing window transom sashes?
Answer: They are not much bigger (photos of installed aluminum windows were provided to show the
proportion of muntins on steel windows vs. aluminum replacement windows). The top existing fixed
portion is 64" high. The maximum height of the new windows is 60'. The top fixed light of the
casements will be reduced by 4".
6. Is the width of the center bar at the upper panels being simulated and is the number of lights the
same?
Answer. They can provide a wider center muntin (about 2" wide). They will match the number of
lights (6 x 4).
7. Are the lintels being replaced and do the air conditioning units fit in that opening?
Answer: Yes. The lintels are being replaced and the air conditioning units are 20" x 13".
c) R&TA Committee Report
Evanston Preservation Cornmission
.January 24, 2006 — Minutes
Page 3
R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1. 2.4. 5, 6, 9, and 10,
d) Commission's Findings
Mary Brugliera moved granting a certificate of appropriateness for the window replacement at 2407
Sheridan on the west side with aluminum casement and fixed windows with attached muntins in a dark
grey color on the exterior of the windows, air conditioners to be located in the bottom right portion of the
windows to match the 4 x 6 light pattern with a thicker vertical muntin in the center to replicate the
casement portion of the windows in that meets standards: 1 (minimal alteration of the property), 2
(distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 4 (does not apply), 5 (distinctive stylistic
features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (replacement is matching composition, size, color, texture
and other visual qualities), 9(contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (if the alteration
were removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unpaired). Chris Carey added to
the motion that administrative approval of the final configuration (preferably B and then A) be referred to
Carlos Ruiz. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
2. 1426 Hinman Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) —Install 36" high x 120' long front yard fence between
pillars 43" high (Zoning Variance/Construction]
a) Presentation by Owner/Applicant
Alan Baxter, architect, and Chasity McKinney (the sister and assistance of the owner) said they revised
the originally proposed wood fence and instead they propose building six stone pillars to match the stone
at the bottom of the porch. Each stone pillar will be capped with limestone, and there will be a decorative
wrought iron fence that spans between the pillars. They proposed perennial plantings in front of the
wrought iron fence and the pillars. There is 6' between the wrought Iron fence and the face of the pillars.
Decorative lighting is on the two pillars flanking the entry gate. The wrought iron fence is 36" high and the
pillars are 43" high.
Ms. McKinney said they collected signatures of their neighbors and who are In favor of the proposed
fence and pillars.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. Do they have a contractor capable of performing the proposed work?
Answer. Yes.
2. Is the applicant aware of any comments from neighbors?
Answer: They have heard comments from the mid -rise building next door. Most of the comments
were directed at the existence fence.
c) Commission/staff Comments
1. Some neighbors who do not live on the same block have negative comments about the fence.
2. The Commission talked about precedent. Other front yard fences have been approved, but not one
that really sets out. The proposed fence does interrupt the rhythm down the street; it does create a
physical and psychological barrier.
3. Wrought iron fences, because their transparency, have an advantage over any kind of wooden fence.
However, there is a concern about closing houses in.
d) Applicant/Owner Comments
The height of the fence plays an important role. There are higher fences that look like barriers. Their
Intent is to build a fence that does not look like a barrier, but creates some delineation between the
public and private space as well as providing security.
d) R&TA Report
R&TA recommended the following standards as applicable: Standards A and C for fence variance, and
standards 1, 7, 9, 10, 12,13 and 16 for construction of the pillars and fence.
e) Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson moved to recommend the 120' long fence at 1426 Hinman In that the fence: A (the fence
will not adversely affect the historical architecture and Integrity of the property) and C (it will not be
Evanston Preservation Commission
January 24. 2DO5—Lfinutes
Page 4
materially detrimental to the public health and safety). Mary Brugllera seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays.
Stan Gerson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the 120' long wrought iron fence and
pillars in that: 1 (height is compatible with the structures to which is visually related), 2 (the materials and
texture of the fence are compatible with the materials used on structures to which is visually related), 9
(the fence forms a cohesive wall/structure with visual compatibility with properties and structures to which
is visually related), 10 (distinguishing original qualities of the property are not destroyed), 13
(archeological materials will be preserved), and 16 (a single architectural style is not being imposed).
Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays.
3. 1316 Judson Avenue (LandmarktLSHD) — Removal of aluminum storm windows and
replacement of 27 windows [Alteration]
a) Commission/Staff Questions
1. Are the brick mold and steel lintel wrapped with aluminum, and is that the plan for the proposed
windows on the side and rear elevations?
Answer: The existing brick mold will be left as is and it wilt not be wrapped. The brick mold will be
painted.
2. What kind of history there is on the Fibrex material?
Answer: Andersen invented Fibrex in the 1960s; it has been used In a variety of different applications
such as structural (sub sills of patio doors). Andersen came up with this product because the new
wood Is less dense and soft. Andersen has manufactured Fibrex windows for 12 years now.
Andersen is in business for 104 years.
3. What are the most common problems with the Fibrex windows?
Answer: They have problems with the balancers, and stress cracks in the glass. Vinyl windows have
structural problems, not Fibrex windows. The advantage of these windows Is that they have very thin
sight lines which look much like the wood sight lines because of the rigidity of the Fibrex material.
4. What is the estimate for restoration?
Answer: They contacted five restoration contractors; they obtained only one estimate for four
windows. The cost is about S1,200 per window Including new storms.
5. Are the new windows the same sash width as the existing?
Answer: Yes.
b) Commission/Staff Comments
1. The appl!cants provided the addresses of houses In Evanston that have the Andersen Fibrex
replacement windows. Commissioners conducted site visits to those addresses.
2. Last month the Commission suggested restoring the windows on the front elevation to maintain the
integrity of the double house and because there are two separate owners.
c) Owner/Applicant Comments
1. There is on symmetry at the rear of the house. There is a dated door that they will like to replace it
with a new door and a transom above that will maintain the level of the rest of the windows of the
house.
2 The windows to be replaced do not have window panes or divided lights. All the windows that Involve
painting are going to remain as they are.
d) RBTA Report
R&TA recommended as applicable standards for alteration 1. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10.
e) Commission's Findings
Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the restoration of the front elevation
and replacement of side and rear windows and one rear door at 1316 Judson in that: 1 (every reasonable
effort Is being made to minimally alter the property), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities of the property
will not be destroyed), 3 (the changes will not create an early appearance to the age of the house), 5 (the
skilled craftsmanship of the front windows is being treated with sensitivity), 6 (the windows that have been
Evanston Preservation Cwuniss.
January 24, 2006 — Minutes
Page 5
changed to inappropriate windows or too deteriorated are being replaced), and 10 (if the windows were
removed the essential form and integrity of the structure are unimpaired). Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (RBTA)
1. 130 Dempster Street (LSHD) —Two story addition to the east elevation, one-story addition to
the south elevation, alterations to the first story entrance and second story directly above on
the north elevation [Alteration/Construction]
a) Presentation by Owner/Applicant
Robert Zuber, architect, and Michael Whinston, owner, said they revised the plans the Commission had
approved previously. The majority of the changes are at the rear of the house. They added a pair of
sliding French doors to the family room. They eliminated a couple of windows on the second floor. The
dormers are now at the corners of the east elevation. The major change involves the roof of the addition
in the rear of the house. They removed the balustrade and added a shingle hip roof, and raised a portion
of the roof up and added clear story windows. Also, they added panels below the windows on the
additions. The chimney is an architectural feature on the south elevation.
b) CommisslonlStaff Questions
1. What prompted the proposed revisions?
Answer. The kitchen, the breakfast room, study area, and the hang out space for the family act as
the nucleus of the house, therefore the exterior changes. Also they took advantage of the southern
light and wanted to have more connection with the exterior. The rear Is intended to be more relaxed.
2. What are the changes to the front of the house and the rest?
Answer: The existing brackets are being changed with more refined brackets. The other change Is
the relocation of the oculus. There is a little addition in the front entry and the new front porch. On
the east side of the house there is an existing family room that will be removed and they will build a
new family room and master bedroom above it. On the rear of the house, they are adding on the
family room, study area and the addition to the dining room. Aside the new brackets on the front,
they are changing windows on the second floor, adding a bay with a gable, changing the front door,
removing two side widows, and adding a new set of three windows.
c) RBTA Report
The recommended the standards for alteration that apply are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Alterations Include:
First floor north elevation (replace the existing porch with a nev; porch and balustrade, add two windows
at the west of the door, remove two side windows), second floor (replace two windows with two sets of
triple windows, the western set is set in a new bay with a gable roof). South elevation second floor
(remove one window and relocate a second window). West elevation replace door on first floor and
relocate window on the second floor).
The recommended standards for construction are 1 through 5. 7. 8, and 10 through 16.
d) Commissions Findings
Emily Guthrie moved approval for granting a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations to 130
Dempster. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. E. Guthrie
added the alterations met standards: 1 (every reasonable effort is being made that will require minimal
alteration), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities are not going to be destroyed), 3 (the property is being
recognized as a product of its own time), 5 (distinctive stylist features are being treated with sensitivity), 8
(archaeological resources will be protected), 9 (contemporary design for alterations is not being
discouraged), and 10 (the alterations are being done in such a way that if removed, the form and Integrity
of the structure will be unimpaired).
Evanston Preservation Commission
January 24. 2006 — Unutes
Page 6
Emily Guthrie moved to approve the construction because; 1 (height), 2 (the proportion of the facade), 3
(the proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solid to voids), and 5 (rhythm of spacing) are all compatible.
Standards: 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (the roof shape), 10 (the scale of the structure), and
11 (directional expression of the front elevation) are visually compatible. Standard 12 (distinguishing
original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserve), 14
(contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (the additions are being done in such a manner that
they could be removed and the form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired), and 16 (a single
architectural style is not being imposed). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote:
5 ayes, 1 nay.
2. 1317 Judson Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) —Demolish existing two -car garage, construct new
three -car detached garage at rear ]Construction/Demolition]
a) Presentation by Owner/Applicant
Tom Resnick and Barbara Resnick, owners, said they would like to demolish the existing two -car garage
and build a new three -car frame garage. The new garage will have a gable roof and metal doors,
b) Commission's Findings
The Commission approved provisionally the certificate of appropriateness subject to the submission of
specifications on the garage door panel configuration; the trim around the garage and access doors
(material, dimensions); corner boards (material, dimensions) and fascia and soffits (material, dimensions)
Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. The Commission also approved the certificate of appropriateness
for the demolition of the existing garage. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions.
3. 1314 Ridge Avenue/1315-1317 Asbury Avenue (Landmark/RHD) —Construction of six brick
garages with wood doors (four behind the coach house on Asbury Avenue and two between
the coach house and the Dryden Mansion)
a) Presentation by Owner/Applicant
James Murray, attorney said that they are requesting the Commission's approval for the construction of
masonry garages for the four condo units at 1314 Ridge and the two units at 1315 and 1317 Asbury
respectively.
b) Commission's Findings
Ann Dienner moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the garage units
at 1314 Ridge (units 1 through 4) and 1315 and 1317 Asbury as meeting standards for construction: 1
(height), 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids and voids In front
facades), 5 (rhythm of spacing on streets), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), and
10 (scale of the structures) are all compatible with the properties, structures, to which they are visually
related. Also, 13 (archaeological resources will be protected) and 16 (a single architectural style is not
being imposed). Mary Brugiiera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
4. 1314 Ridge Avenue (Landmark/RHD) — Restoration of, replacement of and Installation of new
windows and doors to match existing wood windows and doors In kind Alteration]
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
James Murray, attomey, Michael Niazmand, owner, Tiffany Danielle, architect, and Albert Savocchi,
window contractor/restoration expert presented the proposed replacement of windows and doors. Mr.
Murray referred to the elevation drawings with the key for repair and replacement.
Mr. Murray said that the existing windows are in not energy efficient. The mechanical contractor
calculated 30% heat loss in the winter with the existing windows, 15% heat gain in the summer. A
restoration contractor concluded that they could only put double pane on the top sash and not the bottom
sash. The steel weather stripping is not available any more, also the pulleys are broken. A lead paint
test In the property shows 344 parts per million on the paint exterior and 3,000 parts per million in the
outside. A safety program is now in place because of OSHA's requirement. This creates a different
environment as a means by which to restore the windows. All the restorers need an additional element of
Evanston Preservation Commission
January 24, 2006 — Mnutes
Page 7
protective clothing and protective breathing gear which adds measurably and substantially to the labor
cost associated with the restoration. The disposition of the paints has to be carefully dealt with and
appropriately disposed off.
There is concern with the longevity of the performance of historical windows, considering the slate of the
art heating and cooling system now installed in the mansion. There will be days that condensation will
happen on a single pane window. That level of condensation is quite extensive and causes concern of
the degrading of the material over time. They have attempted to install double pane of glass on the
interior of the window as a test. From the inside the window is flashed with the wood, because there Is no
space for the rabbet of the thermo pane windows. Also, the weights have to be changed.
The glue in the joints are not sturdy, the end grains where the water comes up is rotted. Many sills are
rotted and many of the sashes, chains, and weights are missing. For those many reasons they looked at
energy efficiency windows. Vetter windows have the historic brick mold with definition, the silt, putty
profile, and the spacer bar match the existing for authentic look. The internal muntins are wood and the
exterior are aluminum; the rest of the window is wood. Both panes of glass have low E glass, low
conductive spacer and argon gas. The proposed windows are custom made to the masonry opening.
The coach house has these windows that fit within the brick opening. The sashes are almost 1-314".
Everybody else is 1-318" unless one gets the Magnum (Marvin) series which Is commercial rated. They
plan to reuse the wood inside.
The proposed windows are Vetter's signature series that came out about seven years ago. The
aluminum is extruded, the sashes are thicker. Vetter is manufacturing windows since 1892. The Vetter
signature window compare to other quality windows is more competitively priced. The windows are all
costumed made and they have the lowest water and infiltration rate because of their sill system.
Finally, there are some new windows at the basement level and below grade. These are 12 new
locations have to meet the egress requirements. The applicant requested approval of these windows.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. Will the window boxes be pulled out?
Answer: Yes.
2. Commissioners asked if they had approved the window replacement In the coach house.
Answer: [Mr. Savocchij There was a fire in the coach house, and there were any windows left in many
of the sections. In regard to the coach house window replacement, staff [Carlos Ruiz) reviewed the
window replacement under the rules and procedures for the replacement of windows In kind. Staff
felt that the proposed windows were in kind and replacement windows were approved
3. Has the applicant enquired about window replacements from Pella or Marvin windows?
Answer: Vetter windows are very competitive in terms of specifications and performance but at more
reasonable price (Marvin is 1-318" sash). In the commercial series the frame has to be more
structurally sound because the size of the rough opening.
4. Are all the windows being painted, and are they putting any hardware?
Answer: Yes. The color is close to the lime stone color, the aluminum muntin will be painted as well.
The windows have a channel line which is a pull rail. These are 718" muntin bars.
5. The Commission asked Mr. Niazmand if he will allow Neil Vogel (preservation consultant, window
specialist) to take a look at the windows.
Answer. Mr. Niazmand said yes. Although there is a prejudicial aspect working with Mr. Vogel since
he was a past member of the Commission, it gives the impression that there might be an existing
prejudice. The applicant is not trying to resist Mr. Vogel or anybody else, but he tried to use a
restorer that has not evoked a response from the Commission.
6. What is the cost difference between a Vetter, a Marvin, and a Pella window?
Answer. At least 20% higher. Marvin will have to fabricate the casing for each window. The Vetter
windows run approximately S1.200 installed.
7. Does the brick mold accurately represent the existing brick mold, and is the same window and brick
mold used in the coach house?
Answer: The brick mold is a little bigger, but it was used in some parts of the Colonial Revival
aspects of the mansion. The proposed brick mold has more shadow lines and definition and it was
used in the coach house.
c) Commission/Staff Comments
Evanston Prem- abon Commission
January 24, 2006 — Minutes
Pape a
1. The June 11, 2003 page 12, Scott Prestangen said that the windows will be restored rather than
being replaced. .
2. Commissioners questioned staffs approval of window replacement on landmarks without the
Preservation Commission looking into it.
3. The applicant should seek out a window consultant who does not sell windows, namely Neil Vogel.
4. It was interesting that the applicant is using the replacement windows in the coach house as a part of
the rationale for doing the same in the mansion, where in the minutes of June i 1 "all fascias, brick
tuck pointing, stone pointing, details and existing windows will be repaired.
5. The Commission is dealing with probably the most prominent landmark in much of Evanston and they
are dealing with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards which say, restore rather than replace. The
Commission went with that when the Commission first gave the approval for all the work. The
Commission was delighted that Mr. Niazmand was doing so much restoration on the mansion and the
coach house. However, the Commission will be more comfortable if Mr. Neil Vogel, a preservation
consultant and window specialist, could tell the Commission what his opinion is of the windows In the
mansion.
6. Buyers will need to be told that the building is a national landmark and that new windows were not
allowed. If they want to come to the Commission as a group, the Commission will explain that again.
This is an exceptional building, a gem in Evanston that has to be treated with the outmost respect.
The windows are a critical element. After close inspection of the windows, the current thinking Is that
the windows can be restored for less than the cost of new windows. The original windows add to the
value of the property. It has to be made a selling point to the condo buyers, that the windows have
been restored to what was original to the building.
7. Chris Carey said that he was more impressed with the proposed Vetter windows than the ones he
saw in the past.
8. The Commission clarified that the Dryden Mansion at 1314 Ridge is listed in the National Register,
but is not a National Historic landmark.
d] Owner/Applicant Comments
1. A further investigation of the windows in the main house, taking into account their current disrepair,
the lack of maintenance over the last 30 to 50 years, lead them to make the request to replace rather
than restore the windows.
2. They have consulted with other people about the windows. The windows are in more deplorable
condition than initially thought. There are lead issues with the windows.
3 AI Savocci specializes in restoration, remodeling and new construction. They worked In the Water
Tower in Chicago, and the Dupage County Museum. They have been in business 57 years. They
also conducted window inspection of 300 units in Mission Hill.
4. They are not suggesting the windows cannot be restored; rather the amount of heat loss is an issue.
5. The main concern is that after restoration, they have windows that will not perfectly function. The
buyers of these condos are going to ask for what they are paying for.
6. If one could see the condition the coach house was in, and if they took at it today, they will conclude
that the coach house has been restored. There was a fire in the elevator shaft, and when the Fire
Department came, they knock every window out. There was nothing left to restore.
7. A million dollar residential buyer wants residences that function. They are not going to be able to
warrantee the restored windows.
8. There is a concern with the degradation of the original windows with the type heating and cooling
system. The condensation and the moisture that .will sit in between at the plate line will deteriorate
the windows. There is going to be elevated humid.ty levels in an enclosed space.
9. The owner has a big stake in the property and he Ls going to live in it; personally and historically he
will be resistant to putting storm windows. Storm u-.ndows were not part of the original to the property
and they do not belong to it.
10. Mr. Niazmand asked if the storm windows were no: there in the first place, how they could be historic.
Why will he put storm windows on something that was not there and call it historic? He said that the
tested storm windows are not acceptable.
e) Commission's Findings
The Commission determined that the following standards for alteration apply: 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10. Mary
Brugllera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the new below grade windows in the
mansion at 1314 Ridge (3 on the north, 2 on the west, 4 on the south and 2 on the east) as it does adapt
the property in a manner that requires minimal alteration; the distinguishing original qualities of the
foundation are not being destroyed; there are no alterations that do not have historic basis; stylistic
Evanston Preservation Commission
January 24, 2006 - Minutes
Page 9
features are treated with sensitivity, contemporary design is not being discouraged; and the new windows
could be removed without damage to the integrity of the house. Susan Rundle seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
James Murray requested to continue the subject matter to a date certain to bring back greater detail on
the restoration capacities as well as the replacement capacities.
Chris Carey said he would like to get Neal Vogel to the site and he would like to visit the structure and
look the windows. The Commission agreed to contact Neal Vogel and visit he site on Saturday, February
4, 2006.
Mr. Niazmand said the French doors on the first Floor are shut, replacing some areas and restoring some
areas will create a miss match. His altematives considering the cost of energy are limited. although his
initial plan was to restore the windows. He needs to look at the other ramifications, including the OSHA
requirements. Mr. Murray said they will provide to the Commission with their reports, restoration versus
replacement and letters for the February 21, 2006. Emily Guthrie moved to continue the review of the
proposed window replacement to February 21, 2006, Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
4. 1331 Asbury Avenue (RHD) —Construction of 2'1, story structure with attached 2-car garage.
Zoning variance require for 50% Impervious surface ratio. Reissue COA for demolition of the
ESCA building (formerly 1321 Asbury-COA originally Issued in 2003) (Zoning Variance/
Construction/Demolition]
a) Commission/Staff Questions
The zoning variance will be applicable in issues relative to impervious surface for the roadways and all of
the new lot and uncertain of the proposals on the individual lots, there will be a variance for a site
allowance for the Impervious surface coverage issue.
The Commission tabled this item until February 21, 2006.
5. 1333 Asbury Avenue (RHO) —Construction of 2'!z story structure with attached 2-car garage
[Construction]
The Commission tabled this item until February 21, 2006.
VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF
904 Hinman Avenue — Window Replacement
Action: Chris Carey and James Murray, attorney for the property owner of 904 Hinman, agreed to meet
as soon as possible to finalize an agreement regarding the window replacement at 904 Hinman.
VII. COMUNiCATIIONS
1210 Michigan Avenue — Letter from Levenfeld Pearlsteln, LLC
Carlos Ruiz handed out copies of a letter from Levenfeld Pearistein, LLC dated January 20, 2006 to Toni
Bark and David Dwyer, presumably the current owners of 1210 Michigan Avenue, an Evanston landmark.
The letter on behalf of their clients, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI), the holder of a
preservation easement granted by James and Michelle Stone in 2002. The letter advises Ms. Bark and
Mr. Dwyer that the engineering firm, Wiss, Janney, Elster (WJE) inspected the property and disagrees
with the conclusion that "demolition is necessary because of structural concerns' (Henik Engineering
Study).
Note: At this time no certificate of appropriateness application for the demolition of 1210 Michigan has
been filed with the City of Evanston.
Evanston Preservation Cornn issian
January 24, 2006 — Minutes
PaQe 10
Vill. MINUTES
Action: The Commission approved the September 20, 2005 minutes. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0
abstentions.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Mary Brugiiera moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:25 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
Respectfully Submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Evanston Civic Center
Room 2403
2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman,
Thomas Prairie and Susan Rundle
OTHERS PRESENT: Liora Cobin, Richard and Eva Buskins, Mary Daly, Michal lwaniuk. Mary Cutralf,
Benjamin Beard, Nate Kipnis, Steve Knutson, Scott Fohrman, and Daniel
Baigelman
PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
I. CALL TO ORDER
Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. He noted that five
Commissioners were present including: Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Betsy Hohman, and Emily
Guthrie. J. Cramer declared a quorum at 7:25 p.m. with the arrival of Susan Rundle and Thomas
Prairie.
II. PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS ELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
Election of 2006 Preservation Commission Officers
Thomas Prairie moved to adopt the slate of 2006 Preservation Commission Offices {Chris Carey,
Chair; Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair; and Mary Brugliera, Secretary). Betsy Hohman seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
III. MINUTES
Approval of December 20, 2005 minutes
Mary Brugliera said she would like to work with a two -member subcommittee and Carlos Ruiz to
further edit the December 20, 2005 minutes and shorten its length. Ann Dienner volunteered to the
subcommittee. The Commission tabled the adoption of the minutes to February 21, 2D06.
IV. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Definition of garages front elevation
Carlos Ruiz said he reviewed the August 16, 2005 meeting audio tape and he came to the
conclusion that the Commission seemed to agree the definition of the front facade of a garage Is:
"the front facade [of a garage] is any plane that faces the public way and the street." M.
Brugliera moved to adopt the definition that: there can be, if circumstances warrant, a primary
front facade and a secondary front facade in relation to garages. E. Guthrie seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions.
B. 225 Greenwood Street (Landmark) — Proposed banners and klosk
Carlos Ruiz said Liora J. Cobin, Assistant Curator, Evanston Historical Society, in the Charles
Gates Dawes House, was present at the meeting. C. Ruiz said he checked with Carolyn
Brzezinski, Assistant Director of Building if the proposed banners or brackets require a building
permit. The answer is no. Ms. Cobin submitted an application for certificate of appropriateness
just In case. He also talked to Northwestern University's Chief Carpenter (Spencer Guthrie). He
Evanston Preservation Cornmission
February 7, 2008 — Minutes
Page 2
said they plan to drill the mortar to secure the brackets, not the brick, when installing the banners.
When repointing they will match the existing mortar. C. Ruiz also contacted Anne McGuire, the
architect for the Dawes House for many years. Ms. McGuire had the same opinion on how to
install the brackets. Because they do not need a permit, they do not need approval from the Sign
Board.
Jordan Cramer said that after reviewing the information he completely agreed with C. Ruiz's
opinion. Whether there is a gap in the ordinance, or does it really matter, is something that could
be addressed at another time.
a) Commission/Staff Questions
1. What kind of signs requires a permit?
Answer: Commercial signs and signs that exceed a certain size. This Is not a commercial
sign and it does not exceed the maximum allowable size.
2. Is there anything in the National Preservation Act that addresses signage on National
Historic Landmarks?
Answer: Only if they are using Federal funding. They are using private funding. Staff
will enquire further.
3. Have you consider free standing banners closer to the street?
Answer: Yes, they decided that the proposed banners are better. Signage flat against
the building will be harder to be seen by pedestrians.
4. Have other alternatives been explored?
Answer: Yes, they would like to change the sign that is by the street, but it will take
significant funding that they do not have right now. Banners will be changed and will not
be permanent and they will reflect different exhibits. It is relatively inexpensive to do. At
the end of this month they are opening a brand new long term exhibit gallery on the
history of Evanston. It is the most expensive exhibit project the Historical Society has
ever done. They want people to know that they can come in and see it. The Historical
Society is a vibrant changing institution, an exciting part of the community.
5. Why banners in the yard were rejected?
Answer: Banners In the yard were rejected because they would not be attached visually
to the house. Banners in the yard have been stolen in the past.
b) Commisslon/Staff Comments
1. There is concern with permanent brackets for a sign on the front of a National Historic
Landmark., and no concern with kiosks on the front lawn. Breaking of any masonry is
also a concern.
2. Locate kiosks near the driveway rather than up close to the entrance way. Consider a
quality free standing sign such as the one for the Music Institute of Chicago.
3. The banners deface the house. By moving banners or signage out, more toward the
street, one could see the signage from Sheridan Road. The Dawes House is about what
is outside.
4. The Dawes House National landmark status should not be jeopardized.
5. Staff offered to work with the Historical Society Board and collaborate towards a solution
that will satisfy both parties.
6. Staff will investigate any adverse effect from the banners on a National Historic
Landmark. If the Commission could offer solutions to the challenge to advertise the
mansion as a museum, the Commission will be happy to do that.
Evanston Preservation Cornmission
February 7.2006 - Minutes
Page 3
c) Applicant Comments
1. Preserving the integrity of this landmark Is one of the core missions of the Historical
Society. The banners identify the building as a museum. The banners have become a
visual statement that something is a museum.
2. Since the house is In a residential area, many people do not know that the house is a
museum. People cannot use it if they do not know that is there.
3. The Dawes House looks threatening and not inviting. They are trying to do Is make the
house look more inviting, more acceptable, more welcoming. A blg brick mansion Is not
welcoming to the average member of the 21" Century public.
4. A professional museum consulting firm was unable to come up with a better solution than
the proposed banners.
Action: The Commission thanked Ms. Cobin for attending the meeting and for listening the
Commission's feedback.
V. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS
None.
V1. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA)
1. 1720 Wesley Avenue (LSHO) -- Construction of new 3-car garage, demolition of existing
garage 3-car garage [Construction/Demolition]
a) OwnerlAppllcant Presentation
Richard and Eva Buskins said they purchased the house In August 2005 with a three -car
garage facing the alley. The house was built In 1898, but the garage does not conform to
anything. They proposed to retain the concrete slab and demolish the garage and build a
new garage to match the look of the house.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. The footprint of the garage will remain the same.
2. They will use a double hung window on the rear of the new garage facing the house.
The exterior material finish material is vinyl siding, same as the house.
c) Review & Technical Assistance (R&TA) Report
R&TA recommended the following standards for construction as applicable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
7, 8, and 10 through 14 and 16. Also, standards for demolition 1- 5.
d) Commission's Findings
Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of
the garage as shown at 1720 Wesley as: 1 (the height ), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3
(proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids in front facades), 5 (rhythm of
spacing on its street), 7 (relationship of material and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale of
the structure), and 11 (directional expression of front elevation) are all visually compatible
with the structures to which it is visually related. Also, 12 (distinguishing original qualities
of the property are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected),
14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 16 (a single architectural style is
not being imposed). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7
ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preservation Corns =ssion
February 7, 2006 — Minutes
Page 4
Emily Guthrie moved approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the
existing garage at 1720 Wesley in that: 1 (it is not of historic, cultural, architectural or
archaeological significance), 2 (it is not contributing to the distinctive character of the
district), 3 (its demolition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter), 4 (it is
not of such old, unusual or uncommon design), and 5 (there are plans for a new garage).
Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
2. 830-856 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Replace three 3-story porches at west elevation
on alley side [Alteration]
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
Mary Haley, properly manager for the building (Hampton Court Condominium
Association) Michael and Mary Cutralf, board member, were present to request approval
to replace three deteriorated rear porches and the repointing of the existing brick.
b) Commission/Staff Comments
1. Repointing of the brick must be done appropriately and the metal lintels should
be replaced and reutilizing the existing brick. Reverse the brick if necessary and
apply the mortar to match the original.
2. At the R&TA meeting the applicant indicated that there will not be changes to the
brick and that they will make the effort to match the mortar.
3. Save the existing brick as much as possible, use the existing brick on the outer
face. Put new brick in the inside face.
c) CommissionfStaH Questions
1. Was the mortar composition analyzed?
Answer. The architect of the project will try to match the mortar as close as possible.
2. Is the existing `buttered" mortar joint going to be rectified?
Answer. The original joint is flashed with the brick. They will replace the steel lintels,
replace the cracked brick and repeat the same type of joint. Their intention is to bring
back the original look of the brick, mortar joint and porches.
3. How will they treat the brick over the rusted lintels?
Answer: They will remove three courses of brick, install a triple channel lintel, and
hash it. They will try to reuse the existing brick as much as possible.
d) Owner/Applicant Comments
1. Most of the work associated with the mortar involves grinding and pointing. The
Chicago common brick if crack will be replaced with the same. The efflorescence will
be cleaned.
2. Tuckpointing the brick on the rest of the building is a future project.
e) RVA Recommendations
f)) Commission's Findings
Betsy Hohman moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the porch
replacement at 830-856 Hinman because: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to
adapt the property in manner that requires minimal alteration of the structure, 2) the
distinguishing qualities and character of the property will not be destroyed, 3) the
structure is being recognized as a product of its own time, 4) changes that have taken
place over the course of time have been recognized and respected, 5) the distinctive
stylistic features and skilled craftsmanship will be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated
Evanston Preservabon Commission
February 7, 2006 — Minutes
Page 5
architectural features will be repaired rather than replaced, 7) surface cleaning will be
done with the gentlest means possible, 8) archaeological resources will be protected, 9)
contemporary design has not been discouraged, and 10) new alterations should be done
in a manner that they could be removed retaining the essential form and integrity of the
structure. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Mary Brugliera amended the motion
recommending using old brick to replace any damaged brick if at all possible. Ann
Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 7 ayes, 0
nays.
3. 2243 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) — Rework existing side entrance on north elevation
and build new addition. Raise the slit of two windows and retain existing stone
sills. New windows are Marvin double hung wood windows. install vent on south
elevation (Alteration]
a) Owner/Applicant's Presentation
Benjamin Beard of Hackley Associates said the proposal consists of: 1) an addition to
the north face of the residence, which is an extended entry way into a mudroom at a
landing between the basement level and the first floor level, 2) rework two kitchen
window sills on the south side of the residence, to accommodate the counter top of
the kitchen, and 3) install a vent exist from the kitchen to the exterior above two
windows on the south facade. They will use the same Chicago common brick used
In the residence. The banding and detailing in the masonry will be continued. They
will reuse a window from the powder room in the new powder room. The two
windows on the south will be match as much as possible.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
How large Is the addition?
Answer: The addition is 48 square feet.
c) R&TA Recommendation
RBTA recommended that the following standards apply: 1) for alteration 1 through 6,
and 8 through 10 apply, 2) for construction 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 15.
d) Commission's Findings
Thomas Prairie moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alteration
to 2243 Orrington in that it meets standards for alteration: 1) every reasonable effort
will be done to adapt the property. 2) distinguishing original character of the property
will not be destroyed, 3) the structure is being recognized as a product of its time, 4)
does not apply, 5) distinctive stylistic features will be treated with sensitivity, 6) does
not apply, 8) reasonable effort to preserve archaeological resources will be made, 9)
contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the alterations could be
removed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0
nays.
Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction
of the addition on the north side of 2243 Orrington as: 1) the height is the same as
the old addition, 3) the proportion of openings, 7) the materials, 8) the roof shape,
and 10) state of the structure are all visually compatible to the structure to which is
visually related. Also, 12) it does not destroy the original qualities or character of the
property, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design
has not been discouraged and 15) should the addition be removed, the essential
form and integrity of the house would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preservation Coarnission
February 7. 2006 - Knutes
Page 6
4. 1238 Oak Avenue (LSHD) — Install a garage door to match the existing color, style, and
material of the other two existing garage doors (west elevation). A recessed opening
to house refuse container is also proposed fAlterationj
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
Nate Kipnis, architect said the project is a condominium conversion which involves
adding parking to the building. They are adding one garage space that is visible from the
alley. There are two car garage doors and a stair well and a blank wall. They will add
the garage door on the blank wall and a recessed rubbish area. The new doors will be
painted the same color.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
Is the recessed rubbish area made of concrete block?
Answer: Yes.
c) RSTA Recommendation
RBTA recommended standards for alteration 1 through 6, and 8 through 10 as
applicable.
d) Commission's Findings
Emily Guthrie moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness because: 1) every
reasonable effort will be made to adapt the property in manner that requires minimal
alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the structure
Is being recognized as a product of its own time, 4) does not apply, 5) the distinctive
stylistic features and skilled craftsmanship will be treated with sensitivity, 6) does not
apply, 7) does not apply, 8) archaeological resources will be protected, 9) contemporary
design has not been discouraged, and 10) new additions or alterations to structures and
objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be
removed In the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be
unimpaired. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0
nays.
5. 2039 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) — Construction of wrap -around porch on front
elevation. Requires zoning variance for proposed 20.1' front yard setback (required is
24.3') (Zoning Variance/Construction]
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
Nate Kipnis, architect said that the building at 2039 Orrington, built In 1889 was originally
located at Church and Orrington. The building was moved In 1922. There was a porch
on the front of the building and it had a porch after the move. The new porch will wrap
around to the north to balance the entry to the front. The detailing is the same as the
house. The concrete steps will be rebuilt. They are asking for a minor zoning variance.
b) COmmission/Staff Comments
The house requires the asymmetry as presented wish the new porch
c) Commission/Staff Questions
What are the roll -down screens?
Answer: They are recessed in and they come down and make a screened porch. There
are tracks on the side of the columns. The screens come down the tracks on the three
sides.
d) RBTA Recommendation
RBTA recommended standard for construction 1 through 8, and 10 through 15 as
applicable.
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 7, 2006 — Lwwtes
Page 7
e) Commission's Findings
Mary Brugliera moved to approve a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on the
variation for 2039 Orrington in that: a) it is appropriate in the interest of conservation and
it will not adversely effect the house nor the (historic) district, and c) it will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the district or the vicinity.
Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
Ann Dienner moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness [for the wrap around porch]
at 2039 Orrington Avenue in that: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of front facade, 3) the
proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids, 5) rhythm of spacing and
structures on streets, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other
projections, 7) Relationship of materials and texture, 8) roof shapes, 10) the scale of the
structure, and 11) directional expression of front elevation are all visually compatible
with the house and the structures to which are visually related. Also, 12) the
distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its
environment shall not be destroyed, 13) every reasonable effort shall be made to protect
and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project, 14)
contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged, 15)
new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such
additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
structure would be unimpaired, and 16) In considering new construction, the Commission
shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though
it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
6. 911 Edgemere Court (I_andmarklLSHD) — Enlarge existing 2-car garage to 3-car garage.
Requires zoning variance for proposed 32.5' front yard setback - existing Is 42.9' non-
conforming (required is 50') [Zoning VariancelConstruction]
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
Steve Knutson, architect showed pictures of the neighborhood and a site plan marking
the site, photos of 907 Edgemere, which it used to be a 1 Y2 story house, now Is a 2
story house. In the summer of 1999 they asked approval for exactly the same project.
The owner is a patron and a collector of modern art, back then she had a piece of art that
the neighbors thought was a trailer or a camper. The most significant change in the last
seven years is the demolition on 917 and 925 Edgemere. The house at 917 Edgemere
was way back and exposed the house at 911 Edgemere. The proposed house at 917
Edgemere covers the entire site. The issue is: does the proposed I V addition fit into the
neighborhood?
Mr. Knutson said that 3-car garages are the norm on Edgemere Court. In seven years,
911 Edgemere is significantly more valuable. In this price point is not unreasonable to
expect a 3-car garage. The house was built in 1948. in 1995 the Commission approved
changing the garage door from the east side to the south side. The zoning analysis
concluded that the garage door must be 7' tall. A dormer had to accommodate the 7'
garage door. The garage does not have its original integrity anyway.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. What is the blue line on the site plan?
Answer: The blue line is a line 50' east of the curb. The red straight line is a line 50'
back from what is described as the easement on the survey. The green line, just off
from the sidewalk, is what is on the survey the easement. Edgemere is a private
drive.
2. Did the owner of 907 Edgemere say anything about the garage?
• Evanston Preservation C.ormvssion
February 7, 2006 — Viinu'.es
Page 8
Answer: A form letter was sent to the neighbors; the owners of 901, 907, and 919
responded and were not opposed.
c) Commission/Staff Comments
1. After visiting the site, it seemed the i V addition will slick out, but looking at the site
plan, it does not.
2. There was surprised at the tone of the 1999 letters, strongly opposing the addition,
and now there is no opposition.
3. Notice for zoning variances Is sent by the Zoning Divislon. The Preservation
Ordinance does not require notice for this kind of project.
4. The addition will not stick out with the new house to the north when built.
d) R&TA Recommendation
RBTA recommended standards for zoning variance a, b, and c. The Commission
determined that standard b does not apply.
RSTA recommended standard for construction 1 through 8 and 10 through 16 as
applicable.
e) Commission's Findings
Anne Dienner moved to recommend the variance for 911 Edgemere Court in that: a) it is
necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so is not to adversely
affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character or local
historic districts, and b) it will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or
Injurious to property In the district of vicinity where the property Is located. Mary Brugliera
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays.
Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the garage extension
at 911 Edgemere Court In that: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of front fagade, 3) the
proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids on the front facades, 5) rhythm of
spacing and structures on streets, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses
and other projections, 7) Relationship of materials and texture, 8) roof shapes, 10) the
scale of the structure, and 11) directional expression of front elevation are all visually
compatible with the house and the structures to which are visually related. Also, 12) the
distinguishing original qualities or character of a property shall not be destroyed, 13)
every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources
affected by, or adjacent to the project, 14) the contemporary addition to existing property
shall not be discouraged, 15) new addition to structure shall be done in such a manner
that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of
the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) In considering new construction, the
Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or
period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Mary Brugliera seconded
the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes. 2 nays.
7. 637 Sheridan Square (LSHD) -- Add a roof deck over the existing 2-story flat roofed
addition, install glass railing and new doors (south elevation). Replace existing flat roofed
garage addition; construct new roof deck with railing; replace iron balconies, replace
doors, install sliding doors with transoms (north elevation). Install three skylights (east
elevation). Install two windows In existing brick molding to math the original mullion
pattern, and door on existing door opening (west elevation). Requires zoning variances
for proposed building coverage of 32.1% (allowed 30%); Impervious surface ratio 69%
(allowed 45%); east property line setback 2.5' (required 5'); and roof -top deck setback
from the east lot line 2.5' (required 5') [Zoning Variance!Alteration/Construction2
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 7, 2006 — Mnutes
Page 9
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
Scott Fohrman, owner and Dan Balgelman, architect, and Louis Skydell of 633 Sheridan
Square were present. Mr. Baigelman said there has already been restoration such as the
masonry. and rebuilding the front foyer. Now what is left to do is some work around the
windows and to replace some windows with doors, to put In some skylights on the east of the
roof which does not face the main public way. Also, there is some work on the back of the
house, replacing a deck and an old addition that is in very poor condition. They did the
maintenance work as much as possible before the cold weather arrived.
The house was relocated in 1920 from the comer of Sheridan and Sheridan Square. At the
time it was relocated it believed that they built the front two-story addition. The back addition,
the garage, was a later addition. The easement was drawn up In 1963. The house has not
being maintained in the last forty years. Mr. Skydell said the house is very difficult to
maintain because it is near the Lake. They have debris continually falling from the house
onto their roof (633 Sheridan Square). The most the prior owners did to the house was the
air conditioning about 20 years ago.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. Was that an open porch or a sun room on the south elevation?
Answer: The southern face openings were screened. The two side openings were
deteriorated wood and stucco over it.
2. Is the design of the new door similar to the existing door?
Answer: It is an arched door with a smooth face with a small arched window.
3. Are the new windows all wood windows?
Answer: They will remove the frames and windows to replace them because they are out
of alignment and warped. The new replacement windows have custom moldings and a
quarter round brick mold. They will have custom Inserts; the ogee locks will match the
original windows, there are custom pieces in the jams, so that any vinyl on the windows
will not be seen at all. The windows are double -hung with SDL mullions with the same
configuration. The windows are approximately 40" wide x 5' high. The new windows are
wood with aluminum Gad. The proposed windows are $15,000 more than a stock
window. Most of the windows are non -operable. The existing casement windows on the
second floor will remain.
c) Commission/Staff Comments
1. There was concern about replacing the front door, because it is a pretty door.
2. At close inspection, the front door is badly deteriorated.
d) Owner/Applicant Comments
1. The front door is completed dilapidated as it is the porch, the wood on the front door, the
wood on the back door, the wood that was added for the screening. It requires heavy
maintenance.
2. The front entry is not original to the house. The foundation collapsed and they rebuilt the
porch with a concrete foundation.
3. Regarding the zoning variance, they have a non -conforming residence 2.58' from the
east property line. The whole rear yard is paved.
e) Commission's Findings
Emily Guthrie moved to recommend the zoning variances to lot coverage and Impervious
surface ratio, east line setback and roof top deck setback because: a) It is not detrimental to
the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity where the
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 7, 2006 — Minutes
Page 10
property is located. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7a
yes, 0 nays.
f) Commission's Findings
Emily Guthrie moved to recommend the zoning variances to lot coverage and impervious
surface ratio, east line setback and roof top deck setback because: a) it is not detrimental to
the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity where the
property is located. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7
yes, 0 nays.
Betsy Hohman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 637
Sheridan Square for the replacement of iron balconies, new skylights, replacement of doors
and windows because: 1) every reasonable effort will be made to adapt the property in
manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities have not been
destroyed, 3) the structure has been recognized as a product of its own time, 4) changes that
might have taken place in the course of time are being respected, 5) the distinctive stylistic
features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features are being
repaired rather than replaced when possible , 7) does not, 8) archaeological resources will be
protected, 9) contemporary design has not been discouraged, and 10) whenever possible
new additions shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.
Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Susan Rundle announced Traditional Building Exhibition and Conference at Nay Pier in April 5-8,
2006.
Emily Guthrie announced the Statewide Preservation Conference in Normal/Bloomington, June 8-19,
2006.
Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois seminar regarding Churches and Synagogues. February
28. 2006.
STAFF COMMENTS
Carlos Rulz said that 14 projects have been submitted for the February 21, 2006 meeting. The
Commission agreed to have a special meeting on March 7, 2006 for the residential projects. 1314 Ridge
and Three Crowns Park will be reviewed on February 21, 2006.
1015 Michigan Avenue, the project with the omamenlal piers does not need a permit. Staff will approve
this project administratively
YWCA the venting system over the entrance roof there will be an aluminum screen in front of the duct
work. A neighbor complained to the City about the visibility and noise. According to the architect the
noise was from a defective fan. Now fixed. Staff will approve this project administratively.
Mary Brugliera asked if staff could send a draft of the Annual Report within a week. Also, show a sample
week of each quarter to include all office consulting, phone calls and site visits. Ms. Brugliera said that
she will like to send the Annual Report to City Council as soon as possible.
Preservation Awards to be conducted in May during the Preservation month. Carlos Ruiz said there is a
spotlight for the Preservation Awards in the City's Web site. The deadline for applications is March 24,
2006. Also, the Power Paint presentation for the 2005 Awards will be also on line. There is also an ad
for the 2006 Awards in the Highlights magazine. Mr. Ruiz asked for two Commissioner volunteers to
help with the jury. Commissioners suggested nominating 1500 block of Florence Avenue, the Marvin
Walker mother's house. The project on the 600 block of Forest Avenue. The Mayo house at Church and
Evanstm Preservation Commission
Fetuuary 7, 2006 — Knutes
Page 1
Sheridan should be nominated for the exterior. Also. the house on the 600 or 700 block of Sheridan for
remodeling or adaptive reuse.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
Emily Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:45 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: & ayes, 0 nays.
Respectfully Submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz,
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Evanston Civic Center
Room 2403
2100 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dicnner, Stan
Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, and Thomas Prairie
MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Rundle
OTHERS PRESENT: John Malarkey, John Cronin, Tracey Schwick, Susan S. Morse, Mike
Niazmand, Tiffany Danielle, and James T. Murray
PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION
Present: Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, Ann Dicnner, Mary
Brugliera, and Emily Guthrie
II. MINUTES
The Commission approved the December 20, 2005 minutes as corrected. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays.
III. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Rules and Procedures: Removal of the public heating rules adopted on March 1,
2005 from the Commission's Rules and Procedures
The Commission tabled this item until the March 7, 2006 Special Meeting.
Commission members requested additional information from the Law Department
about the requested action.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Check List
Stan Gerson said he would like to improve the information submitted by applicants
and include drawings to scale with dimensions. Primarily he would like to see better
information on site plans and on the exterior elevations for alterations of an existing
structure or new construction. Site plans are needed for alterations that increase the
footprint of an existing structure or for new construction. Also, floor plans to scale
t�
Evanston Preservation Conunission
February 21, 2006 —Minutes
Page 2
including dimensions for alterations that increase the footprint of the existing
structures or for new construction. Other applications include land altering activity,
construction of a fence and fence variance (new in the form), and planned
developments.
Mr. Gerson suggested simplifying further the application form for the average
applicant. Mary Brugliera noted developers seeking planned developments are
sufficiently aware of these requirements. She suggested that the check out boxes
should be bigger. She asked if submission of photos, the property address and any
additional information is required. Carlos Ruiz said he encourages applicants to
include photos.
Stan Gerson suggested moving the zoning variances section to the bottom of the page.
In regard to incomplete applications Carlos Ruiz said some applicants do not have
architects and drawings are not always available. He said because the city is service
oriented it is difficult to stop applications if when applicants do not have architects.
He noted some applications are received directly and some come through the mail.
The Commission decided this item should be discussed further at a special meeting.
IV. OLD BUSiINESS
A. Review & Technical Assistance Committee
1. 2320 Pioneer Road (Landmark) — Construction of three-story addition.
Review of construction and materials (Construction]
a) Applicant's Presentation
John Malarkey, attorney; John Cronin, architect, Tracey Schwick, architect; and
Susan S. Morse, of Three Crowns Park presented revision to the September 21,
2004 for a 3-story, 4-story and 1 story components with connection to the Pioneer
Building. Changes: 1) Originally the main entrance was near Colfax and
McDaniel. After a number of discussions at all levels, it was decided to relocate
that entrance and centralizing into the building; 2) Eliminating an entry and
parking court off of McDaniel and moving the parking entry to Grant Street an
adding another parking garage entrance to the underground parking coming down
through the alley way to the backside of the building.
One other item is the location of the building and some of the distribution of the
units. They moved the building_ closer to the property line and spreading some of
the building further out on the site. They have created smaller parking court in
front of building for 92 independent units. Original plans had 3-story wings and
pull the middle wings up to four -stories. Neighborhood input varied; finally there
was an agreement for the stepping down of the building towards the street and
taking the center portion and raising it to the fourth story. The landscaping plan
calls for removal of diseased trees, planting new trees, and walking paths through
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006 —Minutes
Page 3
the gardens. The model shows all changes except the 1-story addition connecting
building in regard to material. No new brick ever touches the Pioneer building, so
stone material \%zll be used to separate the 2 buildings. Pioneer has 6 different
types of bricks from various constructions over time. The new brick will be
compatible but not identical to the existing brick. The detailing in the one-story
connecting building will be kept to a minimum. This area is the one-story
common building which includes dining room, cafe, and parlor.
The new brick is a rustic brick, utility size. They compared the Landstrom
building brick. The new brick represents a ]at of Pioneer building with a little bit
of the Landstrom building brick in it. They had 30 to 40 brick samples submitted.
The brick they chose was the clear winner although they picked 2 other for price.
The proposed Renaissance stone, it is a calcium silicate stone, not a cement stone,
made from crushed limestone, a man-made building product. They will use for the
banding and the masses of stone throughout the project and as the connecting
piece between the new construction and the Pioneer building. The standards
pieces are 1' x 2'. Every 3 courses there is a V chamfer at the joint which gives
its rustic look, its 3-dimensional look, and its shadows lines.
They can emulate the plaster work, the terracotta or other things that are on a
historic building. But they can fabricate out of fiber glass the cornice pieces.
These pieces are finished in the field.
The garage doors are aluminum with raised panels. Some of the units have Juliet
balconies with a painted railing. The balconies are located within the court yards.
Since they are the deepest within the building they are allowing them to get access
to the outside. They are showed in the elevation. There is a modillion on the
railing that was brought to the front entrance (a two-story space within the porte-
cochere).
The proposed vinyl double hung windows satisfy all the specifications they have
called for the building. Residents who suffer many maladies can lift this window
easily, thanks to a contiguous lip across the bottom of the lower sash, and a
portion of the upper sash. The building has been designed with the users in mind
and their special needs. The windows have an incorporated brick mold. The
standard window is 3' wide x 6' tall. There are %vindows side by side depending
on the location and elevation design.
The units will have a furnace for heating and condensing units on the roof for
cooling.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. Are there other elevations of the building?
Answer. The previous design showed common elements with the new
design such as create a line that suggests that there is a base; there a strong
Evanston Preservation Corn nission
February 21, 2006 —Minutes
Page 4
stone line at the cornice level and wraps all the way around throughout the
building with a top.
2. The lines going across the elevations are V wide?
Answer. The band is 8" then 1'.
3. Is the building a frame building?
Answer: This building is a frame building using H-metal framing
throughout, steel beam a column. The parking garage is free cast plank
spanning between beams and foundation walls and then steel frame will be
built above that,
4. What is the parapet material?
Answer: The parapet is a pre -finished metal copping. It attempts to emulate
the stone and create the joint to get a full shadow. The pieces will be 8'
long. At the top of the building it will look like a stone cap.
5. Where else will the Renaissance stone be used?
Answer: It will be use at the entryway where they will cantilever the heavy
cornice out from the building. Also, the cornice at the top
6. Are the new windows matching in height the existing windows on the
landmark?
Answer: The original windows are no longer in the Pioneer building any
more. The relationship is in the scale and the height of the window. The
height of the windows is consistent with the second and third floor of the
Pioneer building. The windows do not line up. In 1973 the Pioneer
building was refitted with the Andersen casement windows. Residents call
maintenance to open the large wood windows. Another window sample is
the Andersen vinyl clad wood window, with a thinner profile. On the inside
they have to order an additional piece of hardware to open the window.
7. Where is the screen for the windows?
Answer: It is a half screen on the outside at the bottom of the window.
8. Is there any test performed to determine the longevity of the vinyl windows?
Answer: Vinyl windows have come a long way since ten years ago.
9. Are the vinyl windows reinforced with bars across the rails? The sun and
the cold eventually weaken the: vinyl. Vinyl windows without reinforcement
bars tend to sag.
Answer: In their experience clients want sustainable, locally built product,
and recycled products.
10. What is the financial trade off between the Andersen and the vinyl
windows?
Answer: The cost difference is S 130,000.00. The total project is S36
million.
11. Has the architect used the proposed windows before?
Answer: He used vinyl windows before. Up until five years ago, he has
been a big wood window proponent. However, one can barely tell the
difference between a vinyl windows and a wood window from the inside.
12 This particular window is going to fit in and achieve the architectural
aesthetic that is envisioned for the building?
Answer: The scale of the windows will work.
Evansten Pirservation Conunission
February 21, 2006 — Minutes
Page S
13. What material are the patio doors?
Answer: They are aluminum clad French doors.
14. In the future, for the Pioneer building, are they planning to restore the
existing casement windows or replace them?
Answer. Their intent will be to bring back the look of the original windows
15. Is there any signage for the new building?
Answer: The signage is on masonry walls with the same materials and stone
cap. There is a pier with a metal identity plaque.
16. Is there any sign variances needed?
Answer: Not aware of it.
c) Commission/Staff Comments
1. Commissioners were very impressed with the project and commended the
architect.
2. The only part of the project that is troublesome is the vinyl windows.
3. A majority of Commissioner had no issues with the vinyl windows. A
larger window or larger scale or on another structure could be different. If
this were a landmark building the Commission will have a problem with
that, but as a commercial scale building, but S130,000 cost difference does
not sound a whole lot in a S36 million project.
4. As the facilities operator, the casement windows are a challenge to operate.
The proposed vinyl windows are much easier to operate.
d) Applicant's Comments
1. The a feedback from the community has been very positive
e) Commission's Findings
All standards for construction apply, except standard 9.
Mary Brugiiera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the new
buildings at 2320 Pioneer Road (Three Crowns Park) in that: the height, the
proportion of the front fagade, the proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids
to voids in the front facades, the rhythm of spacing and structures on the streets,
the rhythm of entrance porches, are all compatible with the original landmark
building. The relationship of materials and texture, roof shapes, scale of the
structure, the directional expression of the front elevations, are all compatible
and visually related to the original building. The distinguishing original qualities
of the landmark structure are not being destroyed, archaeological discoveries
will be turn over to the Historicai Society, contemporary design is not being
discouraged, if the buildings were to be removed the original structure will be
unimpaired, the use of a single architectural style or period is not being
required, and if needed, the Commission will recommend to the sign review
approval of the signs on the property. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The
motion passed 8 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006 — Minutes
Page 6
2) 1314 Ridge Avenue— Restoration of, replacement, installation of new windows
and doors to match existing wood windows and doors In kind [Alteration]
a) Owner/Applicant Presentation
Michael Niazmand, Owner, James Murray, Attorney, and Tiffany Danielle,
Architect, presented the project. Mr. Murray said that a site visit was conducted
by the Commission and that Mr. Neil Vogel [Preservation Consultant] provided
his report about the windows and doors worthy of replacement. Mr. Murray
solicited the Commission's reaction to Mr. Vogel's report. He said that their
point of view has not changed; they prefer to proceed with a replacement
program for the windows in the mansion with certain very specific exceptions.
They would attempt to restore certain doors or replace in kind as originally
constructed and installed.
Mr. Murray said they had indicated during the course of their original
presentation, that they desire to replace the windows with double hung wooden
Vetter manufactured windows that utilized an insulated glass panel with muntin
strips with shadow lines that are between the panes and e-factor glass that
increase energy efficiency and benefit the building as far as the heat loss and
heat generation in summer, and cooling and winter heating. The windows are
clear pine indicating that brick molds would be modified to the extent it might
be required in order to achieve a greater degree of historical reference, meaning
that they have the capacity to alter the particular brick molds.
b) Commission/Staff Questions
1. Are two doors and nine windows to be restorcd?
Answer: Yes.
2. Did the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness and what did
the applicant tell the Commission he will be doing?
Answer: The minutes of April 14, 2003 state: "Mr. Murray said that some
of the dormer windows may need some replacement. Copper replacement
on the roof... In response to a question from Mr. Carey, Mr. Prestangcn said
the majority of the windows are double hung, single pane glass with muntins
and true divided lights, some stomis are missing... Most of the windows arc
in good condition, basement windows need a little more work. The dormer
windows need more work. Everything appears to be salvageable at this
point". The Commission's vote was to approve on both the coach house and
the mansion, the restoration of the windows.
3. By reducing the brick mold does that get you closer to what is in the
property?
Answer: Mr. Vogel pointed out that he was concerned about the dimension
and the width of the muntins that were part of the replacement windows, but
his measurements were in error. Mr. Savochi reaffirms that the muntin
width is 7/8" rather than the 1 '/4" which was suggested. Mr. Vogel does not
support the concept of utilization of the coated glass term.
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006 —Minutes
Page 7
4. On page 3 of Vogel's report, it says: Ideally the windows on the east
elevation should also be restored; however this may result in a peculiar
appearance when viewed from the southeast comer due to the inconsistency
on the east and south elevations and in the interior. What does this mean?
Answer: When looking at the building from the southeast, looking toward
the northwest, that there will be a differential in window configuration, or
style of window, between this side of the building and what could be caught
on the east fagade.
5. Also, on page 1: Parallel indicated that the leaded glass side lights by the
north entrance door are also currently slated for replacement as shown on
the stairwelI.
Answer: The applicant wishes to restore those windows and not replace
them.
6. The dormer windows have on the exterior a metal wrap. Also, it seems
rather difficult to actually replace them. Are those windows still slated for
replacement?
Answer: The 17 dormer windows are referred to on page 3 of Vogel's
report. It is clear to them that the zinc material is going to have to be
removed and perhaps replaced, because the difficulty of resurfacing in place
is greater than the value of replacing them. They all have a pressed detail on
them; all the metal work on the outside is removable. The pediments of what
might be considered the columns seemed to be gone. Maybe the approach
to repainting them will have to be reconsidered.
7. Has the applicant looked at other window manufacturers?
Answer: They looked at Marvin windows, but Vetter windows flit [the
window openings]. With Marvin they will have to special order.
S. From the Vogel report, in the middle of page 2: The leaded glass zinc
lunettes, side lights and oculus novelty windows, retain the original, and are
generally slated for replacement [he meant restoration]. However, the
developer is proposing replacement of the leaded side lights at this time [this
is all restoration as well]. Also, it says: East and north entrance doors are
also scheduled for restoration, it will be important to confirm that polished
brass hardware and other alterations are not intended. What does that mean?
Answer: Mr. Vogel recommends weathered brass rather than shiny door
handles.
9. Early on in the discussions the Commission mentioned the tax freezes or
restoration tax credits. is the owner considering this? Also, what about the
I+agade Easement Program?
Answer: The tax credit is not transferable when he sells the units.
10. Are the Simpson doors in terms of muntin sizes close to being what is there
now?
Answer: Yes.
c) Commission/Staff Comments
1. Mr. Vogel's report on page 2, says: most of the existing windows and doors arc above
quality and did not see any windows and doors that are technically beyond reasonable
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006 —Minutes
Page 8
restoration effort to restore back to good serviceable condition... The primary drawback
of the existing wood windows versus replacement windows over the short term (less than
20 years) is convenience.
2. Anything with leaded glass, side lights, and above lights are all restored.
3. There seemed to be a little difference between what Mr. Vogel outlined from the north
elevation, the stairwell windows, he felt should be [restored] as with the two semi -
lunettes on either side of the north chimney. Mr. Vogel felt the pone-cochere exterior
windows should be restored.
4. To replace the windows and try to preserve the metal on the outside is very difficult,
because of the way the [dormer] windows fit in. The dormer windows should be
restored. If there is way to do a combination of new windows and restored windows; it
seems to make sense in trying to restore the dormer windows.
5. From page 4 of the Vogel report: The selected clear pine product is the lowest quality
double hung product of Vetter Manufacturer, and it will be least dimensionally stable and
least rot -resistant. Vetter offers several hard wood alternatives, the best of which is
Mahogany, which will perform much better in the long term. This option will increase
the cost of the windows 55% to 60%, and thus make restoration less costly in
comparison.
6. From the Vogel report: We predict that inferior clear pine product selected will only last
a couple of decades at best and contributes to the overall environmental impact in waste
of replacement windows, versus the basic mechanics of old growth millwork employed in
the existing windows. The PVC jam liner, weather stripping and balance systems are
questionable.
7. According to previous experience, Vetter windows were considered a middle-of-the-road
window. Mr. Savochi had pointed out that Vetter re -engineered their windows and
attempted to make a higher quality product.
8. From the Vogel report, in the middle of page 2: The leaded glass zinc lunettes, side lights
and oculus novelty windows, retain the original, and are generally slated for replacement
[he meant restoration]. However, the developer is proposing replacement of the leaded
side lights at this time [this all restoration as well]. Also, it says: Fast and north entrance
doors are also scheduled for restoration; it will be important to confirm that polished
brass hardware and other alterations are not intended. What does that mean?
Answer: He wants weathered brass rather than shiny door handles.
2. The applicant should be aware that the State of Illinois Historic Preservation
Commission will review the proposed work if the applicant decides to apply for the tax
credit and assessment freeze.
3. Storm windows have been around since the late i 800s. There are combination storm
windows with screens.
4. Ms. Guthrie said all windows could be restored. There is no reason to not try to save
all the windows. In a building of this significance, importance, location, and price
point, the Commission should be insisting on restoration. Interior storms or exterior
storms will provide the thermo break for energy efficiency.
S. Mr. Prairie said it would be very unlikely that there ware not removable storms in this
climate. He said not all options have not been explored.
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006— Minutes
Page 9
6. Ms. Brugliem said the City's own standards and the Secretary of the Interior's
standards call for restoration. She said the article she asked staff to copy gives the
names of restoration contractors.
7. Ms. Dienner said she was not in favor of interior storms. Also, she was concerned with
the aspects of heating and cooling if interior storms were installed.
15. Ms. BrugIiera agreed with most of Ms. Danielle's statements about the cost of the
project. She noted that windows are the Achilles' heel of the preservation movement,
because the technology of 1904 was much different from the technology of 2006. The
Commission's role is to advocate for this building and the Commission does not want to
require things that add an inordinate cost to anyone's project. At the same time the
Commission always has tended to be much stricter with landmarks than with either
contributing buildings or non-contributing buildings. 1314 Ridge is one of the most
important buildings in Evanston, with the most prominent intersection in the Ridge
Historic District, and a house by a famous architect The Commission knows Mr.
Niazmand spent a lot of money and made choices to do things right rather than to do
things economically. Mr. Niazmand has given a lot of thought to a lot of the things that
he has done such as the cleaning and restoration of the roof tiles.
16. Betsy Hohman said she is very sympathetic with the desire to come up with very saleable
property and that a buyer of a renovated building often wants new windows. She said
Mr. Vogel's report questions the Vetter product. She asked if there are alternative
manufacturers. She is concerned about the screen and storm system, and as a person who
worked for a developer, she will be concerned about the %lability of that product from a
purchaser's point of view.
17. Emily Guthrie said Mr. Vogel's report states that the windows are above average quality
and they are not beyond restoration.
18. Chris Carey said that it seems the applicant has made a fair amount of effort in trying to
repair the windows and finding people that can do the restoration. Based on his
experience it seems that ultimately it is not feasible to repair all the windows on the
house. He believes the Commission owes it to the applicant to come to a decision if the
Commission would like to continue the discussion for one more month. He was not sure
that every commissioner shares Nels. Guthrie's opinion on the restoration of the windows
either.
19. Jordan Cramer said unless the Commission is prepared to give the applicant some
alternatives that say `here it is a better solution', he agreed with Mr. Carey that the
applicant has told the Commission that he made efforts to find those alternatives. Mr.
Vogel also made a counter effect that the windows might be replaceable and offered a
better way to do it.
20. Carlos Ruiz said that he learned from a local architect about another restoration
contractor who is currently working on a building in downtown Chicago. He will share
the information with the applicant.
d) Applicant/Owner Comments
1. The novelty windows showed in yellow [on the elevation drawings] will be restored.
2. The Palladian window will be restored. The rectangular [windows] will be replaced, and
the circular of curvilinear materials will be restored. In terms of the novelty windows, or
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006 —Minutes
Page 10
the west stairway window, they are proposing the leaded transom be restored. The
operable portion will be replaced. Mr. Vogel is asking to restore the entire window.
3. The dormer windows seemed too deteriorated and it is not known if they are operable.
4. According to Mr. Savochi, the clear pine wood is chemically treated as a rot and insect -
resistant material, which brings the question whether or not the so-called hardwood
selection that Mr. Vogel recommends has, in fact, greater longevity. There is a difference
with the old growth pine. The old growth pine is warping, shrinking and there are other
problems.
5. The Vogel report suggests that the PVC lining be replaced at the coach house and
replaced in the main residence if the Vetter window is utilized with a color insertion that
is closer to the ultimate color of the windows.
b. They will make every effort to restore the dormer windows and the metal framing around
them.
7. The storm windows are not historically accurate. The single pane windows arc
historically accurate. They have to follow OSHA guidelines. The lead count is 130,000
on the outside and 340,000 on the inside. This means that the workers have to have a
shower and wear special clothes with a measuring device. The workers cannot take lead
home to their children.
8. All the operable windows could be restored in the third floor unit. These windows are in
the master bedroom and bath.
9. They prefer to get some thermo value in the third level.
10. The owner prefers restoring the windows with thereto value over storm windows inside
or out. He will attempt to do double sash -thereto if possible. If not possible, he will
consider interior storm windows.
11. The French doors will be replaced with Simpson wood doors on the south elevation.
Each elevation has three pairs per elevation. They propose to make the middle pair
operable outwardly, each pair to either side of that operable pair to be fired. That will be
on the south and north elevation.
12. Mr. Niazmand said the contractor Mr. Ruiz referred him to, did not even come to the site.
The contractor told him he is too small of a contractor to do this type of work.
13. Ms. Danielle, architect, thought the Commission would adopt Neal Vogel's report. They
need to be able to complete the project in a reasonable amount of time. This project has
many layers and it was broken up into a series of permits with the City's Building
Division. Going through the Metropolitan Water Works Reclamation District is very
time consuming. In the mean time, they were able to do the interior partial demolition in
both the mansion and coach house and the replacement of windows in the coach house.
The City has also has requested that the size of the storm water management system be
significantly increased to avoid surface detention.
14. Mr. Niazmand said they obtained a study in heat loss and heat gain; they have addressed
the lead problem with OSHA. They had a couple of people working on the windows as
well. The contractor found the weather stripping is metal; a groove needs to be put inside
of each window. if the existing windows are restored with double glazing, they have to
change the weights. If he were to restore the windows, he would still have single pane
windows with storms. Potential buyers of a million dollar property will like something
that operates and is functional.
Evanston Preservation Commission
Fcbnuary 21, 20G6 — Minutes
Page I I
15. Neal Vogel had two primary concerns: the profile dimension of the muntin, which they
clarified, is 7/8" the narrowest muntin available in the Vetter windows, and the depth and
the color of the jam liner. Neal Vogel describes the project as adaptive reuse, not
restoration.
16. Ms Danielle objected to the concept that Mr. Niazmand has chosen the cheapest route
out. The mechanical system is not a forced air system but a hydronic system, which is at
least $200,000 more on mechanical systems alone. Ms. Danielle was hopeful to reach a
comfortable compromise that is reasonable for the nature of the project. She said that
there are many aspects of this project that she is really proud of.
17. The applicant requested avoiding shopping for contractors and that the Commission
comes up with a recommendation for restoration guidelines, because Mr. Savochi is
capable of doing the restoration. If the Commission has a prioritization of criteria other
than simply restoration versus replacement then the applicant will consider the criteria.
Mr. Niazmand's criteria for the window restoration are functionality, energy efficiency,
compatibility, and avoid storm windows if possible.
18. James Murray said Mr. Niazmand, his client, has asked him to request on behalf of the
Asbury Ridge, LLC delay of the 45 day requirement for consideration of the finality of
decision making [for 1314 Ridge window replacement].
e) Commission's Findings
1. Chris Carey summarized the characteristics of the replacement windows as follows: 7/8"
muntins matching the existing, the PVC jam liners will be done in an almond or cream or
tan rather than white, the proposed color is the original paint color, all the novelty
windows will be saved, anything with leaded divided lights, such as sidelight windows,
will be restored. The entire west stairway window will be restored.
2. Restoring all of the decorative windows as proposed, and in addition the port-cochere,
which does not have to have anything, but be a wind and privacy break on the north
elevation, the dormer windows around, the panels next to the doors and the two doors in
the south gables D8 and. D9 under the decorative lunettes could be replicated.
3. All dormers to be restored, made operable with the zinc surrounds (17) in all elevations;
windows PCI through 4 on the north side of the port-cochere, the nine novelty windows,
the half rounds over B9 and 138; the two quarter windows on the north elevation on either
side of the chimney; the lunette 301 on the north elevation in the west dormer; the same
on the dormer in the front; and the south lunette on the west dormer of the south elevation
(9 novelty windo%vs, plus I I I and 112 (north entrance leaded glass side lights), and the
entire west stairway window (232-234).
4. Restoration of the dormer windows, or new sashes within the case of the window frame.
They may be able to put in insulated glass into the new sashes. Restoration of the two
entry doors completely, including historically appropriate hardware. The D4, FD3, FD2,
and FD1 doors are rotted.
5. Mary Brugliera proposed that the applicant come back at another time with more
information and exploration of the possibility of restoring all the windows and doors.
6. Mr. Prairie said that working with existing sash, improving the weather stripping jams,
and considering some type of storm windows on the exterior or replacing sash in the
window with double glazed window sash. The screens will still be in the outside.
Evanston Preservation Commission
February 21, 2006 — Minutes
Page 12
7. The Commission agreed to look into the people listed in the article Mary Brugliera
provided to the Commission, and contact other Window restoration contractors, call the
Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois and obtain a copy of their contractor's list
and ask them to come out. New information should be given to Carlos Ruiz within ten
days. The information will be shared with the applicant. The Commission will decide on
this issue on March 21, 2006.
8. Jordan Cramer moved that the Commission continue the decision on the windows to
March 21, 2006 with the understanding that the Commission will make a decision on that
date. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: S to 0.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee
1. 1331 Asbury Avenue (RHD) —Construction of 2 %2 story structure with attached 2-
car garage. Zoning variance require for 50019 impervious surface ratio [Zoning
Variance/Construction]
2. 1333 Asbury Avenue (RHD) —Construction of 2 %2 story structure with attached t-
ear garage [Construction)
Commission/Staff Comments:
1. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission originally approved in 2003 a building with
three units. The building design was complementary to the architecture of the
coach house. The current designs for 1331 and 1333 Asbury are different from
the 2003 project.
2. Stan Gerson said that he would prefer the design of each house be different from
each other.
3. The Commission agreed to review the two projects on March 7, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Stan Gerson moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:45 p.m. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Respectfully Submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, June 20.2006
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
Members Present: Chris Carey. Stan Gerson. Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, and .ton
Willarson.
Members Absent: Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Betsy Hohman, and Thomas Prairie
Others Present: Michael A. Sleja, Ellen Galland, Anne Earle, Rick Erickson, Katherine Tate-Bradish,
Chris Nesbitt, Jason Hoppe, Carole Brite, John Zachar, Moshe Calamaro, Tim
Gerdeman, Paul Janicki, Michael Smith. John Holbert, Marcia Mahoney, Katie
Sheppard, Ellen Burke and Doug Miller.
Presiding: Chris Carey, Chair
Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz
I. DECLARATION OF DUORUMICALL TO ORDER
Chris Carey, Chair, declared a quorum of six members being present (Susan Rundle, Jon Pohl, Jon
Willarson, Stan Gerson, and Emily Guthrie) and called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.
II. APPROVAL MINUTES
April 18.2006
The Commission tabled the approval of minutes because only 2 members who attended the April 18
meeting were present at this meeting.
Ill. COMMUNICATIONS
Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that a letter was received from Tracey A. Sculle, Survey and
National Register Coordinator, regarding the nomination of the building at 1702 Chicago Avenue (The
Woman's Club of Evanston), to the National Register of Historic Places. The Commission scheduled
a the public hearing for this nomination on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403,
Evanston Civic Center. The deadline for submitting the Commission's recommendation to the Illinois
Historic Preservation Agency is August 16, 2006. The City Council must approve the Commission's
recommendation before is sent to the State. The Commission would like to present its
recommendation to the City Council on Monday July 24.2006. 1702 Chicago Avenue is already an
Evanston Landmark.
IV. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Downtown Survey -- Update
Carlos Ruiz distributed the results of the Downtown Survey. He said he received the reports for
Area I, Area II, Area III, Area IV, Area V and Area VI. The Commission decided to move this
discussion to the end of the meeting.
B. Other Preservation Issues (Proposed development on former Kendall College property and
"hypothetical" development on Sherman Avenue)
Evanston Preservation Commission
June 20, 2006 - Minutes
Page 2
The Commission tabled the discussion of the above items due to the late start of the meeting and
In deference to the applicants present.
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. 1119 Oak Avenue (RHD1Architectural & Historical Significance) — Demolish existing 1-story
house. Construct 2 Yz story frame house and 2-car garage. [Demolition/Construction]
Michael A. Sieja, owner and Ellen Galland, architect presented the project. E. Galland said
Commissioners and Associate Members had the opportunity to visit the site. At the April I
meeting the main suggestion was that the existing building might be relocated to the rear of the lot
with a driveway place on the north side of the proposed house. She said there are some mature
trees on the north side of the lot that would need to come down. Even then only 113 or % of the
existing house would be seen from the public way. That makes to put a garage on a logical
location. The rhythm of that block is that most driveways are on the south side. This Is also good
for the landmark house immediately to the south. Another idea was to put the garage In the back
and take the house and put it like studio on top of the garage (coach houselgarage) combination.
It is narrower than the garage would be, so it would have to have a balcony on side of the other. In
addition, all of the windows of the apartment to the west would be blocked.
Michael Sieja said that only parts of the foundation were original to the structure. E. Galland said
the house has other significant issues that relate to preservation. The kitchen, bathroom and
bedroom are 30" below grade; the stair is only 30' wide and substandard tread and risers. There
are no egress windows in the bedrooms. The house would not align well with normal house levels.
E. Galland said they also had the Idea to moving the house to the park at the north end of Crane,
but there is already a serviceable building there.
Ellen Galland said she felt sympathetic with the building and with the idea of saving vernacular
architecture, but she felt badly about it, but she thought is not the right building for the Commission
to take a stand on because at its current state the house Is not benefiting the community. Nobody
knows the significance except for a few that read about it. They have some Ideas of how to
educate the community about what this house was. M. Sieja said they would put a plaque or
memorial in front of the building towards the sidewalk that could tell the history of the house and
the site with an elevation drawing on the plaque itself. E. Galland said another idea Is an honorary
renaming of the street. Also, it would call attention to the two landmarks on the street (1115 Oak
and 1118 Oak are Landmarks.
Susan Rundle asked how the building has been compromised. M. Sieja said the foundation is the
only portion of the building that it is least compromised. Anne Earle said the three houses are
listed on the National Register Ridge Historic District as architectural and historical significance.
Jon Pohl said have it listed in the National Register makes the building, as important, as it was
nominated as an individual structure. E. Galland said the plaque would show an elevation of the
building as it was originally built. Jon Pohl said the first house (1119 Oak) represents the first step
of the historical evolution of Wiggington's (originally owner) life and times. In his mind that makes it
very significant. The fact that is on the National Register as an architectural significant property
also means something. If it did not have that significance, it would have been expunged from that
form by the powers that be at the time. M. Sieja said 1115 and 1118 are the local Landmarks, not
1119 for architecture. E. Galland wondered what is architecturally significant now, it can't really
restored because is substantially substandard.
Emily Guthrie wondered if the house could be rehabbed as a studio. M. Seija said the building is
not a landmark, is not conforming in any way and it has been modified so many times, and very
little of the original structure is still there.
Commission's Findings
Evanston Preservation Co n nission
June 20. 2006 — Minutes
Page 3
Stan Gerson said all five standards apply for demolition. Jon Pohl said demolition is a hard case
to make in this case because the most important thing about historic preservation in the built
environment is, that is visible, is history that you can see. The National Register form bares that
out. He wondered if anybody did exhaustive research on the building to find out that its integrity is
in 100 percent intact. He doubted it. Nonetheless, it is history that can be seen; architectural
significance is can be seen. M. Seija said Wigginton commissioned two quality architects to build
tow nice houses, not the shelter to live in while he built the Queen Anne. Chris Carey said the
National Register nomination cites the houses as a group: the Wigginton house (1), (2), and (3)
and at the bottom they are noted for architecture and historic significance. He said M. Seija was
talking about 1100-1106 Oak.
Commission's Findings
Chris Carey referred to the standards for demolition:
1. Whether the property, structure or object Is of such historic, cultural, architectural or
archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and
contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State.
Stan Gerson said the important word is "such' meaning that it is exemplary as far as history,
culture, architecture or archaeological significance. Emily Guthrie said the applicants talk about
the educational value 375 S.F. (436 S.F. both stories). She envisioned taking school children for
sites visits to showed them that somebody lived in it. M. Seija said 700 S.F. is needed for a single
family home. E. Guthrie said that is in today's standards, clearly somebody lived In it. E. Galland
said if the house has to be preserved, last time it was mentioned that it could be preserved
somewhere else. She thought it could be in the vicinity, but if children were to visit, then It could be
moved somewhere else.
Chris Carey said he sees the house as the log cabin of its time. He would not object to being
moved. Emily Guthrie said its importance is the relation to the other two houses; that is unusual.
Jon Pohl agreed. One could show that as Wigginton became more prosperous he built three
different houses in three different styles. M. Seija said people will see 1950s cedar siding, the
porch's vinyl windows. parts of the foundation are from the 1800s. Children are not going to see
how people lived, because that Is not it.
2. Whether the property, structure or object contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural,
architectural or archeological character of the district as a whole and should be preserved for the
benefit of the people of the City and the State.
Susan Rundle said if 11 did not say'as a whole' she would say yes, because there is the study of
the three buildings, which are very important together. But as a whole, she did not agree. M. Seija
said he has the support of the vast majority of the people living on the block in support of tearing
down the structure.
3. Whether demolition of the property, structure or object would be contrary to the purpose and
Intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable district.
No comments.
4. Whether the property, structure or object is of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture,
and/or material that d could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense.
No comments.
5. Except in cases where the owner has no plans for a period of up to five (5) years to replace an
existing landmark or property, structure or object in a district, no certificate of appropriateness shall
Evanston Preservation Commission
June 20, 2W6 — Minutes
Page 4
be issued until plans for a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and approved by
the Commission.
No comments.
Susan Rundle said that the house should not be tom down because of the National Register
significance. It has the same massing and setting on the site, as it did originally. Even thought the
building has been compromised; those two elements have not. Jon Willarson said he went to see
the house and agree that this is a very difficult decision. He sees the historical significance. He
also thinks that architecturally is not that clear and it's on the edge. M. Selja agreed with the
significance of the land, reason why a plaque depicting an elevation drawing of the house and a
brief history would do more for the community that the house ever will.
Chris Carey read an email from Jordan Cramer. J. Cramer wrote: the tiny house on Oak can come
down as it is sorely lacking In original integrity. It has no architectural significance. The owner's
proposal to create a plaque containing history of the architect and location would much better
serve the community than keeping a run down shack on the site. Stan Gerson said so much has
been done to the house that it cannot be said that it is the original house or even close to the
original house. Also, that it is not 'of such' architectural significance. He said though there is the
historical aspect to it that can be taken care of by a plaque. He said he would vote against any
proposal to refuse the tear down of the house. He would vote in favor of demolishing the house.
Stan Gerson moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the one-story
frame house at 1119 Oak because: 1) the house is not of such historic or architectural significance
that its demolition is detrimental to the public interest and the general welfare of the City and the
State and 4) the property is not of such of old, unusual, or uncommon design that it could not be
reproduced with great difficulty and or expense; 5) there are plans (for replacement). Susan
Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1-8, 10-13, and 16 as applicable.
In regard to the construction of the new house, Ellen Gailand said the exterior finish is stained
wood siding and wood trim. The rooting material is asphalt shingles, the windows are aluminum
clad wood windows with SDI-s. The Chimney is stucco finish as well as the foundation. The
garage doors are wood. The garage exterior is cedar. The driveway Is pervious pavers.
Chris Carey said that if the Commission were to approve the construction of the house that the
owner would do the plaque with the history somewhere on the property as discussed and the
approval contingent on pervious pavers.
Susan Rundle moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new house at 1119 Oak as
It meets standards: 1) the height; 2) the relationship of the front elevation; 3) the proportion of
openings; 4) the rhythm of solids to voids on the front facade; 5) the rhythm of spacing of the
structure on the street; 7) materials and texture; 8) the roof shape; id) the scale of the structure,
and the directional expression of the front elevation are all visually compatible with the properties,
structures, sites, public ways, and places to which such elements are visually related. Also, 12)
the building of the house will not destroy the quality and character of the property; 13)
archaeological resources will be protected; and 16) the Commission did not impose a single
architectural style. All is contingent to an appropriate historical marker showing the elevation of the
existing house and its history to be placed close to the sidewalk for public visibility. Jon Pohl
added that the Commission and Anne Earle, Associate Member review the marker for historical
content. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Chris Carey amended the motion adding that the
chimney be constructed out of regular brick. Emily Guthrie seconded the amendment. The
motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Note: the driveway will be built with pervious
pavers.
Chris Carey skipped 1218 Elmwood on the agenda until their engineer arrives to the meeting.
Evanston Pmservabon Corr nwion
June 20, 2DO6 — Minutes
Page 5
Vt. NEW BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
1. 1110 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) Replace existing non -original windows with new double
hung Marvin windows. Repairfreplace front porch wood floor, columns, spindles and trim.
Repair/replace lower brick wall. (Alteration)
Rick Erickson, owner presented the project. R. Erickson said he is asking to replace
windows on the south side of house porch area 'chose are already Anderson casement out
swing replacement windows, completely rotted. The replacement windows are double hung
wood windows. Some crown moldings above the windows will be replaced in kind. The
lower brick is beyond repair. The brick under the front porch will remain. The remaining wall
will be replaced with new steel lintels and new row course of brick below.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1. 6. 9 and 10. Susan Rundle
moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to 1110 Michigan as
meeting standards: 1) every reasonable effort to make minimal alteration to the property; 2)
the distinguishing original qualities and character of the property are not being destroyed; 3)
they are not creating an earlier appearance; 5) the stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship
are being treated with sensitivity; 6) the deteriorated architectural features that are being
replaced are being replaced in kind, 7) surface cleaning of the brick with the gentlest means
possible; and 10) if alterations are removed, the essential form and Integrity of the structure
would be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Chris Carey amended the
motion to include that the applicant would report to staff to review the brick work and the
methods for the brick work. Emily Guthrie seconded the amendment. The motion passed.
Vote: 6 ayes; 0 nays.
2. 2307 Orrington Avenue (NERD) Replace existing 4' high fence along Dartmouth and add a
24' section to connect with the back of the house. The new fence is 6' high and solid.
Requires fence variance to raise the fence from 4' high to 6' high and reducing openness
from 30°% to 0%. (Alteration/Fence Variance)
Katherine Tate-Bradish, owner presented the project. K. Tate-Bradish said the south side of
the house is on Dartmouth Place. There is an B' section of fence from the alley to the house
and a separate garden for the coach house. There is a 4' high fence on the north side. She
said they need privacy from the pedestrian vehicular traffic affecting her property. There are
solid fences in the neighborhood. The proposed side yard 6' fence is facing south and she
would be please to do plantings on the street side of the fence. K. Tate-Bradish said there
are six 6' high solid wood fences, one 5' stone fence, and one cyclone fence in the
neighborhood. K. Tate-Bradish said the fence could be set back V to 2' from the sidewalk.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1, 2, B and 10 and standards A and
C for fence variations as applicable.
Susan Rundle moved to recommend the Zoning Administrator approval of the solid fence for
2307 Orrington if it is moved no more than V- 0" on the south to allow for vines and specially
In tight of the fact that there are 6' high corner lot fences nearby in that: A) it is appropriate for
historic conservation as it does not adversely affect the historical nature of the district, and C)
it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the area. Stan
Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote'. 6 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preservation UnvnEssion
.tune 20, 20O6 — Minutes
Page 6
Emily Guthrie moved approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the fence at 2307
Orrington in that: 1) every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the structure in such a
manner that required minimal alteration; 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the property
will not be destroyed; 8) archaeological resources will be protected and 10) the alterations will
be done in such a manner that if removed in the future, the integrity of the structure will be
unimpaired. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 0
nays.
3. 917 Edgemere Count (LSHD) — Renewal of previously approved Certificate of
Appropriateness for the construction of a new 2112-story house. [Construction]
And,
4. 925 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Renewal of previously approved Certificate of
Appropriateness for the construction of a new 2112-story house. [Construction]
Chris Nesbitt, owner presented the two applications for the renewal of Certificates of
Appropriateness. Both COAs expired in April 2006. C. Nesbitt said nothing has changed
since last time the projects were approved (no changes of material). He said the original
renderings and the architectural drawings are exactly the same. The intention was to build
both houses simultaneously. The reason for the delay is because The Army Corps of
Engineers was called to deal with the New Orleans hurricane. 925 Edgemere requires a
seawall. He made an application to the Army Corps of Engineers, the DNR and the EPA. He
received the permit approval, the wall was completed. Meanwhile he went through zoning
analysis. There were two homes on the respective lots that were demolished.
Susan Rundle moved to reissue the Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a
new 2.5-story house for both 917 Edgemere Court and 925 Edgemere Court as there have
been no changes whatsoever to the original designs the Commission approved. Emily
Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
S. 1018 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Enclose the open porch on the rear west elevation; remove
two windows and install two new double -hung wood windows in new locations (north
elevation). Also, remove door and relocate door on the south elevation of mudroom. Fill in
openings with brick and mortar. West elevation: replace three windows with in -swing French
doors and install two new double -hung wood windows. South elevation: remove door and
Install three new double -hung windows. [Alteration]
Jason Hoppe of Hackley & Associates Architects presented the project. J. Hoppe said they
would like to enclose the open porch, expand the kitchen west and add new windows. The
materials will match the existing materials. On the north elevation two kitchen windows will
be removed and replaced with new double hung all wood windows, remove the door on the
north elevation and relocate it on the south side of the new mudroom. The side wall is being
demolished. The three windows on the dining room will be removed and French doors will be
installed. The door on the south will be removed and three new double hung wood win' ws
will be installed.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 as
applicable. Susan Rundle moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration
to 1018 Sheridan Road as it meets the standards: 1) minimal alteration being done to the
structure,; 2) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the house are not being
destroyed; 3) there are no alterations that seek to create an earlier historical appearance; 5)
distinctive stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity. 6)
architectural features will match the design, color and texture of the rest of the house; 9)
contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 10) should the alteration be removed in
Evanston Preservation Canmission
June 20, 2006 — Minutes
Page 7
the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure will not be impaired. Stan Gerson
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
At this time Chris Carey went back to Old Business on the agenda
V. OLD BUSINESS
2. 1218 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) — Demolish existing house and construct a 2'/rstory frame
house and a 3-car garage. (Demolition/Construction)
Ms. Carole Brite, owner, John Zachar, architect, and Moshe Calamaro, structural engineer,
presented the proposal for the demolition of the house at 1218 Elmwood Avenue. Mr. Zachar
read a statement regarding the presence of toxic mold and structural problems with the house
that make it not feasible to restore the house. He cited two structural reports, which in their view,
support their position for the demolition of the building. At this time Carlos Ruiz noted that the
City Initially hired Moshe Calamaro to prepare a structural report on the house. Mr. Calamaro has
now been retained by Ms. Brite.
Mr. Calamaro reiterated that his report includes the replacement of the brick foundation with a
concrete foundation, the stripping of the house to the wood frame, reinforcing of the wood
framing, removing the roof frame, and construction of a new roof. He noted the house is
constructed with an 8" brick foundation, which makes it difficult to repair. It will not make sense to
replace the foundation with brick; rather it should be replaced with a concrete foundation and
brick veneer. Mr. Calamaro said, as far as the framing, the first floor is lacking at least one set of
beams to support everything above. It is possible to repair the structure, but it will be difficult.
Stan Gerson asked how extensive is the mold? Mr. Zachar said there are spore counts that are
very high. The lab tests show that some of the samples are toxic spores within the walls and
cavities. Mr. Gerson referred to an earlier demolition of a house on Michigan Avenue due to
mold. He wondered if the City was involved with its demolition. Mr. John Holbert (the architect of
that project at the time) from the audience said the owners of that house applied for the
demolition. Mr. Zachar maintained that not much of the original house would be left standing.
Paul Janicki (architect) from the audience asked if the deflection of the structure at 1218
Elmwood was measured. Mr. Calamaro said no, but it is approximately 2". Mr. Janicki said all
his work is on historic houses, particularly in Evanston. Jacking up historic houses is done every
day and historic houses are saved by shoring them up. Mr. Calamaro said this specific house
has to be stripped down to the frame and studs, reinforce the roof, jacking up every floor, door
Jams, and headers. Also, the second floor overhang on the north end is not supported. There is
termite damage, and foundation walls to be replaced. The house has a shallow craws space and
basement.
Mr. Carey said he and Ms. Guthrie visited the site. The later additions to the rear of the house
could be demolished and the main house could be restored. But there is a risk factor with trying
to restore the 8" brick foundation according to Mr. Calamaro.
The Commission discussed the significance of the balloon framing construction which is the type
of framing with which this house has been built. Chris Carey (professional builder), said the one-
story and the two-story rear additions to the house could be removed. The house basement is
shallow but the original house perhaps could be saved. Mr. Zachar said the house projects
more than 12" beyond the north property line on the second floor. To build a new foundation it
would be necessary to put a long piece of steel, jack it up outside the building and pour a zero lot
line 12" concrete foundation. Mr. Zachar said they had obtained a cost estimate from a contractor
to do this work and the estimate was $250 per square foot for framing and dry walling (excluding
finishes) compared to S150 per square foot for new construction.
Evanston Preservation Commission
June 20.2006 — Minutes
Page 8
Emily Guthrie mentioned a house at 1316 Judson that has a new basement and it has been
restored and sold in the market for over S1 million. Ms. Guthrie thought that Ms. Brite bought the
house without doing do diligence. then she discovered that the house has a whole a lot of
problems, and she is not interested in dealing with those problems. Ms. Guthrie
recommended putting the house back on the market and finding a buyer who would be interested
in restoring the house. She noted the basement is seeping and weeping water, which has been
sitting all winter thus accumulating the problem. Ms. Guthrie maintained that she did not see
much of the house that could not be remedied.
Ms. Brice replied that her decision is based on having to do the foundation by hand, jacking up a
structure that perhaps will collapse because the windows are rotted, and there is termite
damage. She emphasized there is no lack of interest or lack of will to restore the house.
Chris Carey asked Mr. Calamaro if the brick foundation could be repaired. Mr. Calamaro said
yes, but the question is while re -doing the house, does it make sense to keep it on a masonry
foundation wall. In his opinion it does not make sense, especially to make it livable. Mr. Carey
said he saw evidence of sagging in the basement center point. Mr. Zachar said that the joists
had been notched out to mortise into the top of the rim board.
Mr. Pohl (architect) said what he sees is a vernacular house of which there are very few left In
Evanston. This house has good character except for the aluminum siding that perhaps is
protecting what is underneath. The brackets under the eves, the little round window, and the
heavy hoods over the windows make it a very sophisticated vernacular house, and he could not
think of more than two vernacular houses in Evanston. However, the house was designated for
Its historic significance, not architectural significance. Nevertheless, this is a really good example
of a type of architecture that was once quite prevalent in the Midwest not just in Evanston. and It's
hard to come by one anymore. He said one has to weigh that against the hardship that now has
been identified. He recommended trying to fix the house because it is an important piece of
architecture. Ms. Brite maintained that there is very little to save in the interior. The egress on
the stair well is 3-Feet; the stairwell interior can't be saved. Mr. Pohl said that the interior is not in
the Commission's jurisdiction. He maintained the staircase is terrific as well as the fire place and
the moldings. But it is not the Commission's jurisdiction.
Ms. Brite said there is so much of the exterior that has to be replaced. Mr. Pohl asked why not
systematically remove those additions that are not part of the original integrity of the house and
then maybe do something contemporary in the back that would be sympathetic with the house.
Mr. Carey said there are three structures; his proposal is to save the front structure and eliminate
everything behind it and add on to it, pour a new foundation on all the new construction and try to
save the front part of the house. He walked around the house and in his opinion there is access
to the house on the north side.
Mr. Zachar asked would a more sympathetic replication of the existing facade receive a more
favorable review. Mr. Pohl reacted to Mr. Zachar's question by asking other Commission
members about leaving the front facade and building a new house behind it. Ms. Guthrie said the
discussion was about saving the original house. At this time Mr. Carey conducted a straw poll
asking how many Commissioners would be in favor of the demolition of the house. No
Commissioner favored demolition. Mr. Carey said to try and save at least the most significant
portion of the house; renovating it and then adding on could be one proposal as a compromise.
He emphasized that the street facade and the main structure of the original house could be
retained and restored.
Mr. Zachar asked how the Commission and they would work for a solution. Mr. Carey said there
may be another thing that may come out of his suggestion or some other further compromise
could be worked out from that point. He suggested before investing time and money on a new
proposal, perhaps communicating Ideas to the Commission through staff would be a good Idea.
Ms. Brite asked about preserving the facade of the house only. Mr. Pohl said he did not have a
Evanston Preservabcr.. Commission
June 20. 2006 - PA uib}s
Page 9
problem rr-,th that because In the 19th Century it was facade architecture anyway, they were
called false fronts. Ms. Guthrie said if the balloon construction is significant that could be part of
the architectural significance.
Moshe Ca.:amaro said the projecting bay on the south elevation has an angled foundation but it
was squared off. Mr. Carey suggested the angled bay should also be saved and taking
everything off after that.
Ms. Brite asked if the Commission would be opposed to considering saving the facade of the
house only. Mr. Carey said he did not know how possible could that be. Mr. Calamaro said It Is
possible to save only the facade. Ms. Guthrie said it may be possible, but it is the least desirable.
Ms. Brite said the facade could be moved off the property line. Ms. Guthrie said the whole
original house could be moved off the property line. She thought the Commission should not take
a straw poll for saving just the facade because earlier 6 nays to 0 ayes were not in favor of
demolishing the house, She suggested the owners finding somebody who is sympathetic to
renovation_ Mr. Carey agreed with Ms Guthrie's position.
In response to a question from Ms. Brite, Carlos Ruiz said that if the request for demolition Is
denied, Ms. Brite would have 30 days to appeal the Commission's decision and she is not
precluded during that period to work with the Commission for a solution. Being that the case, Ms.
Bdte asked the Commission for a vote on the demolition.
Stan Gerson said the Review and Technical Assistance Committee recommends that all five
standards for demolition apply. Mr. Cary read the standards for review for the record.
(D) Standards for Review of Demolitions: In considering an application for a certificate of
appropriateness for demolition, the Commission shag consider only the following general
standards and the standards included in subsection 24-91 J:
1. Whether the property, structure or object is of such historic, cultural, architectural or
archaeological s;gnircance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public Interest and
contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State.
Mr. Carey Said the Commission found that the demolition of the house at 1218 Elmwood would
be detrimental, that the demolition of such a historic property would be detrimental.
2. Whether the property, structure or object contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural,
architectural or archeological character of the district as a whole and should be preserved for the
benefit of the people of the City and the State.
3. Whether demolition of the property, structure or object would be contrary to the purpose and
intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable district.
4. Whether the property, structure or object is of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture,
and/or material that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense.
5. Except in cases where the owner has no plans for a period of up to rive (5) years to replace an
existing landmark or property, structure or object in a district, no certificate of appropriateness
shall be issued until plans for a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and
approved by the Commission,
Stan Gerson moved that the certificate of appropriateness be given for demolition of the 2.5-
story frame house at 1218 Elmwood in that: the structure is of such historic significance that Its
demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the
Evanston Preservation Co=u scion
June 20, 2006 — Minutes
Page 10
people of the City, the State and that it does contribute to the distinctive historic character of the
district as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the people, and its demolition would
be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter and the objectives of the historic
preservation for this district. Mr. Gerson clarified that his motion is for approval of the demolition
to move things on. It does not mean that he does approve the demolition. Emily Guthrie
seconded the motion. The motion failed. Vote: 0 ayes, 6 nays.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
6. 303 Lake Street (LandmarklLSHD) — Replace first floor exterior wood door with glass light
on Forest Avenue with French doors and wood screen doors. Replace 1960's overhead
garage door with carriage house door. Remove a through -watt a/c Init on the second floor
above the garage and infill opening with brick. Install arched -top wood gates in an existing
brick opening to the gangway between the garage and the house, Install a window on the
first floor of the east elevation to match the existing living room window. Replace pipe railing
around basement area for stair to basement with traditional, decorative cast iron guardrail.
Remove chain -link fence and replace it with solid wood fence (Alteration/Fence Variance)
Tim Gerdeman, owner presented the project. T. Gerdeman said the house used the have a
Forest Avenue address that later was changed to the Lake Street address because after
parking was not allowed on Forest, people still tried to park on Forest, The design replaces
the glass door on Forest with French doors. The 1960s deteriorated overhead garage door
will be replaced, the window A/C unit will be removed and infill the opening with like kind
brick, a new door will be installed In the arched gateway between the gangway of the garage
and the house, the basement entrance on the side yard railing will be replaced, the chain link
on the side yard will be removed and replaced with a metal (where visible from the street)
and solid wood fence. There is also a 6' high picket wood fence on the front yard that
requires a fence variation. A second window on the north side will be installed next to the
existing window.
T. Gerdeman said a zoning analysis application has been submitted. Emily Guthrie
wondered how the Commission could recommend on the fence variation If a zoning analysis
Is yet to be completed.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10 as applicable.
Emily Guthrie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 303 Lake Street for
the alterations In that meets standards of alteration: 1) every reasonable effort Is being made
to adapt the property with minimal alteration; 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not
being destroyed; 3) alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier
appearance would be discouraged; 4) changes that may have taken place in the course of
time are evidence of the history and development of a property. These changes may have
acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and
respected; 5) distinctive stylistic features that characterize a property, structure, site or object
shall be treated with sensitivity; 7) the surface cleaning of structures and objects shall be
undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting shall not be undertaken, nor shall
other cleaning methods that will damage the historic materials of the structure, site or object;
9) contemporary design for alterations will not be discouraged; and 10) wherever possible,
new additions or alterations shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed,
the essential form and integrity of the structure is unimpaired. Susan Rundle seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes; 0 nays.
The Commission took no action on the fence variation due to an incomplete application for
fence variation. The Commission asked the applicant to come back at the next meeting.
Evanston Preservation Commission
June 20, 2006 — Minutes
Page 11
7. 1200 Judson Avenue (LSHD) —Remove earlier addition on the west rear elevation and
construct a two-story addition. Replace glass block In turret with radius windows
[Alteration/Constru ction/Dem of ition]
Paul Janicki, architect presented the project. P. Janicki said the facade of the addition at the
rear and deck will be removed. The turret in front had curved double hung windows that have
been filled in with glass block that will be removed and replaced with new curved double hung
windows. Another two double hung windows will be added as a companion to those. P.
Janicki said in the dining room, they will add glass transoms and replace the casement
windows below (not original to the house). In the rear of the house (north elevation), a
French door leads to a mudroom, the window above is existing. The stair tower is very
narrow; the design includes a new bay and a new stair with a large landing on each level.
The bay has a flared base matching the base of the turret In front of the house, and it has a
dormer form that blends with the roof. The stair tower has leaded glass on the south
elevation. P. Janicki will add windows on the base. The back stairs and mudroom stairs
match the front stoop stairs, newel post, lattice, same railing and balusters.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said all 5 standards of demolition are applicable. S. Gerson moved to approve
the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of specified rear section of 1200 Judson
In that: 1) the material is not of such historic or cultural significance. 2) the structure does not
contribute to the distinctive historic and cultural character of the district; 3) the demolition of
the structure will not be contrary to the purposes and intent of this chapter and the objectives
of historic preservation; 4) the part to be removed is not of such old, unusual or uncommon
design that cannot reproduce with great difficulty and expense; 5) the owners do have plans
for replacement. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0
nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10. and 12-16 as applicable, S.
Gerson moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction as specified
for 1200 Judson at the rear in that: 1) the height; 2) the proportion of front facade; 3) the
proportion of openings; 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on streets; 7) the relationship
of materials and texture; 8) the roof shapes; and 10) the scale of the structure are all visually
compatible with the structures to which they are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing
original qualities or character of a property are not destroyed; 13) archaeological resources
will be protected; 14) the design is not contemporary; 15) the addition is done in such a
manner that it could be removed in the future without impairing the integrity of the original
structure; 16) the Commission is not imposing the requirement for a single architectural style.
Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes; 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-5, and 8-10. Emily Guthrie
moved to approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations at 12 Judson in that; 1)
every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property with minimal alterations; 2) the
distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed; 3) alterations that have no historical
basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance would be discouraged; 4) changes are
being recognized and respected; 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with
sensitivity; 8) every reasonable will be made to protect and preserve archaeological
resources; 9) contemporary design for alterations will not be discouraged; and 10) wherever
possible, new additions or alterations if removed, the essential form and integrity of the
structure will be unimpaired. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
8. 540 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — Demolish existing garage and construct new 2-car garage.
Required setback is 3' from the north property line, proposed setback is 1.2'
[Construction/DemoliUon/Zoning Variance]
A
Evanston Preservation C, mn ssion
June 20, 2006 -- Minutes
Page 12
Michael Smith, owner presented the project. M. Smith said he wants to demolish the existing
the two -car garage and build a new two -car garage with the same dimensions, roof height,
the exterior material (cement Fiber). The garage doors are metal. The garage location is
being relocated.
Emily Guthrie said she wished the applicant came with better materials, better doors, better
everything. M. Smith said that there are similar garages in his area including metal garage
doors.
Commission's Findings
Emily Guthrie moved to recommend the zoning variation at 540 Forest because: A) it is
necessary and appropriate in the interest of historic conservation, so is not to adversely affect
the historical, architectural or integrity of the local historic district; and C) it will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the
district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1-5, 7, 8, 10. and 12-16.
Susan Rundle said that the applicant may be disappointed of the proposed garage. S.
Rundle moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new garage at 540 Forest
Avenue as: 1) the height; 2) the proportion of front facade; 3) the proportion of openings; 5)
the rhythm of spacing and structures on streets; 7) the relationship of materials and texture
(is not met); 8) the roof shapes; and 10) the scale of the structure are all visually compatible
with the structures to which they are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original
qualities or character of a property are not destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be
protected; 14) the design is not contemporary; 15) the addition is done in such a manner that
It could be removed in the future without impairing the integrity of the original structure;16)
the Commission Is not Imposing the requirement for a single architectural style. Emily
Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays.
Stan Gerson said all five standards of demolition apply. Susan Rundle moved to approve a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing garage at 540 Forest in that:
1) it Is not of such historic, cultural, architectural significance that its demolition would be
detrimental; 2) it does not contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural
character of the district; 3) the demolition would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of
this Chapter. 4. Whether the property, structure or object is of such old, unusual or
uncommon design that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty; and 5) the owner
has plans to replace it. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6
ayes, 0 nays.
9. 649 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) —Expand dining room from 8' wide to 11' wide on the south
elevation. Extend the rear landing/planter by 5' far hot tub. [Construction)
John Holbert, architect presented the project. J. Holbert said the project is for the expansion
of the dining room from 8' to 1 V in width. The gable roof remains the same. The windows
will be reused. In the back they will match the beaded board.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16.
Emily Guthrie moved approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction at 649
Michigan as it meets standards: 1) height; 3) proportion of openings, 7) materials and
textures; the roof shape and 10) the scale are all visually compatible to the structures to
which they are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a
property are not destroyed; 13) archaeological resources will be protected; 14) the design Is
not contemporary; 15) the addition Is done in such a manner that it could be removed in the
Evanston Preservabon Commission
June 20, 2006 — Minutes
Page 13
future without impairing the integrity of the original structure; 16) the Commission is not
imposing the requirement for a single architectural style. Stan Berson seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
Action: Construction — Approved. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
10. 1236 Forest Avenue (LandmaddLSHD) — Build a platform approximately 18'x32' and (10"-
16") above ground level at the base of the existing deck at the rear of house. Construct a
10'x10'x9' pergola at the rear of the property. Replace existing fence
[Construction/Alteration]
Marcia Mahoney, owner and Katie Sheppard, landscape architect presented the project. M.
Mahoney said they want to replace the brick patio with a wood cedar platform (18' x 32') at
the back (10" to 16") above grade with steps. The Zen garden on the east side of the garage
will be removed and replace it with a pergola and a sitting area. The pergola is not visible
from the street or the alley. It will be constructed out of cedar. M. Mahoney said they will like
to construct an architectural wall next to the pergola and on the side of the house (12" to 28"
high) made out of Chicago brick with a limestone cap. Also, install a wrought Iron fence on
the north and south side in lieu of the chain link fence.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction for the deck and pergola 1,
7, 10, 12, 13, and 16 as applicable. Stan Gerson moved to grant a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the property at 1236 Forest for the construction of the deck at the rear
of the house and the construction of the pergola in the back yard In that: 1) the height; 7) the
textures and materials; and 10) the scale of the structures are all visually compatible to
structures to which they are visually related. Also, 12) the original quality and character of
the property is not being destroyed; 13) archaeological resources will be protected; and 16)
the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single architectural style, Emily Guthrie
seconded the motion, The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-3, 8 and 10. Stan Gerson
moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the chain link fence at
1236 Forest with a wrought iron fence In that: 1) it requires minimal alteration of the property;
2) the original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed; 3) the existing
fence has no historical basis; 8) archaeological resources will be protected; and 10) if the
fence were to be removed, it could done in a manner that the integrity of the property would
be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0
nays.
11. 1006 Ridge Avenue (RHD) — Construct second -story addition and replacing the rear hip roof
with a gable roof, all existing materials will be match except the new stucco on the rear. Also,
replace basement windows. Move air conditioning units to the side of the house which
requires a 10' setback from the south property line, proposed is 4' (AlterationtZoning
Variance)
Ellen Burke and Doug Miller, owners presented the project. D. Miller said he received a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the plans excluding the replacement of basement windows
and the move of A/C units. Susan Rundle asked about the stucco finish at the rear. D. Miller
said he looked at brick including salvaged brick, he could not find a match to the existing
brick (an even color hard to match). He said that there is an application of color to the brick,
but there is no guarantee how long is going to last.
Commission's Findings
Evanston Presemation Con? ussion
June 20. 2006 — Knut n
Page 14
Stan Gerson said alterations include changing the hip roof to a gable roof on the rear, and
replacing basement windows and using stucco exterior finish on the rear. S. Gerson said
standards of alteration 1-6. 9 and 10.
Miller said regarding the windows all the wood framing and the windows will be replaced.
There are nine panes of glass on each window and there are sixteen windows. It will be
extremely labor intensive and expensive to restore those windows. They would need to add
storms as well. The new windows are wood to match the muntin pattern and true divided
lights. The Commission recommended not to sand blast the foundation brick and mortar
analysis for re -pointing the brick.
Susan Rundle moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations at 1006
Ridge because: 1) every reasonable effort is being to minimally after the structure; 2) the
distinguishing original qualities and character of the structure are not being destroyed; 3) they
are not trying to create an earlier historical appearance; 6) deteriorated architectural features
will be replaced with similar; 7) surface cleaning should be undertaken with the gentlest
means possible, sand blasting shall not be undertaken; 9) contemporary design for
alterations will not be discouraged; and 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations if
removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson the zoning variation recommendation is for a recommendation to move the A/C
units 4' from the property line, where 10' is required. R&TA recommends standards A and C
as applicable. D. Miller said there is a letter of support of both houses to the south. Emily
Guthrie moved to recommend the zoning variation at 1006 Ridge in that: A) It will not
adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the district; and C) It will not
be materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property. Stan
Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.
Respectfully submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior PlannerlPreservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Emily Guthrie, Betsy
Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, Jon Willarson
Anne Earle (Associate Member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, and Stan Gerson
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Gerdeman, Kathryn Quinn, John & Cathleen Hammerschlag,
Terre Tuzzolino, Alfonso Segreti, Neil Kimel, Noreen Edwards,
Mark Metz, Joseph DeLisi, Tiffany Danielle, Conrad & Julia
Winkler, Andy Otting
PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Vice Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER/QUORUM DECLARATION
Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair acknowledged a Quorum present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner,
Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson)
and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 18, 2006 Minutes
Mary Brugliera asked about the decision of 1220 Ridge. Emily Guthrie thought the motion
was to deny. Carlos Ruiz said the motion was to deny the parking variance. The
Commission did not take action on the driveway because it's already there. Since the
applicant stated that they will not park their cars, they did not need the variance. Ms.
Guthrie said they are parking all the time. She asked if the Commission could rescind its
decision if they keep parking cars there all day. fir. Ruiz said he will find out more about
it. However, he believed it was a zoning matter.
Mary Brugliera noted that the minutes are being written in a narrative format since the
comment/questionlanswcr format takes him much longer to write. She said there has to be a
way to write the minutes more concisely. Mr. Ruiz said he will continue trying to do so.
Ms. Brugliera said the purpose of the minutes is to keep an accurate record of the
Commission's proceedings on that date. It is a useful tool for Commissioners missing a
meeting or as a reference for project returning to the Commission months later.
Evanston Preservation Commission
July 18, 2006 — Minutes
Page 2
Ann Dienner moved to approve the April 18, 2006 minutes. Emily Guthrie seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
III. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Boards and Commissions Questionnaire
Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission about the Boards and Commissions
Questionnaire as part of the Strategic Plan. Staff has been asked to fill out the
questionnaire by July 21, 2006.
IV. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Location of Historic District Signs
The Commission discussed the proposed location of new vehicular and pedestrian
signs for the Oakton historic district, and the replacement of signs in the Lakeshore,
and Ridge historic districts. Carlos Ruiz said he will contact a representative of the
Northeast Evanston Historic District Association for their input on the location of new
signs in that district. The next step is to determine the number of signs and the cost of
the signs. Currently, there is funding for this type of signage but it may be available
only until the end of the fiscal year. Carlos Ruiz will contact Rajeev Dahal, Traffic
Engineer to work on the cost and design specifications for the signs.
B. Downtown Survey
Carlos Ruiz said the Commission received the results of the surveys from commission
members who surveyed the different areas of the proposed downtown. The survey
map shows in green the existing landmarks, in yellow the two potential landmarks
identified by the Plan Commission Downtown Subcommittee, in orange are the
potential landmarks as identified by commissioners, and in blue are the buildings with
a question mark about whether they should be considered for landmark nomination.
Mary Brugliera said the sun•ey is very amorphous at this point. Traditional building
ought to be, what could be added to, and those that might be significant, contributing
or landmark. Ms. Bruglicra said the Commission needs to talk to the Plan Commission
Downtown Subcommittee. Mr. Ruiz said he suggested to the Subcommittee that they
and the Commission agree on buildings that they could recommend for landmark status
to the PIan Commission as a whole. The two buildings in yellow should be taken care
of. The question is do these buildings meet the criteria for Iandmark status. That w711
be known not until they are reviewed as a nomination. The other question is who is
going to nominate them.
Susan Rundle suggested by the August meeting the Commissioners should be familiar
with the different colored buildings and discuss them. Jordan Cramer agreed with Ms.
Rundle's suggestion. Anne Earle said the building at 614 Clark is a Iandmark, but not
included on the list. The Library Plaza is not a landmark, but should be made a
Evanston Preservation Commission
July 18, 2006 — Minutes
Page 3
landmark. The building east of the Carlson building should also be made landmark
that visually establishes that comer.
Mr. Ruiz said he believes the Do%%-nto«-n Subcommittee is looking to complete their
work in October. Ann Dienner said Evmark perhaps should be involved in this effort.
The Commission agreed to continue its discussion about the survey on August 15,
2006.
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. 115 Dempster Street (LandmarklLSHD) - Demolition of garage and back porch.
Construction of new garage with living space on the second floor. The proposed
second story addition requires a five foot (5') setback from the west property line.
Proposed setback= 0.49'. The proposed second story addition requires a thirty foot
(30') setback from the rear property line. Proposed setback = 0.50'. [Zoning
Variance/Construction/Demolitionj
At the request of the applicant this item was tabled to August 15, 2006.
2. 303 Lake Street (LSHD/S) - Remove chain link fence along the rear and interior side
yard and replace it with a solid wood fence. Replace section of chain link fence
along the driveway with a metal rail fence. No fence shall be permitted In any street
yard of a corner Iot in any residential district. Fences located in street side yards of
corner lots must have an opacity of seventy percent (70%) [maximuml. Fences
located in street side yards shall not exceed four feet (4') in height. Proposed = 6'.
[Fence Variance/Demolition/Construction]
Tim Gerdeman, owner and Kathryn Quinn, architect presented plans to replace an
existing chain link fence along the interior and side yard and replace it with a solid wood
fence. Also, replace a section of chain lint: fence along the driveway with a metal rail
fence. Mr. Gerdeman said he aLqecd with his neighbors concerns about the fence
blocking the view of pedestrians and he pulled the fence in with setback of 15'-2" from
the property line and it's now in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Quinn
said the plans indicate a fence in green as a solid wood board fence with 5.5" square post
with a decorative finial and in blue as a wrought iron fence.
Mr. Ruiz said the Commission received revised plans over the weekend. The revised
plans do not need a fence variance. Mr. Gerdeman said the revised decorative metal fence
is 6' high.
Cathleen Hammerschlag of 311 Lake said she would like to see a before and after
representation of the revised fence. Another concern is the continuity of a 6' high fence
with the lower brick wall. That wall is almost 64" high. Mr. Hanimerschlag said the wall
is next to their driveway, and there is a tree on the property line. He suggested installing
the new fence where the previous cyclone fence ended. Mr. Hammerschlag said the
safety issue was not previously recognized and they object a 6' high fence. He noted the
existing cyclone fence is 46". He said they are being asked to put up with a 6' high solid
Evanston Preservation Commission
July I8, 2tx16 — Minutes
Page 4
fence and a 6' high metal fence. The driveway is very narrow and because of that people
do not now that there is a driveway there. Mrs. Hammerschlag said because of there the
safety concerns they oppose the height and the opacity of the solid fence.
Mary Brugliera suggested a simpler fence with greenery as a compromise. Terre
Tuzzolino of 320 Lake said anything that will create less visibility is a concern.
Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 5, 9, 10, 13 and t5
as applicable. Susan Rundle said she was troubled because the applicants are requesting
a fence as of right and the Commission has approved fences as of right in the past, except
that this fence is being contested. Jordan Cramer said he would have to assume that from
the Zoning stand point, that safety will be covered by the Zoning Ordinance. He said
safety is not in the Commission's purview at this point. Mr. Hammerschlag asked the
Commission to deferring the project so they can have to opportunity to respond to the
latest proposal.
Betsy Hohman said she had a concern with the combination of the wood fence with the
metal fence. Other Commissioners expressed the same concern. Emily Guthrie
suggested a metal rail fence all around. The Commission discussed various degrees of
minimizing the visibility of the wood portion of the proposed fence. A straw poll
determined that the majority of Commissioners would approve an all around 6' high
ornamental metal fence. Mr. Hammerschlag said the fence will be 6" higher than the
brick wall.
Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the ornamental
metal fence on the north, west and part of the south elevation in that it meets standards: l
(the height is visually compatible with structures, properties and places to which is
visually related), 5 (it is compatible in the rhythm of spacing of structures on streets), 9
(the fence when it is a characteristic of the area ensures visual compatibility with the
properties, structures, sites. and places to which is visually related), 10 (the scale and
mass of the fence is visually compatible ►vith properties, structures to which is visually
related), 13 (any digging that results in archaeological artifacts will be cared for), and 15
(a single architectural style is not being imposed). Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Emily Guthrie moved to approve the demolish of the cyclone fence
Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
1. 1930 Orrington Avenue (NEHD/C) - Enlarge kitchen area in the rear of the
house and repair or replace the wood siding to match the existing wood siding,
and new clad windows [Alterat ion/Construction/DemolltionI
Evanston Preservation Commission
July 18. 2006 —Minutes
Page 5
Alfonse Segretti, o%mer presented plans to enlarge the kitchen at the rear of the
house and repair or replace the wood siding to match the existing %vood siding on the
coach house and house and the demolition of a wooden deck at the rear.
Mr. Segretti said the windows on the second floor are steel casement windows.
There is a clad window on the front of the house back. The addition calls for four
new clad windows. Ms. Bruglicra suggested to Mr. Segretti to look into the
Property Tax Freeze Program. Carlos Ruiz recommended Mr. Segretti to contact the
State before the construction of the proposed work.
Emily Guthrie said R&:.TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, and 12-16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the certificate of
appropriateness for the addition at 1930 Orrington with wood windows in that: 1
(the height of the addition is visible compatible with the structure), 3 (the proportion
of openings is compatible), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures is visually
compatible), 6 (the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections are also
compatible with the structure), 7 (the relationship of materials and texture is
appropriate), 8 (the roof shape is compatible with the structure), 10 (the scale of the
addition and the mass is appropriate), 12 (the distinguishing original qualities and
character of the property has not been destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will
be protected), 14 (contemporary design has not been discouraged), 15 (the addition
if removed the essential form and integrity of the structure it's been unimpaired), 16
(a particular style has not been imposed). Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 1 nay.
Thomas Prairie moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition
of the deck in that: 1 (the structure is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or
archaeological significance), 2 (the structure does not contribute to the distinctive
historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the district as a whole),
3 (demolition of the structure would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this
Chapter), 4 (the structure is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture,
and/or material that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or
expense), and 5 (the owncr has approved plans to replace the existing structure).
Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for two window
replacements at 1930 Orrington because: 1 (the alterations are minimal), 2 (the
distinguishing original qualities or character of the structure are not being
destroyed), 9 (contemporary design for alterations is not being discouraged), and 10
(the alterations to structures will be done in such a manner that if alterations were to
be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be
unimpaired). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes,
0 nays.
2, 2142 Asbury Avenue (Landmark) - Replace chain link fence with a new 4' high
wooden picket fence on same location. Any replacement of a legal
nonconforming fence shall neither increase the degree of nonconformity nor
Evanston Preservation Conunission
July 18. 2006 -- Minutes
Page 6
create any new noncompliance. Existing chain link fence 30% opacity, new
wooden fence more than 30% opacity [Fence
Varian ce/AIteration/Construction]
Neal Kimel, owner presented plans for the replacement of a chain link fence with a
new 4' high wooden scallop picket fence on the same location (south property line)
along Leonard Place. Mr. Kimel submitted two letters from neighbors in support of
the fence variance. The chain link fence is rusted and in bad shape.
Susan Rundle said the proposed fence is appropriate to the house. Emily Guthrie
said R&TA recommends standards for variance A and C. Ms. Rundle moved to
recommend a variation for the fence at 2142 Asbury as shown on the drawings
because: A (it does not adversely affect the historic or architectural integrity of the
landmark), and C (it will not materially detrimental to public health, safety and
welfare). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0
nays.
Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-4, and 8-10 as
applicable. Ms. Guthrie moved approval for the certificate of appropriateness
because: 1 (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing original qualities of the property
will not be destroyed), 3 (alterations that have no historical basis is not being done),
4 (does not apply), 8 (every reasonable effort will be made to protect and preserve
archaeological resources), 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 10
(alterations shall be done in such a manner that the essential form and integrity of
the structure is unimpaired). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
3. 2125 Sherman Avenue (NEHD/C) - One-story, 2' x 12' extension, on the south
elevation towards the rear of the house jAlterationj
John Metz and Noreen Edwards, owners presented the plans for a one-story 2'x12'
addition on the south elevation of the house at 2125 Sherman.
Mr. Metz said the kitchen will be relocated to its original location with the 2'x 12'
addition with 4" exposure aluminum siding, fixed skylights and casement windows.
On the north elevation they will unveil a window opening and install a double hung
window for a new powder room. tics. Edwards said the original house has wood
windows with aluminum storms. The addition has double pane wood windows and
four skylights in the attic. The plan calls for aluminum clad wood windows. They
installed aluminum siding about twenty years ago and all the window frames are
covered with aluminum.
Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5, 9 and 10 as
applicable. Ann Dienner moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness in that:
1 (the proposed work requires minimal alteration), 2 (the distinguishing original
qualities or character of the structure is not being destroyed), 3 (the alterations do
not seek to create an earlier appearance), 4 (changes that may have taken place in the
Evanston Preservation Commission
July 18, 2006 — Minutes
Page 7
course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property, structure,
site or object and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in
their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected), S (does not
apply), 9 (contemporary design of the alterations and addition is not being
discouraged because they do not destroy significant architectural material, and such
design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the
property), and 10 (the additions or alteration to the structure is being be done in
such a manner that if such addition or alterations were to be removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired). Betsy
Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 2 nays.
4. 63240 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Replace: roof asphalt shingles, gutters
and downspouts, wood windows (now clad in aluminum) with vinyl windows.
Install A/C condensers (Alteration)
Joe DeLisi, architect, and Tiffany Danielle, consultant architect, presented plans to
replace the roof asphalt shingles, gutters, downspouts, wood windows with vinyl
windows and the installation of A/C condensers at 632.640 Hinman Avenue.
Mr. DeLisi said the A/C condensers are in three locations: ground mounted and on
the roofs of the rear porches. Ms. Danielle said the project is for a condo conversion
from a rental building. They are proposing thirty two units. The building is by John
Nyden. The building has Prairie School attributes to it. The units will be available
to first time home buyers. The current roofing material is asphalt shingles. The new
shingle would be architectural grade asphalt shingles.
Mary Brugliera noted that the cast facing windows are casements on the side of the
sunrooms. The proposed windows are double hung everywhere. Ms. Danielle said
regarding the windows, it appears that cladding of the windows has occurred. The
motivation for the vinyl window is being able to pass on the energy savings with the
thereto integrity of a new windo%v as oppose to the restoration of the existing
window, for a first time home buyer. A solid vinyl window versus a vinyl clad
wood window is virtually the same in appearance.
Ms. Brugliera noted that the Commission has approved replacement of wood
windows with wood windows on landmark buildings. Restoration of the windows is
another option. Ms. Danielle said the number of windows (448) and their large size
make it difficult to restore of replace them in kind. She noted the vinyl windows
could provide a custom muntin profile. ,Ms. Danielle said the casement windows are
in -swinging. Commission members said out -swinging casement windows will be
acceptable.
Jordan Cramer said if the applicant came back with replacement wood windows
closely matching the existing windows will be acceptable. Mr. Prairie expressed
concern with the A/C condensers at grade on Keeney. Commissioners felt replacing
the existing gutters with galvanized or aluminum gutters were acceptable.
Cranston Preservation Commission
July 18, 2006 — Minutes
Page 8
Mr. DeLisi and Ms. Danielle agreed to come back in front of the Commission next
month. Ann Dienner moved to table the application to the August 15, 2006
meeting. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0
nays.
5, 1218 Forest Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Demolish rear addition and elevated
deck and construct a 2.5-story rear addition. ]Demolition/Construction]
Conrad & Julia Winkler, owners, and Kathryn Quinn architect, presented plans for
the restoration of the front bay window and repainting the wood, repair and
repainting of the porch. Also replace the roof asphalt shingles with wood shingles
throughout including the garage. They also proposed the removal of the 1970s era
addition and replace it with a two-story addition to be consistent with the rest of the
house. Within the two-story addition install wood siding so that eventually they
could replace the aluminum siding on the house with wood siding. Finally, they
would like to replace the chain link fence along the north part of the property with a
4' high metal ornamental fence.
Mrs. Winkler said on August 2, 2006 they will meet with Andrew Fisher of
Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois regarding the Facade Easement on the
house. Ms. Brugliera suggested the owner they should contact the Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency for the Tax Assessment Freeze Program.
Ms. Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and
12-16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve a certificate of
appropriateness for the construction at 1218 forest Avenue because; 1 (height of the
addition), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (rhythm and spacing of the structure on the
street), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8
(roof shape), and 10 (the scale of the structure) are all visually compatible with
properties, and structures, to which they are visually related. Also, 12
(distinguishable original qualities of the property are not being destroyed), 13
(archaeological resources will be protected), 14 (contemporary design has not been
discouraged), 15 (if the addition is removed, the integrity of the structure will be
unpaired), and 16 (a single architectural style has not been imposed). Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Susan Rundle moved for the demolition of the existing rear addition in that: 1 (the
structure is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance
that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the
general welfare of the people of the city and the state), 2 (the structure or object
does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological
character of the District as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the
people of the city and the state, 3 demolition of the structure would not be contrary
to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic
preservation for the applicable District), 4 (the structure is not of such old, unusual
or uncommon design, texture, and/or material that it could not be reproduced
without great difficulty and/or expense), and 5 (the Commission approved plans for
E%anston Preservation Commission
July 18, 2006 — Minutes
Page 9
a new addition). Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9
ayes, 0 nays.
The Commission noted that the certificate of appropriateness for construction
included the fence(s).
f. 703 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Demolition of southwest corner breakfast room.
Construction of new 1-story stucco rear addition, new rear deck, tool shed and
brick patio, new urns and stucco railings over garage and front porch, new
stain glass windows on south, north and east elevations, replace some windows
on the front elevation, new chimney on south elevation, re -roof house with
asphalt shingles, replace front wood stairs, new French doors and second story
deck with railing on rear east elevation. [Alteration]
Thomas Prairie, architect presented revised plans for 703 Sheridan Road. The
existing garage on the front will be retained, realign the driveway and do the
addition to the rear with a crawl space instead of a new garage. Some of the work
previously approved has been completed such as the dormers. There will be new
garage doors with a parapet along the top of the garage with some urns to match the
existing.
Ms. Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-6, 9 and 10. Susan
Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to the
existing pre -approved plans for 703 Sheridan Road as there has been: 1 (minimal
alteration to those plans), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities have not changed
at all), 3 (they are not seeking to create an earlier appearance), 4 (the changes that
have taken place over time have been treated with sensitivity and recognized), 5
(skilled craftsmanship is being treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural
features are not being replaced or upgraded), 9 (contemporary design is not being
discouraged), and 10 (if the alterations to the previously approved design be
changed, it will not impair the integrity of the original design). Betsy Hohman
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention.
7. 1315 Davis Street (Landmark/RHD) — Relocate existing asphalt drive and
replace with a concrete drive, relocate driveway apron on public right -of- way
(advisory review) [Alteration]
Andrew Otting, of Scott Byron & Co. presented plans to relocate the existing
driveway and replace it with a concrete drive, and relocate the driveway apron on
the public right -of xvay. The driveway sits 3' to 4' on the neighbor's property to the
east. They will resurface the driveway with a combination of asphalt and pavers.
The driveway will be moved back into the property. There is an area with asphalt
on the neighbor's property that will be removed. The curb will be repaired. Mr.
Otting said the driveway will be realigned and pushed about 3' to the west.
Carlos Ruiz said the Commission's advisory review portion is for the area affecting
the public right-of-way. Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommended standards for
Evanston Preservation Commission
July 18, 2006 — Minutes
Page 10
alteration 1-5 and 8 as applicable. Ms. Guthrie moved approval as the project meets
standards for alterations: 1 (Every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the site in
a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, 2 (the distinguishing
original qualities or character of a property arc not being destroyed, 3 (alterations
that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance are not
being proposed), 4 (changes that may have taken place are evidence of the history
and development of a property; changes may have acquired significance, 5 (does not
apply), and 8 (archaeological resources if found, the applicant will inform the
Commission). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9
ayes, 0 nays.
VIL STAFF REPORT
1702 Chicago Avenue — Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's report on the nomination of 1702 Chicago
Avenue will include information on the local landmark designation of the building
because its architectural significance, mainly the architect, Ernest Mayo.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Thomas Prairie moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:15 p.m. Ann
Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Respectfully Submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planncr/Preservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, Betsy Hohman, Emily
Guthrie, Ann Diener, Stan Gerson, Jon Willarson, and Thomas
Prairie
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey and Jordan Cramer
OTHERS PRESENT: John and Arlene Henderson, Davis Schenk, Vicki Truax, Mark
Resenbloom, David Shenck, Christian Lane, Regina Lookis, Carl
Hunter, Dave Stoneback, Tiffany Danielle, Joe Delisi, Stuart Cohen,
Kathie Shaw, Daniel Kowal, Paul Gaynor, Kevin Pierce, Reinhold
Weiss, P J Prevo, John Shinka, and Susan Regan
PRESIDING: Mary Brugliera, Secretary
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mary Brugliera, Secretary called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A quorum being present
(Mary Brugliera., Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, Ann Dienner,
Stan Gerson, Jon Willarson, and Thomas Prairie)
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
III. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
A. Old Business
1. 115 Dempster Street - (Landmark/LSHD) -- Demolition of existing attached
garage and back porch, and construction of a new attached 3-car garage with
living space on the second floor over the garage. The first floor is connected to
the existing house. Requires zoning variance for proposed 0.49' setback from
the west property line (required is 51), and proposed 0.50' setback from the
rear property line (required is 30') [Zoning Variance/
Construction/Demolition]
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 2
John and Arlene Henderson, owners, presented revised plans for the demolition of
both, an existing 1-story attached garage (built in the 1950s) and a back porch.
Also, the construction of an attached 3-car garage with a living space on a second
floor at 115 Dempster (built in 1911). Ernest Mayo, architect built this house and its
neighboring two houses also in 1911. The original site is a 2-acre compound. The
house at 115 Dempster is accessed trough an easement past 133 Dempster. There
was a garage that both properties used to share before the subdivision of the original
property.
Mr. Henderson said they bought the house in 1992 and over the years they renovated
it including the two-story sun room overlooking the Lake for which they used the
original Ernest Mayo drawings. On April 18, 2006 Chris Mekus, their architect
presented the original plans for the two-story attached garage with living space on
the second story. The Commission had concerns about the height and the size of the
addition. Mrs. Henderson said the new design is 30 percent smaller than the
original design. The addition is approximately 3' lower than before and they
eliminated an atrium going from the house into the second story of the addition. By
doing that they reduced the cubic volume of the addition by 32 percent. The square
footage of the addition was reduced by 26 percent. The present garage is 10'- 8"
high, the height of the new proposed garage is a little less than 22'. The previously
proposed garage was 25' high.
In terms of the massing and the height Mr. Henderson said the 22' high proposed
garage is approximately 5' lower than Ms. Truax's garage at 133 Dempster (to the
west). Mr. Rosenbloom's house at 100 Greenwood (to the north) is 35' high. That
house is approximately over 7' higher than the proposed structure.
Mr. Henderson said that the proposed garage is not visible at all from Dempster, it is
almost impossible to see it from the cast. In the winter is more visible than in the
summer. The proposed garage is architecturally similar to the rest of the house.
Also, the footprint of the garage is the same as N1s. Truax's garage. The proposed
garage is Ionger than the existing garage by 3' to the cast and 4' wider to the south
to accommodate three cars. Two cars will be parked in tandem. There is only one
second story window on the north elevation of the house that would be affected by
the addition. Mr. Henderson passed around photos taken from the cast to show how
difficult is to see the existing garage.
Regarding Ms. Truax's concern about privacy Mr. Henderson said the distance from
the garage to the edge of the pool is 50% There is a tenant in the coach house that
overlooks the pool and Mr. Resenbloom's house overlooks the pool much closer
than the garage. Because of the thick vegetation the pool cannot be seen from his
property.
Mr. Henderson said they lowered the structure as much as possible, they reduced the
cubic volume of it by approximately 32 percent and they reduced the square footage
by 26 percent. Architecturally, they met the standards for review. They also met
Evanston Preservation Conunission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 3
with the neighbors to discuss the project. They also need two variances for the
setbacks. They also obtained a favorable recommendation from the Site Plan and
Appearance Committee.
Commission's Findings
The Commission made the following findings:
a) The north second story window on the house will be bricked in because of the
addition.
b)The new garage is approximately I I' higher than the existing garage
e) The elevation drawings show more accurately the height of the proposed garage
than the model
d) The second story will be a studio room for wood working
David Schenk, attorney for Vicki Truax of 133 Dempster, said the revised plans for
the addition is 3' lower but it is basically the same massing that the Commission had
some problems with on April 18, 2006. He said that the Commission suggested to
the applicants to come back with something that does not have the same mass as
currently proposed. Some of the comments suggested that it would not be a problem
if the addition was 1-story and complementing the house, but the second story
makes the addition look as a new house added on to it. Another concern was the
massing of the addition which did not fit in. Mr. Schenk said Ms. Truax would
consider trading some of her land, where the easement currently exists for access for
the Hendersons which goes along side Ms. Truax's house at the back and in between
the pool area and her home and it feeds into a parking area.
Ms. Truax had suggested that instead of the two-story structure that she will be
willing to trade approximately 2,000 square feet of her property, in return for the
Hendersons giving up their right to the casement and putting in a driveway [from
Dempster to the new garage]. Then the Hendersons can do a single -story 3-car
garage and avoid the massing problems and it will take away the traffic in front of
and behind Ms. Truax property. Mr. Schenk said the existing garage is a legal non-
conforming use and one is not entitled to change it according to Zoning.
Vicki Truax said she was completely against the project. The construction will be
overwhelming and the traffic in front and behind her house is constant. She was
concerned with the safety of tier 12-year old daughter and her friends during
construction. A 3-car garage will generate more traffic. The new garage will be on
her property line. ,ifs. Truax said the Hendersons should consider the constructing a
new driveway from Dempster.
In response to Ms Brugliera's questions, Ms. Truax said her late husband bought the
house in 1989; the casement already existed at the time; and the pool was already
there. Ms. Brugliera said regarding Ms. Truax's concerns about the views from her
yard, unless the air rights were bought over the Hendersons' garage, Ms. Truax does
not have the legal right to demand it.
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15. 2006 —Minutes
Page a
Ms. Truax added that in order to demolish the garage they need to do it from her
property. Mr. Henderson said he would fast track the project and stage the
construction from the City's property adjacent to the north. He noted that the garage
is 18%8" high from the grade. The driveway slopes down. The existing foundation
will be extended 4' to the south. The equipment to dig the foundation could be
lined over the north wall into the property from the City's property. The 1921
easement allows for maintenance of the utilities for 115 Dempster.
Mr. Henderson said they have considered a one story 3-car garage and wood
working shop. They have been in discussions with Ms. Truax and Mr. Schenk for
ten weeks but discussions have been terminated because nothing could be agreed
upon. They initially agreed paying the cost of building the driveway at a cost
between S250,000 and S450,000. Mr. Truax would pay some legal costs associated
with obtaining a curb cut. Mr. Henderson emphasized the driveway is not relevant
in this discussion.
Mr. Schenk said the driveway resolves the problems ofmassing and safety and gives
the Henderson a 3-car garage. Mr. Schenk said they have come up with some
drawings showing that. The compound does no longer work today because of the
separate ownerships. The shared driveway does not make any sense anymore. Mr.
Schenk said the Commission had a real problem last time with the 2-story garage and
suggested to the Hendersons to come back with a single -story garage. Mr. Schenk
said their plans include a new driveway. Mr. Henderson said they are no longer
interested in a separate driveway.
Mr. Ruiz said at the previous meeting, not the Commission as a whole, but some
Commissioners expressed their concern about the massing of the addition. He said
the issues Ms. Truax and Mr. Schenk raised are important, but the standards for
zoning variance limit the Commission's purview in so far as whether the project is
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Emily Guthrie said in her view the addition is way out of proportion with the main
house. She thought the Hendersons did not answer any of her concerns. They
responded by reducing the square footage of the footprint and lowered the height.
Mr. Henderson said the new structure is 810 square feet and the old foot print is 3P
x 20' and the new is 34' x 24' [816 square feet].
Mark Rosenbloom of 100 Greenwood said for six months they were waken up from
7 a.m. with loud construction noise. Mr. Rosenbloom said the existing height of the
existing garage from the grade is 16' and another I I' would be added to for a height
of 27'. The additional height will cut off the light on a portion of his property and it
would be very imposing. He does not have a problem with the new 3-car garage, but
he has a problem with the second floor. Mr. Rosenbloom was also concerned with
the wood working shop and potential noise associated with it. He said to build
something outside of the constraints, there has to be a compelling reason and the
support of the neighbors.
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 5
Mr. Henderson said they have responded to the Commissioners concerns quite well
by reducing the mass of the proposed garage. He met twice with Mr. Rosenbloom
and he understands his concerns. The area Mr. Rosenbloom referred to is already
dark. In terms of the easement, there are no more discussions pertaining to the
driveway. He thanked the Commissioners for their time.
Mr. Schenk said he disagreed with Mr. Ruiz comment that the issues raised by Ms.
Truax were not applicable for the standards for construction. Mr. Ruiz clarified that
his comment was about the zoning variances. Mr. Schenk said regarding the zoning
issue, the standard is to determine if it is necessary and appropriate in the interest of
historic conservation, to not adversely affect historical architecture or character of
the historic district. Mr. Schenk said there is no compelling reason to do this.
Mr. Gerson said although the massing of the proposed structure has been reduced, it
is still disproportionate to the entire structure. The second story is what is at issue.
Mr. Ruiz said regarding the zoning variances R&TA recommended standards A and
C as applicable.
Mr. Gerson moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the variances
being requested be granted in that the setback at the west would be 0.5' where 5' is
required, and with the 0.5' setback on the north, where 30' is required, in that it
meets standard A (it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic
integrity of the landmark house), and C (it will not be materially detrimental to
public welfare of injurious to the property). Thomas Prairie seconded the motion.
The motion failed. Vote: 2 ayes, 7 nays.
Mr. Ruiz said R&:TA recommended standards for review of construction 1-8, and 10-
16. Susan Rundle moved to approve the certiticate of appropriateness for the
construction of the 3-car garage and wood shop above in that: 1 (the height is
reasonably compatible with the surrounding buildings), 2 (the proportion of the front
fagade is not greatly affected), 3 (the proportion of openings are visually compatible
with the existing house), 4 (the rh)1hm of solids and voids in the front fagade is
visually compatible with the existing), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures on the
street is not changed), 6 (does not apply), 7 (materials and texture are the same as the
existing house), 8 (the roof shape is flat as well as part of the house), 10 (the scale of
the structure is appropriate to the scale of the rest of the property), 1 1 (directional
expression of the front elevation does not change), criterion 12 is not met (The
distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object
and its environment shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic or material
or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible), 13
(archaeological resources, if found, shall be appropriately protected), 14 is a directive
to the Commission (Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall
not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural
or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color,
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 —Minutes
Page 6
material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment), 15 (should
the proposed garage and wood shop are built, the essential form and integrity of the
existing structure would not be impaired), and 16 is a directive to the Commission
(In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for
the use of single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement
for compatibility). Stan Gerson seconded the motion.
Discussion: Emily Guthrie said the project did not meet many of the standards in
terms of: 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 10 (scale), 4 (rhythm of solids to
voids). She did not see much in the proposal that relates to the original house. Ms.
Guthrie said she would vote against the motion. Mr. Gerson said he would too vote
against, mainly with regard to standard 10 (scale, the size and mass of the structure).
He thought standard 10 is a very important standard. Although it might meet some
of the other standards, standard 10 outweighs all the others. Thomas Prairie
disagreed with Ms. Guthrie and Mr. Gerson. He though the scale was appropriate to
the size of the house. Ann Dienner said it was the scale that was at issue, if it were a
I -story addition it would be better. The motion failed. Vote: 4 ayes, 5 nays.
The Commissioners concurred that since the Commission did not approved the
replacement structure then the demolition is moot. Mr. Gerson said he would be
willing, if it were a I -story structure, to look at it from a different point of view. The
use of the second floor does not affect in his mind the mass of the proposed addition.
Betsy Hohman said she was concerned about the mass before. She felt a major effort
was made and the mass is much more appropriate at this point. Ms. Bruglicra felt by
enlarge the standards had been met this time.
Mr. Henderson asked if he could come back with a different design. The answer was
yes. He proposed putting the garage in the front lawn. He asked if the Commission
would consider such proposal. Ms. Guthrie said Mr. Henderson could submit a new
plan.
Mr. Henderson was informed about his right to appeal the Commission's decision to
the City Council within 30 days. He could also come back to the Commission with
an alternative. The variances to the north and west were not recommended. Mr.
Ruiz explained the appeal process and the deadlines, including the potential
extension of the 45 day limit the City Council has to make a decision if the appeal is
accepted to be heard. Mr. Henderson thanked the Commissioners.
2. 555 Lincoln Street (Landman:) — a) The West Addition is on the north face of
the West Filtration Bed building (1914 & 1924) and is directly to the cast of the
historic Head House (1914), and b) The East Addition is on the cast end of the
Lincoln Street complex. The south elevation of the complex on Lincoln Street
will include new ADA elevator, and new stone faced entrance plaza. Also,
demolition of the 3-bay garage, the reconstruction of the 3-bay garage with
second story -addition to match existing, the restoration of first story windows,
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 7
and replacement windows to match the existing
[Alteration/Construction/Demolition]
Regina Lookis and Dave Stoneback of the City of Evanston Water Department, and
Carl Hunter, architect presented final plans for alterations and additions at 555
Lincoln Street. Mr. Hunter said the project consists of a west addition on the north
face of the West Filtration Bed building that is to the cast of the historic Head
House. This is an infill building completing that section of the north elevation. The
addition provides an expansion to the shop located to the west. The exterior wall
steps back three feet on both ends to separate the addition fagade from the adjacent
facades of the Head House and shop.
Mr. Hunter said the east addition is on Lincoln Street. The addition alters the fagadc
of the 1947 addition. The existing garage would be demolished and then rebuilt. A
second story would be built over the new garage. The addition would reactivate the
public entry on Lincoln Street and would make it ADA accessible by adding parking
adjacent to the entry, a flat plaza to the entry and an exterior ADA lift.
The windows of the existing building facing south would be replaced with similar
windows but of high energy efficiency. The windows on the addition will match
the same windows. The lower steel windows will be restored. The back side of the
building has now a stair that comes down from an outdoor deck which is accesses
from the main conference room as well as the director's office at it acts as an
emergency exist for the second floor. At the boiler plant roof there are flues from
the boilers and an exhaust fan which is being relocated.
Regarding the shop addition which connects to the head house, they are separating
the shop addition from the head house by a deep reveal. The design expresses the
use of the space with one central window; continuing cast and set back 3' there is
an over head door for access. The brick color is very close to that of the head
house. There is no change in the footprint of the building.
Originally, the filtration building had brick decorative windows, before it was
recognized that sun light coming into the water gives problems with algae. Those
windows were closed with glass block. The structure of the roof addition is
symmetrical with those windows. There are four skylights (2' wide x 16' long) to
bring light into the shop. There may be tours when people could see that wall.
Thomas Prairie said the north wall addition is a blank wall with those shop windows
in the middle. It is very unsympathetic to the head house. Architect said all of the
new construction is done in a way that is subservient to the head house but
compatible with it. The proposed design is the most compatible, the most classic,
and it has the most beauty to it. David Stoneback said the head house and the first
three filters on the site were built in 1913; the next three Filters were built in 1923; in
1949 the shop over the one filter. The cornice on the shop addition is on the same
plane as the head house.
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 -- Minutes
Page 8
Stan Gerson said R&TA divided the project into three proposals: 1) the addition; 2)
the garage; and 3) the entrance way. For the shop addition the standards for
alteration that apply are 1-5, 9 and 10. Emily Guthrie moved approval of the north
addition in that: 1) every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property in a
manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are
not going to be destroyed, 3) it is being recognized as a product of its own time, 4)
alterations that have no historical basis are being discouraged, changes that may
have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history of changes that
have acquired significance, and the significance is being recognized, 5) distinctive
stylistic features that characterize it are being treated with sensitivity, 9)
contemporary designs are not being discourages, and 10) the new alterations are
being done in a such manner that if they were to be remove in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, l nay.
Regarding the demolition of the garage and construction of a new garage with a
second floor on it, Mr. Gerson said R&r.TA recommends standards for construction
1-8, and 10-16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of
appropriateness for the construction of the garage and second story at 555 Lincoln
because: 1) the height is visually compatible with the property, 2) portion of the
front fagade is also compatible with the places visually related, 3) the proportion of
openings and relationship of width to height of windows and doors is visually
compatible, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids of the front fagade is compatible to the
objects to which is visually related, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the
street is visually compatible, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, historic front recesses
and other projections is compatible with structure to which, is visually related, 7)
relationship of materials and textures as also compatible, 8) roof shape is visually
compatible, 10) the scale of the structure is appropriate to the structure, site, public
ways, objects and places to which is visually related, 11) directional expression of
the front elevation is compatible, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or
character of the property has not been destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will
be protected, 14 and 15 do not apply, and 16) the Commission did not impose a
requirement of single architectural style. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Regarding the demolition of the 3-bay garage, Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends
all five standards for demolition as applicable. Mr. Gerson moved to recommend
demolition of the 3-bay garage in that: 1) the demolition will not be detrimental to
the public interest and contrary to the welfare of the people, 2) the 3-bay garage does
not contribute to distinctive historic, cultural, architecture or archaeological
character of the district and it should not be necessarily be preserved, 4) demolition
of the 3-bay garage would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter
and the objectives of historic preservation, and 5) the garage is not of such old,
unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 9
and the owners do have plans to replace the garage. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said the alteration on the south elevation includes reconfiguration and
enlarging the entry way on the south and adding a wheel chair lift, with the addition
of stone face entry plaza, replacing all of the second floor windows with aluminum
windows and restoring the steel windows at the ground level. The applicable
standards for alteration are 1-6, and 8-10. Ms. Hohman moved to grant a certificate
of appropriateness for the alterations at 555 Lincoln because: 1) every reasonable
effort is being made to adapt the property in a manner that requires minimal
alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the property have not been
destroyed, 3) the structure has been recognized as a product of its own time, 4)
alterations that have no historical basis are being discouraged, changes that may
have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history of changes that
have acquired significance, and the significance is being recognized, 5) distinctive
stylistic features that characterize it are being treated with sensitivity, 6) the lower
windows are being replaced rather than replaced, 7) every reasonable effort has been
made to protect and preserve archaeological resourced, 9) contemporary design for
alterations and addition are not being discouraged, and 10) the new alterations are
being done in a such manner that if they were to be remove in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
3. 63240 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Replace: roof asphalt shingles, gutters
and downspouts, wood windows (now clad in aluminum) with wood windows.
Install A/C condensers (Alteration]
Tiffany Danielle, architect said the landmark building is being converted into a 32-
units condominium. They would like to replace the windows that have been capped
with aluminum, the original wood underneath is deteriorated. Last month they
presented a vinyl extrusion window which did not obtain approval. Ms. Danielle
said now she is proposing replacement windows in wood with customized applied
gills, not simulated divided lights. They are proposing a change in the windows
operability. On the south elevation there are windows with three pair of windows,
the center window is a fixed window, and flanking that are in -swinging casements.
The existing pair of windows is 42" wide for the opening; the limit today is
generally 36" in width for a casement. They are proposing instead three double
hung windows with the costume applied grilles to match %vhat is shown in the
casements. The sun rooms have the casements; the rest of the building has double
hung windows. The applied grille is extruded aluminum.
Commissioners requested a sample of the proposed new windows. Mr. Prairie said
he would like to see samples of the top and bottom sashes and how the center stile
substitute and grille would look.
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Pugs 10
Joe Delisi said there are three locations where the air conditioners are ground
mounted. On the north side the A/C units are on the roofs of the porches. On the
Keeney Street side the platforms are 14' x 8' and V above the grade with shrubs
around them.
Through a straw poll Commissioners supported the location of the condensers and
favored evergreen screening instead of the deciduous screening. Regarding the
gutters and downspouts are in disrepair. The proposed gutters and downspouts are
aluminum. The new roofing material is 3-tab fiber glass shingles. They are
proposing an architectural simulated slate shingle. The Commission took a straw
poll of the proposed gutters, downspouts and roofing material and found them
appropriate. The Commission agreed to review the sample of windows at the next
meeting.
Betsy Hohman moved to hold a final decision on the proposed work at 632-40
Hinman until September 19, 2006. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
B. New Business
1, 1139 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Addition of a rear entry vestibule, new back
stoop, and exterior alterations [Alteration/Construction/Demolition]
Stuart Cohen, architect said the work involves a kitchen. There is a 1970s addition
with a raised terrace at the rear of the house (east elevation). They proposed an
entry vestibule with a shelter roof. They plan removing the existing raised terrace.
The vestibule will have a full foundation and crawl space underneath. A window on
the east elevation would be removed; a new smaller and relocated window opening
with a window with simulated divide lights is proposed to match the style of the
existing windows.
The new roof for the shelter matches the roof pitch and the overhang on the house.
The addition would be done in stucco to match the existing house. Also, on the
north fagade a window is being removed and filled in, one of three glass door panels
is being removed and replaced with a door, also a railing and stairs are being
removed. On the south elevation there would be a new trim board over the first
story windows and a new stucco wall.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and
12-16. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the
construction of the rear entry vestibule and stoop at 1139 Sheridan Road because: I )
the height, 3) the proportion of openings, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures of
the street, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections, 7) the
relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, and 10) the scale of the
structure; are all visually compatible with the structure to which they are visually
related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page t 1
destroyed, 13) archaeological resources would be preserved, 14) contemporary
design has not been discouraged, 15) if the additions were to be removed, the
integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and I6) the Commission has not
impose an architectural style. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable.
Emily Guthrie moved to approved demolition in that 1) the addition is not of such
historic significance that its demolition would not be detrimental to the public
interest, 3) demolition of the addition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this
chapter, 4) the addition is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it
cannot be reproduced, and 5) the owner has plans for something new. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Regarding alterations, Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards 1-5, and 8-10.
Ms. Guthrie moved approval in that: 1) every reasonable effort is being made to
adapt the structure in such a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the
distinguishing characteristics of the property are not being destroyed, 3) structures
are being recognized as a products of their time, 4) changes that have taken place are
being respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being respected, 8)
archaeological resources would be preserved, 9) contemporary design is not being
discouraged, and 10) the addition if it were to be removed, the essential form and
integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
2, 1102 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark)— Replace an existing rear stair and
construct a new 2-car garage with a master bedroom suite above, new windows
on south and north elevations. Requires zoning variance for the proposed 10.8'
from the rear property line, required = 30' [Zoning
Variance/Construction/Demolition]
Kathie Shaw, architect and Daniel Kowal, owner, presented plans for the
replacement of an existing rear stairs and the construction of a new 2-car garage and
a second story above, and new windows on the north and south elevations. The
project requires a zoning variance for the proposed 10.8' setback from the rear
property line, where the required setback is 30'. The exterior finish is wood siding
and wood trim. The deck would be more an entry piece. There would be also
pervious paving for the driveway to the south and some walks on the east and north,
and 12' curb cut.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and
16. Jon Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed
construction as describe at 1102EImwood because: 1) the height, 3) the proportion
of openings, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures of the street, 7) the relationship
of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, and 10) the scale of the structure; are all
visually compatible with the structure to which they are visually related. Also, 12)
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 12
the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 13)
archaeological resources would be preserved, 14) contemporary design has not been
discouraged, 15) if the addition were to be removed in the future, the integrity of the
structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission has not impose an
architectural style. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote:
9 ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5. Ms. Hohman
moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition as described at
1102 Elmwood in that: 1) the property (stairs) is not of such historical, cultural
significance that its demolition would not be detrimental, 2) the structure does not
contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural character of the district,
3) demolition of the structure is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this
chapter, 4) the stair is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it cannot be
reproduced, and 5) the owner has new plans. Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 9ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards A and C as applicable. Mary
Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Board approval of the variation for
1102 Elmwood in that: A) it is appropriate in the interest of conservation and it
would not adversely affect the architecture or integrity of the landmark, and C) it
would not materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to
property. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0
nays.
3, 921 Ridge Avenue (RHD) — Alter front entrance to match the materials and
design of the house as being remodeled over the years lAlterationj
Ms. Prevo and Mr. Weiss presented the plans for the alteration of the front entrance
with the use of materials matching the house as remodeled over the years. Ms.
Prevo said all the structural changes to the house were made prior to the creation of
the Ridge Historic District. The house has been worked on since 1973. Mr. Ruiz
said the Commission reviewed in the past the addition to the rear and the
construction of the new garage.
Mr. Weiss said the framing of the windows is all wood with thermo pane clear glass,
the door is steel, and the exterior is stucco finish. Mr. Weiss showed pictures of the
house as it was altered since he bought the house. The garage door and the side door
in the garage are also steel doors.
Thomas Prairie said the house has been altered dramatically from its original
appearance. He wondered if it would be appropriate to change further the house.
Mr. Ruiz said previous Commission was in support of the gradual change that had
been taken place over time. Mr. Weiss has a plan for the alterations and now the
entrance is part of the plan. Mr. Weiss said the design of the entrance is in keeping
with the plan. The design has the elements of the current design; the door would an
Evanston Presmation Conunission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 13
integral part of the design. The entrance as proposed has a coherent and consistent
execution of the existing design.
Reinhold Weiss, owner presented plans to alter the front entrance to match the
materials and the design of the house at 921 Ridge Avenue.
Stan Gerson said the proposed flushed door is not in keeping with the rest of the
house. Mr. Weiss said the proposed door is more consistent with the overall design.
Jon Pohl said the whole house speaks of flush with not ornamentation, and what is
being done is not historic preservation. Mr. Pohl said the alteration should be
approved. Ms. Brugliera said the Commission is considering compatibility with
how the house as it is now.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5, 6, 9 and 10 as
applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the
front door and windows at 921 Ridge because: 1) 1) every reasonable effort is bung
made to adapt the property to its current environment, 2) the distinguishing original
qualities have been destroyed; 3) the property has been recognized as a product of its
own time. Alterations that have no historical basis or seek to create an earlier
appearance shall be discouraged, 4) changes that have taken place in the course of
time are evidence of history, and these changes have acquired significance and they
are being respected, 5) the current stylistic features that characterize the property are
being treated with sensitivity, 6) does not apply, 9) contemporary design is not being
discouraged, and 10) the alterations could be removed in the future; the essential
form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote 7 ayes, 0 nays.
4, 729 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Demolish existing garage and construct new 2-
car garage [Demolition/Construction[
John Schinka, contractor presented plans to demolish the existing garage and the
construction of a new 2-car garage. The new garage would be complementary to the
design of the house with stucco finish, steel garage door, wood door and all wood
windows. The roofing material would match that of the house. The trim above the
garage door would match the trim on front of the house. There would be a brick
walk from the garage to the house.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5.8, 12, 13,
and 16. Ann Dienner moved approval of the garage at 729 Judson in that: 1) the
height, 3) the proportion of openings, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures of the
street, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections, 7) the relationship of
materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, and 10) the scale of the structure; are All
visually compatible with the structure to which they are visually related. Also, 12)
the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 13)
archaeological resources would be preserved, 14) contemporary design has not been
Evanston Prewrvation Commission
August 15, 2006 — Minutes
Page 14
discouraged, and 16) the Commission has not impose an architectural style. Betsy
Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as application.
Mr. Gerson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the
existing garage in that: 1) demolition of the garage would not be detrimental to the
public interest, 2) the garage does not contribute to the distinctive architectural
character of the district, 3) demolition of the of the garage would not contrary to the
purpose and intent of this chapter, 4) the garage is not of such old, unusual or
uncommon design that it cannot be reproduced, and 5) there are plans to replace it.
Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
5. 645 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — Roof/Attic: add a dormer on the rear of the main
hip roof and a balcony on the existing lower roof. Add a skylight at the peak of
the roof. Re -roof portion of roof with solar shingles. Second floor: add new
window and replace some windows (north elevation). Garage: Solar panels on
roof. Rear yard: Solar panel canopy. [Alteration]
Currently, there are three dormers on the third floor. There is a bedroom in the
front, and on the side there is a bathroom with a low ceiling. The goals are to make
a useable bathroom, make a new bedroom at rear and make the front bedroom a
guest bedroom. Mr. Gaynor said they avoided altering the front and the side of the
house. Now they have a shed dormer addition at the back of the house.
They proposed re -roof the whole house and install solar shingles on the south side of
the house, and at the rear on the garage put solar panels and in hack yard there are
more solar panels. They are also planning for geo-thermo cooling. Regarding the
rear dormer, the goals are to maximize the head room and natural lighting.
The Commission discussed with Mr. Gaynor and Mr. Pierce about different ways of
improving the appearance of the new dormer and particularly changing the shed
roof. Mr. Pierce said that they would like to have a 7'-6" ceiling height as a
minimum. Mr. Gaynor said he would talk to his neighbors about the solar panels.
Mr. Pierce said they are proposing a skylight at the ridge of the main roof.
Mr. Gaynor showed an alternative design for the dormer with a gable roof. Mr.
Pierce said there are double hung; windows and casement windows on the house.
They would like to replace the second story windows with casements to match the
existing. Regarding the second story porch, Mr. Gaynor said he would probably not
include it.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons of solar panels and that the
Commission would probably review more projects with solar panels. Mr. Gaynor
agreed to come back with revised elevations for the dormer. Thomas Prairie moved
to hold the review of 645 Forest. Mr. Gerson seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preserti'ation Conunission
August 15, 2006 — tf inutes
Page 15
6. 736 Forest Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Demolish 1-car detached garage, wood
deck and basement entry at rear of house. Construct new 3-car garage with
open porch entry, 2-story and 1-story addition at rear of house, replace kitchen
window, addition of new double hung windows (1"-floor north elevation), and
new brick paver landing/patio/walkways at rear of house. Requires zoning
variance for proposed fire place setback of 4'-0", required is 4'-6" [Zoning
Variance/Alteration/Construction/Demolition]
Susan Regan, architect presented the proposed demolition of an existing and
deteriorated one -car garage. The wood at the rear of the house would be also
demolished. They propose a new 3-car garage would have a hipped roof to tie in
with the house. The finish materials would be wood siding to match the house and
the addition, wood windows, asphalt shingles on the roof, and wood doors for the
garage. The one and two story addition is at the back of the house. The materials
will match the existing house. Also, new pavers, new patio and walkway are being
proposed. They are asking for a zoning variance for the fire place that goes 6" into
the required 4'-6" setback. They are modifying the kitchen window, and installing
pair of double hung windows on the north elevation, and a skylight at the rear of the
existing house.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards A and C as applicable. Emily
Guthrie moved approval in that: A) it is appropriate in the interest of conservation
and it would not adversely affect the aesthetic integrity of the landmark, and C) it
would not materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to
property in the district. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9
ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-
16 as applicable. Mary Bruglicra moved to approve the certificate of
appropriateness for construction of the new garage, one and two-story addition at
736 Forest in that: 1) the height, 3) the proportion of openings, 5) the rhythm of
spacing of structures of the street, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the
roof shape, and 10) the scale of the structure; are all visually compatible with the
structure to which they arc visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original
qualities of the property arc not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources would
be preserved, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, 15) if the addition
were to be remove the house would still retain its integrity, and 16) the Commission
has not impose an architectural style. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standard for alteration 1-5. 9 and 10. Emily
Guthrie moved for approval of the [replacing a kitchen window, adding double hung
windows on the north elevation first floor] in that: 1) every reasonable effort is
being made to adapt the property in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2)
distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed; 3) the property has been
E%anston Preservation Conunission
August 15, 2006 —Minutes
Page 16
recognized as a product of its own time, 4) changes that have taken place are being
respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 9)
contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the alterations could be
removed in the future; the essential form and integrity of the structure would be
unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 9 ayes, 0
nays.
Mr. Gerson said &TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable.
Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of
the one -car garage, basement entry and wood deck at 736 Forest in that: 1) proposed
demolition of the garage, deck and rear entry would not be detrimental to the public
interest, 2) the structures do not contribute to the distinctive architectural character
of the district, 3) demolition of the of the structures would not contrary to the
purpose and intent of this chapter, 4) the structures are not of such old, unusual or
uncommon design that it cannot be reproduced, and 5) there are plans in place.
Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
7. 716 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Remove rear stair and partial deck. Add a mudroom
at rear of house (west elevation). Frame construction, wood siding, wood windows
and doors and details to match existing addition. Roof slope to match existing
[Construction/Demolition]
Susan Rundle, architect said a 100 S.F. mudroom is being added to the rear of the
house. The exterior materials match the materials on the house [wood siding, wood
windows, and asphalt shingles on the rooQ.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5- 8, 10, 12-16
as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for
716 Judson [mudroom at rear] because: I) the height, 3) the proportion of openings,
5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 7) the relationship of materials
and textures, 8) the roof shape, and 10) the scale of the structure; are all visually
compatible with the structure to which they are visually related. Also, 12) the
distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 13)
archaeological resources would be preserved, 14) contemporary design has not been
discouraged, 15) if the addition were to be remove the integrity of the structure
would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission has not impose an architectural style.
Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, I
abstention.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable.
Mr. Gerson moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition
of the rear stair and partial deck at 716 Judson in that: 1) the structures are not of
such architectural significance that their demolition is not going to be detrimental to
the public interest, 2) the structures do not contribute to the distinctive architectural
character of the district, 3) demolition of the of the structures would not contrary to
the purpose and intent of this chapter, 4) the structures are not of such old, unusual
Evanston Presmation Commission
August 15, 2006 —Minutes
Page I7
or uncommon design that they cannot be reproduced, and 5) there are plans in place.
Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1
abstention.
IV. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Downtown Survey
Due to the lack of time this Item rescheduled to a special meeting on August 29, 2006 at
7:30 p.m.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 am. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL. MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
I. CALL. MEETING TO ORDER
Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. with a quorum of eight
members present (Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Susan Rundle, Thomas Prairie, Jon
Willarson, Jon Pohl, and Emily Guthrie). Staff: Carlos Ruiz.
IL PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Downtown Building Survey
The Commission discussed a list of 25 downtown buildings that were identified for
potential landmark nomination consideration within the new proposed Evanston
downtown boundaries the Plan Commission's Downtown Plan Sub -Committee is
currently developing. These buildings were initially Identified by teams of two
Commissioners and the Preservation Coordinator through a walking survey of the
downtown at the request from the Downtown Plan Sub -Committee.
The Commission used the following ranking: 1 -10 (1= least likely to meet the
standards; 10 = most likely to meet the standards for landmark designation)
Buildings with a 7 or above ranking should be considered for landmark nomination.
Buildings with a ranking below 7 and with an (') will be discussed for further
consideration. These buildings may have historic or cultural significance or may
provide the desired physical context and character within the downtown.
Rankinci Results
1.
1515 Chicago
2.5
2.
1520 Chicago
7.0
3.
1605-1617 Chicago
8.1
4.
1730 Chicago
[No ranking] ('}
5.
1732 Chicago
9.0
6.
708 Church
4.9 (')
7.
820 Church
7.6
8.
722-726 Clark
7.0
9.
518-526 Davis
6.9 (')
Evanston Preservation Commission
August 29, 2006 - Special Meeting Minutes
Page 2
10.
915 Davis
8.5
11.
1000 Davis
7.4
12.
1000 Grove
7.1
13.
1600-1608 Hinman (501-515 Davis)
5.5
14.
1890 Maple
4.1
15.
1840 Oak
5.5(-)
16.
1603 Orrington
6 4 (-)
17.
1700-1714 Orrington
6.4 (-)
18.
1745 Orrington
9.1
19.
1549-1555 Sherman (627 Grove)
6.5 (-)
20.
1706-1710 Sherman
6.3 (-)
21.
1712-1722 Sherman
6.8 (-)
22.
1729-1745 Sherman (722-728 Claris)
7.6
23.
906-920 University Place
5.5
24.
1001 University Place
1.8
25.
1033 University Place
4.0
NOTE: 1730 Chicago Avenue is the Administration Building for the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2002.
The Preservation Commission will present these results to the Downtown Plan Sub -
Committee on September 6, 2006.
Ill. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
7:30 P.M.
RESULTS
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. with a quorum of eight
members present (Ann Dienner. Stan Gerson, Susan Rundle, Thomas Prairie, Jon
Willarson, Jon Pohl, and Emily Guthrie). Staff: Carlos Ruiz.
If. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. Downtown Building Survey
The Commission discussed a list of 25 downtown buildings that were identified for
potential landmark nomination consideration within the new proposed Evanston
downtown boundaries the Plan Commission's Downtown Plan Sub -Committee Is
currently developing. These buildings were initially identified by teams of two
Commissioners and the Preservation Coordinator through a walking survey of the
downtown at the request from the Downtown Flan Sub -Committee.
The Commission used the following ranking: 1 -10 (1= least likely to meet the
standards; 10 = most likely to meet the standards for landmark designation)
Buildings with a 7 or above ranking should be considered for landmark nomination.
Buildings with a ranking below 7 and with an (") will be discussed for further
consideration. These buildings may have historic or cultural significance or may
provide the desired physical context and character within the downtown.
Rankina Results
1, 1515 Chicago
2.5
2. 1520 Chicago
7.0
3. 1605-1617 Chicago
8.1
4. 1730 Chicago
[No ranking] (')
S. 1732 Chicago
9.0
6. 708 Church
4.9 (-)
7. 820 Church
7.6
8. 722-726 Clark
7.0
9. 518-526 Davis
6.9 (-)
10.
915 Davis
8.5
11.
1000 Davis
7A
12.
1000 Grove
7.1
13.
1600-1608 Hinman (501-515 Davis)
5.5
14,
1890 Maple
4.1
15.
1840 Oak
5.5(-)
16.
1603 Orrington
6.4 (")
17.
1700-1714 Orrington
6A ("}
18.
1745 Orrington
9•1
19.
1549-1555 Sherman (627 Grove)
6.5 (")
20.
1706-1710 Sherman
6.3 (")
21.
1712-1722 Sherman
6.8 (-)
22.
1729-1745 Sherman (722-728 Clark)
7.6
23.
906-920 University Place
5.5
24.
1001 University Place
1.8
25.
1033 University Place
4.0
NOTE: 1730 Chicago Avenue Is the Administration Building for the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union listed In the National Register of Historic Places in 2002.
The Preservation Commission will present these results to the Downtown Plan Sub -
Committee on September 6, 2006.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
Buildinq Address 1620 Chicago Ave. I Number of stories — 2 on street — 4 on alley
Int rity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
Base j I X I X
Storefront DNA I I
Windows 1 X -1 I I x x I I
Doors I X- 3 x X I I I
Facade I x i I I X I
Parapet I x I I I
Cornice i x I ! I i ! I x I
Signaae X
Awnings DNA
Overall + X + I
inte hty ! ! I !
COMMENTS
Building #2
1) Windows are aluminum framed by steel vertical mullions. 2) Brick additions in the rear of 2 & 4 stories. 3) Ornamental bronze doors.
Building Address 1605-1617 Chicago Ave I Number of stories — 6
Integrity Condition Materials
Very stood Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Slone Fabric Vinyl Other
I
Base X x
Storefront x X X I
Windows x I x x I
Doors X ! ! I I I X x I I I
Facade I X I I X I x I x I
Parapet I x x I I I I !
Cornice ( DNA I I I I I !
Siqnaqe I I x I ! ! I I I
Awnings I K
_IInntegnly I I x l 11 I I I I I I I
COMMENTS
Building #3
1) Main entry door on Chicago Ave is contemporary metal & glass with granite panels inset from facade. 2) Canopy at main entrance on Chicago Ave is
contemporary 3) Balustrade at roof of 2n° level on Chicago Ave side is in good condition. 4) Side door on Davis is contemporary and original stone
surround shows obvious deterioration. 5) Parapet is partial on north tower. 6) Windows on Davis elevation are metal replacements.
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair,
BuIldina Address 1732 Chicago Ave. { Number of stories - 3
Integrity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
I
Base X-1) I X
Storefront DNA I I
Windows x I x # x-4) x
Doors x I I x { x I
Facade I x I I X-3) I
Parapet I DNA I I I
Cornice I DNA I I I I
Signage DNA I 1 I I
Awnings DNA
Overall
ntegri ity { x I { I I I {
COMMENTS
Building #5
1) Continuous brick base is painted with some peeling. 2) Wood porch is supported by stone piers and enclosed porch deck with wood lattice. Overall porch condition
good. 3) Facade is primarily wood clapboards. 4) Windows have aluminum frames.
Building Address 708 Church St. i Number of stories
Integrity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
Base x-3)
Storefront x-1)
Windows X-4)
Doors x
Facade X
Parapet x I I
Cornice x I I
Signage Varies j 1
Awnin s ' Varies I I I
Overall_Lntepritl x l f l { { 1 {
COMMENTS
Building #S
1) Building contains 15 separate stores on ground level. Only one of these stores has an original storefront. 2) Canopy at main entrance on Church
Street may not be original. 3) Base, storefronts and doors at street level shops are made up of various materials i.e. stone, wood and brick for base and
storefronts and doors vary between wood and glass, metal and glass and all glass. 4) Aluminum windows at second level appear to be in good condition.
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
Buiidlnp
Address 820 Church St.
Inter.dW Condition
Very good Good I Fair
I
Base
I X
Storefront i X I I
Windows
I X I }
Doors
I x
Facade
I X
Parapet
DNA
Cornice
x
Siana(ie
I x
Awnings
❑PIA j
Overall
1
X
integrity
4
Poor Brick I Stucco
I Number of stories
Glass
I Metal
J Wood
I'
�X
X
iX
x
iX
I
IX
I i
Materials
Terracotta
i
I
i
Stone I Fabric I Vinyl Other
Building #7
1) Base is granite. 2) Storefront glass has granite surrounds. 3) Contemporary metal & glass entrance vestibule added all along the west side of bldg.
Building Address 722-726 Clark St. and 1729 —1745 Sherman Ave. j Number of stories 4 on Clark St. and 3 on Sherman
Int rity Condition Materials
Very hood Good I Far Poor I Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric
Base
I I
I I
x-1
Storefront I
i X-2 i
X I X I !
x
Windows
I x I
( i I i x X I I
I
Doors
I X-3 I
i I I X x I X I
I
Facade
i x I
I x I I I I i
i X
Parapet
I DNA
Cornice
I X I
i I I
I X
menage
X4
I I I I I
I
Awnings
Overall
Integrity
j
COMMENTS
Vinvl Other
Building #8
1) Condition and types of bases vary. Some storefronts of metal and glass extend all the way down to the sidewalk. 2) Condition of storefront's vary.
Most are contemporary. They also vary in material between glass, metal, stone and tile. 3) Most doors leading into shops are contemporary metal and
glass. Doors leading to apartments are glass and wood with decorative cut stone surrounds. 4) Signage is all contemporary and varies according to
individual shop.
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
Building Address 518 -526 Davis
tnterrity Condition
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass
Base X I
Storefront X X
Windows I X X
Doors X I X
Facade X I X
Parapet X I
Cornice X
I Number of stories 2
Materials
Metal Wood Terracotta
X
Signage DNA
Awnings DNA I I
Overall
_integrity
COMMENTS
Building #9
1) Windows at 2nd floor appear to be wood and are in good condition.
Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
X
X-1 I
X
X
X I I
i
I
x I I
I I
Building Address 915 Davis— Chicago and Northwestern Station I Number of stories 2
Integrity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
Base X Concrete
Storefront DNA
Windows X-1 X X x
Doors X-2 X X X
Facade I I X-3 I X I x
Parapet DNA I I I
Cornice I DNA I I I
Signage X4 I I I
Awnings X-5Overall
Integrity I X I I 1 I
COMMENTS
Building #10
1) Windows vary in condition and type. Some are completely covered with wood and others are bricked up. Windows at platform level are wood and In
good condition but are covered with a heavy open wire mesh for security. 2) Some doors at the ground level have been boarded up. Doors at track level
are contemporary metal and glass. 3) Facade is brick and stone at platform level and concrete below. 4) All Signage is contemporary and Metra. 5)
Awnings are contemporary.
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
Building Address 1000 Davis St.--Bennison's Bakery I Number of stories 7
Integrity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
I
Base X I X
Storefront X I X X
Windows DNA I
Doors X-1 I X X
Facade X I X-2
Parapet X I Same
Comice DNA
Signage X I
Awnings X i
Overall X
integrity
COMMENTS
Building #11
1) All doors are contemporary metal and glass. 2) Facade material is either glazed block or glazed terracotta panels. (probably terracotta)
Builder Address 1000 Grove - YMCA I Number of stories 6
Integrity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
Base X X
Storefront DNA
Windows X X X
Doors X-1 X X I
Facade X-2 X X I X
Parapet DNA I
Cornice DNA J
Signage DNA I I I I l I I I
Awnings DNA fI I I I I I I I
Overall
Integrity
I X I I I
COMMENTS
Building #12
1) All doors are contemporary. 2) 5'" floor facade is partially half-timbered with wood and stucco.
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
• Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
Building Address 1840 Oak Ave
Integrity Condition
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass
Base X X
Storefront DNA
Windows X-1 X
Doors X-1 X
Facade X X
Parapet X X
Cornice X X
Signaqe DNA
Awnings DNA
Overall X
integrity
Building #15
1) All doors and windows are contemporary replacements
I Number of stories 4
Materials
Metal Wood Terracotta
X
X
COMMENTS
Building Address 1603 Orrington Ave - Chase Bank
Integrity Condition
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass
Base X X
Storefront X X
Windows x x
Doors x x
Facade X X
Parapet DNA
Cornice DNA
menage X
Awnings DNA
Overall X
Integrity
Building #16
1) 21" floor is louvered penthouse
Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
I Number of stories 21 — See Note #1
Materials
Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
X
X
x
x
X
COMMENTS
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
• Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
111
Building Address 1700-1714 Orrington Ave. — Orrington Hotel I Humber of stories 9 — See Note #3
Int rity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone I Fabric I Vinyl Other
Base X I I X
Storefront X-1 I I I I x x x !
Windows I x I ! x x
I I
Doors I x I I I
Facade 1 I x I f x I I 1 1
Parapet f x I x I I I I I I
Cornice DNA
Signage I I x I ! f I I
Awninqs I DNA
Overall X
integrity jjj f
COMMENTS
Building #17
1) Storefronts vary and are all contemporary. 2) Signage is contemporary as Is the canopy at main entrance. 3) 91h floor was added and differs in design
from typical floor in material and finish. Most likely concrete block with stucco finish.
Building Address 1745 Orrington Ave. I Number of stories 3
lntef:rity Condition Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
Base X x x
I
Storefront DNA I I ! I I
Windows x I I x I x x I x???
I Doors x I I i i I x i
Facade I x X I f ! X i f
Parapet DNA
I Comice I DNA I f I ! f I 1 I
si nage I DNA I I I I I I
Awnings I DNA
°�� r Y
COMMENTS
Building #18
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair,
9uildin Address 1549 -1555 Sherman Ave I Number of stories 2
Integrity Condition Materials
{ Very good Good Fair Poor Brick Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
k Base X X X
Storefront X I X x
Windows x x x
Doors I x I I x x I
Facade I X X I I
Parapet DNA I I I 1 I
Cornice DNA I I I I I I
SignaAe DNA I I I I I I I I
! Awnings
I X I I I ! I l I
Overall X I I I I I I
integrity 1 l I
COMMENTS
Building #19
Building Address 1740 Sherman
I Number of stories 3
Integrity Condition
Materials
Very good Good Fair Poor
Brick
Stucco Glass Metal Wood Terracotta
Stone Fabric Vinyl Other
Base X-1
X
X
X
Storefront X-1
X X I
Windows X I
X X
Doors X
X X
I
Facade X
X
X I
Parapet X
X
I
x
Comice X
I (
x I
Si na a DNA I
I I 1
I I I
Awnings X
X-'
Integrity
COMMENTS
Building #22
1) Base. storefront and awning on Sherman is contemporary metal and glass.
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
Buildin Address 1706 —1710 Sherman Ave — Varsity Theater Bldg. I Number of stories 2 plus at street — 4 in rear Itheater space?)
Into
city Condition
Materials
Very gaud
Good Fair
Poor
Brick
Stucco
Glass
Metal
Wood
Terracotta
Stone Fabric
Vinyl
Other
Base
X
X
Storefront
X J
X X
X
Windows
X
X
2nd
Doers
X
X
Facade X-1
X
X
X
Parapet X
X
X
Cornice
X
X
Signage
X-2
Awnings DNA
INTEGRITY: Very Good = No obvious alterations or deterioration. Good = Alterations or deterioration easily reversible or repairable
Fair = Obvious alterations or deterioration somewhat difficult to reverse or restore. Poor = Alterations not reversible or deterioration beyond repair.
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Betsy
Hohman, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie and Jon
Willarson, and Anne Earle (Associate Member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary BrugIiera, and Susan Rundle
OTHERS PRESENT: Tiffany Danielle, Joe Delisi, Paul Gaynor, Kevin Pierce, Andrew
Venamore, Anne McGuire, Andrew McGonigle, Rick Angell, John
Vasilion, Katherine Sheppard, Don Colleton, Rcmco Dercksen,
Susan Avril, and Grant Davis.
PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
11. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. with a quorum of eight Commissioners
present (Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl,
Thomas Prairie and Jon Willarson). Betsy Hohman arrived at 7:40 p.m.
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 18, 2006 Minutes
Ann Dienner said Associate members should be identified as such. Also on the second page,
last paragraph should be changed to: "Associate member Anne Earle suggested that 614
Clark is not included..." Jordan Cramer moved to approve the July 18, 2006 minutes as
amended. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays.
III.OLD BUSINESS
A. 1316 Judson Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Renewal of certificate of appropriateness to
replace 18 windows, one door on south and west sides of home. Project includes removal
of all storm windows in the openings where windows are replaced. Insert frame windows
will be custom made to maximize the size of the original opening and minimize visible
frame material (Alteration] Approved previously on January 24, 2006.
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19. 2006 —Minutes
Page 2
Commission's Findings
Stan gerson moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace IS windows at 1316
Judson be renewed. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8
ayes, 0 nays.
B. 1218 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) — Construct of a 2 %: story frame house (On
September 11, 2006, City Council granted an appeal to demolish the landmark house)
[Construction] (TENTATIVELI)
The applicants were not present.
C. 63240 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Replace: roof asphalt shingles, gutters and
downspouts, wood windows (now clad in aluminum) with wood windows, Install A/C
condensers [Alteration)
Tiffany Danielle and Joe DeLisi, architects presented the project. T. Danielle said last
time they proposed all wood replacement windows (interior and exterior wood), custom
muntin patterns in a simulated divided lights (SDL). The SDL interior is wood, the
exterior is extruded aluminum. They proposed last time in the sunroom to do all double
hung windows instead of replace the operability in kind. Now they are proposing
casement windows as requested by the Commission. The proposed casement windows
have a muntin pattern with extruded aluminum muntins. All the double hung windows
are being removed completely, the brick mold is standard to match the existing. The
casement window brick mold would match the double hung window brick mold.
Tiffany Danielle said the windows (448) are wood, custom muntin patterns, the
materiality of the muntins on the exterior is extruded aluminum and the windows are
SDLs, and the operability of the casement windows will operate out -swinging instead of
in -swinging. The replacement is double hung for double hung and casement for
casement (in the groups of three, the outer two arc casements operable and the inner is
fixed as existing). The double hung windows are double hung windows. Chris Carey said
that the Commission has already discussed the shingles, gutters, downspouts and the AC
condensers. Emily Guthrie said the AC Iocation at grade was unfortunate. T. Danielle
said the AC units are on the tops of the wooden porches.
Commission's Findings
The Commission determined that standards of alteration: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are
applicable. T. Danielle said there is no brick work because the masonry is in good shape.
Jordan Cramer moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 632-40 Hinman
Avenue for the replacement of roof shingles, gutters, downspouts, and windows as
presented. AIso, installation of AC condensers as: 1) every effort is being made to adapt
the property in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property and structure; 2)
the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property is not being destroyed
and the removal of any historic material is being avoided whenever possible; 3) the
property is being recognized as a product of its own time and there are no alterations
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19, 2006 — Minutes
Page 3
trying to create an earlier appearance; 5) distinctive stylistic features of the property are
being treated with sensitivity for the alterations to be made; 6) the applicants have
demonstrated that there are certain things that do need to be replaced, they are not
replacing them without having to rciiew• the opportunity to see if they could be repaired,
and how many there are; 8) archaeological resources will be preserved; and 10) the
alterations could be done in such a manner that they could be removed if necessary in the
future. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion.
Stan Gerson amended the motion in regard to the windows: the double hung windows
will be replaced by double hung windows and the current casement windows will be
replaced by casement windows (out singing) with the muntin pattern [in both of
windows) to be identical to what is there now. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment.
The amendment passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays.
The motion, as amended, granting a certificate of appropriateness for the roof
replacement, gutters, downspouts, all good windows (interior and exterior) and the A/C
condensers passed unanimously. Vote 8 ayes, 0 nays.
D. 645 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — RooVAttic: adding a dormer on the rear of the main
hipped roof, and adding a skylight at the peak of the roof. Re -roof portion of roof
with solar shingles. Second noor: add new window and replace some windows
(north elevation). Garage: Solar panels on roof. Rear yard: Solar panel canopy.
(Alteration]
Paul Gaynor, owner and Kevin Pierce, architect presented revised plans for a dormer at
the back of the house. Also solar panels would be installed on the garage. In addition, a
ground source cooling system would be installed in the back yard. On the south side of
the house solar shingles would be installed.
The roof ridge on the dormer is lower than the roof ridge on the house because the
intention is to maintain the integrity of the original hipped roof. Mr. Gaynor asked how
long does the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is good for. Carlos Ruiz said the
COA is good for six months.
Mr. Pierce said that they propose a low -profile skylight that comes down on each side
and about 2-fact. The proposed work includes: a dormer, skylight, solar shingles on the
roof, windows to be replaced (casements). t«•o new windows on the back elevation
(wood double hung), solar hot water panels on the garage, and the free standing solar
panels on the ground in the back. The fancy windows on the front ground floor are
double hung windows (3 over 1). For the fancy windows on the side they are casement,
and for the utility windows on the sides and rear are double hung windows.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards 1-5, 9 and 10 for alteration as applicable.
Anne Dienner moved to approve the COA for alterations at 635 Forest to include the
construction of new dormer, roof skylight, solar shingles, window replacements, new
windows, solar panels on the garage and potentially free standing solar panels in the back
E%-jmton Presenition Commission
September 19, 2006 — Minutes
Page 4
yard because: 1 (Every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the structure, that
requires minimal alteration of the property, structure, or site); 2 (The distinguishing
original qualities or character of a property, structure, would not be destroyed); 3 (All
properties, structures, sites, and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time.
Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall
be discouraged); 4 (Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence
of the history and development of the structure); 5 (Distinctive stylistic features or
examples of skilled cra#ismanship that characterize the structure shall be treated with
sensiti%ity); 9 (Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties
shall not be discouraged); and 10 (Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to the
structure shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be
unimpaired). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0
nays.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee
1. 639 Forest Avenue (LSI1D) - Replace six existing basement wood windows with
wood aluminum clad windows to match the existing style (one double -hung, five
awning/bopper). The existing first and second floor windows are now wood clad
windows (likely from Pella resulting from some previous project) lAlteration{
Andrew Venamore of Airoom, said as part of a basement remodel there are six
existing wood windows, two of which are rotted. The proposed windows are Eagle
windows. They propose removing the windows sash and installing the new windows
approximately 2-inches from the face of the brick.
Chris Carey and Thomas Prairie said installing the windows so close to the face of the
brick would change the character of the house. Mr. Venamorc acknowledged that he
did not have all the information about how the window replacements would be
installed. Mr. Carey said that at least two Commissioners felt that the windows
setback should be maintained. Mr. Prairie said he would like to see a drawing with
the details of the installation and window profile.
Stan Gerson noted that standard 6 of alteration is about repairing rather than replacing
whenever possible. He asked if restoration of the w indows has been considered.
Carlos Ruiz said there are a few window restoration contractors and the City's policy
is not to recommend anyone. Mr. Venamore asked if the Commission considers the
size and cost of a project when window restoration is being contemplated. Mr. Ruiz
said the cost is not part of the standards of alteration. The applicant could apply for
an appeal or apply for economic hardship if the COA is denied.
Jordan Cramer and Betsy Hohman said they would not object to the replacement of
windows, but would Iike to see the details of how the replacement would be done.
Evanston preservation Coamiission
September 19, 2006 — Minutes
Page 5
Mr. Prairie asked what part of the windows is deteriorated. Mr. Venamore believed
the windows themselves arc deteriorated. Mr. Prairie asked if the exposed part of the
sill would still be wood. Mr. Venamore said, yes. Mr. Prairie recommended
retaining the setback of the existing windows.
Ann Dienner moved to continue the review to the next meeting with the applicant
providing technical data. Emily Guthrie seconded. The motion passed. Vote 9 ayes
ayes, 0 nays
2. 1808 Chicago Avenue (Landmark) - New concrete and wood ramp at rear of
building and modifications at rear to accommodate accessible access
[Alteration/Construction]
Carlos Ruiz said the building itself is not a landmark, but sits on a landmark parcel.
Anne McGuire, architect and Andrew McGonigle of Northwestern University said
the proposed work is a continuation of the University's program to update its
facilities to make them ADA accessible. They are proposing utilizing the most
accessible portion of the building with the least detriment to the facility.
Mr. McGonigle said the Building Code allows them to have the guardrail start at a
higher level than normal, because the first portion of the ramp does not need a
guardrail. Ms. McGuire said the ramp is coming into the rear of the building and off
of the parking lot. The ramp is not fully visible from Emerson or Chicago. The
concrete ramp with stainless steel guardrails is on a masonry foundation. The top rail:
is wood.
Ms. McGuire said they arc replacing concrete stairs that come up to the landing and
introducing new basement steps. They arc removing a door to the first floor that
faces north. The area where the ramp ends is an open porch. They are using the same
door with either a door bell or an automatic door opener.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends alteration standards 1-5, 9 and 10 as applicable
for the removal of low wall, removing door and infill opening with siding and remove
windows. Jordan Cramer moved for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for
alterations at 1808 Chicago Avenue in that: 1 (Every effort is being made to adapt
the property with minimal alterations); 2 (The distinguishing original character of this
property are not going to be destroyed. They are not removing any historic material
or distinctive architectural features); 3 (The property is being recognized as products
of their own time. They changes are not seeping an earlier appearance to it); 5
(Distinctive features or examples of skilled craftsmanship are going to be treated with
sensitivity). 9 (Contemporary is not being discouraged); and 10 (Alterations they are
making could be removed in the future without impairing the structure). Betsy
Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote; 9 ayes, 0 nays
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19, 2006 —Minutes
Page 6
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards 1, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15 as applicable
for the construction of the ramp. Betsy Hohman moved for approval of a Certificate
of Appropriateness for construction of a ramp at 1808 Chicago Avenue because: 1
(The height. Is visually compatible with the property); 7 (The relationship of
materials and texture are visually related; 10 (The scale of the structure is compatible
with the property, places and public ways; 12 (The distinguishing original qualities -
the alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features have been
avoided); 13 (Archaeological resources will be protected); 15 (The addition of the
ramp has been done in a manner that if such addition were to be removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired). Mr.
Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stand Gerson said R&TA recommends demolition standards 1-5 for the demolition of
the concrete stairs as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition of the concrete stairs at 1808 Chicago Avenue in that:
1 (The structure is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological value);
2 (It does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or
archeological character of the District as a whole); 3 (The demolition of the stair
would not be contrary to the intent of this Chapter); 4 (The stair is not of such old,
unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced); 5 (The owner has plans
for construction and alterations on the property). Ann Dienner seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
3. 1908 Sheridan Road (Landmark/NEHD) - New concrete and wood ramp at rear
of building and modifications at rear to accommodate accessible ramp
[Construction]
Anne McGuire, architect and Andrew McGonigle of Northwestern University said
the proposed work includes moving a chair lift on the front of the building at the
north side of the porch and close the rail to match the railing on the porch and add a
concrete and wood ramp to the rear of the building. The ramp construction is similar
to the ramp at 1808 Chicago. The difference is the shed roof at the back of the house,
into which the top of the ramp arrives under. They need to raise the floor height to
match that of the first floor, adjust the pitch of the roof and the door opening. The
existing window would remain as well as the clapboard siding. The foundation is
stone and there is a light fixture on the building. The steps leading to the landing are
concrete, the landing has a railing as well.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5, 9 and 10 as
applicable. Jordan Cramer moved for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for
alterations at 1908 Sheridan in that: 1 (Every effort is being made to adapt the
structure with minimal alteration of the property); 2 (The distinguishing original
character of this structure are not going to be destroyed. Removal of any historic
material is being kept to a minimum); 3 (The changes are not seeking an earlier
appearance); 4 (does not apply); 5 (Distinctive stylist features or examples of skilled
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19, 2006 —Minutes
Page 7
craftsmanship are going to be treated with sensitivity). 9 (Contemporary is not being
discouraged); and 10 (Alterations they are making could be removed in the future
without impairing the structure). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards 1, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15 as applicable
for the construction of the ramp. Ms. Hohman moved for approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for construction of a ramp at 190E Sheridan because: 1 (The height
is visually compatible with the structure); 7 (The relationship of materials and texture
is visually compatible with the materials of the structure; 10 (The scale of the
structure is visually compatible); 12 (The distinguishing original qualities or character
of the property would not be destroyed); 13 (Archaeological resources will be
protected); 15 (If the ramp were to be removed in the future, the integrity of the
structure would be unimpaired). Mr. Cramer seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stand Gerson said R&TA recommends demolition standards 1-5 for the demolition of
the rear stairs and wheel chair Iift as applicable. Mr. Cramer moved approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the stairs and chair lift at 1908
Sheridan in that: 1 (These objects arc not of such historic, cultural, architectural or
archaeological value); 2 (These do not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural or
architectural character of the District as a whole); 3 (The demolition would not be
contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter); 4 (The items arc not of such old,
unusual or uncommon design that they could not be reproduced with difficult or
expense); 5 (The mvncr has plans for construction and alterations on the property).
Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
4. 1307-1313 Ridge Avenue (LandmarWRHD) — Enclose rear porch with new
windows. Construct: new brick stairs with wood railings at either side of rear
porch, a low terrace with low walls at rear of house, a roofed pergola (covered
porch) as a link between house and new 3-car garage on the southeast corner of
lot. Construct new 3-car garage on the northeast corner of lot. Replace wood
windows with aluminum clad wood Nvindows [Alteration/Construction]
Rick Angell, owner and John Vasilion, architect presented plans for alterations and
construction at 1307-1313 Ridge Avenue, an Evanston landmark. They proposed
combining the two homes into a single-family home. The kitchen functions would be
combined into the central feature of the back yard. The existing rear of the house
consists of an open porch with two stairs leading to the back yard. The plans call for
a kitchenibreak fast area, adding two stairways that lead to a more formally finished
and landscaped back yard. Each stairway leads to an internal rear foyer type space.
The design of this area would be compatible with the existing architecture,
Mr. Vasilion said they propose two new garages which design would complement the
main architectural features of the house (tall, steeply sloped -flared roof, a simple
geometry and red brick). The leaded glass will reappear in places that are
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19, 2006 —Minutes
Page 8
appropriate. The design of the covered link between the garage and the house uses an
architectural language from Myron Hunt's time. Mr. Vasilion said in looking in
through some of Myron Hunt's older work, he found an example of such a link
attached to a large and symmetrical structure.
Mr. Vasilion said they considered maintaining the existing and replacing missing
triple track storm windows. However, restoration is 180-degrees opposite of where
they want to go with the project. They proposed replacing the windows with
extruded aluminum clad windows that are compatible with the design and character
of the existing windows. Myron Hunt considered himself a contemporary -modem
architect. He respected traditions and designed building in certain known historical
styles, but he was part of the modern movement. He enjoyed taking traditional
elements and pushing them beyond the limits that people expected. The windows are
a good example of that; they are really large as far as double hung windows go with
unbroken panes of glass. At the back of the house there is a proportion of glass
versus solid that is unusual for its time. The substance of the existing windows is
long narrow strips of painted wood around large panes of glass.
The windows frame and sash would be replaced, the pockets for chains and weights
would be insulated, sills and casements would be removed. It appears that there is no
brick mold around the windows on the outside. Every pair of windows has brick
between the windows. In some instances the new aluminum clad window sash would
have oak wood interior and trim. Emily Guthrie said she could not imagine okaying
aluminum windows in a house in this prominent position by an architect like Myron
Hunt. She suggested consulting with a window restoration expert. Mr. Vasilion said
he would agree with Ms. Guthrie with most landmark homes. He said this is a unique
home with a unique architect, with a very particular attitude towards windows.
Mr. Vasilion said the existing windows are old, single glazed, and there are a lot of
them and the heating bill is going to be significant. Most of them are substantially
intact, some of them would require repair. They considered refitting the windows
with double glazing. They consulted with three general contractors. The cost of
refitting the windows, taking each window out, plowing the window channel wider
for the new double glazing, putting the window back, and if the window is cut wider
to make double glazing, the result would be less attractive that a new window. There
are triple track storms now, but they will not propose to fit the house with wood
storms. Mr. Vasilion said it would be more than double the cost to do the mill work
on each window properly.
The loggia/porch on the second floor facing Ridge Avenue has been enclosed with
windows and storm windows. They want to remove them and expose the heavy
timber structure and bring back to what it was. Regarding the brick on the new
garages, Mr. Vasilion said there is a brick with a shin that he is considering to use.
The big porch in the back of the house is not pan of the original construction, but the
brick matches pretty good, and there is some patch work as well. Finally, they
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19, 2006 — Minutes
Page 9
proposed doing proper tuck pointing job on the entire house. The joints look regular
concave joints.
Commission's Findings:
Stan Gerson said construction includes: two 3-car garages; covered walkway at the
southeast from the house to the garage; masonry terrace at the rear, 6 R. high brick
fence at the alley; and two landings and stairs at the rear with stone treads and painted
handrail and balustrades. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for
construction 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-16 as applicable.
Jordan Cramer moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for construction at
1307-1313 Ridge Avenue for two 3-car garages; covered walkway at the southeast
from the house to the garage; masonry terrace at the rear, 6 ft. high brick fence at the
alley; and two landings and stairs as shown in the plans in that it meets the following
criteria: 1 (height); 3 (proportion of openings); 5 and 6 (the rhythm of spacing and
structures on streets and the rhythm of the entrance porches); 7 (the materials); 8 (the
roof shapes on the garages) are all visually compatible with the structures, sites and
objects to which they are visually related); 9 (tile walls of continuity do form a
cohesive enclosure); 10 (the scale of the structure and mass arc visually compatible
with the sites and structures and objects to which they are visually related); 12 (the
original distinguishing characteristics of the property are not going to be destroyed);
13 (archaeological resources will be protected); 14 (contemporary design is not being
discouraged); 15 (the construction is being done in such a way that if later removed,
the main house would be unimpaired); and 16 (a single architectural style is not being
imposed). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0
nays.
Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable
(demolition of existing garage, steps at the rear). Thomas Prairie moved to issue a
certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage, grill, and rear stairs at
1307-13 Ridge in that: I (they are not of such historic, cultural, architectural
significance that its demolition would be detrimental); 2 (they do not contributes to
the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the
District); 3 (the demolition of the structures or objects would not be contrary to the
purpose and intent of this Chapter); 4 (the structure or objects are not of such old,
unusual or uncommon desian, texture, and/or material that it could not be reproduced
without great difficulty and or expense);and 5 (the owner has plans for new
construction). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9
ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said alterations at the rear are: closing of middle porch with art glass
windows; at the new landings replacing windows with new French doors (materials to
be determined). The doors would be consistent with the material of the windows; at
the southern end of the rear a porch and a new door leading to the covered walkway.
On the front: removing windows and screens on the second floor loggia; and tuck
pointing throughout the structure. Mr. Vasilion said they will try to match the
EN-anston Preservation Commission
September 19. 2006 — Minutes
Page 10
existing mortar and tuck pointing. Anne Earle asked if mortar removal and tuck
pointing are acceptable. Commissioners maintained that when necessary tuck
pointing could be done appropriately.
At the request of the applicant Jordan Cramer moved at this time to amend the
motion for construction to include the fence that is depicted on page 10 on the upper
portion that meets all the aforementioned standards. Emily Guthrie seconded the
amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said the standards to be considered for alteration are 1-7, 9 and 10. Mr.
Cramer moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for alteration at 1307-1313
Ridge Avenue for the aforementioned alterations that it meets the following
standards: 1 (every reasonable effort is being be made to adapt the structure with
minimal alteration to the property); 2 (the distinguishing original qualities or
character of the property are not being destroyed); 3 (property/structures is being
recognized as product of its own time. These alterations are not seeking an earlier
appearance); 4 (changes that may have taken place over time are evidence of the
history and development of the property); 5 (distinctive stylistic features or examples
of skilled craftsmanship that characterize house are going to be treated with
sensitivity; 7 (surface cleaning — the tuck pointing is going to be done with the
gentlest means possible);of structures and objects shall be undertaken with the
gentlest means possible; 9 (contemporary design for alterations and additions to
existing properties is not being discouraged); and 10 (the alterations are being done in
such a way that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
structure would be unimpaired. Replacement of windows and doors or the wood
siding of the rear, window replacement, and door material are being excluded in the
motion. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes; 0
nays.
Emily Guthrie suggested monitoring the progress of the project in a regular basis.
5. 1236 Forest Avenue (Landman /LSHD) — Requesting major Zoning variance to
allow existing parking pad in front of home as is. 1) Open, off-street parking when
located in a residential district, must be within thirty feet (30') of the rear lot line, 2)
The proposed parking space requires a five foot (5') setback from the north property
line. Proposed setback = 0.45', 3) for a 90 degree parking stall a minimum stall width
of 8.5' is required. Proposed stall %,,idth = 7.5' {Advisor}• Review on Zoning
Variance]
Katherine Sheppard, landscape architect presented the project. K. Sheppard said they
plan to leave the parking pad as it is. She said neighboring houses have similar
driveways. The owners do not plan to park their cars permanently on the parking
pad.
Evansion Presmatian Commission
September 19, 2006 — Minutes
Page t t
Commission's Findings
Betsy Hohman moved to recommend to the Zoning Boar of Appeals for the requested
zoning variations at 1236 Forest Avenue: 1) Open, off-street parking when located in
a residential district, must be within thirty feet (301) of the rear lot line, 2) The
proposed parking space requires a live foot (5) setback from the north property line.
Proposed setback = 0.45', 3) for a 90 degree parking stall a minimum stall width of
8.5' is required. Proposed stall width = 7.5, because: A) it is appropriate in the
interest of historic preservation and C) it will not materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
6. 1724 Wesley Avenue (C/RHD) - Demolish existing garage and construct new two -
car garage with vinyl siding exterior finish and single steel panel garage door
[Construction/Demolition]
Don Colleton, owner presented the project. D. Colleton said the existing garage is
ready to fall do%vn and he is requesting its demolition and the construction of a two -
car garage. He said the garage steel door is to make the structure secure. Also, he
proposed vinyl siding on the exterior.
The Commission discussed hardi-board in lieu of vinyl siding. They also preferred a
wood door instead of the steel door. Emily Guthrie said for a Myron Hunt house the
garage should be sided with cedar. Chris Carey said a steel garage door is not as big
an issue as wood siding. He does not feel that wood panel garage doors are better
than steel doors. Jon Pohl said the existing garage does not have any significance.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction
of the garage at 1724 Wesley with wood siding and steel door in that it meets
standards of construction: 1) height, 3) proportion of openings, 5) rhythm of spacing
and structures on the alley, 8) roof shape, 10) scale are all compatible with properties
and structures to which they are visually related. Although the material is not
compatible with the material on the house, the appearance is compatible. Also, 12)
distinguishing original character of the property are not going to be destroyed, 13)
archaeological resources will be protected, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a
single architectural style. Also wood windows. Ann Dienner seconded the motion.
The motion passed, Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Jon Willarson moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition
of the garage at 1724 Wesley Avcnue as it meets standards of demolition: 1) it is not
of such historic significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic
character of the district, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose of this
chapter, 4) it is not of such old or unusual or uncommon design that it could not be
reproduced, and 5) there are plans for building a new garage. Jordan Cramer
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Presen-ation Commission
September 19, 20D6 — Minutes
Page 12
7. 234 Greenwood Street (LSHD) -Add second floor over garage (expansion of
foundation needed), adding and changing the size of some windows and glass doors,
build second chimney, add decking and a rail to the rear -facing flat roof, replace
rotting wood siding with face brick. Repair the main roof and raise roof to a steeper
angle [Construction]
Remco Dercksen and Susan Avril, owners presented the project. S. Avril said the
second floor addition has a brick exterior finish. The new roof will be steeper than
the existing roof. The second floor addition is over the entrance hall and over the
garage. The existing siding on the second floor is rotted. The first floor is brick. The
new exterior finish is brick. The new roof is steeper than the existing roof. They will
use the existing window openings and expanded. The middle windows are added on
the front and back. The sliding doors will be replaced with French doors. The
kitchen will have one large window and two side windows (all wood double hung
with SDLs). The window choice is more representative of the new style of the house.
The quoins will also be brick as the existing. The front garage adds the footprint of
the building.
Commission's Findings
Jordan Cramer moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction
at 234 Greenwood Street for all the items listed in the description and on the plans in
that it meets standards of construction: 1) height, 2) the proportion of the front fagade,
3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids on front facades, 5)
spacing of structure on the street, 6) the entrance porch, 7) materials and textures, 8)
the roof shape, 10) the scale of the structure are all visually compatible with the
structures to which they are visually related, and 11) the directional expression of the
front elevation. Also, 13) archaeological resources shall be protected, 14)
contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 16) a single architectural style is
not being imposed. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote:
9 ayes, 0 nays.
8. 726 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Replacement of existing metal frame windows and
patio doors with customized Rcnc%val by Andersen replacement windows. Close
opening on the south side of home (laundry room) to accommodate dryer vent
[Alteration]
Grant Davis, contractor presented the project. G. Davis said the owners would like to
replace the existing metal frame windows with Andersen casement picture windows
(Fibrex a composite material) and the 12' patio door in the back with a four panel
narrow line. All the new windows have a brick molding. The surface coating is vinyl
pressured applied to the extrusion. The material has been around for 45 years. Fibrex
is manufacture with wood saw dust with added PBC (by weight is 50% wood, by
volume is 40% wood). Fibrex does not expand and contract and it won't rot.
Grant Davis said they are replacing five windows, four on the first floor and (two on
the laundry room). The vent is incorporated within the window opening.
Evanston Preservation Commission
September 19, 2006 —Minutes
Page 13
Commission's Findings
Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the window
replacement at 726 Sheridan Road because: 1) every reasonable effort is being made
to adapt the adapt the structure that will require minimal alteration, 2) the
distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed, 3) the property has been
recognized as a product of its own time, 5) distinctive stylistic features have been
treated with sensitivity, and 10) alteration will be done in such a manner that if
removed, the form and integrity would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
V. PRESERVATION ISSUES
Downtown Building Survey
Carlos Ruiz distributed the results of the downtown building survey that was presented to
the Sub -Committee of the Plan Commission. The buildings ranked 7 out of 10 and above
arc the buildings the Commission and the Sub -Committee would like to landmark in the
future. C. Ruiz recommended to the Commission to develop a list of those buildings that
should be landmark. There are questions as to who is going to nominate the buildings;
who is going to perform the research to determine who is the architect and year of
construction.
The Plan Commission is moving forward with the Do%vntown Plan and Form Based
Zoning (traditional areas). Chris Carey said the Plan Commission is in favor and
encouraging the Commission to identify property that the Commission feel are worthy of
Landmark designation.
Special meeting to discuss resources, contacting Landmarks Illinois and the Art Institute to
find out if students could participate doing research for credit and prepare nominations.
Jon Pohl said in his opinion none of the buildings would qualify for the National Register
based on architectural criteria. Anne Earle said listing a building as a contributing to a
historic district listed in the National Register is considered equivalent to landmark
designation. The other rational is the Commission has a chance to review buildings that
are not contributing.
Jordan Cramer suggested a special meeting to discuss the issue in more detail. The
Commission set October 3, 2006 for the special meeting.
VI. AWOUILNINIENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12 midnight.
Respectfully submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan
Gerson, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle and Jon Willarson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Emily Guthrie, and Betsy Hohman
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim \lurray, Rama Perocevich, Andre Venamore, Dick Smith, Katie
Sheppard, Andrew Wachtel, Mathew Kustusch, Jim Blake, Elliott
Dudnik, Jack Crocker, Aid. Elizabeth Tisdahl, Kathleen Buffington,
Marc Kalman Segel, Robert LaPata
PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Vice Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER/QUORUM DECLARATION
Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair acknowledged a quorum present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner,
Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson) and called the meeting to order
at 7:12 p.m. Susan Rundle and Chris Carey arrived later. Staff Carlos Ruiz
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None approved.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 904 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Appeal to City Council regarding the Preservation
Commission denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of windows.
This item is currently being held at City Council awaiting the Commission's
recommendation.
Rama Perocevich, owner and Jim Murray, attomey,.were present. J. Murray said that
this issue is at least two years old, he suggested resolve it at a subcommittee level. Mary
Brugliera said the owner of the building replaced almost all casement windows with
double hung aluminum windows and some other work on the building without any
building permit. The Commission heard his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and it was turned down. The owner appealed the denial to the Planning and Development
Committee of the City Council. They sent it back to the Commission to work out a
Evanston Preservation Commission
October 17, 2006 -- Minutes
Page 2
solution. Neal Vogel, Chris Carey, Carlos Ruiz and herself event out to the building
several times and examined the windows and look at the various that still remained.
They had a meeting with the owner and J. Murray. Their proposal is quite different form
what the Commissioners were proposing. That was last work the Commissioners did in
2005. The Commissioner proposal was that the windows that are visible from the public
way be replaced with casement windows to resemble as close as possible the original.
That some of the ones that are not visible could be replaced with the double hung
windows. Windows on the second floor that were not visible from the street on the front
of the building perhaps could stay, but that is the front of the building.
Jim Murray said their plan went further than the windows alone, it dealt with the facades
and some other things as means of achieving some sort of resolution. There are some
blocked up windows on the Hinman side. M. Brugliera agreed to continue being part of
the committee with Chris Carey with the intent of come back with a resolution and report
to the Commission.
Ann Dienner moved to keep the 904 Hinman sub -committee to continue conferring with
the owner and come back to the Commission with their findings. Thomas Prairie
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
B. 639 Forest Avenue (LSHD) - Replace six existing basement wood windows with wood
aluminum clad windows to match the existing style (one double -hung, rive
awningslhopper). The existing first and second floor windows are now wood clad
windows (likely from Pella resulting from some previous project) [Alteration]
Andrew Venamore and Dick Smith of Airoom presented the project. Eagle windows
brochure 5 replacement awning windows all wood clad and the sixth window is a double
hung window on the south elevation of the house. The North West end (the other
window on the south elevation) will be replacement awning windows. Remove the sash
and all the frames around the windows, the location will remain the same and away from
the masonry fagade within the existing openings. The windows on the south elevation
have white frames and white windows. The windows on the north have been painted
numerous times. The replacement windows and framing are white to match the existing.
Commission's Findings
The Commission did not object to the wood clad windows given that the other windows
are already clad. The windows behind the lattice are not visible from the public way.
The windows on the side are hardly visible.
S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 as
applicable. T. Prairie moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement
of the windows at 639 Forest Avenue in that the replacement windows meet standards: 1
(reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property), 2 (original character and quality
of the property are being respected), 3 (earlier appearance is not being proposed), 6 (the
replacement is not in conformance of this standards), 7 (surface cleaning), and 10 (the
windows could be replaced and originals put back in the future). S. Gerson seconded the
Evanston Preservation Commission
October 17, 2006 —Minutes
Page 3
motion. T. Prairie amended his motion to drop standard 7. A. Dienner seconded the
amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote 9 ayes, 0 nays
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
1. 2103 Orrington Avenue (NERD/C) - Wood fence and patio [Construction]
Andrew Wachtel, owner and Katie Sheppard, landscape architect presented the
project. K. Sheppard said they are requesting to put a patio in the back yard 26'x
14.5'. The material is tumble pavers. AIso, they are requesting replacing a 6'H x
161'L fence (5' solid and V on top with the design of the railings around the porch).
The Commission discussed whether there is an issue with the impervious surface. K.
Sheppard said no.
Commission's Findings
Jon Pohl moved to refer the application to staff for administrative approval and if it
needs the Commission's approval from the zoning stand point, it will have to come
back. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
2. 1225 Judson Avenue (LSHD) - Demolition of existing garage and construction of a
2-car garage [Demolition/Construction]
Jim Blake, owner and Mathew Kustusch, architect presented the project. M.
Kustusch said they are proposing removal of the garage and the erection of a new 2-
car (coach house -garage) with living space above. The materials, the massing and
architectural elements match that of the primary residence. The existing garage has
no ties to the house. The house has been recently remodeled.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12,
13, and 16 as applicable` S. Gerson moved to approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the construction of the new 2-car garage at 1225 Judson in that
meets standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10. 12, 13, and 16. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1-5 as applicable.
Susan Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 1225 Judson as it
meets standards of demolition 1-5. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
3. 1037 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - Demolition of existing stairs and roofed open
porch at rear. Construct a 2-story porch at rear of house. Remove second story
window, enlarge opening and install new door [Construction/Alteration/Alteration]
Evanston Preservation Commission
October 17, 2006 - Minutes
Page 4
Elliott Dudnik, architect presented the project. E. Dudnik said the project is for the
replacement of the existing porch. The porch v ill %%rap around to the sun porch
portion of the house and an existing deteriorated stair will be removed. The roof of
the porch will be replaced with a porch or a cedar deck to be accessed from one of the
existing windows. The posts are also painted wood.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 5, 7, 10, 12-16 as
applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for
the construction of the 2-story porch and stairway at 1037 Michigan as it meets
standards of construction 1, 5, 7, 10, 12-16. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommend standards of demolition 1-5. Mary Brugliera
moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the
existing porch and stairs at 1037 Michigan Avenue as it meets standards of
demolition 1-5. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes,
0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&:TA recommends standards of alteration 1-5 and 9 and 10. Jon
Willarson moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of
the window on the second floor for a door at 1037 Michigan Avenue as it meets
standards of alteration 1-5 and 9 and 10. Ann Dinner seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
4. 1722 Central Street (Landmark) — Demolition of landmark house
Jack Crocker presented a revised plan for 1722 Central Street that requires the
demolition of the landmark house. The site is about 7,000 S.F., the 1700 Central
Street is about 36,600 S.F.; combined they are just over an acre in total area, and there
is combined 350 feet of frontage along Central Street. Both properties are zoned B2
(Business). The 1727 Central is a 1,400 S.F., 2-story house with basement. It is an
Italianate cottage built around 1870. and it was included on the Illinois 1972 Survey
of Historic and Significant Properties, and it is therefore listed on Evanston's list of
significant structures. The house is not in a historic district, and it is vacant and in
disrepair and deteriorating further. There are numerous code violations and it is
denigrating the surrounding neighborhood. The theater property at 1700 Central is
substantially vacant, however, the front portions of the property are currently
occupied, but this store and restaurant owners will close by then end of the first
quarter of 2007.
Mr. Crocker said the original development concept was to combine the sites into one
planned development; historically restore the house and demolish the movie theater.
The concept was predicated on a shifting of the FAR that is allowable on a single
family house site to the 1700 Central site, to justify their acquisition cost. The 2-FAR
E►au= Presmation Commission
October 17, 2006 — Minutes
Page 5
which is allowed is about 14,000 or 15,000 S.F. attributable to that site. The strategy
was to move that to the neighboring site by adding a fifth story on the 1700 Central
site and therefore, justifying the acquisition cost of the land. Also, part of the strategy
was to offer the uneconomical restoration of the historic property as a portion of the
public benefit needed to justify the development allowances to do the fifth story on
the 1700 Central site.
Mr. Crocker said they had neighborhood meetings and four public hearings and the
neighborhood has spoken; they do not value this development plan as originally
proposed. The neighbors objected to its height, they were fearful that the project
would create canyonization along Central, they were not satisfied with the amount
and quality of the retail, they had issues concerning the parking and the circulation,
and they placed insignificant value on the restoration of the single family home as a
public benefit and suggested to taking the building down.
In direct response to the input they have heard from the neighbors they redid their
plan and the new plan consists in combining the sites into a single planned
development, but now demolishing the house and the theater, building a new four
story mixed use project on the combine site with the same uses of residential, retail
and parking. They have significantly reduced the allowances needed, and they plan
to offer alternatives public benefits to justify their minimal requirement allowances.
Compared to the original project, the new project is way under dwelling units, the
FAR is 2.7, both projects are about 100,000 S.F. about 12,000 more than as of right,
but significantly less than the contemplated amount with the full development
allowance. They reduced the building from five stories to four, the height was
reduced from 57 to 48 feet, and they are only requiring a 3 feet of allowance to
provide important architectural details at the top of the building. The original plan
needed 106 spaces, they were providing 99; now they need 100 and they are
providing 100. Mr. Crocker showed slides of the ground floor plan with parking in
the back, retail on the front (increase in size and depths deepen). The parking has 40
percent of the access through doors along the alley, to the south, 60 percent will enter
exit directly onto Eastwood.
The new building steps back on its principal fagade (50 percent of the building), and
it has a large opening for the entrance into the condominium lobby which is at the
center of the building. On the second floor there are signi (icant terraces, dramatically
changing the massing of the building in deference to both Central Street and to the
neighbors to the south. The third and fourth floors add terraces at the corner, creating
additional relief in the mass and creating outdoor spaces. Mr. Crocker quoted the
architect of the project: "This design is rooted in the history and character of
Evanston, the style draws its form and details from Twentieth Century urban
architecture." The materials would be brick, stone (cast or cut), and decorative
metals. The architectural detailing is still in progress. They will incorporate stone
belt coursing, sills, balustrades, quoining, comice accents, brick corbelling, and metal
Evanston Presemfion Commission
October 17, 2006 — Minutes
Page 6
railing details. This is a four sided building, therefore all elevation are going to
benefit from relief in massing and exquisite architectural detailing.
At this point, the Preservation Commissioners discussed whether or not they needed
to review the new construction. Mr. Ruiz pointed out the Preservation Ordinance
section 2-9-3 (G) 13 where the Commission has the duty to review planned
developments affecting landmarks and historic districts, as it did with former Kendall
College property. Mr. Cramer said that the difference with the former Kendall
College property is that it was in a historic district and so when the Commission went
through the standards they considered the massing, the style, and the materials
consistent with that of the district. Here, once the house is gone there is nothing to
base it upon. Mr. Crocker requested to the extent possible, that the Commission act
on the three aspects of their application, the demolition, the new construction and the
special use requirement.
Mr. Crocker said the new elevation changes planes and creates massing relief, there is
a large terrace on the principal fagade of the building which sets over 50 percent of
the fagade back, a full 21 feet from the property line. On the original proposal this
occurred at the fourth level. The terraces and the balconies recesses on the condo
floor are used to break the length of the building, reminiscent of old department
blocks. The new building along the alley sets back in deference to the R-i neighbors,
the south wall is considerably shorter than the existing brick wall, it is landscaped,
and is setback 1.5 foot further than the existing wall. The second floor terraces on the
south have garden spaces. The building is in context along Central Street, the
building across the street is 49 feet to the top of its cornice versus 48 feet to the
highest portion of the flat roof of the new building. The setbacks and sidewalk widths
along Central vary considerably on the south side of the street. Mr. Crocker showed
plans for the strcetscape with large trees, planter boxes, and benches. The public
right of way is 8'-1" from the face of the curb to the property line. There is a required
3' setback from the property line in B-2. The existing movie theater building is about
6'-8" setback. The new building is well behind the required 3 foot setback. To the
principal fagade it is 7'-7". The distance from the edge of a planter box to the face of
the principal fagade is 11 '-2' ; it will narrow to 9'-2" at the ends of the buildings.
Regarding the justification for demolition of 1722 Central, Mr. Crocker said after all
the meetings, the people who value historic preservation did not come to the
meetings. The people who came to the mectin�,s did not place significant enough
value on historical the preservation of the house. This translates in the development
process, that the cost of t development allowances are greater than the benefit of the
restoration of the house. The neighbors viewed a five store building as a cost in their
neighborhood and their environment. They viewed that cost as being greater than the
benefit received from the restoration and preservation of the landmark. The
preponderance of those who chose to speak were not in favor of the original plan and
very supportive of the revise plan.
Evanston Preser«tion Commission
October 17, 2006 — Minutes
Page 7
On a stand alone basis, they are paying over S600,000 for the single family home site;
a fair value given one could do with the 2 FAR. The estimate to restore the house to
the Secretary of Interior's Standards is between S300,000 and S400,000. A 1,400
S.F. house; what could that be worth in an adaptive reuse as a home? S100 to S400
per S.F.? it still pales in comparison to what it cost to significantly restore the
property on a stand alone basis. They though that the only way to do it was in
conjunction with the bigger property; where part of the uneconomical aspects were
delivered as a public benefit, and the other was the transfer of the FAR. Those who
spoke at the meetings did not agree.
The relocation of the house has been explored. They have concluded that it is
extremely unlikely if not completely unlikely to be economical. Leaving the house,
there will be continued deterioration and further denigration of the neighborhood.
Mr. Crocker said they could do the project just on the theater site and leave the house,
and the house has been left and vacant for multiple years. if it is completely
uneconomical to develop as a historic structure, what is going the happen? Mr.
Crocker asked. Ms. Hawkins -Crocker said the reality of anybody buying the
landmark is highly unlikely as a house. If someone could develop the lot to B2, that
will require delisting and demolition to get full value. Mr. Crocker said the pattern
with no attention to the building, no maintenance, it become a derelict building, in an
otherwise thriving neighborhood, and that is a denigration of the neighborhood.
Stan Gerson asked Mr. Ruiz what power the City has to require the owner to maintain
the building. Mr. Ruiz said the Property Standards Division responds to complaints.
The City could also condemn a property. Ms. Hawkins -Crocker said the problem is
the house is small. Mr. Gerson said what has been discussed is economics and that is
not within the Commission's purview. Mr. Ruiz said if the Commission denies the
certificate of appropriateness [for demolition], the applicant could pursue economic
hardship or they appeal that decision to the City Council.
Mr. Cramer said he applauded the effort from the applicant. He was shocked that the
neighborhood is so shortsighted and would allow the demolition of the landmark in
exchange for 9 feet, when they live across the street from stadium. Susan Rundle
pointed other developments (Chicago Avenue and Elgin Road) where neighbors
complaint about the height and now they got what they got. Mr. Jordan said the
house is going to come down whether the Commission approves it or not. The bigger
picture of it is the neighborhood is better with the development than without it.
Unfortunately, the Commission is supposed to review construction, but that is really
not in the Commission's purview.
In response to a question from Thomas Prairie, Mr. Crocker said that the original
design had some setbacks; the mass of the building was on Central Street in deference
to the neighbors to the south. They had a beautiful plan that the thinking people
appreciated and the emotional people did not. The Plan Commission seemed to like
the original plan; they also commended them on how responsive they were to the
neighbors in trying to meet their needs. The people who spoke are more in favor of
Evanston Preservation Commission
October 17, 20G6 — Minutes
Page 8
the new plan than the old. Mr. Crocker said that he was disappointed that they could
not rally support for the original plan. There were two issues in the discussion. One
the merits of the project and the preservation of the house and the other, the historic
preservation as a public benefit or is all public get usurp by affordable housing. He
said that he thinks that there is room for both.
Stan Gerson said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&,TA)
recommended all five standards for demolition apply. Regarding standard five Mr.
Jordan said he liked what the applicants have done, but from the historic perspective,
he does not have anything to say about it. Thomas Prairie said he is going to vote
against demolition for two reasons: first, on principle, he did not the development
should overshadow demolition. He said there are more historic properties being lost
to development than gained. Second, regardless of the new construction, if the little
house did not exist next to the other property, this development will still go ahead, is
not hinging on the little piece of property. Mary Brugliera said various landmarks in
town are threatened and historic districts are being harmed piece meal. This kind of
vernacular cottage was recognition that, not only the mansions of the rich and
powerful ought to be landmarked, but the cottages and the little houses that ordinary
people lived in, and there are not a lot of them left. She said she would vote against
demolition. Jon Willarson said it is too bad that almost nobody wants this property,
and it is the last of its kind and that is why it is a landmark. The City Council in its
wisdom created the [Landmark] Commission and enabled it to pick landmarks that
seemed to be in danger; he said this was very sad. Ann Dienner said she too would
vote against demolition. They had planned to remove the addition to the east, even
though the five story building was proposed, there would be enough open space to
give a little relief to the streetscape. Apparently the Commission did not fight enough
to save the landmark when the meetings/hearings were held.
Stan Gerson moved that the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the
structure at 1722 Central not be given, in that: 1) the structure is of such architectural
significance that its demolition would be contrary to the general welfare of the people
of the City, and the State; 2) the structure is of such archaeological character that it
should be preserved and demolition would not enable it to be preserve for the benefit
of the people of the City; 3) the demolition of the structure would be contrary to the
purpose and intent of this chapter [in the ordinance] and to the objectives of historic
preservation; 4) the structure is of such old design (Italianate) that it could not be
reproduced without great difficulty or expense. Ann Dienner seconded.
Discussion: Susan Rundle said that the proposed demolition does not meet any of the
standards and she would have to vote against demolition. Mr. Jordan said the City
Council is better situated to say in a broader sense and picture, given what the
community wants, disagreed with the Commission. By the straight standards it does
not meet them. He applauded the effort that the applicant made and hoped it does not
discourage them from doing it again in the future.
E%-Amton Presenation Commission
October 17, 2006 — Minutes
Page 9
The motion denying the certificate of appropriateness for demolition passed. Vote 9
ayes, 0 nays.
S. 1700-1722 Central Street (Landmark— 1722 Central only) — Construction of a 4-
story building at 1700-1722 Central Street [Planned Dcvelopment/Construction]
Mary Brugliem moved to not recommend to the Plan Commission the [proposed]
planned development in that it does not meet standards: a) it will adversely affect the
historic architecture of the landmark; b) it does not amount to a taking, and c) it will
be materially detrimental to the property. Jon Willarson seconded the motion. The
motion to not making a recommendation to the Plan Commission to approve of the
planned development for 1700-1722 Central Street as presented passed. Vote: 9
ayes, 0 nays.
Regarding the construction of the proposed four story building under the proposed
planned development, Ms. Bruglicra moved that the Commission not review the
proposed planned development in terms of standards of construction in that it is not in
a historic district and it does not involve a landmark if the landmark on the part of the
property is in fact demolished. Ms. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
6. 1304 Judson Avenue (LSHD) - Replacement of windows [Alteration]
Kathleen Buffington, owner presented the project. K Buffington said she would like
to replace 58 existing double hung wood windows with new double hung wood
windows with a new jam to fit into the existing jam on all facades. She said the top
floor windows will have divided lights. The window on the front elevation with the
transom is not original.
Mary Brugliera said she could not see ant sagging or rotted windows. K. Buffington
said most of the windows and sills are rotted_ There is no complete closure of the
lower sashes with the sills. M. Bruglicra agreed to replace the third floor windows
and retain the oval windows and the rest of the windows and reinstall the unobtrusive
storm windows. K. Buffington said there was no intention of storm windows on the
original house. Thomas Prairie said replacement windows do affect how a window
looks. The glass sizes on the replacement windows will be smaller than the original.
In response to M. Bruglicra's question K Buffington said a contractor told her to fix
the windows they will have to have some of the windows custom built. Susan Rundle
said the house is not a landmark house and the Commission has Okayed this type of
windows. Carlos Ruiz said regarding window restoration contractor that he feels
uncomfortable recommending any contractor. Jordan Cramer said M. Brugliera's
comments are well taken. He also feels at the same time there should be a balancing
system. He felt Okay with the proposal.
Evanston Presen-ation Commission
October 17, 2006 —M inutes
Page 10
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-5, 6 and 10.
Ann Diener moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replacement of 58 double hung wood windows at 1304 Judson Avenue because it
meets standards 1-5 and 6 and 10. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 1 nay.
7. 2001-2003 Orrington Avenue (Landmark/NEHD) — Construction of a 3-car
parking pad [Construction/Zoning Variance]
Marc Kalman Segel, owner and architect presented the project. M. K. Segel said the
building is a two-family unit. In 1977 his cousin and he purchased the building.
They obtain a zoning variation to restore it as t-wo-unit family building. He has living
in the house since and the building is set up as condo. He said his cousin sold the
north portion to a new owner and subsequently the unit was sold to Art Winter, the
current owner. M.K. Segel said they have a very intense use of that area, reason why
of the proposed 3-car parking pad (800 S.F.) that requires zoning variations for the
side yard for the required 15' setback to 0.5' setback and for the maximum 45%
allowed impervious surface to 49%.
Marc Kalman Segel said the cost of using brick pavers will cost about S8,000 versus
S3,000 for asphalt paving. They have maintaining the building in good shape since
1977. M. Brugliera said asphalt paving is better than having a swamp, it removes
cars of the street and there are plenty of parking pads up and down the alley.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for zoning variations A and C as
applicable. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Administrator the
variances requested by the owner at 2001-2003 Orrington Avenue for a paved 3-car
parking pad next to the garage on the alley and the proposed setback of 0.50' from the
street side yard (15' required) and 49% impenvious surface ratio (45°Jo maximum) in
that standards for variation A and C are met. Ann Dicnner seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 2 nays.
8. 1639 Orrington Avenue (Landmark) - Storefront renovation [Alteration]
Robert LaPlata presented the project. R. LaPlata said he is proposing replacement of
the storefront windows at 1639 Orrington Avenue, This includes the replacement of
the three arch ways and the storefront to the north with double pane glazing, and the
two arches and the French door, matching the arch transoms. The aluminum framing
will match the new framing of the next door tenant. They %will use the same sign
maker and the new sign will be place on same sing band. R. La Plata showed an
alternate "C" where the windows will fold.
Evanston Preservation Commission
October 17, 2006 — Minutes
Page 1 l
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5, 9 and 10. Thomas
Prairie moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacing of
windows for entrance doors at 1630 Orrington Avenue in that standards for alteration
1-3, 7, 9 and 10 are met. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Stan Gerson amended
the motion to include the replacement of windows. Susan Rundle seconded the
amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standard 17 as applicable. ;friary Brugliera
moved to recommend to the Sign and Appeals Board the proposed sign for the
restaurant " Omaggio" at 1639 Orrington Avenue to be similar in style and location to
the tenant to the south. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
9. 1247 Ridge Avenue (RHD) — Construction of a wood frame 2-car garage
[Construction]
David Harrington, owner presented the project. D. Harrington said he is waiting to
build the garage contingent to the siding work on the house. The house is currently
aluminum sided. He said he said the garage will have gutters and siding consistent
with the siding on the house. The garage will have eaves and a lift to the roof to
make it look like house and the shingles to match the house shingles, siding and
windows to match the house. D. Harrington said he also will keep the house
windows and replace the storm windows.
Commission's Findings
Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12,
13 and 16 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve Ccrtificate of
Appropriateness for the construction of the 2-car garage at 1247 Ridge Avenue as
meeting standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 16 and to match the
materials of the existing house. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Susan Rundle
amended her motion adding standard 12 (not harm any of the trees and the
environment not be destroyed). Ann Dienner seconded the amended. The motion
passed as amended. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
V. PRESERVATION ISSUES
Preservation Ordinance Text Amendment — Proposed text amendment of section 2-9-8
(G) Appeals (the amendment would place decisions of appeals with the Planning and
Development Committee only, and not the City Council)
Mary Brugliera moved recommending the Preservation Ordinance, section 2-9-8 (G)
Appeals, not to be amended for the reasons below passed. Ann Dienner seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preservation Commission
Oclober 17, 2006 — Minutes
Page 12
1. The composition of the Planning and Development Committee could decrease (currently
all 9 Aldermen), so 4 or 5 Aldermen could decide in the future an appeal.
2. Accountability for decisions should be at Council level.
3. Opportunity for public comment at Council meetings {would not occur].
4. Council meetings are televised so general public could see deliberations.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
CITY OF EVANSTON
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Emily Guthrie, Ann Dienner, Betsy Hohman, Susan Rundle, Mary
Brugliera, Jon Willarson and Thomas Prairie
OTHERS PRENSENT: Julie Gross, Thomas Prairie, Rebecca Kuchar, Scott Small, Laura Bemar (Court
Reporter), Scott & Stacey Kaniewski, Fred Wilson, Andrea Steinberg, Deborah
Tekdogan, Erika Parker, Mark Termolen. Joanne Termolen, Julie Gross, Stefanie
Levine, Paul D'Agustino, Joe Rocheleau, Steve Lewis, Victor Nelson, Pandora
Brown, Terry Callahan, Alene Boyer, MaryLou Horwat, Roger Covey, Tom
Klitzkie, Douglas Gilbert, Gunny Harboe, Sergio de los Reyes, Bonnie Humphrey
and Sue Budinsky, and Anne O. Earle
PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chris Carey, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. with a quorum of eight members present
(Chris Carey, Emily Guthrie, Ann Dienner, Betsy Hohman, Susan Rundle, Mary Brugliera, Jon
Willarson and Thomas Prairie). Staff: Carlos Ruiz
Chris Carey held items II. Approval of Minutes, and Ill. Old Business, until later in the meeting due to
the late start of the meeting.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARING
1. 1414 Davis Street (RHD) — Nomination for Landmark Designation
Rebecca Kuchar and Scott Small presented the nomination of their house at 1414 Davis
Street for Evanston Landmark designation. Ms. Kuchar said the house was built in 1908 In
the Craftsman style. George Sterling Lord is listed as the architect, but it is known that Mr.
Lord was not an architect. The house was built for his wife Eda Hurd Lord, a socialite and
developer from a very prominent family in Evanston. Connor & McCann are listed as the
builders. Ms. Kuchar emphasized that they restored the house inside and out to its 1908
condition. The garage was probably built in the 1920s or 1930s. The exiting garage replaces
to former garage.
After the presentation of the nomination and discussion the Commission requested the
applicants/owners of the house at 1414 Davis obtain additional Information on the builder of
the house. Mary Brugliera moved to continue the hearing until the Preservation Commission
meeting in January 2007. Anne Dienner seconded the motion. [Thomas Prairie left the
meeting after the hearing].
Evanston Preservation 0wri nisslon
November 14, 2006 — Minutes
Page 2
The transcripts of the hearing are available from the Preservation Coordinator or the City
Clerk Office.
2. 1218 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) —Rescission of landmark designation
The applicant requested via email to postpone her application until further notice.
M. Brugliera said that she was opposed to the rescission of the 1218 Elmwood just because
City Council approved its demolition. The Commission agreed to discuss this item when the
applicant is present in front of the Commission.
B. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
1. 101 Hamilton Street (LSHD) —Demolish existing house, construct new single family home,
refurbish fence and subdivide lot into two single family lots
(Demolition/Construction/Subdivision]
Scott & Stacey Kaniewski, owners and Fred Wilson, architect presented the project. F.
Wilson said the applicants would like to build their new house on the comer lot and have a
subdivision for a northern parcel that they have no intention of building on at this time, but it
would allow them to keep the flexibility to sell it in the future. The comer lot Is 172' on the
east, 183' on the north and approximately 172' on the west, and 172' along Hamilton on the
south. They proposed to demolish the 1.5-story house that was built as a pool house. They
have not found anything significant on the architect for the existing building.
Fred Wilson said they want to maintain the Hamilton Street curb cut, also maintain the
courtyard feeling on the western edge of the property, so that the facade will still be on the
west side of the property with a detached 3-car garage. They studied the comer properties
along Lakeshore Blvd and determined the average size of the lots. Then they created a
comer lot of approximately 20,000 S.F. and the comer lots have an average of 18,000 S.F.
The existing site is over 30,000 S.F. They also looked at infill lots along the Lakeshore Blvd.
such as the 50' wide lots north of the property that are an average 9,900 S.F. The subdivision
creates a 60' x 185' infill lot or approximately 11.000 S.F. They also looked at a figure ground
reversal of the area with the buildings and open space that maintain a rhythm. They also
talked to the five immediate neighbors and presented what they planned to do.
Fred Wilson said the new house is a 2.5-story building with 4" clapboard painted cedar siding
and trim, wood clad windows with simulated divided lights, window openings within a wail,
dentils on the top cornice line; the western facade has the entry at the center, and a 2-story
framed turret on the southwest corner. The tower portion of the house is face brick. There
will be dormers on the east, west and south elevations. The eastern rear farade features a
1-story turret and a 2-story turret with a screen porch and a bathroom above.
Ann Dienner said this was a Daniel Burnham property, the main house was torn down after
the War. A developer then subdivided the lot. A. Dienner said the result of the subdivision
quirkiness is because this property was originally a state.
Fred Wilson said they have four issues: 1) the demolition of the home, 2) proposed
subdivision of the property, 3) the construction of a new home, and 4) they need to refurbish
the existing fence. F. Wilson said that Zoning is okay with the proposed subdivision.
Andrea Steinberg of 1214 Lakeshore Blvd. said she is not happy with the proposed
subdivision or building at some point another house. She said they are in a 50' wide
landlocked property, and their survey shows a 51' of frontage, and the applicant's survey
shows a 50' wide frontage and another piece of paper shows 49' frontage. There is a
Evanston Preservation Commission
November 14, ZOOS — Minutes
Page 3
discrepancy in regard to where their property starts. A. Steinberg said siding is not typical on
the street at all; traditionally there are brick and stone houses in the area.
Mary Brugliera asked A. Steinberg about her objection to the subdivision since it meets all the
City requirements for size and setbacks and so forth. A. Steinberg said her objection is to
subdivide and have a separate property that could be sold off and the building of another
house on it. She said her objection is that they are in a historic district where all houses face
the Lake. This particular block has only three houses on it; her house is the one facing
Lakeshore Blvd. She said she was in front of the Commission few years ago trying to put
new windows on her house that were thereto pane windows, and it seemed that that was a
difficult thing to accomplish, yet the rules seemed to be very easy for tearing down a house,
subdividing property and building a new house that never existed in the historic landmark
area. She said that all of the comer lots are at least two, and this lot is even larger. Does
that mean that know people will be allowed to subdivide lots and start building homes, she
asked.
In regard to the discrepancies on the dimensions of the property lines facing Lakeshore Blvd.
F. Wilson said their survey is 172' along the eastern edge (the Sanborn maps are 50'). The
Issue is they have a 30.000 S.F. lot, even the Japanese Consulate (immediately west) is
26,000 S.F. The subdivision helps the neighborhood because it controls the size of the home
that can be built on the comer lot because of the Zoning restrictions and the infill of the lot
has a zoning restriction on it as well. This brings the scale of the homes to a more
appropriate scale.
Deborah Tekdogan owner of 110 and 135 Burnham was concerned with dividing the
property, tearing down the house and then building a house. She said what they were doing
was developing that area. She said this is a historical area and to be subdividing the land is
a problem. M. Brugliera said if it is permitted by law to subdivide a large piece of property
and if building on that property meets the historic preservation standards then the
Commission will review any house on that lot under the Preservation Ordinance standards.
The Commission will determine whether the new house does or does not fit in the historic
district and if it does or does not meet the standards. That involves set backs, size, height,
and all kinds of things.
Chris Carey referring to D. Tekdogan's issue about the historic district asked if the
Commission's purview is to look at the site and determine if it is of such historic nature that,
that site would be damaged or the integrity of the site would be damaged if they build a house
on It. M. Brugliera said they are standards for subdivision to determine any of that. A.
Steinberg said if someone subdivides the lot on the block and goes from three houses on the
block to five houses on the block. Where does it end? she asked. D. Tekdogan said the
Commission will set a precedent.
Erika Parker of 1140 Lakeshore Blvd. said renovations, tear downs, construction it's always
are very emotional issues. They want this street to keep on looking the way it looks. She
realizes based on her own experience with her property that there is protection for the looks
of the houses around and off the district. She realizes now that there is a certain cut in
saying, okay we preserve what is there, but we have laws that new things can come up. E.
Parker said she liked the new house, but she is against the precedent of subdivision on the
street. It is a short street; it has beautiful properties and that is why she spent her money to
own a house there. The whole issue with changing the looks — there is a lot of gardens,
space and freeness that will eventually disappear with allowing subdivisions. E. Parker
argued about keeping the integrity of the short block. She said she has nothing against new
neighbors or new construction when fits in, when it does not block views. Subdivision
changes the neighborhood. Where is the protection of the historic district? she asked.
Evanston Preservation Commission
November 14, 2006 — Minutes
Page 4
Emily Guthrie noted that the subdivision Is a zoning issue; the Commission's purview is if the
property is in a historic district; is the existing house a landmark or contributing or in this case
it is not contributing. D. Tekdogan said they do not want the area subdivided.
Carlos Ruiz explained the purview of the Preservation Commission in terms of zoning
requirements which is advisory. However, he said in terms of historic districts the
Commission would look at the average set backs on a block which could be larger than the
minimum set back required by zoning (27' front yard set back; 5' side yard set back in a R1
district). The Commission uses the standards for review for alteration, construction.
relocation and demolition. He said the Preservation Ordinance does not say that one could
not build in a historic district or on a landmark [site].
A neighbor said that the side yard set backs in the area appear to be more than 10' between
homes. C. Ruiz said the Commission could look at the average side yard set back in the
area while reviewing this case. F. Wilson said the proposed lot is 60' wide; the lots they are
comparing to are 55% 50% 60% 75' and 65' wide. He said 30' is the required minimum [note:
35' Is the actual required minimum width on an R-1 district]. They felt it was appropriate to go
to 60' as oppose to 50' wide lot. F. Wilson said they could do five lots or three lots, they
chose two lots for two reasons: one, to limit the size of what can be built, and two, to limit the
size of their building.
Scott Kanlewski said the alternative is under the current zoning on the lot, he could build a
10,000 S.F. per floor house, he thought no one wants that on the lot. They are trying to
balance the context of the neighborhood, the financial concerns of purchasing the lot, building
their own home, trying to create something that would be a benefit to the district and the
neighborhood.
At this time Chris Carey explained the process for review of the application and noted that the
Commission has advisory review on the subdivision, the City Council has the final authority
on the subdivision. He said the Commission will be addressing all the appropriate issues and
the standards for review of construction including the fence restoration, and the standards for
review of subdivision (advisory review). C. Ruiz explained the appeal process in the event
the certificate of appropriateness for demolition and/or construction was to be denied. Also,
the neighbors will have the opportunity to speak in front of the City Council in the event the
proposed subdivision is to be approved by the City Council.
At his time C. Carey read the standards for review of subdivision: 1. The design of the
subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation shall: (a) Preserve, adaptively use, or otherwise
protect the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district"
Wary Brugliera said standard (a) does not apply because it is an empty portion of a large lot
that they want to subdivide; there is no building on it, no structure and no object. S. Rundle
said they are taking it as a whole [the existing]. M. Brugliera said it does not protect a
landmark, because it is a non-contributing building. B. Hohman said (a) also says "or area."
C. Ruiz suggested the Commission to consider the entire lot and referred to standard (a). A.
Dienner said what is confusing people is the matter of tearing down, and this is indeed the
whole 'shebang'.
M. Brugliera said standard (d) "Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape
associated with the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district" is what
the Commission should worry about. That is what the neighbors are concerned with. A.
Dienner said when a new building goes in a developed area, it is a matter of it fits into the
context.
Chris Carey read standard: "(b) Provide the location and design of new structures and objects
that are visually compatible with the landmark or areas, properties, structures, sites and
Evanston Preservabon Commission
November 14, 2006 -- Minutes
Page 5
objects in the district' He said there is a proposed building on that site. S. Rundle said until
the Commission votes on the subdivision, they need to consider the whole thing as a lot. C.
Carey said the applicants provided the location and design of one new structure, but they
have not provided the location or design of the second one, because there is not one
proposed at this time. F. Wilson offered to provide the foot print of a building for the
proposed vacant lot to the north showing the set backs.
Chris Carey read standards: "(c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstructing, as viewed
from a public street or public way, the critical features of the landmark or area, property,
structure, site or object in the district, and (a) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, Municipal
services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District'
At this Time Chris Carey suggested to continue the review to the next meeting, he would like
more time to consider what was presented, take another look at the streetscape. Allow the
applicant consider providing a footprint for the north lot, and have the applicant come back at
the next meeting (December 19, 2006). He said at that point the Commission will be ready to
fully review the subdivision and the other standards for demolition and construction and make
decisions on those.
Ann Dienner moved to continue the review to the next meeting. Emily Guthrie seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays.
2. 1027-31 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) — Remove single story open rear porch and expand
kitchen and mud room with a sun room and master bedroom above [Demolition/
Construction/Alteration]
Mark Termolen and Joanne Termolen, owners and Julie Gross, architect presented the
project. J. Gross said the project includes the demolition of the single story open rear porch
and the expansion of the kitchen and sun room at the rear of the house. The addition
extends the massing, expanding the ground level 2' beyond the face of the existing open
porch. The addition creates a sun room and master bedroom above. The addition expands
the house 2'-8" beyond the original single story porch and 13' beyond the original plane of the
house.
Commission's Findings
Ann Dienner moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the second story
addition at the rear of the house at 1027-31 Michigan as meeting standards of construction 1,
5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7
ayes, 0 nays
Betsy Hohman moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the rear
one-story open porch at 1027-31 Michigan as it meets standards of demolition 1-5. Ann
Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
Susan Rundle moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations of the rear
of the house 1027-31 Michigan as it meets standards of alteration 1-5, 9 and 10. Betsy
Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays.
3. 2603 Sheridan Road (Landmark) — Reconfigure parking and landscaping, improve the
beach restroom access [Alteration]
Stefanie Levine and Paul D'Agustino of the Parks and Forestry Department presented the
project. S. Levine said the project is for improvements to the existing parking lot and beach
restroom access located along the northern edge of the Arts Center property at 2603
Sheridan. The project is as a result of planned renovations to the playground at Lawson Park
being funded with private donations for constructing Noah's Playground for Everyone.
Evanston Preservatbcn Cornmissicn
November 14, 2006 — Minutes
Page 6
The funded portion of the project includes modifying the north curb line along the entry drive
for twelve additional 90 degree parking spaces. Eliminate six existing parallel parking
spaces. Re -stripe a portion of the main parking lot for three additional ADA parking spaces.
The non -funded parking lot modifications include: modify the west and south curb lines of the
main lot to support 90 degree angle parking. Modify the south curb line along the entry drive
for six parallel spaces. Modify the stone retaining wall and wood staircase along the parking
lot's south edge for the adjusted curb lines. Mill, resurface and re -stripe the entire lot and
entry drive for 51 standard spaces and 5 ADA spaces. The non -funded ADA beach restroom
access modifications include: construction of a concrete ramp with limestone retaining walls
and handrails along the north and east facades of the restroom for ADA access to the
restroom and the beach area. Reconstruct a portion of the existing concrete ramp for the
parking lot to the beach for accessible Improvements. Finally, modify the restroom facility
doors/stalis for full accessibility.
Commission's Findings
Betsy Hohman moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration as a
recommendation to City Council for the proposed reconfiguration of the parking and
landscaping at 2603 Sheridan Road as meeting standards 1, 2, and 8. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
4. 1400 Maple Avenue (RHD) — Re -roof house, remove aluminum siding, restore cedar siding
or replace siding with cement board siding [Alteration)
Joe Rocheleau, Steve Lewis, owners and Victor Nelson, architect presented the project. V.
Nelson said the project includes: re-rooring the entire house with shingles to match the
existing. Remove existing aluminum siding to expose existing cedar siding and repair If
possible. If cedar siding is beyond repair, remove the cedar siding and replace it with new
cement board siding. Also, re -roof fiat roof on garage.
Commission's Findings
Jon Willarson moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations at 1400
Maple Avenue as meeting standards 1-6, Sand 10. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
S. 2009 Dodge Avenue(Landmark) — Front yard fence [Construction/Fence Variance)
Pandora Brown, owner presented the project. P. Brown said she would like to install a
wrought iron fence on the front yard (4' high x 50,03' of total length). She said the wrought
iron fence will enhance the aesthetics of the house. The wrought iron material is commonly
used in Evanston. P. Brown said the fence requires a zoning fence variation because front
yard fences are not permitted.
Commission's Findings
Susan Rundle moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2009 Dodge Avenue
for the front yard fence as it meets standards of construction 1, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16. Betsy
Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
The Commission approved a motion recommending the zoning variation for the front yard
fence. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays
6. 2145 Sheridan Road (Landmark) — Erect shelter on top of roof for wireless antennas
[Alteration)
Terry Callahan of Ceilcom Construction presented the project. T. Callahan said Sprint and
Nextell propose to install an equipment shelter on the north tower of the building at 2145
Evanston Preservation Commission
November 14. 2006 — Minutes
Page 7
Sheridan to provide better cell phone coverage for Northwestern University students. The
exterior of the shelter will be an aggregate stone finish to match the building exterior. The
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency reviewed the project as well.
Commission's Findings
Susan Rundle moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2145 Sheridan for the
installation of a shelter for equipment as it meets standards of review of alteration 1, 2, 3, 9
and 10. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
7. 707 Judson Avenue (LSHD) —Adding 3-season porch on south side of house and demolish
existing garage, construct new two -car garage (Construction/Demolition)
MaryLou Horwat, owner and Alene Boyer, architect presented the project. A. Boyer said they
propose the addition of a 3-season porch on the south side of the house. The exterior of the
porch is stucco. the roof is tile to match the house exterior finish. The wood stairs are on the
east elevation. The proposed wood frame 2-car garage has a hip roof and exterior wood
siding. They also would like to demolish the existing garage.
Commission's Findings
Jon Willarson moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 707 Judson for the
construction of a 3-season porch as it meets standards of construction 1, 3, 5-8, 10. and 12-
15. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay
Betsy Homan moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 707 Judson for the
construction of a 2-car garage as it meets the standards for review of construction 1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 10, 12, 13, and 16. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7
ayes, 0 nays
Ann Dienner moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 707 Judson for the
demolition of the existing garage as it meets standards 1-5. Betsy Hohman seconded the
motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
8. 404 Lake Street (Landmark/LSHD) —Replace concrete driveway with pavers and widen the
driveway (includes public right of way) (AlterationlAdvisory review to Public Works]
Roger Covey, owner and Tom Klitzkie, contractor, presented the project. R. Covey said he
proposes to replace the existing concrete driveway with Brussels block pavers and widen the
driveway from 8' wide to 10' wide at the sidewalk. R. Covey said the concrete portion on the
public way will remain. There are other walkways in the neighborhood that used the Brussels
block pavers.
Commission's Findings
Betsy Hohman moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 404 Lake for
replacing the concrete driveway with concrete pavers and for widening the driveway from 8'
to 10' and to recommend to Public Works (in the public right away) that the proposed work is
appropriate, because standards for alteration 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 are met. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
9. 2037 Sheridan Road11920 Campus Drive (Landmark) —Restore Annie May Swift Hall
[Alteration]
Douglas Gilbert, architect presented the project (Gunny Harboe, Sergio de los Reyes, Bonnie
Humphrey and Sue Budinsky, also present). D. Gilbert said the project is for exterior
restoration and interior renovation for the Northwestern University College of Communication.
The non historic interior spaces will be renovated to the 21 u Century and the few remaining
Interior historic spaces will be restored (main public lobby, staircase and a few of the original
Evanston Preservation Commission
November 14. 2006 — Minutes
Pape 8
seminar rooms). The exterior of the building will be restored to the 1890s original character
with rear north side 1920s addition. There have been a few minor alterations over the years,
but essentially is a very intact landmark. The building is in the middle of the Northwestern
campus with the Lake on the east side. The building is visible from Sheridan Road.
Douglas Gilbert said masonry, 25% to 5o% of the mortar needs to be re -pointed (analysis of
the existing mortar will be performed to determined its composition, and color to be matched
appropriately). The building will be cleaned (muck ups will be conducted to determined the
gentlest cleaning methods). The south elevation is the main entry. A terra cotta portico is
generally in good shape. A parapet along the top will be disassembled and cleaned and
replace the anchors and reinstalled again, using the same materials. There are
miscellaneous repairs and tuck pointing, and painting the wood features. On the east
elevation there is a fire escape that was added in the 1920s that will be removed. The two
doors that were cut into the brick will be removed, the brick will be replaced with a good brick
match or leave the openings as painted panels. The same applies to a couple of French
doors on the third floor create a Juliet balcony were added probably after WWII. The
Intention is either to leave them or restore the original window sizes which match the others
and patch up the brick. On the west elevation there are minor alterations and restoration.
The original wood windows are in good condition and will be restore and keep the lower sash
operable and fix in place the upper sashes. They believe that they can retrofit the windows
with insulated glass and keeping the original thick sash. The transom windows on the first
floor will probably will be fixed. The soffits clay roof was replaced ten years ago.
Regarding the roof, the tiles were replaced about ten years ago. However water damage
affected the eaves. Repairs will be performed from underneath. The solid wood brackets are
In good shape and reused. The bead board soffits have been replaced (at least half). The
remaining portions are deteriorated. They will remove that to get to the framing for the eaves
and perform repairs. They will put new bead boards that match the original profile and
dimensions, reinstalled the salvaged brackets and the profile on the fascia,
Some of the windows at the basement level will be enlarged taller by lowering the sill (east
and west elevations) to create light wells. The new windows are wood to match the existing.
There will be a railing similar to the original railing. On the north elevation there is an existing
rear stair (non -original). There is a metal stair and an elevator lift and a modified entry door.
They proposed a railing is less ornamental; the entry way will have a double door with a
transom above. There is an existing ramp on the east elevation for accessibility, there will be
a new elevator serving all four levels. They are adding a new fire stair in the building and the
existing stair (open) %%rill remain open. If necessary they will recycle the brick from the interior
to match the existing.
Douglas Gilbert said a paint analysis was performed to pain the windows and the eaves to
match the original colors (mostly brown). The windows have a sky blue rope molding and
dark almost dark window sash. On the front of the building there is painted sign with the
name of the building "Annie May Swift Hall."
Commission's Findings
Betsy Hohman moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for Annie May Swift Hall at
2037 Sheridan Road.11920 Campus Drive for the alterations, because meets standards for
alteration 1-8 and 10. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7
ayes, 0 nays.
V. PRESERVATION ISSUES
2007 Preservation Officers — Appointment of Nominating Committee
Evanston Preservation Commission
November 14. 2006 - Minutes
Page 9
Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, and Susan Rundle volunteered to the Nominating Committee for the
2007 nomination of Preservation Commission officers.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Commission held the approval of minutes until the next meeting.
Ill. OLD BUSINESS
A. 904 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) --update on the appeal to City Council regarding the
Preservation Commission denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of
windows. This item is currently being held at City Council awaiting the Commission's
recommendation.
Chris Carey and Mary Brugliera informed the Commission that they met with .lames Murray,
attorney and Ramo Perocevic, building owner on November 2, 2006. They asked them to obtain
estimates for the restoration of the remaining steel windows and for the replacement of the
existing (not original) aluminum double hung windows on the east and south elevations with
casement windows (steel or aluminum) to match the original windows. Also, they proposed
leaving the non -original aluminum double hung windows on the north and west elevations. A
decision still needs to be made on the second story windows in the court area facing south; since
these windows may not be visible from the public way.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
CITY OF EVANSTON
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING
Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily
Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, Thomas Prairie, and Jon
Willarson
OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Kaniewski, Fred Wilson, Mr. Ishida, Mr. Yamamoto. Mark Kendall, Kris
Lacerda, Craig Smith, Tim Sounders, and Maret Thorpe
PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair
STAFF: Carlos Ruiz
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chris Carey, Chair determined a quorum of ten Commissioners present and called the meeting to
order at 7:10 p.m. (Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily
Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, and Jon Willarson). Susan Rundle arrived short
after.
Staff: Carlos Ruiz.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 15, 2006 Minutes
Chris Carey moved to approve the August 15, 2006 Minutes. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion.
The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays
Ill. OLD BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
1. 101 Hamilton Street (LSHD) —Demolish existing house, construct new single family home,
and subdivide lot into two single family lots [Demolition/Construction/Subdivision]
Scott Kaniewski, owner and Fred Wilson, architect presented the project. F. Wilson said they
are presenting updated and additional information on the project as discussed at the last
meeting. The identical packages have been handed out to all the neighbors In the area.
They had an additional meeting with the people at the Japanese Consulate (1501 Sheridan to
the west). They had phone calls with neighbors asking if they had any questions they would
like to go over with new information.
Fred Wilson said in terms of the subdivision the 60' x 120' lot to the north remains. They do
not have Intention of building on this lot, but they want to keep the flexibility of the property.
They have a minimum 5' setback on the north lot, their building is 19'-i" off of that north side
Evanston Preservation Commission
December 19, 2006 -- Minutes
Page 2
yard. On the eastern setback the required setback is 27', they are proposing 49'. On the
Hamilton side, the southern portion, the required setback is 15; the proposal is 20'-9" to the
round turret. On the western portion, they need a 30' rear yard setback; they are providing a
42' setback. They have a detached garage on the northwest corner, which is 3'-8" off the
western property line and 5' of the northern proposed property line. The lot that is created to
the north has a standard 5' setback on the north, a 5' setback on the south, and the 30' rear
yard and 27' front yard setbacks. F. Wilson said they did an analysis of the area and looked
at two different categories: comer lots in the two block area, and they took and average of
those lots which is 18,418 S.F. for a corner lot. Their property at the corner is 20,050 S.F.
The corresponding infill properties average is around 9.900 S. F.; their lot is 10,976 S.F.
They also took the context in terms of how the buildings are spaced between each other (the
average). They went from Lee Street to Burnham; the average is 23'-4". They took the
building to the north and imprinted the same building, a hypothetical building that could be
built there, and that created a 22' setback between their lot and between their proposed
structure on the hypothetical building at 24' setback. They tried to maintain the spacing that
occurs along the property.
Fred Wilson said page 6 of the application drawings Is a new drawing showing the figure
ground relationship, to see the subdivision and if a building is created, does it Jump out. It
shows the homes and the open space around them, it seems to work within the context.
Page 7 shows the lot staying like it is, in terms of scale. The outline is of the Japanese
Consulate giving a sense of scale how big the property is. F. Wilson said the proposed
comer lot Is out of scale with the neighborhood in the context that is there, and the significant
scale of a home that could be there, will dwarfed what is around it. Page 8 shows the actual
proposed structure, with 60' lot to the north and the proposed residence on the southern
portion. Page 9 shows that the lot can be subdivided Into three lots. Page 10 shows four
lots, all conforming with the zoning.
Fred Wilson said the other new information is the color rendering that shows the context with
the materials. It is going to be a clapboard sided house with the 3" to 4" board exposure.
The cornice lines are dentiled in wood, proportion and accurate Tuscan Style. The
colonnade, columns and the entablature are being developed within. The garage is recessed
way back. The lower level is a face brick with a sand finish. The other elevations have not
changed (page 14 is west, page 15 is north). The courtyard faces west; the existing curb cut
on Hamilton is being maintained. The carport is on the west. The main facade is facing
west. The facade on Hamilton is the so called the front fagade, but is really the side of the
building. They are trying to maintain the image along the street edge. The turret turns the
comer of the building and turns the other corner to the eastern portion.
Fred Wilson said the French doors on the south elevation go out to a sun terrace. The front
yard is the eastern facing portion; the rear yard is the western facing portion. Hamilton on the
south and the northern portion are the side yards. The address is going to be on Hamilton.
Mary Brugliera said the property owner of a corner lot gets to decide the front yard. Stan
Gerson asked about the garage rear yard setback of 3'-8" on the west. Carlos Ruiz said the
required rear yard setback is 3' minimum. F. Wilson said page 17 shows various clapboard
and masonry buildings with wood frame additions. They were looking at the language that is
In the context in the area. F. Wilson said zoning looked twice at a preliminary basis at the
proposal of the single lot with two, three and four lots. There are no [zoning] variances
required (for lot coverage, impermeability).
Carlos Ruiz asked if any neighbors present at the last meeting were concerned with the
revisions and additional information. He was surprised that neighbors were not present at
this meeting. Scott Kaniewski said after the last meeting he had a series of phone calls with
all the neighbors that were present at that meeting, Mrs. Steinberg to the north and Mrs.
Parker to the south. He did not talk to the neighbor farther north, but she received the
package as well as the Alderwoman on the district. Mr. Steinberg had called him and said
Evanston Preservat on Commission
December 19. 2006 - Minutes
Page 3
that they no longer are opposing the project. S. Kaniewski he offered to meet with Mrs.
Parker but she has expressed no interest. F. Wilson said it was about more clarity. There
were a couple of neighbors who made comments that they didn't know about the meeting
was happening. As far as how the notification process worked itself out. They highlighted
that the meeting was happening tonight and they delivered the packages about a week and a
half ago, to give the neighbors the weekend, to reach out to them. Thomas Prairie asked if
the neighbors received formal notice of tonight's meeting. F. Wilson said yes. Carlos Ruiz
said the notice was not from the City as it is not required. F. Wilson said they wanted to
make sure every effort was out there and the Japanese Consulate took them up on that offer,
and they met with them couple days ago to walk the property. He felt the project was very
well notified. The neighbors had heard that a developer bought the property, that there were
going to be three homes built. What happened was that the neighbors found out about the
meeting two days before the last meeting. S. Kaniewski said he had packages delivered of
everything the Commission received at the prior meeting to every neighbor. He personally
called every neighbor and made contact with every one. He did not speak to every one. but a
vast majority of them and they were told that he will be coming back to this meeting.
Jordan Cramer asked regarding last meeting, what was the nature of the objections that
people had. Carlos Ruiz said people were concerned with the new lot being created to the
north and construction on that lot. Another issue was the scale of the new house in relation
to the other homes (massing, height). M. Brugliera said there was confusion about zoning
versus preservation. The neighbors kept saying they should have been notified. M. Brugliera
said it was mentioned that this is a project that does not need a zoning variation and that It
could be done if it fits the Commission's standards without any public hearing. C. Ruiz said
the application meets the zoning standards. He sent to the people who had signed up sheet
the agenda for this meeting. He was contacted by representatives from the Japanese
Consulate, they received an email from him and they are present at the meeting.
Chris Carey called the names of Mr. Yamamoto and Mr. Ishida if they wish to make a
statement. Mr. Yamamoto said the general idea of the Japanese Consulate (1201 Sheridan)
Is not to oppose the Commission's decisions or to make further suggestions as to how to
come up with a final decision. They had several concerns as to what the final project would
be (demolition and new construction). They addressed that with the architects and got a
general idea and clarification. They are not in any position to throw any opposition to it. They
made several requests to get further documentation. They want to reserve the right to posse
some questions In the future, once they receive those documents. He believed the
applicants are well within the bounds of the codes. So they are not opposing the project.
Regarding zoning, again this is not a zoning hearing. Mr. Yamamoto said they are not being
asked to review as a body or nor asked to make any variations or to check on any issues with
the zoning. He does not have any confirmation on the zoning. C. Ruiz said there is a
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance that if the project requires a variance, then
automatically it has to come back to the Commission with that particular request. He said
that was his concerned that the applicants with their own analysis are concluding themselves
that there is no variance. Mr. Yamamoto said they want to know more about the elevation of
the garage.
Carlos Ruiz said if there are some alterations the applicants need to perform because of
design considerations or even zoning or building code, there is certain room for staff to
approve those administratively. If the Commission were to approve tonight the project as
submitted, when a letter is sent to the applicant with the approval, it would state that the
project received for permit should be same or substantially the same and alterations to the
plans might be subject to additional review. Revisions required by code are not subject to
further review.
Ann Dienner asked how much of a difference In height is there between the Japanese
Consulate property and the proposed new lot. She thought there a bit of a terrace between
Evanston Preservation Commission
December 19, 2006— Minutes
Pape 4
the main house on Sheridan. Mr. Yamamoto said there is an elevation difference between
the properties, reason why there is a concern with the location of the proposed garage. The
view from the rear of their property will change. F. Wilson said they will maintain the grade
level where the garage is being proposed. Air. Yamamoto agreed that a new survey of the
properties would clarify other issues such as boundary lines, location of utilities and so on.
Carlos Ruiz, referring to the proposed north lot, asked if the lot were to be sold and built,
where the access to the garage on that property will be. S. Kaniewski said access to the
garage would be from the front as the properly next to it to the north. There is no alley or
access to the rear portion to any of the lots on the block. Ann Dienner said the reason for the
discussion and confusion is because originally it was all one piece, from Sheridan Road to
Lakeshore Drive. Over the years the property has been subdivided. The property at
Lakeshore Drive and Burnham Place that was all subdivided.
Mark Kendall at 222 Burnham Place said he supported the Kaniewski plan as a personal
friend and acquaintance for many years. He also was before in front of the Commission to
restore his historic property. M. Kendall said he reviewed the plans and they are in keeping
with the historical nature of that neighborhood. Being an owner of a historical property, he
felt very good about what they are doing there.
Commission's Findings
Jordan Cramer noted the owner did not have any Immediate plans to build on the north lot.
S. Kaniewski said no. Thomas Prairie asked if the Commission could comment or vote on
the portion of the subdivision of the [north] lot, without knowing what the other potential
structure is going to look like. F. Wilson said that plans for a new house would have to come
In front of the Commission. They feet it would be inappropriate to come up with a
hypothetical building. Carlos Ruiz said section 2-9-12 Review of Applications for Subdivision,
contains five points that the Commission should consider. The Commission's [review] Is a
recommendation to the City Council. As he understands there are certain lot sizes that could
be approved by the Zoning Administrator. He said his interpretation is that one lot is being
subdivided Into two lots. That gives the Commission to review the subdivision under (b). If
the subdivision goes to City Council, it will request the Commission's recommendation, He
also cited: (c), (d) and (e)
Chris Carey said he did not see problems or an adverse effect to the district or that area. He
did not see any adverse effect with the size of the additional lot, based on what he saw and in
the context of the other houses up and down Lakeshore. Ann Dienner suggested to the
applicant to take good care of the existing iron fence. C. Carey asked on the Lakeshore Blvd.
page 8 of the application (replace 6' high wood fence — east property line) and along
Hamilton replace 6' high wood fence. Carlos Ruiz added that corner lot fences are not
allowed as of right. An existing fence could be improved by lower the height of increasing the
visibility [less opaque]. It fence has to remain the same or better in terms of less visibility or
moved further way from the property line.
Scott Kaniewski said the four actions on the application are for demolition, new construction,
subdivision, and repair the fence. He asked the Commission withdraw the fence aspect. He
also said the house was built in 1965 and the pool house was for the current Japanese
Consulate. That property was subdivided by the Aliens who owned the property at that point
In time.
Chris Carey read the application for subdivision and the responses:
(a) Preserve, adaptively use, or otherwise protect the landmark, or area, property, structure,
site or object In the district.
Evanston Preservation Corrxrrss
Demmber 19, 2006 — Minutes
Pape 5
Response: The size of each proposed lot within the new subdivision will maintain the
consistent comer and Interior lot dimensions within the historic district (see COA application
site plan and site context A, B, and C analysis) Property and existing structures are not
landmark items.
Mary Brugliera said that would apply to the area or site.
(b) Provide the location and design of new structures and objects that are visually compatible
with the landmark or areas, properties, structures, sites and objects in the district.
Response: The location of the proposed structures illustrated in COA application site plan,
design Is illustrated In four exterior elevations, also within the COA application. The
subdivision will maintain the existing size of both interior and exterior lots, see context A, B.
and C analysis.
Stan Gerson suggested to making comments after each standard. Mary Brugliera said she
was trying to determine what part of each of these sections applies to the project. S. Gerson
agreed with the answer for item (a). C. Carey said regarding (b), the applicants have shown
in their analysis that the design of the house has features that are consistent with other
houses In the neighborhood (page 17). Commissioners agreed with that assessment.
(c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstructing, as viewed from a public street or public
way. the c itical features of the landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the
district.
Response: The proposed structure setback from the street greater than the minimum
requirements (see site plan and site context B and C analysis).
Mary Brugliera said she could not see that it blocks any view. The only landmark nearby Is
the Japanese Consulate. Thomas Prairie noted the view is from the public way.
(d) Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark,
or area, property, structure, site or object in the district.
Response: The streetscape is Illustrated in site context (photographs 81, B2 and C1). They
correspond and follow site context analysis A and diagrams B and C In the COA application.
Chris Carey said the streetscape is not adversely impacted by the proposal. Carlos Ruiz said
the location of the driveway that would come from Lakeshore Drive would change the
streetscape, but it would be within the context.
(e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, Municipal services, adjacent property values, or the
general harmony of the District.
Response: The existing curb cut for 101 Hamilton would be maintained.
Stan Gerson said that would maintain the traffic patterns and would not affect municipal
services or adjacent property values. Ann Dienner said not having a new curb is a good
thing.
Chris Carey said it seems the application meets all the standards. Jordan Cramer moved to
make a recommendation for approval of the subdivision of the two lots as proposed at 101
Hamilton, in that it meets all five of the standards as discussed and as elaborated in the
application. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
Evanston Preservation C mmission
December 19, 2006 — Knutes
Page 6
Regarding construction of the new house, Chris Carey asked about the windows for the new
house. F. Wilson said the windows are with narrow muntins and SDLs with exterior
aluminum dad. The roof is asphalt architectural shingles.
Stan Gerson said that all standards of construction apply except for 14, 15 and 17. C. Carey
asked about the height of the house. The height to the ridge is 36'-7- and the median height
Is under 35'.
Mary Brugliera moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of the new
house at 101 Hamilton in that: 1) height, 2) proportion of the front fagade, 3) the proportion of
openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing and
structures on streets, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, and 7) relationship of materials and
texture are all visually compatible with structures to which will be visually related. Also, 8) the
roof shapes, 9) the walls of continuity, 10) the scale of the structure, 11) the directional
expression of the front elevation are all visually compatible with structures to which will be
visually related. B. Brugliera said standard 12 does not applies. Stan Gerson said looking at
the original qualities or character of the property, is this house is going to affect or destroy the
character of the property. The answer is no, but it Is still a standard to be considered. M.
Brugliera continued with the motion, 13) archaeological resources: every reasonable effort
shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources and 16) the Commission is
not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may
Impose a requirement for compatibility. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion
passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
Stan Gerson said all five standards of demolition apply for the demolition of the existing
house and the pool. Betsy Hohman moved to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for
the demolition at 101 Hamilton because: 1) the property or structure is not of such historic,
cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would [not] be
detrimental to the public Interest or general welfare of the people of the City, 2) the current
structure does not contribute to the distinctive historic character of the district, 3) the
demolition of the property would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4)
the current structure is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it could not be
reproduced without great difficulty andlor expense, and the Commission has plans for the
south property lot. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11
eyes, 0 nays.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
B. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
1. a) 650 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) -Construction of a one-story rear addition [Construction]
Craig Smith, architectlowner presented the project
Commission's Findings
Thomas Prairie said the proposed addition does not meet standards for review of
construction 3 (proportion of openings, 10 (scale of a structure) and 12 (distinguishing original
qualities of a structure shall not be destroyed). Jon Willarson moved to approve the
Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction one-story rear addition at 650 Michigan as
It meets standards of construction 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13. 14, 15, and 16. Ann Dienner seconded
the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Vote: 6 ayes, 5 nays.
b) 650 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - Construction of a 2-car detached garage, demolition of
existing garage [Construction/Demolition]
Commission's Findings
Evanston Preservation Ccm nissi
December 19. 2006 — Knutes
Page 7
Susan Rundle moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 650 Michigan for
construction of the new 2-car garage as it meets standards of construction 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, ti,
10. 11, 13, 14, and 16. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11
ayes, 0 nays.
Jordan Cramer moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 650 Michigan for the
garage demolition as it meets standards 1-5. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The
motion passed. Vole: llayes. 0 nays.
2. 1735 Wesley Avenue (ClRHD) —Construction of a 2-car detached garage; demolition of existing
garage. Zoning variance required from the required setback of 3' from the side yard. Proposed
setback is 1.4' [Zoning Variance/Construction/Demolition]
Tun Sounders, and Maret Thorpe, owners presented the project. T. Sounders said the proposed
2-car frame garage has exterior wood siding with wood doors and wood double hang and
casement windows. The garage needs a zoning variation for the 1.4' side yard setback, the
required setback is 3'.
Commission's Findings
Jordan Cramer moved to recommend the zoning variation for the garage at 1735 Wesley Avenue
for the 1.4' side yard setback as it meets standards A) and C) for variations. Ann Dienner
seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
Betsy Hohman moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of the 2-car
garage at 1735 Wesley as it meets standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7 ,8 .10,12. 13, and 16
Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
Tom Prairie moved to approve the Certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage
at 1735 Wesley Avenue as it meets standards 1-5. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion, The
motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
V. PRESERVATION ISSUES
A. 2007 Preservation Officers — Report of Nominating Committee
The Commission approved a motion accepting the nomination of the slate of Preservation
Commission Officers for 2007 (Jordan Cramer (Chair), Emily Guthrie (Vice -Chair), Betsy Hohman
(Secretary), and Ann Dienner (Assistant Secretary)). Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
S. 2007 Retreat — Setting date for 2007 Retreat
The Commission set the date for the Commission's retreat on Saturday, February 3, 2007. Mary
Brugliera suggested having a speaker on the tax advantages for restoration of landmarks as part
of the retreat and inviting the members of the Civic Center Committee.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator
Evanston Preservation Commission
Decamber 1 S, 2006 — Knvtes
Page 8
Date: December 26, 2006