Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2007CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:00 P.M. 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Jon Willarson, and Thomas Prairie MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Rebecca Kuchar, Scott Small, Liz Ward, Barbara Putta, Ken Mularski, Ellen Galland, Dana Riess, Kevin Glynn, Kathleen Glynn, Gary Beyer], Liz Rorke, Harry Lowrance, Mary Young, Bob Andres, John Burke, and Anne Earle PRESIDING: Chris Carey, outgoing Chair and Jordan Cramer, elected Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz, Laura Bemar (Certified Shorthand Reporter) I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chris Carey (outgoing Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:1 S p.m. with a quorum of eleven members present (Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz. II. ELECTION OF 2007 PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS The Commission approved a motion to elect Jordan Cramer (Chair), Emily Guthrie (Vice Chair), Betsy Hohman (Secretary) and Ann Dienner (Assistant Secretary) as the 2007 Preservation Commission Officers. Vote: I 1 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Cramer presided over the meeting after the conclusion of the election. Carlos Ruiz thanked fir. Cary for his service to the City of Evanston and the community. HLAPPROVAL OF MINUTES September 19, 2006 Minutes (tabled to the next meeting) �z Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 2007 — Minutes Page 2 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) 1. 1414 Davis Street (RHD) — Nomination for Landmark Designation John Pohl moved to recommending to the City Council the designation of the house at 1414 Davis Street as an Evanston Landmark as it meets criteria 2-94(A) 2, 3, 4 and (B). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 4 nays. The Commission continued the hearing to February 20, 2007 to allow City staff to write the report. Transcripts of the hearing are attached to the minutes. V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE 1. 715 Monticello Place (Landmark/Federal NERD) — Construction of one-story addition to the rear of house jConstructionj Barbara Putta and Ken Mularski, owners, and Ellen Galland, architect, presented plans for the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the house at 715 Monticello Place. Ms. Putta said that five years ago they did interior renovation and an extension of a dormer. Now they are proposing a sun room at the rear of the house. The sun room will have the same design wood casement windows with simulated divided lights (SDLs), same roofing, stucco finish below the windows as the house, and wood siding above the windows and below the gable roof. Ms. Putta showed pictures of similar additions in her neighborhood. She said their proposed addition is consistent with those additions. Mr. Gerson asked if there is a clear demarcation between the original house and the addition. Ms Galland said the addition is 5' setback from the west [property line] with small jog, and it will not be flushed with the house. Commission's Findings Mr. Carey said applicable standards of construction are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Mr. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the one-story addition to the rear of the house at 715 Monticello in that: 1) the height, 3) the proportion of the openings, and 5) the rh}lhtn of spacing of the structure are visually compatible with other structures to which is visually related. 7) the material and texture, 8) the roof shape, and 10) the scale are compatible with structures to which are visually related. 12) the original qualities or character of the structure are not going to be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being proposed, 15) the addition could be removed without destroying the original structure, and 16) the Commission is not Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 2007 -- :Minutes Page 3 requiring a special architectural style. Ms. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2119 Sherman Avenue (NEHD/C) - Demolition and rebuilding south gabled dormer with casement windows; add a shed dormer with fixed windows on the north east portion of the roof (setback 4'4" from the property line — a minor variance is requested from the required 5'-0" required setback), add two skylights; and add solar panels at the south west corner of the roof [Alteration/Zoning Variance] Dana Riess, and Kevin Glynn, owners, and Kathleen Glynn, architect, presented plans to demolish a south gabled dormer and adding a shed dormer with fixed windows. K. Glynn said the south gabled dormer is sagging. They are removing existing space and turn it into a master bedroom and bathroom. There is a historic back staircase original to the house with a low head height. This prompted the shed dormer at the northeast comer in the back to make the stair case usable. There are issues of egress now being addressed with the shed dormer and the expansion of the south gabled dormer. The project requires a zoning variance for the proposed Yd-floor dormer with a 4'-4" side yard setback. The required setback is 5'. CommIssIon's Findings Mr. Cramer asked if the roof of the dormer will be any closer to the property line. Ms. Glynn said the roof will be exactly where it is. Also the two solar panels are on the southeast corner of the roof. Zoning found the solar panels acceptable. Stan Gerson said the alterations include: on the south, demolition of existing gabled dormer and replace it with a larger gabled dormer with two casement windows and siding to match the existing. Also, add two solar panels. On the north, add a shed dormer at northeast edge of the roof with wood fixed windows, woad siding to match the existing, and two skylights on the roof of the dormer. On the cast, on the Yd- floor, remove an existing vcni opening and filling in with siding, replace a single double hung window with two wood casement windows, new roof shingles throughout the house to match the existing shingles, repair or replace existing gutters and downspouts as needed, and paint existing dormers as needed. ylr. Gerson said the applicable standards are: 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, 9, and 10. Ann Dienner moved for approval of the certificate of appropriates for 211 Sherman for alterations listed above, in that: 1) even' reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property, structure, requiring minimal alteration of the property, structure. 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment is 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 acquired significance in their own right, such significance is being recognized and respected. 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity. 6) the new material for replacements matches the material being replaced in composition, Evanston Presrn•ation Conm-fission January 16, 2DO7 — tifinutrs Page 4 design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. 7) the surface cleaning of the structure will be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, the additions do not destroy significant architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, and the neighborhood, and 10) the new addition and alterations is being done in 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. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards A and C for zoning variance as applicable. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend to the zoning administrator the variance for the dormer on the building at 2119 Sherntan in that it meets: A) Its appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and it will not adversely affect the architecture of the house or the district, and C) It will not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: I I ayes, 0 nays. 3. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) - Construction of a 2-1/2 story house [Construction] Gary Beyerl, architect presented plans for the construction of a 2.5-story single family house at 917 Edgemere Court. Mr. Beyerl said one on the biggest problems on a 50' lot is the garage. The previews plans the Commission approved had a 3-car garage sitting out on the front yard. His client purchased the site from the previous builder with the intent to doing something else. The new plan has the garage under the house. There is now a small garage door on the front elevation. There is a large courtyard under the house that allows parking and turn around to go back out. The new house has a porch like front bay with glass much like other Evanston houses. The average setback on Edgemere is about 45'. the bay is about 46', the main body of the house is about 51' and behind the neighbor to the south, and behind the neighbor to the north. The roof line sits right above the window heads; the cornice line is right at the floor level of the third floor. The roof slopes gently towards the center all the way around. There are hipped roofs coming up with the highest point in the middle. There is a series of dormers placed around that conic out to the edge. The height from the grade to the highest point is roughly 41 ' and the mean is 34'-7". Mr. Beyerl said the materials are: Norman bricks (_' 25" high x 12" wide), the roof is slate, copper for the dormers and downspouts, cast iron railings, French casement windows (►►•ood on the front) and aluminum clad on the sides. The court yard windows would be also wood. The house has a C shape in plan, the court yard allows light into the house. The cast face has a conservatory, and the south face is straight with a series of dormers. On the north, the court yard has payers. Also, there is a 36' wide section of the building that is 5' from the property Iine. Then for the next 38' section there is a setback of approximately 25' from the north, also a fiat wall with a shallow bay. The fire place is 5' from the property line on the terrace, which is 7' IL_ Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 2007 —Minutes Page 5 high. The next section to the east there is a 24' wide section and 10' from the lot line. There is a stair that leads down to grade. The east elevation has a little bay and a glass green house, and a fire place. Mr. Beyer] said they intent to use a stone base throughout and brick walls and slate roof all the way around. The dormers are stucco. The south elevation is setback 5' from the property line (98' of straight wall). Mr. Beyerl said the garage door is relative small and will match the color of the window trim. He said all the limestone will be detailed with nice profiles. Emily Guthrie said the south elevation is very unforgiving. Mr. Beyerl said one could build a much bigger house. Liz Rorke of 920 Edgemere said the building looks like a very nice apartment building. The building is massive and 98' in length. From the street the front elevation is flat with a bay. There is no relief on the south elevation. also, it is not clear where the property line is in relation to the house. Harry Lowrance of 919 Edgemere said he is not aware that everybody in the block is aware of the proposed plans. He asked if the Commission says something and it is not done, what recourse is there to follow? Ms. Rorke and Mr. Lowrance were concerned with the size and the height of the house and the setback from the sidewalk. Mr. Cramer suggested that the applicant consider providing a comparison of the neighborhood to show the rhythm, and the spacing of the various houses on the street and in the neighborhood. Ms. Rorke and Mr. Lowrance expressed concern about the front yard setback because Edgemere undulates along front yard property lines. Ms. Bruglicra said the site plan shows the house at 919 Edgemere is setback approximately 42' back from the center of the sidewalk; 27' is the required front yard setback. The proposed front yard setback for 917 Edgemere is 45'-9" (including the front steps), and the average setback on Edgemere Court on that side of the street is 44'-7". The house at 911 Edgemere is setback 47'-9". Mr. Lowrance said the Commission previously approved at 917 Edgemere a 4,000 SF house; the new house is double in square footage (7,600 SF). Regarding the design of the house, he said he does not see architecture like it in Evanston. He referred to the rhythm and spacing on the street as being adversely affected. Mr. Beyerl said that Edgemere Court does not have a consistent rhythm. Mr. prairie said he would like to see more visual examples ofhow the proposed house does fit into the neighborhood. He also was concemed with the 98' straight south elevation. The Commission asked Mr. Beyerl to provide more information on the streetscape, the rhythm and spacing of the various houses, an aerial of the street, and the new house being built at 925 Edgemere in relation of 919 and 917 Edgemere. Mr. Gerson said R&TA included all standards for construction as applicable, except for E%'anston Preser►-ation Commission January 16, 2007 —Minutes Page 6 standards 14, 15, and 17. Also, the Commission expressed concern about the exterior fire place. Chris Carey moved to continue the review of the proposed 2-1/2 story house at 917 Edgemere Court to February 20, 2007. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: I 1 ayes, 0 nays. 4. Ridge Avenue from Lyons Street to Howard Street (RHD) - Resurfacing and improvements along Ridge Avenue. Part of the proposed work is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District John Burke (City of Evanston), Bob Andres, and Mary Young, consultants presented plans for physical changes to Ridge Avenue. Mr. Andres said the physical changes to the roadway arc to put the roadway back just as it exists today, including the preservation of trees. The project includes the base repair of the roadway, between the curbs, replace the concrete curbs along most of the roadway as is, and replace the asphalt surface. Carriage walks will be put back where they are. Sidewalks will be replaced as needed to meet ADA requirements. The retaining wall will be maintained as is. Mr. Andres said they would like to re -stripe the intersection of Dempster Street at Ridge to provide a left turn on Dempster. To that effect the widening the southeast comer of Dempster Street will be about 3', perpendicular to the center line on Dempster. Ridge Avenue will remain four lanes. Mary Brugliera raised the question about Section 106 Review with the State of Illinois [Illinois Historic Preservation Agency]. Ms. Young said the project has been approved by the State process. The only reason Section 106 would be required is if the Evanston Preservation Commission comes back with an adverse finding. Mr. Andres added that the retaining walls will be protected during construction. The other t-wo locations of proposed changes are at Greenwood/Ridgc and at Grove/Ridge. They would like to prohibit certain movements from the side streets onto Ridge with signs and striping. Anne Earle said the limestone retaining wall is part of feature cited in the Ridge District nomination. Ms. Bruelicra moved to recommend to City Council that the proposed work on Ridge Avenue (resurfacing asphalt surface, replacement of concrete gutters and curbs maintaining the same width of the street from curb to curb, and widening the curb radius at Dempster and Ridg) would not have an adverse effect on the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 11 ayes, 0 nays. V1.STAFF REPORT/PRESERVATION ISSUES A. 2007 Retreat The Commission rescheduled the date for the 2007 Preservation Commission Retreat to Saturday, March 17, 2007 or Saturday, April 14, 2007 (alternate date) at the Levy Center. B. 2007 Preservation Awards E%anston Presm-ation Commission January 16, 2007 — Minutes Page 7 Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that he will begin preparing the application form for the 2007 Preservation Awards. The Commission will be presenting the 2007 Preservation Awards recipients to City Council on May 2007 in celebration of Preservation Month. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: February 19, 2007 Approved: February 20, 2007 CITY OF EVAINSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COIN MISSION 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, Betsy Hohman, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Jon Willarson, and Thomas Prairie MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, Chris Carey, Emily Guthrie OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Manfre, Kevin Pearson, Bryan Henson, Andrius Augunas, Jennifer Knapp, Gary Beyerl, Liz Rorke, Jill McCluski, Philip Crihfield, Judy Lowrance, Harry Lo%%Tancc, William Goldstein, Candice Groot, Jeanette Schreiber, Daniel Schreiber, R.J. Hinz, W. McGrath, Mary Anne McGrath, Alderman Melissa Wynne, Rick Nemec, Dave Kadish, Anne McGuire, Beth Lange, Amy Moryl, Bill Martin, Adam Wilmot, Nefrette Halim, Cameel Halim, Don Wallin, and Anne Earle PRESIDING: Betsy Hohman, Secretary STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Betsy Hohman, Secretary, called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. with a quorum of eight members present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson). Staff Carlos Ruiz. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES A. Presentation of alternative replacement building materials (Richard Wall of Superior Exteriors) Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that Mr. Richard Wall %vas in an accident over the weekend and that he requested to postpone his presentation to the next meeting. B. Consideration of adopting fast tracking review of certain certificates of appropriateness applications The Commission passed a motion to discuss fast tracking review of certificates of appropriateness at the Commission's upcoming retreat. C. Consideration of setting a date for the 2007 Preservation Commission retreat Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 — Minutes Page 2 The Commission set the date for the 2007 Preservation Commission retreat on Saturday, April 14, 2007. HLAPPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission approved the January 16, 2007 Minutes. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays At this time while waiting for the court reporter, Ms. Hohman called 651-653 Hinman Avenue under New Business on the agenda. V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 6. 651-653 Hinman Avenue (L) - Replace vinyl windows on front elevation with wood fixed sashes. Remove existing rear stairs and decks and construct new larger stairs with decks and railings. Replace northern and southern most windows at rear with sliding doors. Demolish southern bay from 4-car garage, build new brick wall on south elevation of garage, install Unilock turf -stone pavers and construct a carport with 3 parking stalls. Install new gate along the alley. Maximum allowed impervious coverage 65% - proposed 83%. Open parking spaces shall be within 30' of rear lot line — proposed open parking spaces are beyond 30'. [Alteration/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Kevin Pearson, Bryan Henson (o%vners) and Chris Manfre (architect), presented plans for the demolition of one bay from a 4-car garage, the reconstruction of the garage south wall, the reconstruction and expansion of rear wood stairs and porches with galvanized painted steel, the installation of new gate along the alley, replacement of the front elevation vinyl windows, installation of new windows on the north and south elevations (at each side of the living room lire places), replacement of remaining windows with wood windows, replacement of 18 rear windows with sliding wood doors and the remaining 6 windows with double hung wood windows, and the construction of 3 new parking stalls behind the garage. The project exceeds the maximum 65% impetious lot coverage to 83%. The open parking spaces are beyond the required 30' location from the rear lot line. New landscaping will be planted at the rear and Unilock turf -stone pavers will be installed on the new parking areas and driveway. Commission's Findings: The current garage parking area is narrow and the structure is in poor condition. The new 3 parking spaces are wider, and new garage doors will be installed. The new driveway will access the new 3-car parking stalls. Regarding the window replacements, the sashes and frames will remain. The new windows are tilt pack Marvin wood window. The original front elevation windows were replaced from presumably casement steel windows with divided lights to double Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 — Minutes Page 3 hung vinyl windows. The new replacement windows are fixed pane wood Marvin windows with simulated divided lights. The new windows on the side will be operable (hopper). Thomas Prairie expressed concern about the proposed fixed pane front windows and the natural light and ventilation requirements. Mr. Pearson said the previous owner did not inform them that the building is a landmark. They are trying to do the best they can with the front elevation windows that were previously replaced with the vinyl windows. Mr. Prairie would like to see a detail of the jam for the proposed windows. Mr. Pearson asked if they could leave the front windows as they are if they could not find a more appropriate window replacement. The answer was yes. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are 1-6 and 8-10. Ann Dienner moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 65 1-653 Hinman (excluding the front windows) as it meets standards: 1) requires minimal alteration of the property, the distinguishing or original qualities of the property arc not being destroyed, 2) the removal of historic material or distinctive architectural features is being avoided, 3) alterations that seek an earlier appearance are being discouraged, 4) changes that have been taken place are being recognized and respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skill craftsmanship that characterize the property are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features arc being repaired rather than replaced, 8) archaeological resources will be protected, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the alterations will be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Also, administrative approval will be allowed for the replacement of windows on the front elevation. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliem said the current impervious surface is already 31 % over the allowable amount, and the addition is 5.9% over the existing impervious surface. Mr. Manfre said they do not need to provide 6 parking spaces, but they would like to move parking off the street. Mr. Pearson said the neighbors have concerns about flooding, reason why they chose the pervious surface. Ms. Rundle asked if the neighbors were concerned with the proposed parking. Mr. Pearson said they were concerned with the large tree to remain. Also, the carport over the parking spaces will block the viers• of the parked cars. Ms. Brugliera said the other variance is for the parking beyond the 30' from the rear lot line. Ms. Rundle said the applicable standards for zoning variance are A and C. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals approving the M'o variances for the property at 651-653 Hinman (the impervious surface coverage and the parking setback from the rear lot line) in that: A) it is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and it does not adversely affect the architecture integrity of the landmark, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property or the vicinity. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presm-ation Commission Febnauy 20, 2007 — Minutes Page 4 Susan Rundle said demolition includes removal of rear stairs and decks, and removal of one bay of the existing 4-car garage. The applicable standards for demolition are 1- 5. Jon Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for 651-653 Hinman Avenue as stated above, because: 1) structure is not of such historic or architectural significance that its demolition would not be detrimental to the public 2) it does not contribute to the 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 that it could not be reproduced, and 5) plans for construction are in place. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. IV.OLD BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) 1414 Davis Street (RHD) — Consideration of approval of the Preservation Commission's report recommending to City Council the designation of the house at 1414 Davis Street as an Evanston Landmark. The Commission passed a motion approving the report with some revisions. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission closed the public hearing. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. A verbatim transcript of the hearing is attached. B. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COAIAIITTEE (R&TA) 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) - Construction of a 2.5-story house (Construction] Andrius Augunas, applicant, Jennifer Knapp and Gary Beyerl, architects, presented revised plans for the construction of a 2.5-story single family house at 917 Edgemere Court. G. Beyerl showed a photo montage of the street front fagade elevations and two renderings of the proposed building superimposed upon photographs of the site. Mr. Beyerl discussed the character of the building relative to others on the street. He noted the disparity in the building type including large homes at both ends of the street. He said there are also some smaller homes in stature, I -story with a garage in the front. The garage of the new house is under ground with a single garage door. The overall building height fits within the required height of the allowable 35'; the cave line is at approximately 30' high and 28' running across the front of the house. The height to the north neighbor is 25' to 26'. Regarding the placement of the building relative to the others on the street, Mr. Beyerl said the street undulates on the site. But the buildings more or less are in a straight line with a few exceptions. The house is setback further back from the house to the north or 12' behind. The front line of the bay is approximately in line with the house to south and the body of the building is about 6' behind. E%mnston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 — Minutes Page 5 Regarding the south fagade, 2' to 3' is visible from the top, but from the most part the south elevation is not visible from the street. The middle 38' is pushed in 9" from the previous line to break the roof line for additional articulation. On the center of that 38' portion, the bay window is brought out to the same line of the rest of it and is clad in copper to break up the brick massing. The dormer shapes on the two sides on the front portion of the building have changed from shed dormer to barrel vault and they are visible from the street. The chimney on the north side of the site is within a fire setback and it would be of a height above the eave line. Adjustments to the plan: the southern line was a straight line on the previous submission, but they pulled the wall in 9" along the center 38' and in the very center of that, there will be a bay clad in copper. The first floor is G'-G" above grade and windows are 2' above that, the height from the grade is 8'-V high from the grade. Mr Beycrl was asked if he considered moving the house further back. He said the house then will be behind the house to the north. Susan Rundle asked if he would consider punch openings on the basement level as an idea. Neighbor's Comments: Liz Rorke of 920 Edgemere said the height of the proposed house is without a relief. The existing garages in front are tastefully done. The propose house is nice but is a huge building on a narrow lot. The houses on Edgemere are wide in relation to their properties, but they do not go very far. Also, there space between the building. The house at 911 Edgemere goes back, but is a lower structure. A 10,000 S.F. house is not appropriate for the block. Rhythm of spacing of the houses, the scale, and the mass arc not in line wvith other houses on the block. It intrudes too much with the privacy of919 at the rear. Jill McCluski of 938 Edgemere was concerned also about the height because the first floor windows of the house being built at 925 Edgemere are already between the first and the second floor of the house next door. The proposed house is going to be taller and not in scale with the houses next to it. Philip Crihfield of 900 Edgemere (also known as 904 Edgemere), said his memorandum to the Commission addresses standards [of construction] 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, and 12 all of which he thinks are not met by the proposal. They are trying to put the biggest house on the narrowest lot on the street. He said [Edgemere Court] is not the Gold Coast, Old Town or Lincoln Park, where one can find narrow high structures that make the most of the least possible space. Edgemere Court is characterized by visual rhythm of continuity, of flow, of openness. He urged the Commission to reject the application as submitted. Harry Lowrance of 919 Edgemere said if the Lake is the public way, then the application does not comply with standards 5, 10, and 12. Between the walls of the house being built at 925 Edgemere and the walls of the house proposed at 917 Edgcmere, there will be tunnels for the public way on the east side of the Lake. Some of those walls are 12' high. Et-anston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 -Minutes Page 6 Mr. Lowrance said the first floor windows on 925 Edgemere are already up the second floor of his house. He said the application has not been reviewed by Zoning and the applicant is not the owner of the property. Thomas Prairie asked if the plans for 925 Edgemere are the same the Commission had approved. Mr. Ruiz said that the plans for 925 Edgemere were approved by Zoning and by Building. The plans are in compliance with preservation. Candice Groot, of 911 Edgemere said her house is 1.5-story and one will be looking at a 3-story house as proposed. Daniel Schreiber of 930 Edgemere said he supports what everyone has said. There is some truth with things starting off looking like one way and ending up much different, and there is no process in between where neighbors get the chance to comment. One of the reasons one lives in a historic district is thinking that the properties are somewhat sacrosanct, and they do not change. He wondered how two houses were approved for demolition so easily. Mr. Ruiz explained in detailed that the Preservation Ordinance allows alteration, construction, relocation and demolition. The standards have to be met before demolition is approved. Jack Hinz, of the 600 block of Sheridan Square encouraged the Commission to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said Edgemere Court is one of the most beautiful streets in Evanston. He believes that putting a 10,000 S.F. on a postage stamp lot is a serious mistake to the character of the neighborhood. Don McGrath of 943 Edgemere said the houses are different, but each is sort of suited to the lot. When neighbors did improvements to their homes, they were very sensitive to where their neighbor's windows are, where the front and back of their houses are, and people have exercised restraint in their improvements. Where the lots are small, the houses are generally small with a lower roof line, appropriate to their lots and the neighborhood. Mr. McGrath said Mr. Nesbitt (building 925 Edgemere) changed the grade and built a wall, and the neighbors at each side of him are kind of sunk, because all of a sudden his first floor is 8' above the middle of the neighbors' windows. Mr. McGrath welcomed Mr. Augunas to the neighborhood but he hopes that he will build a house appropriate to the lot. Once the neighborhood is changed, is gone, and what is happening is creating a different appearance and feel from what was there, he said. In response to the neighbors concerns Mr. Beyerl said his client plans to live in the house. Regarding the character of the proposed house as it relates to the neighborhood, they looked at the house to the north. it has a flat fagade with an elegant front entry projecting out 1' to 2' with a recess door. 920 Edgemere is a symmetrical flat fagade. 932 Edgemere is a flat stark wall with a door slightly off center, a blank fagade. They chose not to have a garage in front, or a flat fagade. The front bay is elegant and it has its own character with settled small windows. The character of the windows is similar to the house to the north. They also looked at the roof shapes of some of the other houses. He wanted a gable roof on the house; they chose a hip roof instead, causing the attic space to be much smaller. Mr. Beyer] reassured the neighbors that he intends to build what he Evanston Preservation Conmiission February 20, 2007 — Minutes Pace 7 designed. The decision to not build a big garage on the front yard drove the character of the house. The height difference between the house to the north is 2' higher to the cave. The house above the basement level is 7,500 S.F. and they are out of the ground 6' for the first floor. Regarding the relation to the house to the north, they looked at ways to minimize the impact of building deep on a narrow lot. They could have had southern facing windows and taken a significant amount of more light into the house, but their choice was to do just the opposite in interest of thinking about the house to the north. The proposed house is 5, from the setback, approximately the same width as the house to the north, and it is setback in order to keep in lire with the predominant row of houses. Then they stepped back 24' from the property line on a 50' wide lot. He could build a box, but the 24' setback was done in the interest in saving light to the neighbor. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said the rhythm of openings on the street is a concern. She noted the raised first floor has an impact. Stan Gerson said perhaps the new house meets some of the standards, but does not meet standards: 1) height, 2) relationship of the width to the height, rhythm of solids and voids, and 5) the rhythm and spacing of structures on the street. The standards that are not met overwhelm considerably the standards that are met. Ann Dienner noted the house at 901, 907, and 911 Edgemere are relatively low houses. The house at 919 Edgemere is much larger house than the ones to the south. The proposed house is vertical and creates too much of a shock, the rhythm is abrupt. Mary Brugliera said the problem is the narrow lot, because the houses at 920, 932, 938, 919, 943, and 935 Edgemere are possibly as tall as the proposed house. Stan Gerson said the standards not applicable are 14, 15, and 17. Jon Pohl asked could the house be lowered below the grade. Mr. Beyerl said yes, however it will change the character of the proposed house and it will impact the front yard by lowering the grade. Thomas Prairie said the height of the house in proportion of its width is a concern. Mary Bragliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the new house at 917 Edgemere Court, in that it meets standards: 4) rhythm of solids to voids in the front fagade, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections are compatible with the places to which it is visually related, 7) relationship of materials and textures are visually compatible %with the structures to which it is visually related, S) the roof shape is visually compatible with the structures to which is visually related, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of its environment are not being destroyed, 13) any archaeological resources will be turned over the Evanston Historical Society, 14) contemporary designs are not being discouraged, and 16) the use of a singular architectural is not being imposed. Susan Rundle seconded the motion: Evanston Presen-ation Commission February 20, 2007 —Minutes Page 8 Discussion: Stan Gerson said that he would agree with what Ms. Brugliera said about the proposal meeting the standards that she enumerated, however, she did not say anything about standard 1) the height, and he fills that the height of the proposed structure is not visually compatible with properties and structures to which it would be visually related, 2) proportion of the front fagade. He said that the relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation is not visually compatible with the structures to which is visually related. Verticality is what is emphasized, whereas all the other structure on the streetscape are horizontal, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, the relationship of the structure to the open spaces between it and adjoining structures is not visually compatible with the open spaces and structures to which it is visually related, 11) the direction expression of the front elevation, the character of the structure is vertical, the character of the other structures on the streetscape is horizontal, and 12) the structure if built, it would destroyed the original qualities and character of the property. Ann Dienner concurred with Mr. Gerson's comments. Susan Rundle asked if Commissioners would feel differently if the basement were lowered to the ground. Betsy Hohman said she would. The height would be remedied. Thomas Prairie said it would help with the side elevation and the wall and expanse of brick before the first floor. The motion failed unanimously. Vote: 0 ayes, 8 nays. The Commission noted dropping down the height of the building, lowering the front door, and the spacing between structures on the street will be the same, less vertical, V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1218 Sheridan Road (L/LSHD) — Demolish existing garage and construct a new three -car garage with a flat roof and cornice to match the existing front entry. Also, construct open pergola and mudroom. Exterior materials are stucco finish with wood trim, wood windows and wood garage doors. [Construction/Demolition] Mary Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 1218 Sheridan Road in that: 1) its demolition would not be detrimental the public interest, because it is not of historic significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architectural character of the district, 3) it would be not contrary to the purpose of this Chapter and the objectives of historic preservation, 4) its not so old or unusual or uncommon that it could not be reproduced, and 5) and the owner has plans to replace the garage. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugiiera moved that 742 hllchigan, 737 Judson and 1218 Sheridan (construction of garage, pergola and mudroom) be administratively approved by the Preservation Coordinator. Tom Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Eranston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 -- Minutes Page 9 2. 1918 Sheridan Road (C/NEHD) - Replace second floor steel casement and fixed windows on the rear addition with wood aluminum clad windows to complement the existing double hung wood windows on the main house [Alteration] Rick Nemec, from Northwestern University, and Dave Kadish with Illinois Sash presented plans for the replacement of some steel casement windows on the second story of the rear addition with insulated windows. fir. Nemec said, Neil Vogel, consultant recommended the replacement with double hung aluminum clad windows. The original house was built in 1922 and the back addition was built in 1950 where the steel windows were installed. Mr. Kadish explained that the aluminum clad windows will allow him to install the windows with a tight caulk seal. Mr. Vogel recommended fixed windows on the large openings and double hung windows on each elevation for ventilation and to be consistent with the windows on the original building. The windows cannot be seen from Sheridan. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are 1-6. 9 and 10. Thomas Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the steel casement and fixed windows at the rear of the building at 1918 Sheridan Road with new wood with aluminum clad double hung and fixed windows in that: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed, 3) the property is being recognized as product of its own time, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design or alterations arc not being discouraged, and 10) the windows could be removed in the future. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays 5. 708 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Remove west/rear elevation walls of house and rear open porch. Construct a 1,481 SF 2-story rear addition with stucco finish, wood windows (casement/double hung/SDL) and wood doors. Also, construct a low profile wood deck and a walkway at the rear of house. Restore windows on house. Replace air conditioning unit [Construction/Demolition/Alteration} Anne McGuire and Amy Moryl, architects, and Bill Morton and Beth Lange, owners presented plans for a 2-story stucco and frame rear addition with a shallow hipped roof. The rear addition is no Nvider than the house. but it does continue the line on both sides and back. It distinguishes itself from the house in the roof form. The existing First and second floor wood windows on the house will be restored and new storm windows will be installed. There is a low and shallow deck also being built. Also, they are removing one window on the north side. The new windows are simulated divided lights. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said the applicable standards of alteration are 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 10. Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the window restoration work at 708 Judson which includes: restoring windows on the main house and deleting one window on the second floor in that: 1) every reasonable effort has Evanston Presetvation Commission February 20, 2007 — Minutes NEC 10 been made to adapt the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed, 3) they are not creating an earlier appearance than what the home actually is, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) windows are being repaired rather than replaced, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the removed window could be put back later. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for construction are 1.3. 5-7, 8, 10, and 12- 16. Jon Pohl moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the new addition and low profile railings at 708 Judson as it meets standards: 1) the height is visibly compatible with the property, 3) the proportion of openings, the relation of width to height are compatible with the property, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on street is visually compatible with the structure, 7) the relationship of materials and texture is visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the existing structure, 8) the roof shape: the hipped roof is used on the main structure, 10) the scale of the structure is visually compatible with the property, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of the property is not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the new addition could be removed in the future, and the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said all five standards of demolition apply. Mary Brugliera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the rear porch, and the concrete path at 708 Judson in that it meets standards: 1) the demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architectural character of the district, 3) it would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the district, 4) it is not so old, unusual or uncommon that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense, 5) the owners have plans for replacement on the rear of the property. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1810-1812 Chicago Avenue (L) - Remove rear stairs and landing; construct new wood porch, stairs and wheelchair lift. On the 1 st story and at the rear, remove four double hung windows and install new door (northern/west). Remove door and install new double hung window (southemiwest), infill remaining window openings with brick to match existing [AIteration/Construction] Anne McGuire, architect, presented the plans for the removal of the rear stairs and wooden porches, the construction of a new wood porch, stairs and wheelchair lift. Also, on the 1 st story and at the rear, remove four double hung windows and install new door (northcm/west). Remove door and install new double hung window (southem/west), infill remaining window openings with brick to match existing. Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 — Minutes Page l l Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are 1-5, 9 and 10. Ms. Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness as previously stated for 1810-1812 Chicago as: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to minimally alter the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities and are not being destroyed, 3) an earlier appearance is nor being created, 5) distinctive stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the alterations are being done in such a manner that if there were to be removed in the future, the essential foam and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle said the applicable standards for construction are 1, 5-7, 10, and 12-16. She moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of stairs, porch and lift at 1810-1812 Chicago as: 1) the height is the same as the existing, 5) it does not destroy the rhythm of spacing of the structures on the streets, or 6) the entrance porches, 7) the materials and texture are the saute as existing, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible with the building itself, 12) it does not destroy the original qualities and character of the property, 13) archaeological resources will be protected and preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the new addition is being done in such a manner that if such addition were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said all five standards for demolition are applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate for appropriateness for the demolition of the rear stairs and landing at 1810-1812 Chicago in that it meets standards: 1) the demolition is not detrimental to the public interest, 2) the structure does not contribute to the distinctive character of the district, 3) the demolition of the objects would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4) the items are not of such old, unusual design or material that it could not be reproduced, 5) there are plans for replacement of the objects. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 1560 Oak Avenue (1./RHD) - Restore landmark house and construct a 3-story addition at the rear of the house. Requires special use and zoning variances as follows: Required parking spaces: 14 -- proposed 9. Required: (10'x35') loading berth - proposed none. The aisle depth of 20.80' and module width of 56.80' violates the minimum aisle %vidth of 24.00' and the module width of 60.00'. The proposed use of a Cultural Facility requires a Special Use [Construct ion/AltcratioNZoning and Special Use Variance] Nefrctte Halim and Cameel Halim, owner, Adam Wilmot and Don Wallin, architects, presented the project for 1560 Oak as described above. Mr. Wilmot said they arc proposing an addition to the Victorian landmark house to be used as a museum. His client, Mr. Halim, has a world class collection of time pieces and Tiffany Glass he Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 2007 — Minutm Page 12 wishes to bring to Evanston for display. The project concept is for three museums in one place: as a museum for time pieces, is a museum for the Tiffany Glass, and as a museum and as an example for exemplary Victorian architecture. Mr. Wilmot said they are separating the addition and style and character completely from the original house. The house will be restored back to its period and correct aesthetic. Every detail is to be put back exactly to way it was in the late 19'h century when the house was built. There are areas of the house that have not been to their true original form. The front fagade is in good condition, the side elevations would be restored. The house in effect will become its ov-m museum. Regarding the addition, the spaces required for the addition are much too large to accommodate the Tiffany Glass pieces in the house. The site strategy is to build the addition behind the house. The connection to the house is a translucent glass for a clean separation between the house and the addition. The addition is shorter than the existing building, and the materials are in neutral natural tones. The house will be used to house the time collection pieces. The larger and taller spaces in the addition will be used to house the Tiffany Glass collection. There will be an opening on the first floor of the house connecting to the addition and on the second floor there will be a space to display any material that would be documentary of what the existing house originally was. The third floor is exhibit space with a large outdoor deck. Mr. Wilmot said there is one area of the addition that extends out to mark the entrance, everything else is pulled back. The exterior materials for the addition include metal paneling, translucent channeled glass, and split face block to bring some texture. The metal panels will be in three different tones to scale down the mass. Commission's Findings Jon Pohl said he found the rational for the addition compelling, however, the use of the metal panels may not be the right answer. The house is all wood except for the water table is stone. The 2' x 4' metal panels seem too large. He suggested toning down the scale of the metal panels. Mr. Wilmot said perhaps using long thing panels would be another possibility. Mr. Pohl said the paint finish, the texture, and scale of the panels should be study further. Thomas Prairie said the metal panels, the scale of the addition overwhelming the landmark house and the stone veneer on the north elevation are of concern. Ms. Halim said they purposely made the addition shorter and as unobtrusive as possible to the landmark. Commissioners said the west and north elevation need further study in terms of mass and exterior materials. The Commission agreed that the concept is a good one and a wonderful use of a landmark building in a very commercial area. The project needs some fine tuning in terms of the exterior materials. Ms. Brugliera moved to approve a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special use for the proposed cultural institution at 1560 Oak in that: A) it is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and it will not adversely affect the architecture of the landmark or the character of the district, and Q and it would not be Evanston Prescn-ation Commission February 20.2007 — Minutes Page 13 detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to property in the district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the zoning variances for 9 off street parking spaces wherel4 are required, no loading berth provided where one (10' x 35') off street loading berth is required, and the aisle depth of 20.80' and module width of 56.80' violates the minimum aisle width of 24.00' and the module width of 60.00' in that: A) it is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and it will not adversely affect the architecture of the landmark or the character of the district, and C) and it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to property in the district. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Due to the lack of time, the Commission approved a motion to hold a special meeting on March 6, 2007 to review the construction of the 3-story addition. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. VI. STAFF REPORT Due to the lack of time the Commission did not take up for consideration the items below: A. Preservation Commission Annual Report (2006) — Draft Review B. 2007 Preservation Awards - Update C. Special meeting with guest speaker Richard Friedman (Financial Incentives for Historic Preservation - Update VII. ADJOURNIIENT The meeting adjourned at l 1:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: March 19, 2007 Approved: March 20, 2007 t' CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 Tuesday, March 6, 2007 6:30 P.M. SPECIAL' %IEETIN'G MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Jon Willarson, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Dienner, Betsy Hohman and Thomas Prairie, OTHERS PRESENT: Cameel Halim, Hoda Halim, Nefrette Halim, Adam Wilmot, Don Wallin, Rebecca Kuchar, Kevin Pearson, Bryan Henson, Marlene Koswan, Don Durkes, Diana Durkes, William Ure, Joan Kelly, K. Adams, and Anne Earle. PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. with a quorum of eight Commissioners present (Mary Bruglicra, Chris Carey, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Jon Willarson, and Susan Rundle). Staff. Carlos Ruiz. II. OLD BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1560 Oak Avenue (L/RHD) - Restoration of the landmark house and construction of a 3-story addition to the rear of the landmark house[Alteratiorv`Construction/Dcmolitionj Adam Wilmot, architect, Camecl, Hoda and Nefrette Halim, owners, presented plans to restore the landmark house at 1560 Oak and build a 3-stony addition to the rear of the house for a museum. Mr. Wilmot said the exterior material of the addition is a 6" cement fiber siding profile butt jointed with a minor reveal. The material is to be cut in 12', 8' and 6' lengths and arranged in a way to tit the general scale of the material that is on the existing house. The house will remain as the main faVade of the museum. Nefrette. Halim said they would like to restore the original colors of the house. Regarding the overall mass of the addition, because it is a museum they are avoiding using a large number of windows. The proposed fenestration is set back or under shade. The majority if the addition is in line with the house except for the south elevation that projects beyond the front elevation of the house to provide a secondary and accessible entrance for the disabled to the museum. Mr. Wilmot said the rear elevation is a curtain wall, a portion of which would be finished in stucco. Evanston Presm-ation Commission Starch b, 2007 — Minutes Page 2 Commisslon's Findings: Ms. Brugliera said she was still concerned by the massive panels and lack of fenestration on the west cle%mtion. Mr. Halim said the rear staircase ,.till have windows (not yet included on the elevation drawings). Jon Pohl suggested adding some texture to the west elevation to break down the scale (board formed stucco with vertical lines). Stan Gerson said the south faVade massing is accentuated by the color of the panels and it should be tone downed. Mr. Pohl said the contrast between the house and the addition should be of style, the modern contemporary rectilinear Addition Versus the informality of the Victorian house. Diana and Don Durkes of 111 I Grove Street said they were surprised with the doubling of the size of the house. They were concerned on the effect of light onto their property and those of their neighbors south and adjacent to the parking at 1560 Oak Avenue. They will be looking at a blank wall from their bedroom and the addition is a large as the house itself. Joan Kelly of 1003 Wesley said as a tax payer she supports the project because it will be one of a kind, a place that would continue to make lvanston as a destination. She has known Mr. Halim to work with his neighbors carefully in Kenilworth. Ms Kelly represented First Bank and Trust, although not involved in the financing of the build out, they are supporters of the project as well. Ms. Kelly said it will be nice to add another venue in town to host social events. Mr. Halim said the zoning of the property is R-6 and a much larger building could be built there as a result. Mr. Pohl said the house is a 1592 Queen Anne house designed by S. A. Jennings, who was a very talented architect. There are probably a dozen houses of this ilk on the North Shore, let alone in Evanston, that are as good. The issue is preservation, and the proposal preserves that house, and that is what is important to the Commission. Anne Earle, Associate Commission member, co-author of the Ridge I listoric District nomination, said the project preserves the house that otherwise would be threaten. Therefore, it is an excellent complement to the district. Mr. Wilmot said the project does not only preserve the house, but it opens it to the public. The addition is essential to create the reasons to go the house museum. He said they will continue refining the project and respect the neighbors concerns. Mr. Wilmot said outside the west elevation. they are not proposing any changes to the house, except for maintenance and repairs. Carlos Ruiz said the standards for construction that do not apply are: 6) rhythm of entrance porches, 9) wall of continuity - fences. 16) new construction [this is an addition] and 17) signs. Jon Pohl moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the property at 1560 Oak Avenue with the following standards: 1) height. ?) proportion of front faVade. 3) proportion of openings. 4) rhythm of solids to voids in front facade. 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 7) relationship of materials and textures, b) roof shape (being a contrast), 10) scale of the structure. 1 l) directional expression of the front elevation, 12) the distinguishing qualities of the property are being retained, 13) archaeological resources will be preset-ed, la) contemporary design of the addition is not being discouraged, and I5) the addition could be removed in the future while maintaining the essential form and integrity of the house. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. The Commission found not necessary taking action on any demolition. In the interest of time and in consideration of the applicant, Jordan Cramer moved item 3. 1414 Davis Street, up on the agenda. Evanston Presen-ation Commission March 6, 2007 —3 linutcs Page 3 3. 1414 Davis Street (RHD) Landmark Nomination -Consideration of approving a resolution recommending to City Council that 1414 Davis Street meets the criteria for landmark designation (accompanied by the report to the Council) Rebecca Kuchar, applicant/ovmer of the house at 1414 Davis Street %vas present. Jordan Cramer read the Resolution for the record and moved to approve the Resolution recommending to City Council that the house at 1414 Davis Street meets the criteria for landmark designation, and requesting the City Manager to transmit the Commission's recommendation and report to the City Council. Chris Carey seconded the motion. Thc passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 651-653 Hinman Avenue (L) - Replacement of vinyl windows on front elevation with wood fixed sashes. The project requires: (I) a major variation to raise building lot coverage to 58.90/a (existing is 55.2%); (2) since impervious surface area includes building lot coverage, this number has changed as well, increasing the variation request to 89% (existing is 72% and previous calculation was for 83°a), and (3) the regulation about open parking located more than 30 feet from the rear lot line has not changed [Alteration/Zoning Variance] Kean Pearson and Bryan Henson, owners, said they are still investigating window replacement alternatives for the front elevation including replacing the vinyl windows with steel windows as believed to be the original windows. Mr. Pearson said the zoning variance for the lot coverage was not identified originally. They proposed to put extra parking at the back, renovate the garage and increase the space for parking for each car inside. They are not adding more structure, but the additional parking counts towards the lot coverage. Because of that the impervious surface has increased from 83% to 89%. Marlene Koswan, of 649 Hinman said she is a member of her condominium association and is representing their building. Ms. Koswan said they are concerned with making the rear of the building a parking lot. She said the only green spaces for these buildings are the back yards. Thee three adjoining properties on Hinman are open in the back. Mr. Henson asked if the Commission would oppose the demolition of the garage. Commission members did not expressed opposition to tearing down the garage and providing 6 parking open spaces in the back yard. K. Adams of 6-9 Hinman said that the Commission should consider the aesthetics of parking stalls on the back yard. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they approve the request for variations at 651-653 Hinman in that: A) it is appropriate in the interest of conservation and will not adversely affect the architecture or integrity of the landmark. B) it is necessary to provide the owner a recoverable rate return. and C) it ► •ill not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety and welfare or injurious to the property. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion: Emily Guthrie said she will vote no, because she was not convinced that it %will not be materially detrimental to public health. Mr. Pohl said that there was a proposal to tearing down the garage and put six parking stalls in the back as an alternative. Mr. Gerson said that the proposed variations adversely affect the aesthetic integrity of the lot by having the 3 cars impinging on what used to be the back yard. He also said it will affect the welfare of the vicinity. Evanston Presm-ation Commission March 6, 2007 -- Minutes Page 4 The motion recommending to the Zoning Board of Appeals the proposed zoning variations failed. Vote: 4 ayes, 4 nays. The Commission did not take action on the replacement of windows on the front elevation at the request of the applicants, who are still looking for an appropriate replacement window. III. STAFF REPORT Strategic Plan — Amending the Preservation Ordinance Carlos Ruiz said the Strategic PIan for the City of Evanston calls for amendments to the Preservation Ordinance. First, an amendment was proposed to shorten the number of days the Commission has to review planned developments. This amendment failed because the Commission successfully argued that the number of days is appropriate as currently established. Further amendments to the Preservation Ordinance are expected to address the issue of the review process for planned developments affecting landmarks or historic districts. The goal is to have a first draft of the amendments by August of 2007. Mr. Ruiz said landmark owners and historic district property owners should be able to participate in the process of amending the Preservation Ordinance. The Commission decided to meet with James Wolinski, Community Development Director and learn what needs to be done. Regarding the reviewing planned developments, the Commission could hold joint meetings with the Plan Commission and make the review process more efficient. IV. ADJOURINNIENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos Ruiz, Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: I -. CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 Tuesday. March 20, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer. Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey OTHERS PRESENT: Margaret Eissa, Jeff Kosiba, Kent Marthaler, Jack Forstadt, Jeff Cohen, . Poyer Conforte, and James Benjamin PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. with a quorum present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl. Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos Ruiz. 11. PRESERVATION ISSUES Jordan Cramer informed the Commission about a meeting with James Wolinski, Director of Community Development (March 16. 20071, and Mary Brugliera, Emily Guthrie and Carlos Ruiz (Staff). They discussed one of the City's Strategic Plan goals to amend the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Jordan said the primary goal is to streamline the preservation review process. The Commission should consider amending the Preservation Ordinance and the Rules and Procedures so that planned developments affecting Evanston landmarks or properties within Evanston historic districts are reviewed jointly with the Plan Commission. The amendment would also propose to expand the scope of projects that the Preservation Coordinator could review and approve administratively. Mr. Jordan said the next step is to appoint a Preservation Commission Subcommittee that will be responsible for drafting the amendments to the Preservation Ordinance and to the Rules and Procedures. Mr. Jordan said that he would like to appear in front of the Planning and Development Committee (P&D) on April 10, 2007 to inform P&D about the Commission's new Subcommittee and task at hand and to learn from P&D more about their concerns and attain more guidance. Mr. Jordan said in the interest of time the appointment of the Subcommittee will take place later in the evening as part of the agenda under Staff Report. Ill, APPROVAL. OF MINUTES February 20, 2007 Minutes T. Prairie moved to approve the February 20. 2007 minutes with two corrections. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presemuon Commission March 20.2007 Meeting - Minutes Page 2 IV. NEW BUSINESS REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) (Scheduled for ZBA same evening) 416 Kenney Street (LSHD) — Requesting zoning variance for the Installation of an energy efficient low noise rating A/C unit to be set within setback requirements and installation of a wooden fence to screen the A1C unit. [Zoning Variance/Construction] Margaret Eissa, owner representative presented the application. Commission's Findings The Commission passed unanimously M. Brugliera's motion, seconded by J. Pohl, recommending to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the requested zoning variance for the installation of the A/C unit as it meets standards for variation A) does not adversely affect the character of the historic district, and C) is not materially detrimental to the public health. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission passed A. Dienner's motion and seconded by T. Prairie unanimously, approving a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the wooden fence as it meets standard 9 (walls of continuity and fences). Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. V. OLD BUSINESS 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Revised plans for the construction of a 2.5-story house [Construction] The applicant withdrew the application for certificate of appropriateness. VI. NEW BUSINESS REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 832 Ingleside Place (LINEHD) -- Remove existing one story sunroom addition on rear of home. A new structure in a similar footprint will replace the existing structure at a new location to maintain first floor height consistency. New addition will have stucco exterior to match existing residence as closely as possible. Windows and doors of rear and side of home are to be closed up and relocated or replaced for new remodeled kitchen then filled in where needed with new stucco exterior to match. [Construction/Demolition/Alteration] John Casey, owner and Reginald Marzec, architect presented the project. Commission's Findings S. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the new addition as described above, as it meets standards of construction: 1) Height, 3) Proportion of openings, 5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. 7) Relationship of materials and texture, 8) Roof shapes, 10) Scale of the structure, 12) Distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed, 13) Archaeological resources preserved, 14) Contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) The addition could be removed without impairing the essential form and integrity, and 16) A single architectural style is not being imposed. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays respectively. B. Hohman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the one-story sunroom as it meets standards: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for a new Evanston Preservation Corrurussm March 20, 2007 MeeWV - Minutes Page 3 addition. M. Brugliers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. J. Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations as described above as they meet standards for review of alteration: 1) It requires minimal alteration, 5) Distinctive stylistic features will be treated with sensitivity, 7) Surface cleaning will be undertaken with gentle means, 9) Contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) The alterations if removed, the essential from and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2707 Euclid (UNEHD) — Enlarge existing screen porch, correct an interior hallway, and add another bathroom in the second floor master bedroom. Existing porch is recessed behind the south wall limiting the site lines into the rear yard. Need to replace a poorly done screen porch with rotting wood balusters, dryvit brackets on the railing above the screened porch and decorative cornice near the roof. [Construction/Demolition/Alteration) Jack Forstadt, owner and Kent Marthaler, architect presented the project. Commission's Findings T. Prairie moved to approve certificates of appropriateness for the construction (as it meets standards: 1) height, 3) openings, 5) rhythm of spacing, 7) relationship of texture and materials, 8) roof shape, 10) scale, 12) distinguishing original qualities not being destroyed, 13) archaeological objects will saved, U) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) if the new addition is removed, the original structure would be unimpaired, and 16) no requirement for a single architectural style is being imposed. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. T. Prairie moved to approve the alterations as presented as meeting standards: 1) It requires minimal alteration, 5) Distinctive stylistic features will be treated with sensitivity, 7) Surface cleaning will be undertaken with gentle means, 9) Contemporary design is not being discouraged and 10) The alterations if removed, the essential from and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. S. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition as it meets standards for demolition: 1) it is not of architectural significance. 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance. 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for a new addition. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote. 10 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1028 Greenwood Street (RHD) — Demolition of an existing 70 S.F. one-story bay at the east side of the residence and a slab on grade garaged in order to provide a 200 S.F. one-story addition and a 2 car detached garage with full foundation. [Alteration/Construction/Demolition) Poyer Conforte and James Cohen, owners and James Benjamin, architect presented the project Commission's Findings T. Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the one-story addition as it meets standards: 1) Height, 2) Proportion of front facade, 3) Proportion of openings, 4) Rhythm of solids and voids in front facades, 5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 6) Rhythm of entrance porches, 7) Relationship of materials and texture, 8) Roof shapes, 10) Scale of the structure, 12) Distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed, 13) Archaeological resources preserved, 14) Contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 15) The addition could be removed without impairing the essential form and integrity. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 1 nay. Evanston Preservation Comrnsson March 20, 2007 Meeting — F.Unut s PaQe 4 M. Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the east one-story bay as it meets standards: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for a new addition. E Guthrie seconded the motion. S. Rundle moved to approve the proposed alterations as they meet standards: 1) It requires minimal alteration, 2) The distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) Afterations do not seek to create an earlier appearance, 4) Changes that may have acquired significance are being respected, 5) Distinctive stylistic features will be treated with sensitivity, 7) Surface cleaning will be undertaken with gentle means, 9) Contemporary design Is not being discouraged, and 10) The alterations if removed, the essential from and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motions passed. Vote 10 ayes, 0 nays respectively. VII. STAFF REPORT A. Preservation Ordinance — Discussion on and appointment of a Subcommittee to review and propose amendments to the Preservation Ordinance E. Guthrie moved to appoint Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner and Mary Brugliera as members of the Subcommittee to review and propose amendments to the Preservation Ordinance. B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 10 ayes. 0 nays. B. Preservation Commission Annual Report (2006) — Draft Review Carlos Ruiz distributed a spread sheet of the Preservation Commission projects reviewed In 2006. He said more information will be included on the spreadsheet as part the Annual Report. C. 2007 Preservation Awards — Update Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that one application for the 2007 Preservation Awards has been submitted via email. He received two requests for the application for nomination. More applications are expected to be submitted within the next few weeks Vill. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: May 15, 2007 Approved: June 19.2007 m CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2402 Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, Jon Willarson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Dienner OTHERS PRESENT: Reinhold Weiss, Randall Zwik, Ervin Holladay, Gaylord Otte, Peter Mayer. Kathleen Glynn, Eric Janssen, Sara Yogev, and Morton Balaban PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. with a quorum eight members present. Emily Guthrie arrived later. Staff: Carlos Ruiz. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regarding the March 6. 2007 minutes M. Brugliera said the Commission agreed that the summary of the meetings as transmitted to the City Manager were acceptable minutes and that the tapes of the minutes will be available for those who would like to make transcripts. C. Ruiz said the March 6, 2007 minutes are four pages long only. He included the key word(s) of the standards for review as part of the motion. S. Gerson said the minutes should be transmitted to the Plan Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. M. Brugliera moved to approve the March 6, 2007 minutes. B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. J. Cramer said he would like to take care of the first item under new business and follow with old business. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. RE -APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS T. Prairie moved to re -appoint Anne Earle, Barbara Gardner, and Mary McWilliams as Associate Members and appointed Andrea Gardner as a new Associate Member. S. Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The appointments are for twelve months. 111. OLD BUSINESS 921 Ridge Avenue (RHD) Alter front entrance to match the materials and design of the house as being remodeled over the years [Alteration]. Re -issuance of previously approved COA in 2006. Reinhold Weiss, owner was present. Evanston PreswYa'Jon Commission April 17. 2007 — Minutes Page 2 Commission's Findings M. Brugliera moved to re -issue the certificate of appropriateness for 921 Ridge for another six months based on the previous findings. S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes. 0 nays. IV. NEW BUSINESS B. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RBTA) 1. 1510 Forest Avenue (LSHD) -- Project requires a zoning variance. Relocation of an existing A/C unit from the back patio to the south rear side of the residence. The existing location on the back patio prohibits the patio's use, as well as Impairs access to and from the residence via the patio door. The proposed AIC condensing unit requires a ten -foot (10') setback from the south property line. Proposed setback in plans is seven feet (T'). [Zoning Variancel Randy Zwik, owner presented the application. Commission's Findings M. Brugliera moved to recommend to the Acting Zoning Administrator approval of the requested variance at 1510 Forest as it Y41. (A) not adversely affect the historical architecture, and (C) not be detrimental to the public health. S. Rundle seconded the motion. S. Gerson amended the motion to include the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. T. Prairie seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1228 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) —Demolish rear deck; build two-story rear addition [Construction/Demolition]. S. Rundle requested to hold this application to the end of new business. 3. 719 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) —Remove bay window on east rear elevation, build one- story addition and walking closet on second story (partially over the new addition) [Construction/Demolition). The applicants were not present at this time. 4. 736 Forest Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Demolish existing garage, build new two -door three -car garage [Construction/Demolition). Ervin Holladay, owner presented the application. Commission's Findings B. Hohman moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction as it meets standards: 1) height, 3) openings, 5) rhythm of spacing, 7) relationship of texture and materials, 8) roof shape, 10) scale, 12) distinguishing original qualities not being destroyed, 13) archaeological objects will saved, and 16) no requirement for a single architectural style is being imposed). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. C. Carey moved to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing garage as: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for a new garage. S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1631 Ashland Avenue (LandmarklRHD) —Build two-story addition at rear east elevation of Evanston Prsserva!ion Commis..ion April 17, 2007 —Minutes Page 3 house [Construction/Alteration]. Gaylord Otte, contract owner, and Peter Mayer, architect presented the application. C. Carey moved to continue the review of the application for 1631 Ashland to May 15, 2007. B. Hohman seconded the motion. While the applicant received positive feedback, the Commission would like to see a clear transition between the original house and the addition. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes. 0 nays. 6. 707 Sheridan Road (LandmarkfLSHD) —Build a one-story changing room at the east rear yard of the property [Construction]. Eric Janssen, owner and Kathleen Glynn, architect presented the project. Commission's Findings T. Prairie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the one-story changing room at 707 Sheridan Road as it meets standards for construction, 1) height, 3) openings, 5) rhythm of spacing, 7) relationship of texture and materials, 8) roof shape, 10) scale, 12) distinguishing original qualities not being destroyed, 13) archaeological objects will saved, and 16) no requirement for a single architectural style Is being imposed). B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 9 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention (E. Guthrie). 3. 719 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) —Remove bay window on east rear elevation, build one- story addition and walking closet on second story (partially over the new addition) [Construction/Demolition]. Sara Yogev, owner and Morton Balaban, architect presented the application. Commission's Findings B. Hohman moved to continue the review of 719 Michigan Avenue to May 15, 2007. C. Carey seconded the motion. The Commission requested that the applicant submit more complete elevation drawings of the proposed work in relation to the existing house. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. 2- 1228 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) —Demolish rear deck; build two-story rear addition [Construction/Demolition]. Susan Rundle, architect presented the application. Commission's Findings B. Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the two-story addition at 1228 Hinman as it meets standards for construction: 1) height, 3) openings, 5) rhythm of spacing, 7) relationship of texture and materials, 8) roof shape, 10) scale, 12) distinguishing original qualities not being destroyed, 13) archaeological objects will saved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) if the new addition is removed, the original structure would be unimpaired. and 16) no requirement for a single architectural style is being imposed. T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 1 abstention (S. Rundle). S. Gerson moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the rear deck at 1228 Hinman as: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for a new two-story addition. B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 9 • Evanston Preservation Commission April 17, 2007 — Minutes Page 4 ayes, 1 abstention. V. STAFF REPORT A. Preservation Commission Annual Report —Draft Review C. Ruiz submitted additional information on the weekly work activities performed on historic preservation. The Commission suggested adding to the report the hours spent on those activities. B. 2007 Preservation Awards — Update C. Ruiz reported that only a few nominations have been received to date. Staff will continue seeking for more nominations. Vl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Dale: May 15, 2007 Approved: June 19, 2007 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey and Betsy Hohman OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Yogev, Morton S. Balaban, Gaylord Otte, Peter Mayer, Remko Dercksen, Joe Delisi, Charles Schult, Carl Hunter, Reglna Lookis, Steve Engelman, Anita Ridge, Quentin Brown, Chris Winston, Anne O. Earle, Geoffrey Bushor, Stephen Knutson, and Mary McWilIiams PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, Preservation Coordinator 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair determined that a quorum of nine members was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 20, 2007 Minutes B. April 17, 2007 Minutes The Commission postponed the approval of minutes until the June 19, 2007 meeting. Ill. OLD BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 719 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - Remove bay window on east elevation, build one-story stucco addition and walking closet on second story, new wood windows on the north facade to match the existing (window sills at the same height as the existing, the head will be higher) The windows on the south elevation are not divided (Construction/Demolition] Sara Yogev, owner and Morton Balaban, architect presented revised plans of the project Commissions' Findings R&TA recommended standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16 as applicable. M. Brugliera moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of the rear addition at 719 Michigan Avenue in that it meets standards: 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (rhythm of spacing), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale), 12 (distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed),13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (if the addition were Evanston Preservation Commission May 15, 2007 — Phnutes Page 2 removed, it will not impair the integrity of the house), and 16 (no requirement for a single style is being impose). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended all five standards for demolition as applicable. M. Brugliera moved to approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition at 719 Judson Avenue in that all five standards are met: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for an addition. T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1631 Ashland Avenue (Landmark/RHO) - Build two-story addition at rear east elevation of house ((lower foundation and new floor to meet the grade). The line of the roof will be continued. Use five original spare window sashes on the addition. New wood windows on the front elevation and stucco finish restoration (Construction/Alteration] Gaylord Otte, applicant and Peter Mayer, architect presented revised plans for the project. Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standard for construction 1, 3. 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-16 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition at 1631 Ashland Avenue in that it meets standards: 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (rhythm of spacing), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale), 12 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved).14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (if the addition were removed, it will not impair the integrity of the house), and 16 (no requirement for a single style Is being impose). J. Pohl seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1-6, 9 and 10. J. Willarson moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to the front and other exterior work as needed at 1631 Ashland Avenue as it meets standards: 1 (adaptation), 2 (the original qualities), 3 (alterations are product of their own time), 4 (changes in the course of time are evidence of history), 5 (stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship), 6 (repair rather than replace), 7 (surface cleaning undertaken with care), 9 (contemporary design is not discouraged), and 10 (alterations could be removed in the future). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Recommendation: The Commission recommended the applicant document the east elevation before is removed and contact the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. IV, NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 234 Greenwood Street (LSHD) - Install A/C unit to be located 1.3' from east property line, whereas Zoning Ordinance requires 10' between non window air conditioning units and all lot lines (6-4-6-3) The adjacent house to the east is 70' from the east property line (Zoning Variance) Remko Dercksen, owner presented the project. He stated that the neighbors at 228 Greenwood were notified about the project. Commission's findings R&TA recommended standards for variation A and C as applicable. S. Rundle moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the relocation of the a/c unit at 234 Greenwood as it does not: A (adversely affect the historic architecture) and C (it will not be Evanston Preservation ConvnLss+a1 May 15, 2W7 — Minutes Page 3 detrimental to the public health. safety and welfare or injurious to the property as it is 70' away from the neighbors). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 632.640 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) - Replace rear and side porches. The proposed porches will further exceed the already legal nonconforming building lot coverage and therefore in violation of section 6-8-6-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Per section 6-4-1-9 (B) 1, a yard obstruction I.e. porch, may extend into the rear yard by no more than 10% of the required rear yard. The required rear yard is 25', maximum encroachment is 2.50' or 22.50' from the rear lot line, whereas a set back of 18.00' was proposed from the porch to the rear lot line. Also, wood screens over the porches for the a/c units. The size increase of the porches is necessary for Code compliance (Construction/Demolition/Zoning Variance) Joe Delisi, architect presented the project. Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standards for demolition 1-5; construction 1. 6-8. 10, 12, 13, and 16; and zoning variance A and C as applicable. T. Prairie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for porches replacement at 632-640 Hinman as it meets standards: 1 (height), 5 (rhythm of spacing), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale), 12 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 15 (if the addition were removed. it will not impair the integrity of the house), and 16 (no requirement for a single style is being impose). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. M. Brugliera moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 632-640 Hinman to demolish the existing porches and stairs in that all 5 standards for demolition are met: 1) they are not of architectural significance, 2) they do not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) their demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) they are not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for new porches. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. M. Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the variation in the lot coverage and the projection of fence into the back yard at 632-640 Hinman as they do not: A (adversely affect the historic architecture) and C (it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property as it is 70' away from the neighbors). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission asked staff to check the interior work that may be affecting the exterior of the building. 3.1401 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) - Expand existing one -car garage to two -car garage with a flat roof with a deck on top. The new siding is composite siring and the railing on the roof is wood (Construction/Demolition] Charles Schult, architect presented the project. Mr. Schult sa)d that the zoning analysis is next and that the lot coverage may be an issue. The Commission advised Mr. Schutt that if a zoning variance is needed, he needs to come back in front of the Preservation Commission for their advisory review on zoning variances. Commission's Findings RBTA recommended standards for construction 1.5, 7, 8, 10. and 11-16 and standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the existing garage at 1401 Elmwood in that meets standard: 1 (height), 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids), 5 (rhythm Evanston Preservation Commission May 15.2007 — Minutes Page 4 of spacing of structures on the street), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale), 11 (directional expression of front elevation), 12 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (if the addition were removed, it will not Impair the integrity of the house), and 16 (no requirement for a single architectural style Is being impose). S. Rundle seconded the motion. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. A. Dienner moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition as it meets standards: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there is a plan for an addition to the existing garage. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 555 Lincoln Street (Landmark) — South elevation: demolition of existing 3-bay garage and construction of a new two-story addition with 3-bay garage on the first floor, replacement of first floor steel windows with new aluminum windows to match division light configuration, lower main entry door, and replace second -story windows with new aluminum windows to match existing window style. North elevation: construct new one-story masonry wall with large window for shop expansion. West elevation: remove three windows and install new aluminum door to match original wood door entrance [Alteration/Construction/Demolitionj Regina Lookis, Assistant Superintendent of Water treatment and Carl Hunter, architect presented revised plans of the project. Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1-6, 9 and 10. and standards for construction 1-8 and 10-16. T. Prairie moved to recommend approval of the alterations at 555 Lincoln Street In that the following standards are met: 1 (every effort is being made to adapt the property), 2 (distinguishing characters are not being destroyed), 3 (alterations of no historic basis are not being created), 4 (changes in the course of time are being recognized and respected), 5 (stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (repair rather than replace), 9 (contemporary design is not discouraged), and 10 (alterations could be removed in the future). J. Pohl seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. J. Willarson moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the construction as described at 555 Lincoln Street, because meets standards: 1 (height), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids), 5 (rhythm of spacing of structures on the street), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale), 11 (directional expression of front elevation), 12 (original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (if the addition were removed, it will not impair the integrity of the house), and 16 (no requirement for a single architectural style is being impose). The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended standards 1-5 of demolition as applicable for the demolition of the 3-bay garage. M. Brugliera moved to recommend approval of the certificate of appropriateness for demolition in that meets standards: 1) it is not of architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district, 3) it's demolition is not contrary to the Intent of the Preservation Ordinance, 4) it is not old or of unusual design, and 5) there Is a plan for an addition to the existing garage. T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. S. 2170 Campus Drive (within lot of record containing Evanston Landmarks) — Construct a new four-story building on NU campus (Silverman Hall). The project requires a zoning variance Evanston Preservation Commission May 15, 2007 — Minutes Page 5 per section 6-1 "-5 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance, the minimum yards between principal buildings is 20'. The proposed building is less than 20' from the nearest principal building [ConstructiontZoning Variance] Anita Ridge, Assistant General Counsel (Northwestern University), Quentin Brown, Project Manager, and Steve Engelman, Attorney presented the project. The exterior materials are glass, silver painted aluminum, and pre -cast concrete. The project includes a green space for pedestrian access. The project is 149,000 gross square feet; both wings have a basement four lab floors and a penthouse. The building is designed to the level of gold of the LEED program. Silverman Hall will not be visible from Sheridan Road. There are four Landmarks in the proximity of Silverman Hall: The Shakespeare Gardens (1915). Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary (1924). Swift Hall (1895), and Dearborn Observatory (1888). Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standards of construction 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 as applicable. S. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of 2170 Campus Drive as meeting standards: 1 (height), 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids), 5 (rhythm of spacing of structures on the street), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), and 8 (roof shape) all are compatible with the structure to which is visibly related. Also, 10 (scale), 11 (directional expression of front elevation), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 16 (no requirement for a single architectural style is being impose) and 17 (any signs will not be incongruous with the historic character of the property). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended standards for zoning variances A and C as applicable. S. Gerson moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the requested zoning variances Including the lesser space between buildings and the projection overhang impinging on the required space in that: A (will not adversely affect the area) and C (it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1023 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - One-story rear addition [Alteration/Construction) Chris Winston, owner and Stephen Knutson, architect presented the project for a 12' x 15' family room. The proposed materials are: stucco finish, brick for the base, and wood windows. Also, removal of the grade level door and new first floor window and basement window on the east, and two windows on the north. R&TA recommended standard of alteration 1-5, 9 and 10, and standards of construction 1, 3. 5-8. 10, and 12-16 as applicable. E. Guthrie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 1023 Michigan Avenue as it meets standards: 1 (adaptation), 2 (the original qualities), 3 (alterations are product of their own time), 4 (changes in the course of time are evidence of history), 5 (stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship). 9 (contemporary design is not discouraged), and 10 (alterations could be removed in the future). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote 9 ayes. 0 nays. J. Pohl moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction at 1023 Michigan Avenue because meets standards: 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (rhythm of spacing of structures on the street), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), and 8 (roof shape) all are compatible with the structure to which Is visibly related. Also, 10 (scale), 12 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (if the addition is removed, the essential form of the house will be unimpaired), and 16 (no requirement for a single architectural style is being impose). E. Evanston Preservation Co T nissi May 15. 2007 - Minutes Page 6 Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion carried. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. B. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 31"20 Dempster Street — Nomination to Designate the Property at 318-320 Dempster as an Evanston landmark, built in 1892 (Daniel Hudson Burnham, architect) The Commission approved a motion recommending to the City Council Evanston Landmark designation to the building at 318-320 Dempster. The Commission found that the nomination met standards for landmark designation 2-9-4 (A) 3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship; 4. Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the City, the State, the Midwest region or the United Stales: 5. Its exemplification of important planning and urban design techniques distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design or detail; and (B) Integrity of Landmarks and Districts: Any area, property. structure, site or object that meets any one or more of the criteria In subsection 2-9- 4(A) shall also have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or restoration. (Ord. 12-0-94). Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing to June 19, 2007 to allow staff the writing of the Commission's report and recommendation to the City Council. Vole: 9 ayes, nays. The transcript Is available at the City Clerk Office and at the Planning Division. C. COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND AMEND THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 1. Consideration of Recommendations from the Committee to amend the Preservation Ordinance, Section 2-9-3 (G) 13 to Hold Joint Meetings with the Plan Commission for Planned Developments When Affecting Evanston Landmarks and Properties Within Evanston Historic Districts. The Commission approved a motion recommending to the City Council the amendment to the Preservation Ordinance as proposed by the Committee. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. Consideration of Recommendations from the Committee to Hold Joint Meetings With the Zoning Board of Appeals for Major Zoning Variances and Major Fence Variances When Affecting Evanston Landmarks and Properties Within Evanston Historic Districts. Also Special Uses When Affecting the Exterior of a Landmark of properties Within Evanston Historic Districts. The Commission approved a motion recommending to the City Council the amendment to the Preservation Ordinance regarding joint meetings witn the Zoning Board of Appeals as proposed by the Committee. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 3. Consideration of Recommendations from the Committee to amend the Rules and Procedures to allow additional Administrative Approvals of Certain Work When Not affecting Evanston Landmarks, Significant or Contributing Structures within Evanston Historic Districts. The Commission postponed action on this recommendation until June 19, 2007 to allow staff the drafting of the proposed amendments to the Rules and Procedures. Evanston Preservation Commission May 15, 2007 — Minutes Page 7 V. STAFF REPORT A. 2007 Preservation Awards Staff reported to the Commission that the closing date for submittal of nominations for the 2007 Preservation Awards is May 18, 2007. B. May 19, 2007 Presentation: "Financial Benefits for Historic Preservation: Local, State and Local Incentives" Staff reported to the Commission that the presentation referenced above Is ready to go. The public has been notified through the City's website, email, direct mailing, cable TV, and local newspapers. Vt. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: July 17, 2007 Approved: July 17, 2007 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center Room 2403 Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Smith, Anne Earle, Suzanne German, Mr. & Mrs. Warren Kibbe, Allen Villanueva, Nancy Fahlstrom, (owners), Michael Mohr, Andy Rolfe, Richard Long, PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, Preservation Coordinator 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with a quorum of 7 members present (Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Mary Brugliera, and Jon Wiilarson) 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, and April 17, 2007 minutes. E. Guthrie moved approval of the March 20, and April 7, 2007 with one correction on page 2 of the April 17 minutes (change the word: 'walking" to "walk-in'). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ili. OLD BUSINESS A. 540 Forest Avenue (LSHD) —Demolish existing garage and construct new 2-car garage. Required setback is T from the north property line, proposed setback is 1.2' [Construction/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Re -Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) originally approved on June 20, 2006 Michael Smith, owner presented plans for the construction of a garage at 540 Forest Avenue. The plans are the same as previously approved on June 20, 2006. The garage door is steel. Commission's Findings M. Brugliera moved to grant re -issuance to the certificate of appropriateness. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. B. Public Hearing Continuance 318-320 Dempster Street — Nomination to Designate the Property at 318-320 Dempster as an Evanston Landmark — Report and Resolution M. Brugliera moved to close the public hearing for 318-320 Dempster landmark nomination. A. Evanston Preservabon Convnissian June 19, 2007 -- Minutes Page 2 Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission reviewed the report and the resolution regarding the nomination of 318-320 Dempster Street for designation as an Evanston Landmark. J. Cramer suggested adding to the report that the owner of the building at 318-320 Dempster Street is in support of the nomination. A. Earle (author of the nomination) submitted some clarifications to be Included in the text of the report. S. Gerson provided additional corrections to the text. E. Guthrie moved to approve the report recommending the designation of 318-320 Dempster Street as an Evanston Landmark as corrected. A Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. J. Cramer read the resolution requesting the City Manager to transmit the Commission's report and recommendation to designate 318-320 Dempster Street to the Mayor and to the City Council. S Gerson moved approval of the resolution. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. C. Proposed Amendments to the Preservation Ordinance J. Cramer said last week, M. Brugliera, C. Ruiz and he attended the Planning and Development Committee (P&D) to present the proposed changes to the Preservation Ordinance. P&D referred the item to the Rules Committee (July 2, 2007). IV, NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1210 Michigan Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) -- Second story addition on the west side of house above an existing addition. Also, second story addition on the south side of the house, also above an existing addition. Addition on the north side of the house to extend floor plate to the existing footprint. Required rear setback is 30'. Existing and proposed rear setback is 24.9' (legal non -conforming) [Aiteration/ConstructionlZoning Variance], W. Kibbe, owner said the house consists of two houses that were joined together on the site. He noted that the first floor remains the same; also the drawings submitted to the Commission are revised drawings of the second floor additions and the roof line, yet to be reviewed by Landmarks Illinois (Facade Easement holder). S. German said a Landmarks Illinois committee is yet to review the latest drawings. She said with the comments Landmarks Illinois provided two weeks ago in regard to the roof line and the south elevation, the project is going in the right direction. She invited the Commission to join the committee when they review the project with the current revisions. Regarding the materials, W. Kibbe said they will be the same as the existing, cedar siding. wood windows and shutters. On the first floor, with the exception of two windows in the kitchen, all wood windows will remain. The new windows on the second floor will also be wood windows. Commission's Findings A. Dienner moved to recommend to the Zoning Administrator approval of the zoning variance for a 24,9' rear setback at 1210 Michigan Avenue as meeting the City Code 6-15-11-5: Relationship to Special Uses and Variations as it does not: A (adversely affect the historic architecture), B (denial may constitute a taking due to the Facade Easement) and C (it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or Injurious to the property. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission June 19.2007 — Minutes Page 3 After a straw poll the Commission continued the review of the application to allow the Chair and the Preservation Coordinator attend a meeting on Friday. June 22 with Landmarks Illinois to then report back to the Commission. The Commission would try to hold a meeting at the site to make a final determination. Straw poll vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. S. Gerson said, in his opinion, the proposed alterations do change the character of the landmark. 2. 1240 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — Retain and renovate the existing design and materials in the house including the Italianate window details and window sashes and existing masonry foundation. Exterior alterations include closing some existing windows openings, new windows and doors on the front and side elevations. Install two a/c units on the roof of the existing 1896 back addition (south elevation). Repair foundation, the existing foundation will be retained above the grade and patched as required (Alteration) Nancy Fahlstrom, preservation consultant, presented the project. She said there are Italianate windows, awning windows in the basement, double hung windows (some Cottage windows), and casement windows. 4n the south elevation a second -story window will be removed and the opening will be closed with wood siding to match the existing. The existing Colonial style door has been previously modified by undercutting it and by raising the threshold. They proposed putting a new Colonial style door and bringing the threshold back down. Commission's Findings RBTA recommended standards for alteration 1.10 as applicable. J. Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed exterior alterations at 1240 Forest in that: 1 (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing qualities are not destroyed), 3 (alterations are product of their own time), 4 (the history Is being recognized), 5 (stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced), 7 (surface cleaning with gentle means as possible), 8 (archaeological resources will be saved), 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (alterations could be removed in the future). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 823 Colfax Street (NEHD/C) —Add dormer on roof on the front elevation of house [Alteration). This item was removed form the agenda as the Commission authorized administrative approval. 4. 1742 Asbury Avenue (LandmarklRHD) — Removal of existing wood stairs at rear of house. Construct a scone retaining wall, new stone patio at rear yard with stairs and railing (Construction/Demolition). Michael Mohr, architect presented the project. He said the proposed terrace will come over the two windows at grade level on the west rear elevation. Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standards for construction 1, 6. 7, 9. 10, and 12-16, and standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. J. Pohl moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work at 1742 Asbury Avenue as it meets standards for construction: 1 (height), 6 (relationship of projections to the sidewalk are visually compatible), 7 (relationship of materials and textures are compatible), 9 (walls of continuity are visually compatible)), 10 (scale is compatible), 12 (distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (if the addition were removed, it will not impair the integrity of the house), and 16 (no requirement for a single style is being impose). M. Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Evanston Preservation Commission June 19, 2007 — WuAes Page 4 Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. J. Pohl moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the stairs at 1742 Asbury as it meets standards for demolition: 1 (it is not of architectural significance), 2 (it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the historic district), 3 (it's demolition is not contrary to the intent of the Preservation Ordinance), 4 (it is not old or of unusual design), and 5 (there is a plan for a new terrace/patio and stairs). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, respectively. 5. 729 Judson Avenue (LSHD) —Already built 7'-5" high privacy wood fence. wood deck and hot tub and at the rear of the house on the south side yard. [Construction[Fence Variance]. Andy Rolfe, owner presented the project. He said the house had a deck and a hot tub before which were removed as part of the recent renovations to the house. They are requesting a height fence variance for the already built fence. A. Rolfe said they received a letter from Bill Dunkley, Zoning Administrator granting the variance for the fence around the deck and the hot tub. C. Ruiz said Mr. Dunkley is now aware that the Commission has to provide advisory review in regard to the fence variance before his final decision on the matter. A. Rolfe showed photos of the former fence that appeared to go as high as the top of a nearby window. Commission's Findings J. Pohl said the photos of the former fence do not show the lid at the top of the proposed fence. A. Rolfe said the purpose of the lid Is to provide privacy and not add any more height to fence. C. Ruiz asked what about the height of the fence from the grade. A. Rolfe said the fence is over 7' from the deck; the deck is approximately 2.5' from the grade. The total height is over 9'. E. Guthrie said she lives across the street and the former fence was not 10' above the ground or even 7.5' above the ground. C. Ruiz suggested reducing the solid appearance of the fence facing the street, by making the top translucent with some lattice. He also suggested adding evergreens behind the lattice. M. Brugliera said her main concern is the solid appearance of the fence as seen from the street, She suggested to the owner bringing back a couple of alternatives to reduce the solid appearance of the fence. She would feel comfortable even allowing administrative approval of a revised fence that reduces the solid appearance of the existing fence parallel to the street. The Commission is always concerned about setting a bad precedent. However, the Commission is willing to consider alternatives to minimize the solid appearance of the fence facing the street. For the benefit of the applicant the Commission noted that the applicable standards for review for construction are: 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12-16. The Commission continued this item to the next meeting and asked the applicant to revise the application to mitigate and soften the look of the 9' + high fence. 6. 2603 Sheridan Road (Landmark) — Replace three garage wood doors. Install two air conditioning units on the south side of coach house within the required 10' side yard setback (requiring zoning variance) [Atteration/Zoning Variance]. Elliott Dudnik, architect presented the project. He said Facilities Management and he had considered the north side of the building to install the A/C units, however that side has a bedroom unit and noise from the A/C unit would be an issue. B. Brugliera said she was concerned with A/C units visible from the tight House (a National Register Historic Site) and the surrounding parks. Eranston Prewratim Commission June 19, 2007 —Minutes Page 5 E. Dudnik said the existing garage doors hang from above and they roll back. Facilities Management believes that they could not rent the space without automatic door openers. Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standards A and C for the zoning variance as applicable. M. Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Administrator approval of the placement of the A!C units on the south side of 2603 Sheridan Road in that: A (it is screened by greenery and will not adversely affect the historic architecture) and C (it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1- 6, 9 and 10 as applicable. E. Guthrie moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness even though the following standards are not met: 1 (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing qualities shall not be destroyed), 3 (alterations are product of their own time), 5 (stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced), and 9 (contemporary design is being discouraged). Also, standard 10 (alterations could be removed in the future). A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion failed. Vote:1 aye, 6 nays. V. STAFF REPORT A. 2007 Preservation Awards -Update Staff reported to the Commission that the 2007 Preservation Awards will be held in the fall of 2007. B. Training and Education M. Brugliera reported that E. Guthrie, C. Ruiz and she attended the Statewide Preservation Conference in Hyde Park. She also announced that the National Trust Preservation Conference is coming up in October 2007. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Dale: August 20, 2007 Approved: August 21, 2007 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Room 2403 Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, and Susan Rundle OTHERS PRESENT: Allen Villanueva, Cynthia Rolfe, Michael Gelick, Robert Lubotsky, Dale Lubotsky, Carlos Gallardo, Michael Poulos, Elliott Dudnik, Stuart Cohen, John Holbert, Jordana Binstock, Anne Earle, and Mary McWilliams PRESIDING: Betsy Hohman, Secretary STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, Preservation Coordinator I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Betsy Hohman, Secretary called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m, with a quorum present (Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Jon Pohl, Jon Willarson, Emily Guthrie and Thomas Prairie). Carlos D. Ruiz, staff. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E. Guthrie moved to approve the May 15, 2007 Minutes. An. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 111. OLD BUSINESS A. 1210 Michigan Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) -Revised design of a second story addition on the west side of house above an existing addition. Also, second story addition on the south side of the house, also above an existing addition. Addition on the north side of the house to extend floor plate to the existing footprint. Required rear setback is 30'. Existing and proposed rear setback is 24.9' (legal non -conforming) [Alteration/Construction). Allen Villanueva, architect, presented the project. He said last week they presented to Landmarks Illinois (the Easement holder) the latest revisions. The south elevation was in question in regard to the second story additions. The current elevations retain the jerkin head roof (in the middle of the south elevation). C. Ruiz read a letter dated July 13, 2007 from Landmarks Illinois Preservation Easement Committee to Warren Kibbe. Landmarks Illinois approved on July 11. 2007 the revised project with the following conditions: 1) permit drawings to be submitted to the City of Evanston shall be submitted Landmarks Illinois for the file, 2) If any changes are made to the plans either during drafting or construction, Landmarks Illinois shall be notified immediately for approval. A. Villanueva said their intention is to match the existing materials as far as the proposed Preservation Commission July 17.2407 —Minutes Page 2 alterations: siding boards that are not salvageable will be replaced with new boards to match the existing. The house currently has wood. aluminum and vinyl windows. Their intention is to restore all the windows that are of historic significance, and replacement windows will be all wood windows to match the historic windows. Reconfiguration of windows occurs on the west and north elevations. On the south facade an existing window will be replaced by two windows. On the north elevation couple windows will be relocated. On the west elevation there is a second story addition, although is not visible from the public way. J. Willarson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to the existing building at 1210 Michigan Avenue, in that: 1 (it is minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing qualities are not destroyed), 3 (alterations without historical basis are discouraged), 4 (the history is being recognized), 5 (stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced), 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (alterations could be removed in the future). M. Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. RBTA recommended standards for construction 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 14-16. M. Brugliera moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction at 1210 Michigan Avenue In that it meets standards: 1 (height), 2 (proportion of the front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids in the front facades), and 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets) as they are visually compatible with the structures to which they are related. Also, 7 (relationship of materials and textures), 8 (roof shapes), 10 (scale is compatible), 11 (directional expression of the front elevation), 12 (distinguishing qualities are being retained), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (the new additions could be removed in the future, without Impairing the integrity of the structure), and 16 (no requirement for a single style Is being imposed). T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. B. 729 Judson Avenue (LSHD) —Revised design of an already built 9'-4" high privacy wood fence, wood deck and hot tub at the rear of the house on the south side yard [Construction/Fence Variance]. Due to a complaint from the owners, M. Brugliera, and J. Willarson recused from discussing and voting on this case to avoid potential appearance of conflict of interest. M. Brugliera and J. Willarson said each have replied in writing to the owners of 729 Judson in response to the complaint. B. Guthrie also recused from discussing and voting. She said she did not send a letter because she did not feel the complaint about trespassing could be proven. She said she did not commit trespassing. C. Ruiz said a quorum was still present with six commissioners able to vote. Cynthia Rolfe, owner presented the project. She showed slides of the results of the first permit that was issued and approved in June 2006 for the replacement of vinyl windows with wood windows, upgrading the front facade and a rear addition in the back. In August 2006 a permit was approved by the Commission for a garage. Also, in April and May 2007 permits for a fence around the property and for landscape and hardscape were approved. Ms. Rolfe said the discussion at the last meeting was about the new deck and about a privacy fence section of the deck in particular. Initially their intention was not to demolish the previously existing deck, but the renovation of the house required them to demolish that deck and replace it in kind. After renovation they built a new deck approximately 8' into the yard. The hot tub had to be placed on top of the deck to accommodate electrical and safety codes, so it is 3' higher off the deck. They also put a replacement privacy fence so that the hot tub cannot be seen from the street nor cannot be seen by the neighbors. Ms. Rolfe said that support letters from the neighbors on both sides were submitted to the Commission. She also showed pictures of the deck before and after the renovation, and pictures Preservation Cor;vi%won July 17, 2007 — Minutes Page 3 of the previous fence that was erected at approximately the same height as the top of an existing adjacent window (122' to 125" off the grade). The fence was clearly close to the height of the top of that window as the current fence is. They also bench marked fences at 738 Judson that is approximately 10' above the grade around a deck, and a fence in the back that is almost 8' tall; there is a fence between 730 Judson and 732 Judson that is approximately 7' tall; and at 748 Judson there is a fence that is easily over 6'. C. Rolfe said the already built new fence is 9'-4" from the grade. She said the Zoning Administrator issued a fence variance for a 7'-5-high with the understanding that it was from the grade. Commission's Findings The height of the solid portion of the revised fence design is 6', including 23" of lattice below the deck and 18" of lattice above the solid portion of the fence. The proposed revised design matches the design of the existing fence around the property. Carlos Ruiz could not find in City records a permit or zoning variance for the previous fence. However, from aerial views there Is evidence of a deck, a tub, and a fence as early as 1998. Also, the applicant was able to show that there are fences of variant heights throughout the neighborhood. R&TA recommended standards A and C for variance as applicable. Chris Carey moved to grant the fence variance, given the revisions to the fence (create open balusters at the top V-6" of the fence) In that: A (it does not adversely affect the historic architecture or the aesthetic Integrity or character of the local district); and C (it is not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or Injurious to the district or vicinity where the property is located). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. C. Carey amended his motion to clarify that the Commission is recommending granting the fence variance. S. Gerson seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays (3 Commission members recused from voting). R&TA recommended standards for construction 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-16 as applicable. S. Gerson excluded items 14 and 15 and moved to approve the revised fence design In regard to: 1 (height); 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets); 7 (relationship of materials and texture of the fence) and 10 (the scale) as visually compatible to the house and other structure to which it will be visually related. Also, 9 (walls of continuity. the fence has been shown to be characteristic of the area with a number of other fences in the area, similar in height); 12 (the original quality or character of the property is not destroyed); 13 (archaeological resources will be protected); and 16 (new construction: the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style). C. Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays (3 Commission members recused from voting) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (ROTA) 1. 1225 Sheridan Road (Landmark/LSHD) — Budd accessibility ramp and 2rd-story addition [Alteration/Construction/Demolition]— Michael Gelick, architect, presented the project. His client Randel Freeman lives in London, England. His mother, grandfather and sister will live in the house. The mother and grandfather require accessibility. The project incorporates an elevator into the building within the east facade, and an area with an open porch and a screen porch above. The addition at the ground floor will have a ramp. Their own zoning analysis indicates that they are within the required setbacks and height. The proposed elevations are consistent with the existing building In terms of design, style and materials. The main change occurs on the east facade (the back yard). The porch above is Preservabon Commission July 17. 2007 -Minutes Page 4 projected out about 6', and there is a deck with a railing above the new porch. On the north elevation the proposed ramp is behind an existing solid fence. The new windows are double hung windows to match the existing on the north facade. The demolition includes the existing back porch and portions of the upper porch (one section of the east facade), Commission's Findings RBTA recommended standards for construction 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16. Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the construction work at 1225 Sheridan Road in that it meets standards: 1 (height); 3 (proportion of openings); 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on the street); 6 (rhythm of porches and other projections); 7 (relationship of materials and texture); 8 (roof shapes); 10 (the scale of the structure);12 (distinguishing characters are not being destroyed); 13 (archaeological resources will be protected); 15 (the additions could be remove in the future without the essential forms and Integrity of the structure being impaired); and 16 (a single architectural style is not being Imposed). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. RBTA recommended standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. Mary Srugliera moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the various portions so detailed at 1225 Sheridan in that it meets standards: 1 (demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest and it is not contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State); 2 (those portions being demolished do not contribute to the distinctive character); 3 (it is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable district); a (it is not so old, unusual or uncommon that it could not be reproduced); 5 (the Commission has approved a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction on the site). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote; 9 ayes, 0 nays 2. 604 Judson Avenue (LSHO) — Demolish existing house. Subdivide one lot into two lots. Construct one new house on each newly created lot (Construction/Demolition). Robert Lubotsky, architect (also applicant and builder) presented the project and introduced his wife Date, a partner in the project and also a founding partner and broker at Prairie Shore Properties, and Carlos Gallardo, associate in construction. R. Lubotsky said in 2001 they obtained a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a substandard house at 721 Forest and build their current house. Other projects include: an eight unit condominium at 1939 Sherman Avenue; a single family house at 9449 Central Park in Skokie; and a duplex at 2669-71 Prairie. B. Lubotsky said he is a founding member and a past president of the Preservation League of Evanston (a former citizen's support group to the Commission). They lived at 1114 Hinman for 24 years (an Evanston landmark within the Lakeshore Historic District). R. Lubotsky said they propose to demolish the house at 604 Judson and to construct two new houses and subdivide the property. They will retain the existing 3-car garage on the south side and demolish the garage on the north side of the property and construct a larger garage on the same location. Regarding the demolition standards, R. Lubotsky said 604 Judson has no significance historically, architecturally or culturally. it has not special features or unique characteristics or unique use of materials. The exterior of the house has been at some point covered with stucco, the original character of the structure has been lost. It no longer has integrity and appears monolithic from the street and it does not have much grace or style. The house does not make a positive contribution to the Lakeshore Historic District. There is an addition to the rear of the house that looks more like barracks (it is not connected to the house). R. Lubotsky said to restore the exterior of the house and to upgrade the interior to today's standards would be economically unfeasible. The house becomes an increasing burden to Preservation Commission July 17.2007—Minutes Page 5 maintain even at its current condition. The systems are becoming obsolete and they are costly to replace. The house consumes a lot of energy and it is unsustainable. He said the Lakeshore Historic District is not a museum and it is not in the public interest to preserve the existing house because it is a substandard and an unsustainable structure. It will be replaced with compatible and quality new construction. Regarding the new homes, R. Lubotsky said they are conceived to be like sisters but not Identical twins. They both have the same roof height, width, roof pitch and same exterior materials. They have the same language of windows. The design of the houses is very strongly influenced by other houses in the Lakeshore Historic District, particularly 1620 Judson and 1145 Sheridan where the front Facade, window treatment, the scale, the detailing of the windows and doors in the front are an inspiration for the houses. The proposed south house at 604 Judson was designed after the house at 731 Forest. The north house has an entrance porch typical to other houses. The rear of the north house has a one-story curving bay and the south house has a similar two-story curving bay which was Influenced by the house at 1010 Michigan. Both houses will be "green" houses, built at the higher standards for energy conservation and they are in compliance with all the zoning regulations. The houses meet all the standards for compatibility for height, proportion, openings, rhythm of solid and voids, the spacing on the street, and the rhythm of entrances. The materials are brick and stucco, the windows will be wood windows, and the window sills will be limestone. The roof shapes are compatible with the houses in the area. They intend to preserve the large mature trees as much as possible (a couple of trees will be removed). The houses are in scale with the neighboring houses on the block and are a good neighbor to the house at 550 Judson (an Evanston Landmark) in terms of the height and scale. About the subdivision, R. Lubotsky said the building at 604 Judson is unsustainable which also applies to the subdivision standards. There is a four-story apartment building to the west across the alley and a 3.5-story condominium building at the north of the block at Keeney. These buildings are not compatible with single family homes. Subdividing the lot into two single family lots is in the public interest because it allows the subdivision into two lot sizes which are the most common lot sizes in this part of the historic district from Kedzie to South Boulevard. The predominant lot width in that area is 50 ; the new lots will be compatible with that width. The subdivision is compatible with three narrow houses to the south of 604 Judson (two of which are less than 35' wide). Subdividing the property into two lots, 50' wide, Is more compatible with the narrower houses to the south. The sense of open space is not diminished by subdividing and building two houses. The new houses are less than 35' wide; this allows approximately 19' of distance between the houses to the north and south. The setback of the new houses is 30' which is the setback on the block on the west side of Judson. The side yard setbacks exceed the 5' minimums. The traffic patterns and municipal services will be unaffected by the subdivision. Property values on the block will benefit from the removal of the substandard house that is replaced by two compatible new houses. Michael Poulos of 1416 Hinman Avenue said he was concerned with the proposed subdivision and it should not be encouraged. Preserving the assets of the district includes a certain amount of variety. The Lakeshore Historic District has a great deal of diversity and lot sizes and building characteristics. 604 Judson is a very large lot (rare in Evanston); it provides to the neighborhood a sense of distinction and more 'elbow space'. The proposal calls for its subdivision into two lots, and the construction of two narrow houses will necessitate removing two mature trees. He did not see that the neighborhood benefits from that, as oppose to redeveloping the lot as a single lot and building a single house. He said the neighborhood will benefit by keeping the single lot, preserving the existing trees and by building a single family home of an appropriate scale. M. Poulos encouraged the Commission to conclude that the purposes of the district are not being furthered by taking away yet another large lot and giving the neighborhood another two more small lots. Preservatim Uff nission .luty 17. 2007 — Minutes Page 6 Dale Lubotsky noted that the Commission recently recommended the subdivision of 101 Hamilton in the Lakeshore Historic District Carlos Ruiz said the owner of that property proposed the construction of only one house and they do not have intentions to develop the other lot. D. Lubotsky said 604 Judson back ups an apartment building. No one is going to spend 2 million dollars for a "McMansion' in that location. R. Lubotsky said there are four other larger lots on the block and two of them are in mid block (605 Judson and 540 Judson). They are larger lots that have larger houses that are in scale with the lot. Mary McWilliams, Associate Commissioner, said she sat in the Evaluation Committee of the Commission from the time that it was formed in 1977 to the time the first survey of the City was finished. Her biggest concern was the language of the application that says the house at 604 Judson has no historic or cultural significance. She said the fact that it was put into the historic district in the first place, means that at the time that it was done, there was a consideration that the block, not the individual buildings, had sufficient historic and cultural significance to be included in the historic district. The language is incorrect and inappropriate and leads to some inappropriate conclusions: that the house can be tom down because It has no significance. It is a block of modest houses and of great difference between each other. By building two houses that are essentially alike, one is changing the character of the block. This is a block with wide variety of houses, some which are non-contributing at the time the district was designated. The new construction does not speak the language of the street. She suggested to having a more honest language. Jon Willarson said the one thing that the existing house has going for it is that it is different. The problem he had with the proposed development is that the new houses were intentionally made to look like another house. He encouraged the applicant to try to be different again. Having a large lot Is being different too, he said. Carlos Ruiz read an email from Jason Horton at 1416 Hinman in opposition to the proposed demolition of the house at 604 Hinman and the construction of the two new homes. Commission's Findings Ann Dlenner thought the proposed new houses are too elegant for the neighborhood. The existing houses on the block are modest. R. Lubotsky said 731 Forest is an elegant house and an Evanston Landmark. There are many elegant houses within the historic district. He designed houses that are compatible and provide a transition between the old and the new. Mary Brugliera said her concern was the proposed virtually identical shaped houses side by side, none of that is present on the block or much of the district. Emily Guthrie said that there are in fact some identical houses in the neighborhood. She said her concern was about context. The houses being referenced are within ten blocks away that are brick, and some elements are picked from a Tallmadge & Watson house and an element from an Ernest Mayo house. The houses on the block are modest and with stucco finished, not brick. The Commission discussed the subdivision. M. Brugliera said the proposed subdivision did not meet standards: (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 (at least one of the two structures is not compatible with the structures in the district) and (d) Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district (the proposed new structures do not protect and preserve the critical features of the streetscape — they have virtually identical facades on a street that has wonderful variety and different setbacks all along the street). The Commission discussed how to proceed in regard to the subdivision, construction and demolition and agreed to provide feedback to the applicant on the application as presented. Preservation Comnsission July 17, 2007 — Minutes Page 7 M. Brugliera said she would vote against the application on all three counts as presented. However, if the applicant was able to change one of the houses, so that fagade size, roof line, materials, and setbacks are different, she would vole for all three. T. Prairie said he was not convinced on the merits of demolition. He could vote for one of the two houses or either of them, but he had a problem with the houses being so similar together. Three Commissioners expressed their intention to vote for demolition. Regarding demolition Commission members expressed concern about standard 5 and what was being proposed to replace the existing house. T. Prairie moved to table the decision on the application until the next meeting (August 21, 2007). Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. R. Lubotsky said they will be returning from a trip on August 21 and it was likely that they will not be available to attend the meeting on August 21. Carlos Ruiz said the applicant can request an extension of the 45 days requirement the Commission has to make a determination. R. Lubotsky agreed to do that. 3. 1037 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) — Replacement of existing windows on rear (west) and side (north & south) of existing house. The existing wood windows on side are either divided light or single light double hung. New replacements are double hung with divided tights (top & bottom sash). The windows on the sun porch (south-east comer) are Fixed glass. New replacement windows are casement windows with a fixed light above. As an alternate (#2) the replacements will be double hung (all new windows are with simulated divided lights) (Alteration). Elliott Dudnik, architect presented the project. He said his clients would like to replace the windows at the rear porch addition and at the sides of the house. All of the windows on the sides are double hung. There is no consistency in terms of size or divided lights pattern. The rear porch was screened and later closed in. The preferred choice for window replacement is casement wood windows with a fixed panel above. The second choice is double hung wood windows. Both window types have simulated divided lights. Commission's Findings: R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. and 10 as applicable. M. Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the window replacements (casement windows with a fixed light above and simulated divided lights) at 1037 Michigan in that they meet standards: 1 (minimal alteration); 2 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed); 5 (changes have not acquired significance needed to be preserved); 5 (stylistic features are being treated sensitively); 6 (replacement is necessary and is being done in compatible materials); and 10 (alterations could be removed in the future without impairing the integrity of the structure). T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1318 Forest Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) —Addition and remodeling of the existing 2-story coach house. The garage will be expanded from a one -car garage to a two -car garage. Expand dormer on north elevation [Alteration/Construction/Zoning Variance]. Stuart Cohen, architect, presented the project for the addition to and the remodeling of the coach house at 1318 Forest Avenue. The house is a Tudor half timber stucco house, an Evanston Landmark designed by Mayo and Mayo. The coach house is at the rear of the property. They propose to extend the coach house 12' to the south. A 6' tall stucco and garden wall is also proposed. They also want to enlarge the apron to the south of the coach house to pull into the garage from the south side. The exiting garage doors on the west fagade will be retained. The structure is stucco and half timber with beautiful detailing (profiled lookouts, extended roof rafters). The intention is to match that detailing. They are also remodeling and enlarging the second floor studio apartment. The existing stair does not meet code. The new stair will meet the code, necessitating the building with a new wider Pnrsenration Cornnrission July 17.2007 — Minutes Page 8 dormer on the north side of the coach house. This requires the removal of a small dormer and brick chimney. They are reusing all the windows. The exception is on the south elevation where the center window is a casement window. The apron to the south will be paved with pervious surface. The City requires off street parking to be paved. They will need a minor variance for the impervious area (15% over). Commission's Findings R&TA recommended zoning variance standards A and C as applicable. E. Guthrie moved to recommend approval for the zoning variance at 1318 Forest in that: A (the proposed variance Is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and it will adversely affect the integrity of the landmark); and C (it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of injurious to the property). The impervious surface will not go over 15%. T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended standard for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8-10, 12, 13, 15. and 16 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the constructiontaddition to the coach house and 6' high stucco garden wall at 1318 Forest Avenue, in that it meets standards. 1 (height); 3 (proportion of openings); 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets); 7 (relationships of materials and textures); 8 (roof shape); 9 (wafts of continuity); 10 (scale of the structure); 12 (distinguishing original characters of the structure are not being destroyod); 13 (archaeological resources will be protected); 15 (the addition could be removed in the future); and 16 (a single architectural style or period is being Imposed). C. Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. R&TA recommended standard for demolition 1-5 as applicable. C. Carey moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an existing fence and current south wall of the coach house at 1318 Forest in that it meets standards: 1 (those features are not of such historical, cultural, architectural significance that their demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people, the City and the State); 2 (the character of the district will not be damaged); 3 (the demolition will not be contrary to the purpose and intend of this chapter); 4 (the subject features are not of such unusual or uncommon design that they could not reproduced without difficulty); and 5 (the owner has plans to replace what is being removed). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes; 0 nays. R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10. C. Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for replacement and construction of dormer on the north elevation of the coach house at 1318 Forest Avenue in that: 1 (every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property with minimal alteration); 2 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed); 4 (the stylist features and skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity); and 10 (if in the future these alterations are removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 737 Judson Avenue (LandmarklLSHD) — Expand existing attic shed dormer (northeast) with a new over frame gable roof. The dormer has double hung windows on the north and south sides and a French door facing east. The proposed addition encroaches into the 5' required side yard in violation of section 6-8-2-8 (A) 3 and 6-6-5-2 (the enlargement conflicts with the 5' side yard set back) of the Zoning Ordinance. Previously, on February 20, 2007 the Commission authorized administrative approval of the dormer, before the Zoning Division identified required zoning variances [Zoning Variance]. John Holbert, architect, and Jordana Binstock, owner presented the requested zoning variance. H. Holbert said the rear dormer was approved in February 2007. At the time they received verbal approval from Zoning. After they applied for permit they were notified that they needed a zoning variance for the required 5' side yard setback between the edge of the Preservation Commission July 17.2007 — Minutes Page 9 dormer and the party wall. They have a 3.4' setback. The house is a double house and the party wall is considered the property line. Commission's Findings M. Brugliera moved to recommend approval of the zoning variance for the dormer in that: A (it is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation) and C (it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or injurious to the property). T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. B. PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEER PROGRAM Introduction of the Professional Volunteer Program for Administrative Preservation Review. The Commission postponed this item until the August 21, 2007 meeting. V. STAFF REPORT No staff report VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planned Preservation Coordinator Date Approved: September 18, 2007 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Room 2403 Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Wiltarson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Emily Guthrie OTHERS PRESENT: Ken & Jan Marthaler, Virginia Beatty, Robert Sierzega, Chris Turley, Debbie Mills, Susan Morse, Tracey Schwick, Neil Brady, Joe Philip, Keith and Penny Block, Katie Stallcup, Amy Anne Earle, and Mary McWilliams. PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, Preservation Coordinator 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m, with a quorum of seven members present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, and Jon Willarson). Susan Rundle, Betsy Hohman and Chris Carey arrived later. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mary Brugliera moved to approve the June 19, 2007 minutes as corrected. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays III. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 530 Judson Avenue (LSHD) —Remove shallow hip roof structure over the 1-story rear addition and construct a new gabled roof structure to match the existing main upper roof design. Replace windows at the west wall of the room addition with new windows [Alteration). Kent and Jan Marthaler, owners, presented the project. K. Marthaler said he built the existing rear addition in 1975. The new roof system is compatible with the roof on the main house. He would like to replace the windows on west wall of the addition. The existing windows are insulated glass; the seals are gone in all of them, the frames are rotted and the windows do not work. The new windows are V1%eathershield windows. The lower portions of the new windows are awning windows. Commission's Findings R&TA recommended standards for alteration 1-6 and 10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alteration at 530 Judson Avenue for the rebuilding of the roof and replacement of windows on the addition, as it meets standards for Evanston Preservation Commission August 21.2007 — Minutes Page 2 alteration: 1 (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed), 3 (historical basis is not being discouraged), 4 (history and development of the house are being recognized), 5 (stylistic features are being treated with sensibility), 6 (when possible features are being repaired rather than replaced), and 10 (the addition Is removable). Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1509 Forest Avenue (Landmark/LSHO) —Rebuild exterior rear porch and stairs to back door. Replace sloped shingled roof with a new flat walkable roof deck with 42' high railings. New wood French doors to access deck. Add on front elevation new wood casement window in attic [Alteration]. Virginia Beatty, owner and Robert Sierzega, architect presented the project. R. Sierzega said they will remove the angle roof, install a flat roof and add a cedar railing to be painted to match the cedar railing on the front of the house. Also, there will be new stairs to the back door and new wood French doors from the master bedroom out to the new roof deck. The new siding is aluminum to match the existing. The height of the railing is 36" on the first floor and 42" on the second floor. They also proposed a new wood window on the front to add some light and natural ventilation in the attic. There is a similar rectangular window on the front fagade. The flat roof system will be made of "duradeck", a synthetic material, which will not be visible from the ground. Commissions Findings The Commission discussed changing the design of the new attic window to match the existing louvered dormer window on the front elevation. Jon Pohl said he did not think the proposed new window was appropriate. Ms. Beatty proposed a skylight instead of the attic window. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5, 8, and 10. T. Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 1509 Forest Avenue, to Include the removal of the existing roof and replacement with a flat roof and deck at the rear, French doors to access the deck, new railing, a skylight installed in the attic (location subject to review by the Preservation Coordinator), new porch and stairs and railings at the first floor, in that it meets standards for alteration: 1 (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing original character is not being destroyed), 3 ( alterations that have no historical basis are being discouraged), 4 (changes that have taken place in the past are being respected), 5 (distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 8 (archaeological resources will be protected), 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10 (the changes could be removed in the future without impairing the essential form and integrity of the structure). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 611 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Remove rear deck and stairs; construct new rear deck, stairs and pergola. Demolish existing garage, build new garage. North elevation: modify configuration of top and bottom sashes of kitchen window; remove two AC window units and replace them with new windows (1" & 2"° floor). Replace non -historic rustic wood siding on former rear porch with 3" reveal woos! siding [Alteration;ConstructionlDemolition]. Chris Turley, architect presented the project. The project involves substantially interior renovation that has some implications on the exterior such as one window to be changed, repairs to masonry, soffits, gutters, etc. Removing a large rear porch and rebuilding a smaller porch. Also demolish the existing garage and construct a new garage. By relocating the kitchen, a kitchen counter will go across an existing window. The window will be removed and the sashes saved, they will install a new window with a wood panel below. They plan to install wood storms throughout. They are replacing three windows with identical windows (two that were cut short to put air conditioning units). The new garage is similar to the existing (which is not original), but better built and relocated Evanston Preservation Ca wr fission August 21, 2007 — Minutes Pape 3 couple feet from the principal structure. Commissions Findings S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-6. 8 and 10 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alteration at 611 Judson, because it meets standards for alteration: 1 (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing original character is not being destroyed), 3 ( the structure is being recognized as a product of its own time), 4 (changes that have taken place in the course of time are being respected), 5 (distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features will be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible -- in the event replacement Is necessary, they should be replaced to match the existing material in composition, design color, texture and other visual qualities), 8 (archaeological resources will be protected), and 10 (if the changes are removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure shall be unimpaired). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction (new garage) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 16 as applicable. Mary Brugliera moved to approve construction of the garage at 611 Judson in that meets standards for construction: 1 (height), 3 (the proportion of openings), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of the structure), 7(the relationship of materials and texture), and 8 (roof shape) are all compatible. Also, 12 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), and 16 (a single architectural style is not being imposed). T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends for the existing garage standards for demolition 1.5 as applicable. S. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 611 Judson. because: 1 (it Is not of historic significance), 2 (it does not contribute to the distinctive historic and cultural character of the district). 3 (demolition Is not contrary to this chapter), 4 (it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduce with great difficulty), 5 (there are plans to replace it). B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. 4. Foster Street and Orrington Avenue -Parcel No. 2 Northwest corner (NERD) — Construction of a 2-112 story single-family home with an attached garage. [Construction]. (At the request of the applicant this Item was re -scheduled to the September 18, 2007 meeting) 5. 1742 Asbury Avenue (Landmark/RHD) — New basketball half -court in rear yard. Relocate existing rear fence [Construction]. (Removed from the agenda for administrative approval) 6. 2320 Pioneer Road (Landmark) — Construct wood fence and trellis in street side yards. Since Colfax Street is not a Type i street the proposed fence in a street side yard is not permitted per section 6-4-6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The 9'4" proposed fence height exceeds the 6.00' permitted, therefore it is in violation of section 6-4-6-7 (F) 3 [ConstructionlFence Variance]. (At the request of the applicant the proposed height of the fence has been corrected from 6.5' to 9'-4") Debbie Mills, with Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron representing of Three Crowns Park, Susan Morse of Three Crowns Park, and Tracey Schwick, architect presented the project. The project is a continuation of a planned development, which now includes a fence variance and the certificate of appropriateness for the fence located at north side of the Landstrom building. S. Morse, Executive Director, said Three Crowns Park owns the city block bounded on the north by Colfax and McDaniel, Grant on the south and Pioneer Road on the east. There are two existing buildings on the property. The new development is scheduled Evanston Preservation Commission August 21, 2007 - Unutes Page 4 to open in the fall 2007, Originally, the plan included a facility for memory care on the southeast comer of the block with an outdoor space, which the Commission did not favor. Instead they are proposing converting one half of the Landslrom building, on the north portion of the property, into a memory care facility with an outdoor space or wondering gardentsensing area for the memory care facility. The proposed fence is not visible from the south site of the property. Tracey Schwick said the proposed fence will enclose a courtyard. The fence is setback about 55' from the sidewalk. She showed the trellis portion across the top and the fence portion and the posts carrying the trellis. The intent of the project is to keep the residents from leaving the open the space. The pergolaltrellis portion keeps a resident from climbing out The height of the structure is consistently 9'-4" high from the grade. The total length is 102% There is also landscaping in front of the fence. Commission's Findings The neighbors have been notified of the proposed fence variance and three neighbors have asked for clarification and information about the project, which has been provided by the applicant. S. Rundle was concerned with the proposed fence in terms of the height affecting the single family homes across the street. Jordan Cramer believed that the proposal does not impact the historic building at all. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 5, 7, 9-13, and 16 as applicable. J. Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a 9'-4" fence at 2320 Pioneer Road (I_andstrom building), in that: 1 (the height), 5 (the rhythm of spacing), 7 (relationship of materials), 9 (walls of continuity with the surrounding structures), and 10 (the scale), and 11 (the directional expression), are all compatible. Also, 12 (the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed), 13 archaeological resources will be protected. and 16 (a single architectural style is not being imposed). M. Brugliera seconded the motion. Vote: 9 ayes, 1 nay. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standard for variance A and C as applicable. T. Prairie moved to issue a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator for the 9'4" fence at 2320 Pioneer Road in that: A (it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or the landmark character of the landmark structure), and C (it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare) . B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 1 nay. T. 1220 Hinman Avenue (LandmarklLSHD) —Construct new 2-car wood frame garage [Construction] Neil Brady, owner presented the project. Mr. Brady provided revised drawings of the proposed garage. He also proposed a single garage door that will appear as a double door. The exterior trim material is `Miratec", an exterior grade masonite that is painted. The exterior finish is smooth 'hardi-board" with a 3" exposure. The man door and the garage door are steel doors. The wood windows are double hung with simulated divided lights. Commission's Findings Commissioners discussed at length whether the Commission was consistent requesting wood garage doors for landmarks. The Commission did not arrive to a consensus about the appropriate garage door material for a new garage. M. Brugliera said that she has objected for a long time the requirement for wood garage doors. A steel door will be fine for the new garage. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 as applicable. S. Gerson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the garage at 1220 Hinman Avenue. The garage to have hardi-board smooth siding, overhead panelized Evanston Preservation Commission August 21. 2007 - Minutes Page 5 garage door and man door to be steel doors. the double hung wood windows with simulated divided lights, the trim to be Miratec, in that: 1 (the height), 3 (the proportion of openings), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures on the streets), 8 (roof shape), and 10 (the scale) are all compatible with the structures to which they are visually related). Also, 12 (the original qualities of the property are not going to be destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources are going to be preserved), and 16 (a single architectural style is not being imposed). A. Dienner seconded the motion. S. Gerson amended his motion to include "panelized steel garage doors". A. Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 7 ayes, 3 nays. 8. 110 Greenwood Street (LSHD) —Revisions to previously approved plans for the construction of a single-family house. Revisions include: a 3' full extension to the south wing towards the east and revisions to all four elevations (Construction]. Keith and Penny Block, owners, and Joe Philip, contractor presented the project. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission previously approved (November 2004) the contemporary design of the proposed house at 110 Greenwood. The vote was 4 ayes, 3 nays. Some neighbors objected to the approval and requested a reconsideration of the approval. The preservation ordinance does not have a provision for this type of action. The Law Department recommended that if one of the Commissioners who voted in favor of the construction were to make a motion at the next meeting to re -open the case, and the motion was approved, then the case could be revisited. At the next meeting only two members of the four who voted for the construction were present. Neither of the two felt the case should be reconsidered. Construction drawings were submitted to the City over a long period of time. Based on the plans that were approved conceptually and the original design, the context and the Intent of the project, staff reviewed administratively the plans submitted for permit. Now, the current revisions to the plans are more than what could be reviewed administratively, because not only they made revisions to all four elevations, but they are also adding 3' to the east of the house in terms of additional foot print. These revisions have triggered a new zoning analysis and also a building code analysis. C. Ruiz concluded that these revisions should be reviewed by the Commission. Joe Philip said they obtained their building permit but they think the revisions will constitute a better building. They focused on reducing the building's impact on the site around it. The concept has b not varied at all from what was originally approved. The building has evolved from when it was approved. The current plans have been approved by zoning on August 1, 2007. There is a foot print change in the building. The south wing of the building is extended 3' and is widen by 18" or 179 S.F. so the mechanicals will be inside the house, which were previously outside. The building has a geothermal heath system; t necessitates having those mechanicals inside of the building. Instead, all the unnecessary sidewalks and concrete walls have been removed and the area will be graded naturally. The original entrance was in a corner; now it is a central format entrance to the home with a gentler grading leading to that entry, and eliminating the previous stairs going down to the old entrance. The height of the building has not changed. The revised north elevation shows wood siding, screen treatment throughout the home, the moving wood screens are mahogany. Now the lower level is more consistent with the upper level of the home. The revised east elevation shows windows that were not shown on the original elevations but are part of the original plans. The steel canopy on the east elevation has been removed. Also the east elevation is 18" wider. A concrete wall was also removed. The exterior materials are mahogany wood windows, in between where there are no windows, there will be structural wood panels to match the windows, and in front are the Evanston Preservation C rwniss+on August 21. 2007 — Minutes Page 6 movable wood screens. The mahogany wood panels are dark. In the old approved drawings there were some casement windows and a plaster panel area, where now brick is being brought down to the grade level. Between the reveals there are stack bond brick that are set into the panels (3' x 6'). The reveal is a metal'C' channel In a dark color. On the south elevation, the secondary entry wood door and the garage wood door have been adjusted accordingly. Previously, there were spot areas of stucco material, and now removed for wood. The west elevation is now elevated from grade in order to reduce the visual mass of the building. They reduced the amount of grass on the lower level. There were wood casement windows before, now there are butt -glazed insulating glass windows. The steel round columns on the west elevation remain. Previously, the windows on the first floor came down below the grade line, but what can be seen from the neighboring yard is the same amount of glass above the grade line. Katie Stallcup of 144 Greenwood said approval of the original plans for the home in November 2004 was controversial, only seven of the eleven statutory members of the Commission were present at the time, and the plans were approved on a vote of 4 to 3, thus the plans were approved by less than ha`f of the statutory members. All the immediate neighbors of 110 Greenwood opposed the planned home. The immediate neighbor to the south did not oppose, but that house is on the market. There was another neighbor who was not opposed. In addition, neighbors obtained more than 100 signatures of Evanston residents who think that the proposed structure is not compatible with the surrounding homes. As the Commission considers the relationship of the revisions to the standards, Ms. Stallcup maintained that the revisions did not meet several of the standards: 2 (proportion of the front facade) — In the original presentation the relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation was dramatically different from surrounding structures. Surrounding structures have a height to width ratio of .71 and the original proposed structure at 110 Greenwood had an overall ratio of .37. The proposed revision, adding a 3' extension to the width, will further increase the width, thus lowering the ratio to .35 or less than half of the surrounding homes. Standard 3 (proportion of openings) — The windows of the revised structure have a horizontal orientation, while the surrounding homes have a vertical orientation. Standard 4 (rhythm of solids to voids in front facades) -- The extension of the glass wall by 3' will further skew this rhythm. Standard 5 (rhythm of spacing and structure on streets) — The proposed revision will push the structure closer to the public park land on the east. Standard 7 (relationship of materials and texture) — The parts of the proposed structure that are visible from the public way are principally glass and this revision: voll increase the surface of the glass. The shear glass facade is broken up by moving lou.ers, design element that has no relationship to other homes in the area. In general the building materials, which are glass, metal and pre- fabricated brick and wood are not compatible with the existing homes. Standard 8 (roof shapes) — The revision calls for a flat ro&. None of the structures in the area have a flat roof. Standard 10 (state of structure) — By adc ng 3' of width the revision will further define the building as horizontal, while the surround ng homes have vertical orientation. Standard 16 (requirement for compatibility) — The proposeC structure originally and as revised is not compatible with surrounding structures. Ms. Stallcup said the Preservation Comrr :ssion is in charge with evaluating the revisions to the structure in reference to eleven standards_ In her opinion it is not compatible with eight or _/, of the standards. In thus the revisions snould not be approved. Amy Ryker, architect spoke in favor of the revisions. She was impressed with the state of materials that are more compatible with neighboring houses. The warm materials have been increased in all of the elevations. The brick and the dark wood helps a lot in terms of grounding the building, the way many surrounding homes have bases that are heavier in masonry or wood. The upper floor echoes that. She liked the movement of the entrance to Evanston Presemacon Cormissfon August 21, 2007 — kft :nm Page 7 be on the axis of the main gate. The west elevation, berming it up reduces the mass of the building that faces the neighboring building to the west and allows for planting and screening of the budding towards the neighbors. She favored the revisions in terms of the increase in warmth of materials, deference to the neighbors, and addressing and existing opening in the stone wall. Commission's Findings C. Carey asked if there were plans for landscaping the west side of the property. J Philip said where the edges of the necessary retaining wall are exposed; they plan to mask those with landscaping. They want to reduce all the unnecessary side walls and deal with the grade naturally. The west elevation does not have louvers, but brick modules with wood casement windows. The driveway to the east will remain. M. Brugliera said around the comer on Dempster, is a horizontal house by William Deknalel, a former student of Frank Lloyd Wright's, and there is a house in another historic district, by George Schiproit, next door to an Italianate Victorian, and there is a double house by Myron Hunt on Ridge at Dempster, a Victorian house was torn down to build that house. M. Brugliera said if the Commission requires compatibility to mean sameness, she thought a horizontal contemporary house could never be built in a historic district that has lots of Victorians and Tudors. The Commission cannot mandate a certain style of architecture. She said the focus of the Commission Is how these revisions fit with the standards and with the earlier approval. T. Thomas said in general the changes are improvements to the project. The most problematic is the 3' extension to the east. He liked the fad that they are going geothermal, the south portion has been softened and the mechanicals are relocated. S. Gerson said RBTA recommends standards for construd;on 1-8, 10-13, and 16. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the revisions to the previously approved plans for the construction of a single family home at 110 Greenwood Street, because: 1(the height - of the revisions), 2 (proportion of the front facade), 3 (proportion of openirc ), 4 (rhythm of solids and voids in the front facade), 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on the street). 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and textures), 8 (roof shape), 10 (the scale of the structure), and 11 (directional expression of the front elevation) are all visually compatible to the properties, sites structures, public ways to which trey are visually related. Also, 12 (the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property has not been destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), and 16 (in considering new construction, the Commission is not rnposing a requirement for a single architectural style). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 1 nay. Penny Block said she uroerstood Ms. Stallcup presentation. but in fact, not all the neighbors are opposed. She has over 500 signed petitions of people rot opposing the project, all of them residents, some of tnem architects. M. Sru iera said when V e Commission voted ono,nally in 2CO4. they had a legal quorum accora.ng to the ordinance. the vote was taken accordingly, and the majority voted in favor of it. Even though there is no provision for reconsidering a vote based on a request from the neighbors, the Commission did that, and the people who voted for it opted not to call for another vote. B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS M. Brugliera reported on the Committee to Review and Amend the Preservation Ordinance activities for the proposed amendments to the Rules and Procedures. She said Ann Dienner, Evanston Preservation Cammissios August 21, 2007 - Kknutes Pate 8 Jordan Cramer and herself have been meeting on the issue of changing the Commission's procedures, as requested by the senior staff in the City of Evanston, with an eye to making reviews of applications smoother and more efficient, One of the changes allows staff to re -issue certificate of appropriateness within a year of expiration of the first 180 days. Also, the list of items that staff could approve administratively is being proposed to be expanded to include activities or. properties within historic districts that are not Evanston Landmarks, nor contributing or significant structures to a historic district. According to the Rules and Procedures, the Commission will consider adoption of the proposed amendments at their next meeting, September 18, 2007. C. PROFESSIONAL. VOLUNTEER PROGRAM Introduction of the Professional Volunteer Program for Administrative Preservation Review Carlos Ruiz explained that the Professional Volunteer Program for Administrative Preservation Review is to assist the Preservation Coordinator in conducting administrative preservation reviews as being proposed under amendments to the Rules and Procedures. He noted that there are six professional volunteers from Design Evanston who have signed up for the program. M. Brugliera expressed some reservations about only having Design Evanston volunteers as part of the program. The Commission would prefer Associate Commission members being part of the program as well. Also, there should be operating guidelines for selecting the volunteers, and also operating guidelines under the same ground rules. After a discussion about the program M. Brugliera moved for a joint venture for assisting the Preservation Coordinator in administrative approvals based on the new recommendations of the subcommittee (amendments to the Rules and Procedures) that will be composed of one volunteer from the community (i.e. Design Evanston) and one Associate Commissioner, when requested by the Preservation Coordinator, and to have the Preservation Coordinator be the final authority in making that decision (administrative approval). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. IV. STAFF REPORT No staff report. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz. Senior PlannerlPreservation Coordinator Approved Date: October 16, 2007 A� CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Room 2403 Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson OTHERS PRESENT: Janet Steidl, Date Lubotsky, Robert Lubotsky, Todd Kihm, John Vasilion, Andrew Sollinger. Peter Lobin, Judy Fiske, Peter Wyler, Mary Sue Mohnke, Betsy Wilson, Steve Rosenberg PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m, with a quorum of nine Commissioners present: Ann Dinner, Jon Pohl. Jon Willarson, Mary Brugliera, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, Susan Rundle, and Stan Gerson. Chris Carey arrived later. Staff: Carlos Ruiz. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stan Gerson said on page 9 under Commission Findings the number of votes should be added (9 ayes). Emily Guthrie moved for approval of the July 17, 2007 minutes as amended. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Ill. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RBTA) 1. 1401 Davis Street (Landmark) - Construction of a gate and fence segments that meet the house, to be located at existing stairs from driveway to back yard. Requires fence variances: 1) no fence shall be permitted in any street side yard or comer lot in any residential district; 2) fences located in a street side yard of a corner lot must have a maximum fence opacity of seventy percent (70%); and 3) Fences located in a street side yard of a comer lot shall not exceed four (4') in height — proposed height = 5'-6" [Construction/Fence Variance). Janet Steidl, owner presented the project. The proposed fence is at the top of a retaining wail, for privacy and for keeping people out. They need three fence variances as stated above. The red cedar wood fence is very symmetrical which relates to the house. The fence wal be stained, it is not a permanent structure and it is not attached to the house. They removed two hedges where the proposed fence is to be placed because they were with black worm disease. The proposed fence at 5'-6" in height will align with the edge of the garage. The solid fence would be more in keeping with the half timber exterior finish of the house. Commissions' Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends zoning variance standards A and C as applicable. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the fence variances [at 1401 Davis Street) on the Evanston Preservatiw Ununission September 18, 2007 - Antes Page 2 height, opacity and location to the Zoning Administrator in that: A (it will not adversely affect the architecture of the house or the character of the historic district) and C (it will not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety or injurious to property in the district. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 1 nay. S. Gerson said he was okay with the fence on the side yard, but not with height and opacity. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3. 5, 7, 9, 10. 12, 13 and 16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant the certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a fence at 1401 Davis Street because: 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (the rhythm and spacing of structures on the street), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 9 (the wall of continuity is appropriate), 10 (the scale of the structure is visually compatible), 12 (distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected), and 16 (a single architectural style has not been Imposed). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 2 nays. 2. 1027-1031 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) —Revisions to previously approved 2-story addition to the east (rear) and to the eastern portion of the south elevation and with two open porches on the new east elevation [Construction]. This project was approved administratively. 3. 604 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Demolish existing house and north garage. Subdivide one lot into two lots. Construct one new house on each newly created lot and one garage on the north lot [Subdivision/Construction/Demolition]. Robert Lubotsky, architect and guilder presented the project with two models. He said at the July meeting the major concern was that the two new douses appeared to be too much alike. They made substantial changes to the house on the north. They changed the brick color, the trim around the windows is being changed in the front of the house and in the south side of the house to brick and limestone. The all wood windows on the front of the house have been changed substantially. The front has now a projecting curved bay; a bay on the first floor will have stone trim at the top and the base with alternating piers of brick and stone on the sides. The projecting bay over the front entry has been eliminated. On the side elevation the projecting three sections bay has been changed to a single bay. The stucco on the second level has been eliminated, now is all brick. R. Lubotsky said the mass and the volume of the two houses are very different. He showed the two different colors for bricks: the darker brick is for the north house. The south new house remains essentially the samme with projecting wood trim. Both houses have the same stained wood casement windows and the railings are stainless steel in both houses. Some of the windows have a fixed glass move. The south house is next to a landmark and it is complementary to the scale of the landmark. The south house has on the first floor projecting bays on the south elevation surrounded by narrow windows. The chimneys are stucco. The pick of the roofs are less than 40' and comply with me Zoning Ordinance and they are similar to other roof heights. R. Lubotsky said they are proposing a new garage for the north house. The garage will have the same brick as the house base with stucco above it. The south house has an existing S- car garage that was recently built_ The new garage door is an overhead door with panels and windows along the top. R. Lubotsky said he is proposing the subdivision of the 100.32' wide lot, to two lots subdivision (51.66' and 48.66'). TM vast majority of lots on the block and the neighborhood are predominantly in the 45' to 50' width range. There are some wider lots on the block such as the one across the street which has a wide house. The three lots immediately to the south of 604 Judson are small narrow low. Evanston Preservatan Cornmissian September 18. 2007 — ftnutes Pape 3 Commission's Findings In regard to the subdivision standards, Emily Guthrie said at the July meeting the Commission discussed that there was not any general harmony to the block because there is a collection of everything. E. Guthrie moved to recommend approval of the subdivision [from one lot to two lots) because it will preserve the property in the district; the design and location of new structures have been provided and are visually compatible with properties in the district; it will not block or obstruct critical features; it will preserve or protect critical features of the streetscape associate with the area, property, structures, sites and objects in the district; and it will not adversely affect traffic pattern, municipal services, adjacent property values or the general harmony of the district. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1-8. 10-13 and 16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant approval for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of two new homes at 604 Judson because: 1 (height), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids in front facades), 5 (rhythm of spacing of structures on the streets), 6 (entrance porches), 7 (materials and textures), 8 roof shape). 10 (scale of the structures), and 11 (directional expression of front elevations) are all visualty compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, and places to which they are visually related. Also, 12 (distinguishing original qualities of the property is not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected), and 16 (no single architectural style is being imposed). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliera moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the existing structure at 604 Judson in that: 1 (it is not of such architectural significance that its demolition will be detrimental to the public interest or contrary to the welfare to the people of the City or the State), 2 (the existing property does not contribute to distinctive architecture or character of the district), 3 (it is not contrary to the purposes and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of preservation for the Lakeshore Historic District), 4 (it Is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design), and 5 (there are plans to replace the structure). E. Guthrie seconded the motion. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 709 Foster Street and 2004 Orrington Avenue - Parcel No. 2 Northwest comer (NERD) — Construction of a 2-1/2 story single-family home with and attached garage. [Construction). Betsy Hohman recL:sed from the discussion and vote due to previous financial dealings and potental future dea ings. John Vasition, arct--ect and Todd Kihm, owner presented the project. J. Vasition said there is one outstanding item with Zoning and that is the porch facing Foster; that porch projects 2' further from the hayse than what they will be allowed to build. The revised porch will have stairs to the yard arm it will not have any outstanding issues and there will be no zoning variance to constn:ci the house. J. Vasibon said the-,eigrt of the new home visually relates to adjacent properties particularly on Ornngton AvenL.e. The roof runs parallel to Orrington Avenue and the eave height is the element of the horns that has the most direct relationship to homes along Orrington. The height of the ridge e, the proposed house is at 44'-5' and there are other houses on Foster and Orhngton with sr-nila., of higher ridge heights. Being on a corner lot they want to address Orrington Avenue, --Lit the house is designed with the front yard on Foster. This is partly due to the Zoning Ordinance and the way yards are portioned. If they were to make Orrington Avenue the front yard, the buildable area to construct a home would untenable. The rear yard setback of 30' :n combination with the average front yard setback 33.67' in the block yields a buildable area of 17.58' wide. Regarding the lot itself, J. Vasition said the lot area of the property is 8.752 s.f. The average Evanston Presenra5m Coavnmsion September 18, 2007 — Unutes POW 4 lot size on the houses on Orrington is 8,736 s.f. The subject property covers 28.26 percent of the lot area where 30 percent is allowed. The average lot coverage of all the houses on that side of Orrington is also 28.26 percent. He said this shows that they are using the property with the same intensity as everybody else on Orrington Avenue. The average lot size of all the lots is slightly higher as is the average lot coverage. In terms of lot coverage they are 1 V out of 2e houses on that side of Orrington. They are 23 out of the 35 nearby properties. The comer lot is proportionally square, next to 12 to 13 lots that are much narrower and much longer and almost three times as deep as the subject lot. Wall of continuity, the front porch on Orrington is 12'-4' in front of the house at 2010 Orringlon, 2018 Orrington 12'-1- in front of 2020 Orrington, at the comer of Emerson and Orrington, the building on the comer is 18'-3' in front of 1906 Orrington. Across the street 2019 Orrington is 10'-5' in front of 2023 Orrington. From Emerson to Simpson there is an undulation that is farthest from the street in the middle of the block and there comes back towards the street at the comers. Going north on Orrington there are five squarish comer lots that are litre the subject lot, they are adjacent to lots that are narrow and deep, and by necessity some of those houses are closer to the street. J. Vasilion said that the comer lot is different an in proportion to the adjacent lots, and they made a sincere effort to respect the wall of continuity. The 2-story part of the house is 4'-9' in front of the house at 2010 Orrington, which is 55' apart from the proposed house. Also, the existing house at 709 Foster has an easement to access the garage from Orrington or it could have access from Foster via a new curb cut. J. Vasilion said the proposed house has simple forms, but elegant. The materials are: cedar shingle roof, white painted wood columns will be, stone steps, reddish color brick, a limestone band around the window sills of the first floor, wood clad casement windows (with muntins on the upper windows and no muntins on the lower level). They will come back in front of the Commission if the materials were to change. Regarding the footprint of the house Carlos Ruiz asked if the floor plan of the house could be revised to reduce the foot print and still have viable house. J. Vasilion said he designed a house to satisfy the program given by his client. Andrew Sollinger of 2026 Orrington said he was concerned with how the rhythm of the street will be affected by a house that projects into Orrington. He referred to a diagram that represented the flow and the rhythm of the front of the houses on the block measurements from side walk to the beginning of existing stairs, porches ana houses and the proposed house. Onington has some undulation but not a violent change (as proposed with the new house]. Peter Lobin of 2030 Orrington said there are 4 houses on the block; 14 houses on Orrington; and 140 houses in Evanston all designed by Edgar Ovet Stake. The average age of these houses on the west side of the block on Orrington is over 100 years. He was concemed with the proposed setback on Orrington; it will be the only house from Emerson to Ingleside that it will be that close to the sldewatk. They neighbors are concerned with the sc2 a compatibility, and the wall of continuity on Orrington. He said the yellow house (709 Foster) faces Orrington and it never had a back yard, but a front yard only. The proposed setback is inconsstent with Orrington. The neighbors will be more than willing to work %�� the applicant on variances. He noted that the average setback on Orrington is 37'. Judy Fiske representing the Northeast Evanston Historic District Association (NEHOA), she said she researched more than 1000 house in the historic district. Orrington Avenue is the single most important street in the historic district. The house at 709 Foster appears to face Orrington but actually faces Foster and what appears to be the front yard was promoted in 1930s and 1940s to be a swimming pool for Normwestem University. The neighbors fought that successfully. What NEHl7A would like not to see is a house built by right facing Foster Evamton Pnnervatimi Commssam September 18, 2007 —?Antes Page with its entire side facing Onington. if the proposed house could accommodate both Foster and Orrington would be wonderful, but NEHDA underst;w-nd the constraints on the developer for the size of the lot. She encourages all communication between the neighbors and the developer. With the Commission just reviewing the materials and design of the house, the developer is able to build by right. A house with its side on Orrington could be much harmful than t is proposed_ She said there has been a lot of construction in the historic district and the historic district encourages construction. This particular Orrington block is a very old block and it should be respected for that, but also 2005 Orrington was moved from University Place in 1950. J. Vasilion in response to the comments from neighbors referred to two graphics that intend to convey setbacks, size of houses and their relationships to one another. The neighbors' graphic it does not have a scale to it, where the widths are shown property, it does not reflect the space between structures. Plan he submitted was pulled from the City of Evanston website and it is as an accurate representation of what is going on that block. They respect Orrington as the spine of the historic district, they think Orrington Avenue deserves as good a house as can be put there, which is why the house is the way it is. What makes a wall of continuity is not how far the house is from the street or has close the steps of the house are to the street. but are the houses doing relative to the houses to which they are visually related. J. Vasilion pointed out the comer lots at Lincoln and Orrington, at Milburn, and at Central, there is a tendency of those houses to be closer to the street. The proposed house Is situated relative to its neighbors very appropriately. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer asked how far is the proposed house form 2010 Orrington. J, VasHion said 55'. The outlines on the plans include the porches such as the houses at 2600 and 26013 Orrington. There is quite a break between 2436 and 2430 Orrington. In response to a question from a neighbor it was clarified that the distance from the west side of the path to the east side of the house 27-3'. Stan Gerson said the materials seem to be undetermined. J. Vasilion said the materials are listed in the application. Susan Rundle said the point made by Judy Fiske was a very valid point. Jordan Cramer said a comer lot could accommodate a different shape and size [of house). He would be more concerned about something jetting out in the middle of the block. In response to a question from Carlos Ruiz. Peter Lobin said the average setback on the 1900 and 2000 blocks on Orrington is 35'. The proposed house is also larger than any other house on the 2000 block. He said they want to maintain the wall of continuity and Orrington is known for as deep setbacks. John Vasilion said t:^e Zoning Ordinance a!lows a 15' setback and they voluntarily put the main body of' e house at 25'-9". He said they made concessions that they should have, but they also work hard to conform the house to the context. Stan gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1.8, 10-13 and 16 as applicable. A;in Dienner said the duplex across the street [2001-03 Orrington] is rather a large dense presence. Cados Ruiz read an email received September 17, 2007 from Simon Thompson of 2024 Crrington, who has concerns about the proposed setback on Orrington. Jon Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the proposed house on the lot at northwest corner of Foster and Orrington in that it satisfied standards: 1 (height). 2 (proportion of front facade); 3 (proportion of openings); 4 (rhythm of solids to voids); 5 (rtly,.hrn of spacing); 5 ( rhythm of porches, recesses, and projections); 7 (relationship of matenals); 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale); and 11(directional expression) are all compatible with structures to which are visually related. Also, 12 (distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed); 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved); and 16 (a single architectural is not be�1g imposed). Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 1 nay, and 1 recussal. Evanston Preservation Commission September 1 a. 2007 - Minutes Pape 6 5. 638 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) — Demolition of First floor breakfast room, pantry and mud room at rear of house. Replace with single story family room and deck; style and materials to match existing. [Con struction/Demolition]. Mary Sue Mohnke, owner and Peter Wyler, contractor presented the project as described above. P. Wyler said the Craftsman style addition matches Craftsman style of the house. The deck is made of wood; and the new windows match the windows on the house. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for construction of the rear addition one-story family room and deck at 638 Michigan Avenue in that: 1 (height); 3 (proportion of openings); 7 (materials and texture); 8 (roof shape); 10 (scale of the structure); 2 (distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed); and 15 (the new addition shalt be done in a manner that if it were removed the integrity of the structure would be unimpaired). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the rear mudroom, porch and portion of the first floor at 638 Michigan Avenue in that: 1 (it is not so significant that its demolition would be detrimental); 2 {it does not contribute to the distinctive architecture or character of the district; 3 (it is not contrary to the purpose of this chapter and the objectives of historic preservation for the Lakeshore Historic District); 4 (it is not so old or unusual or uncommon that it could be reproduced without great difficulty or expense); and 5 (the owner has a plan that it has been approved). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Result: Motions to grant certificates of appropriateness for construction and demolition (rear wall) passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays respectively 6. 1019 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) —Replacement of all wood windows with aluminum clad wood windows [Alteration) Betsy Hohman recused herself from discussion or voting due to potential conflict of interest. Betsy Wilson, owner presented the project. She said when they recently bought the house it was abundantly clear that the windows needed to be replaced. Her contractor, John McKnight, told her that they do not need a permit to replace windows with new windows that match the same size of the existing. Consequently, she ordered and purchased insert aluminum clad wood window sashes. The new windows replicate the existing muntin patterns with simulated divided fights. B. Wilson said they will keep the most unusual windows on the house, such as the picture window facing the street, two leaded glass windows and two small windows with diamond muntin pattern. The house was aluminum sided in 1975. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if it was the contractor's opinion that the existing windows are beyond repair. Ms. Wilson said, yes. The windows are almost without exception drastically out of square, most of them are missing the weights and ropes. Mary Brugliera asked if the contractor researched repairing the windows. tits. Wilson said, no. She was told that the wood on the windows was so rotted that there was not much to be done with them. Also, the storm windows will be removed. Emily Guthrie said wood windows can be restored. Chris Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the existing window sashes at 1019 Hinman Avenue in that: 1 (every reasonable effort is being made to cause minimal alteration); 2 (the original character of the property will not be destroyed); 5 (distinctive stylistic features Evanston Preservation Commission September 18, 2007 - Minutes Page 7 and craftsmanship that characterize the property are being treated with sensitivity); and 6 (they are accurately replicating existing windows features). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Emily Guthrie asked C. Carey as the motion maker, if he feels that they met the standards. C. Carey said the Commission has approved a lot of replacement windows and they are equal to any that he has seen on his time on the Commission. So he would say, yes. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 3 nays, and 1 recussal. 7. 2237 Sherman Avenue (NEH131C) -- New rear deck and exterior alterations due to kitchen remodeling and creation of a 2"0-floor bedroom, master bath and re -roof house [Alteralion/Demoaition]. Steve Rosenberg, owner presented the project. He said he would like to construct a 20' x 10' deck at the rear of the house with a painted wood balustrade, and install a door and a window and a shed roof over a new rear entry porch. The deck will have lattice between the posts. The materials are all wood. The house is aluminum sided. Susan Rundle asked why the tops of the new window and door are below in relation to the existing windows on the east rear elevation. and why the change to a window on the second floor. S. Rosenberg said they are doing work on the second floor the bathroom reason why the size of the window is being reduced. S. Rosenberg said the roof was in bad condition and the windows to the east and south were damaged due to water backup on the roof. He initially decided to replace all the windows with aluminum r3ad wood windows. Since then, he contacted the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and learned about the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program. Now he believes that he could maintain/restore the front elevation windows. He is hopeful that they could install the aluminum dad wood windows on the sides and rear of the house. Commission's Findings The Commission discussed at length the possibility of window restoration on the front elevation and the window replacement on the north, south and east elevations. S. Rosenberg agreed to have the Commission issue a certificate of appropriateness for the overhang roof, the new door, and the new porch. The Commission agreed if the owner were to replace the windows with all wood windows to match the existing that staff could approve that alteration administratively. The house is contributing to the Northeast Evanston Historic District and of landmark pc.ential quality. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the rear deck and overhang roof and new back door at 2237 Sherman Avenue because: 1 (height); 3 (proportion of openings); 6 (1.he rhythm of entrance porches); 7 (the relationships of materials and texture); 8 (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 qualifies or character of the property 4 not being destroyed); 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved); 14 (contemporay design is not being discouraged); 15 (the additions could be removed in the future witheut impairing the form and integrity of the original structure); and 16 (A single architeGural style is not being imposed). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Susan Rundle amended the motion adding that all the details on the back porch will match the details of the front porch. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. Tho motion passed as amended. Vote: 10 ayes. 0 nays. Result: A motion approving a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new deck at the rear of the house, install a new rear door and overhang over the door passed. Vote 10 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commissgn September 18, 2007—Minutes Page 8 B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS Consideration for approval of proposed amendments to the Rules and Procedures Carlos Ruiz said mat the proposed amendments are for allowing administrative review and not automatic administrative approval. If a project not affecting a landmark or a contributing or significant structure does not meet the standards for review, staff will make recommendations for revisions of the project to applicant so that the project could meet the standards for review. If the applicant refuses to make the revisions, the application will be send to the Commission for review. The amendments allow staff to re -issue COAs within one year after the expiration of the COAs when no changes to the plans occur. Also, expanding the list of items that staff could review and approve administratively_ Administrative review includes activities on properties within historic districts that are not Evanston Landmarks, nor contributing or significant structures to a historic district. Also, the Rules and Procedures can always be revised if something is not working as Intended. The Commission added the following revisions: on Page 2, Article 3, 4. Larson to Liaison; on page 4, 4. one hundred eighty (180) to one hundred elghnr (180) days: page 5, 2. Demolition of any primary structures in a district: landmarks, significant or contributing structures. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the amendments to the Rules and Procedures as revised. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator November 26, 2007 Approved: December 18, 2007 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION REVIEW & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Room 2200 Tuesday. October 16, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Betsy Hohman, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson. Thomas Prairie, Jon Pohl, Jon Willarson and Susan Rundle (arrived later) MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Emily Guthrie OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Janicki, Jamie Collier, Haroid F. Dietrich, Angela & Michael Ouattrocki, Lily and David Strong, Lou Dwickson: Fred Wilson, Peter O'Brien and Cheryl Lullas PRESIDING: Betsy Hohman, Secretary STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L CALL MEETING TO ORDER Betsy Hohman, Secretary, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with a quorum of six members present (Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Jon Pohl, and Jon Willarson). Susan Rundle arrived later. Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz. It. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 21, 2007 minutes Ann Dienner corrected the spelling of George Schiprolt on page 7. Stan Gerson moved to approve the August 21, 2007 minutes as corrected. Jon Willarson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 111. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1247 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) - Remove existing rear, deck. Construct wooden upper deck with a terraced stone patio and stairs [ConstructionlCemolition] Removed from the agenda for administrative approval. 2. 133 Dempster Street LandmarkILSHD Replace wir lows on 2-story porch (east) and alter 1-story porch design (north) [Alteration) Paul Janicki, architect presented the project He saic the 2-story porch had casement windows and French doors. Later. picture windows and other casement windows were installed. They project brings back the style of the original windows and doors. The new windows are all wood windows with simulated divideC lights and spacing bars as opposed to Evanston Preservation Commission October 16, 2007 — Minutes Page 2 true divided lights with 718' munGn bars. There are three elevations (two are side elevation). There is a rear porch that was original to the house with stairs added later. The plan calls for Tuscan limestone columns to match the columns on the front entry, fascia and canopy for the rear French doors, a stair case and balustrade mimicking the balustrade on the east porch, and install casement windows with SDLs and 7/8- muntins above. On the north elevation install French doors and a stair. The carriage house has rolling doors from the 1950s. They will like to restore the carriage doors. There is a non original beam above the garage door that will be retained. There is a basement under the garage. Commission's Findings The Commission found standards for alteration 1- 6, 8, and 10 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alterations as discussed at 133 Dempster, because: 1 (every reasonable effort has been made for minimal alteration), 2 (the original qualities are being returned to the original), 3 and 4 (changes have been recognized as products of their own time), 5 (skilled craftsmanship and character of the property has been handle appropriately), 6 (the replacement of missing architectural features are based on historic description), 8 (archaeological resources will be protected), and 10 (the new alterations are done in such a manner that if they were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired). Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 2420 Harrison Street (Landmark) - 2-story addition connecting house to existing garage, 2nd story addition over existing garage [Construction] Jamie Collier, owner and Harold F. Dietrich, architect presented the project. Carlos Ruiz said the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation lists the house as built in 1905 for Charles E. Brown. The house at 2420 Harrison is listed as a Frank Lloyd House, a 2-story rectangular house with horizontal board and batten on the first floor. Jamie Collier said she owns the house for 25 years and she was In front of the Commission 12 years ago to address the front of the house. They restored the front porch to its original dimensions and installed the Japanese garden. They obtained a variance to install a Japanese gate and the existing fence. They also restored the interior of the house to the original configuration. The existing garage was built in 1952. She would like to integrate the garage with the house. The project is built over the existing garage and adds the second floor appropriate to and along the design elements of the house, adding a second bathroom and a master bedroom. The application has to schemes, the first corrects the existing conditions and the second scheme assumes if the property had not been split off in 1935 and two houses built there, and if they had a blank slate, how would they design the back [and that is to rebuild the garage]. Also, it would require an easement from the next door neighbor. Harold Dietrich said the back of the garage is at a slight angle with a 10' strip that leads out to the alley allowing access for a car. Regarding the garage doors H. Dietrich said they will be pivoting doors. The addition has an extended garage east wall, planter space, instead of punch windows like in the house where they have a ban of windows, keeping the stucco and the trim work carrying through. The intericr restoration of the house included the original art glass and the new art glass matches the original. There are doors that will lead from the garage to the patio. Also, the current proposal does not need a zoning variance. Commission's Findings The Commission discussed how long the applicant will have to start construction. Carlos Ruiz said the certificate of appropriateness is good for six months and the building permit is good also for six months_ Susan Rundle said the proposed alteration with the same roof at Evanston PresenraUm Unvnission 0CWber 16, 2007 - Minutes Page 3 the back and the same rhythm and spacing on the east elevation, the sense of where the historic house is, and where the addition is, become lost. Thomas Prairie said he was concerned with the monolithic walls at the back of the garage because the garage doors are being treated the same as the rest of the house. He would like the garage doors look like garage doors. J. Collier said they looked at what was done to other FLW houses, such as the Thomas House, 1901, Oak Park, where Tallmadge put an addition at the rear. From the street the view of the addition will be limited. T. Prairie suggested delineating the roof line so one could distinguish the original house from the addition. The Commission praised the applicants for their sensibility and dedication to the project. T. Prairie moved to continue the review of the application for the certificate of appropriateness for 2420 Harrison Street until a later meeting. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 715 Sheridan Road (LSHDIS: Architectural) - Install new curb cut and driveway on front yard. May require zoning variance [Alteration/Zoning Variance may be needed] Angela & Michael Quattrocki, owners presented the project. M. Quattrocki said safety Is the issue. Maneuverings of cars is very dif5cult. The Illinois Department of Transportation has approved a new curb cut. They proposed a new driveway by minimizing the loss of green space, expanding and tying the existing front brick walkway to the existing driveway to the south. They also plan to remove the asphalt on the front yard and replace it with brick. The new driveway will be 11' wide at the entry, 12' wide at the turn and 1 V wide on the old driveway. This means 67 to 267 new additional square feet or 2.7 percent change in total surface area. M. Quattrocki said he talked to his neighbors and they are very supportive of the project. The new circular driveway is a two way for ingress and egress. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-3, and 8-10 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the driveway [and curb cut] at 715 Sheridan Road as it meets standards: t (adapting the property), 2 (distinguishing original characters of the property are not being destroyed), 3 (alterations are not seeking to create an earlier appearance). 8 (archaeological resources wilt be protected), 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (if the alteration were to be removed in future, the form and integrity of the property would t�e unimpaired). S. Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. 1011 Forest Avenue (LSHD) - Install roof and posts. railings, stairs and balustrade system to the existing poured concrete slab on the front elevation. Remove deteriorated brick veneer from slab and replace with stone veneer_ Zoning Variance required for setbacks and front yard obstruction (Alteration/Zoning Variance]. Lily and David Strong, owners and Lou 0 ckson, contractor presented the project. L. Dickson showed a 1964 picture of the house at 1011 Forest with a front porch. The new porch will provide a new covering over the existing stab, replace the deteriorated brick along the sides, and return the house to look as other houses on the block. L. Dickson said zoning variances are requ red for the required interior side yard 5' setback, where 1.2' is proposed, and the allowable yard obstruction is 28.8% where 18.2' is proposed. The deteriorated brick base around the concrete slab will be replaced with natural stone and the silts will remain. E wamton Preservation Commission October 16.2007 — Minutes Pape 4 Commission's Findings The Commission strongly recommended considering the use stucco Instead of the natural stone instead of the brick to match the exterior of the house. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5, 9 and 10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for 1011 Forest Avenue, for the complete alteration of the stone slab front porch using stucco (recommended) or appropriate In that: 1 (minimal alteration of the property), 2 (the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed), 3 (alterations that have no historical basis are discouraged), 4 (the history and development is recognized). 5 (styiistic features shall be treated with sensitivity), 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (the alterations will be removable if necessary). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for zoning variance A and C as applicable. S. Rundle moved to recorrtrnend to the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve a variance for the alteration of the porch at 1011 Forest as: A (does not adversely affect the historical architecture of the district and C (it is not materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare). T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1027 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Partial demolition of 2-story rear facade, construct of 1-story mudroom, rear wooden deck, 2.5 to 3-story rear addition and replacelrepair exterior finish materials, alteration/replacement of windows and doors. Minor zoning variance required for lot coverage [Alteration/ConstructionlDemolition/Zoning Variance] Peter O'Brien and Cheryl Lulias, owners and Fred Wilson, architect presented the project. F. Wilson said they will convert a two flat into a single family home and keeping the historic characteristics of the house. The proposed additions will maintain the integrity of the building. There is an enclosed back porch and a cantilever piece on the south. They will maintain the jag at the base. There will be family at the back of the house, There a one-story mudroom addition on the north part of the house. There is a third floor. F. Wilson said the existing clapboard siding has the narrower exposure and it will be maintained. The sill line is consistent throughout the house on the second floor with stucco banding. The rafters and bead board will be exposed. They will use the wider vertical for the double hung windows. The front porch has a central entry, there are octagon shaped clapboard sided columns with narrow exposure which are in poor condition, and there is an enclosed front railing. Tt•e existing maim front window will be retained. Side tig'1ts w,N be added to the front door as well as a leaded glass transom w 1l be added to the door. F. Wilson said the side elevations have different types of windows, the dormers will be maintained, and stucco crtmney will be added. There is a one-story mudroom addition; they enlarged a dormer to get greater stair height coming up to the third floor. The master bedroom has an alcove sz3ace with a screen observation space. There is an open porch in the back. P. O'Brien saic he and his family are excited to make the house as their home and the neighbors are in favor of the project. Commission's Findings: Carlos Ruiz said a zoning analysis was still pending. He was concerned with the height of the observation space. F_ Wilson said the observation space is below the allowable height. A. Dienner said she liked -,)e idea of a mid stairway and the new doorway. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1-8. and 10-16 as applicable. S. Gerson moved for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the additions at 1027 Sheridan in that: 1 (height). 2 (proportion of the front facade), 3 (proportion of the openings on the front facade), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids on the Evanston Preservation Comm-- i October 16, 2007 — Minutes Page 5 front facade). 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structure on the street), 6 (the rhythm of entrance porches on the street), and 7 (materials and textures) are all compatible with the structures to which they are visually related. Also. 8 (the roof shapes), 10 (the scale of the structure), 11 (the directional expression of the front elevation) are all compatible with the structures to which they are visually related. And 12 (the distinguishing qualities of the original structure are not going to be destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources must be protected), 14 (the proposed design is not contemporary), and 16 (a single architectural style is not being imposed). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the rear addition at 1027 Sheridan Road in that meets: 1 (the addition is not of such architectural significance that Its demolition is a detriment to the public interest), 2 (the addition does not contribute to the distinctive historical, cultural or architectural character of the district), 3 (demolition of the addition does not conflict with this chapter), 4 (the addition is not of such old or unusual design that could not be reproduced). and 5 (there are plans for replacing the addition). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-7. 9 and 10 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration work at 1027 Sheridan Road in that it meets: 1 (minimal alteration of the property), 2 (the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed), 3 (alterations that have no historical basis are discouraged), 4 (changes are being recognized), 5 (distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity), 6 (architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced), 9 (contemporary design is not tieing discouraged), and 10 (the alterations will be removable if necessary). S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards A and C far variances. J. Willarson moved to recommend to the Zoning Board to grant a minor variation for lot coverage of 35°% (maximum allowed 30%) at 1027 Sheridan Road in that: A (it is necessary to not adversely affect the historical architecture) and C (it will nor be materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare). T. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. B. CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PLACE NAMES (PPNC) Appointment of a Preservation Commissioner to serve on the PPNC The Commission appointed Ann Dienner as the Preservation Commission representative In the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Public Place Names Commmee (PPNC). IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully SubmitteC: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: December 17, 2007 Approved: December 18, 2007 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Room 2200 Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Gerson OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Lubotsky, Harold F. Dietrich, Harry Lowerence, Chris Nesbitt, Charlie Portis & Fran Ex, Fred Wilson, and Joseph DeLisi PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer. Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. with a quorum of nine members present (Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle. and Jon Willarson). It. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were approved. Ill, OLD BUSINESS 1. 604 Judson Avenue (LSHD) —Demolition of north garage and construction of new two car garage (Demolition/Construction) Robert Lubotsky, owner/architect presented the project. Carlos Ruiz said that previously the Commission approved the demolition of the existing house and the construction of two new houses. but the motion for approval did not include the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of the new 2-car garage. bf. Lubotsky said the new garage is 21' x 22' a frame/stucco structure. The base is brick as on the house and it has the same roof pitch as the house. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 16 are applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the new garage at 604 Judson Avenue because, 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on the street), 7 (relationship of textures and materials), 8 (roof shape). and 10 (scale) are all visually compatible with the structures to which are visually related. Also, 12 (distinguishing original qualities and character of the property has not been destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected), and 16 (a single architectural style has not been imposed). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said standards for demolition 1-5 are applicable, Emily Guthrie moved to approve Evanston Preservation Commission November 13. 2007 — Minutes Page 2 the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition [of the garage at 604 Judson] because: 1 (demolition is not detrimental to the public interest), 2 (does not contribute to the character of the district), 3 (demolition is not contrary to this chapter), 4 (it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it cannot be reproduces), and 5 (plans for a garage replacement have been approved). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2420 Harrison Street (Landmark) — Revised plans for a 2-story addition connecting the house to the existing garage and a 2nd story addition over the existing garage [Construction] Harold Dietrich, architect made the presentatfon. M. Dietrich said his client Jamie Collier could not be present. They revisited the entire project since last meeting with the Commission. The main concern was that there was no distinction between the original house and the new addition. Regarding the east elevation, a first floor powder room is being proposed with a balcony which is similar to an existing balcony. The revised plans try to keep the original house absolutely intact and add on beyond that line. They did expand the foot print to the east, but slid the powder room back. The line of the original house stays the same. S. Dietrich said there is now a flat section that comes around the roof so that even though the hip continues across and straight back, there is a distinction between the original roof. There is master bedroom above the garage. Also, a leer from The Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy dated November 9, 2007 to J. Collier supports the proposed addition. There are three new issues with respect to zoning. The project exceeds impervious surface and building foot print and the side yard is also an issue. Once the applicant submits an application for zoning variance, a notice will be send to Me neighbors. The only access from the alley is a 10' wide strip; the 1952 garage has an angled wall allowing access to cars. The doors are hung and slide forward. There are French doors on the west side of the garage. The Commission tabled the review of the proposed work until the next meeting in December 2007. IV. NEW BUSINESS A- REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (ROTA) 1. 919 Edgemere Court (Lan dmarklLSHD) -- Demolition of garage, construction of 2-car frame garage with exterior brick veneer [DemoL ion/Construction] Harry Lowerence, owner and Chris NesS� with Anchor Development presented the application. C. Nesbitt said he is building 925 Edgemere and in the course of building that house, Mr. Lowerence asked him if he could repair his garage. Over the years the garage at 919 Edgemere deteriorated. Mr. Nesbit. cave Mr. Lowerence a qualified builder who intended to repair the garage. They faun=d that the garage was beyond repair. Due to miscommunication the contractor demoi sped the garage and began to rebuild it on the same foundation but raising it and rebuilcing exactly in the way the old garage looked. Replacing what had been stucco over the brick win just brick, replacing the dormers with the original shaped dormers which match the original house, and replacing a storage area at the rear of the garage. Due to miscommunication the contactor understood from Mr. Nesbitt that he did not need a permit or come in front of the Preservation Commission because the garage was to be rebuild as it was. Mr. Nesbitt took respccsibility for the error. The garage is setback T-6' to the structure itself and the garage is on the same exact footprint as the garage that was there before. The new foundation is poured on top of the stone foundation to rise up the wood members over the grade. The old garage had a "lean-to" with plywood doors, the original Evanston Preservation Commission November 13, 2007 — Minutes Page 3 doors had been replaced with glass block, and the brick had been covered with stucco. The Commission discussed what choices the Commission has in terms of fines for unauthorized work. Carlos Ruiz referred to section 2-9-15: Penalties of the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lowerence thought that there was a replacement permit and the City inspectors are at 925 Edgemere all the time. C. Nesbitt said that according to Zoning there were no variances required because the garage was not being repositioned; it is on the same exact footprint. On the east elevation the glass doors on the lean-to replace the previous glass block. The construction was stopped at the rough frame. C. Nesbitt said the exterior brick had been stuccoed over multiple times. The inside was originally wood slats - some of the slats were replaced with plaster patch. He came to the City to find out if there was a replace and repair permit. Mr. Lowerence said he had an Idea of the cost for repair but he relied on Mr. Nesbitt. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said the Commission should not review the application until a zoning analysis Is completed. Betsy Hohman said the Commission could make a decision on the garage as presented and if a variance is needed, the applicant would have to come back in front of the Commission. C. Nesbitt said because of miscommunication and a violation of the standard procedure that a reasonable fine be imposed with the Commission's vote. C. Nesbitt said he will finish the project. The contractor is going to be subject to paying that fine. J. Cramer asked if there was a precedent regarding fines. C. Ruiz said that the Commission has in the past given the opportunity to rectify errors before imposing a fine. The Commission conducted a preliminary review the proposed garage with French wood doors on the east elevation. The garage doors are all wood doors. No Issues were raised with the design of the garage. Emily Guthrie moved to table the review of the project subject to receiving the zoning analysis and consultation with the Law Department regarding a penally fine due to violation of the Preservation Ordinance. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 101 Hamilton Street (North lot facing lake Shore Blvd.) (LSHD) —Construction of 2.5- story single family house and garage [Construction] Charlie Portis & Fran Ex, owners and Fred Wilson, architect presented the project. The north 60' portion is the subject lot for the proposed new house. F. Wilson said they are in contact with the neighbors to the north and the Japanese Consulate to the west and other immediate neighbors. The main public space is on the southern edge of the house with the driveway a tree line on tine northern edge. The new garage is on the south side. The house is 3,000 feet. The entry is on the south edge. The living room has a sun terrace and a sun porch on the north. The dining room, kitchen, mudroom are all on the first floor. The second floor has four bedrooms. The east elevation has arch windows on the first floor and the terrace. The upper roof has a deep overhang with a shallow screen porch, The southern exposure has a curve for the dining room on the first floor and the master bedroom on the second floor. The northern elevation has the stairs with windows on the upper level. The west elevation has two arch windows and a cedar deck. The two car garage has arch doors and a man door between the two. There is a carport for a kayak. The exterior of the house and garage is finished with stucco. The windows are aluminum clad wood windows. A formal analysis has not been conducted yet, but an application has been submitted. Evanston Preservation Commission November 13, 2007 — Minutes Page 4 A representative of the Japanese Consulate said that they respect the Commission's decision and did not object to the project. ' Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said RBTA recommends standards for construction 1-8, 10-13 and 16 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new home and garage at the north lot of 101 Hamilton Street, facing Lakeshore in that: 1 (height), 2 (front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of voids in front facades), 5 (the rhythm of spacing on the streets), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials), 6 (roof shapes), 10 (scale of the structures), and 11 (the directional expression of the front elevation) are all compatible with the structure to which is visually related. Also, 12 (distinguishing original qualities or character are being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected and preserved), and 16 (a singular architectural style is not being imposed. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 632-640 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Alterations to the west and south facades [Alteration} Joseph DeLisi, architect presented the project. J. DeLisi said they seeking approval for the relocation of windows on the west elevation. the alley side of the building. Thomas Prairie raised concerns about the work that has been already done with the masonryinfill of windows. He will like to see the bricks stained to improve the appearance of the exterior. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer expressed his major concerns with the alterations already completed and wanted the owner of the building to be present at the next meeting. Susan Rundle said the sills of some windows on the south elevation were raised. Jon Pohl moved to table the review of the already completed and proposed alterations until the next meeting in December 2007. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The Commission also asked that the property owner be present at such meeting and that the proposed work be reviewed for zoning and building codes. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. B. APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS Appointment of Mary Brugliera and Chris Carey as Associate Members Result: The Commission passed a motion to appoint Mary Brugliera and Chris Carey as Associate Commission member for a one-year term. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10.00 p.m_ Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PlannerlPreservation Coordinator Date: January 14, 2008 Approved: February 19.2008 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Room 2200 Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Jon Willarson, Emily Guthrie, Stan Gerson, Suzanne Irarrand, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Darold Dietrich, Mike Niazmand, James Murray, Joseph DeLlsl, Tom Basset- Dilley, Scott Stack, Matt Fink, Jeamie Petrick, and Carole Brite PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with a quorum of six members present (Ann Dienner, Jon WZarson, Emily Guthrie, Stan Gerson, and Suzanne Farrand. Susan Rundle arrived short after). Staff: Carlos Rulz. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission approved as corrected the September 18 and October 16, 2007 minutes. Ill. OLD BUSINESS A. 2420 Harrison Street (Landmark) -- Revised plans for a 2-story addition connecting the house to the existing garage and a 2nd story addition over the existong garage. Zoning variances: 6-8-2-7 Maximum permired lot coverage in the R1 district is 30%. Proposed is 32.65%; 152.31 sq ft over the limit, and 6-&2-8(A) 3. Minimum side yard in the R1 district is 5 feet. The proposed garage reconstruction on the east side only provides a side yard of 3.25 feet. [ConstructionlZoning Variance) The applicant requested via emall to postpone the review until January 15, 2008 due to new revisions to a zoning variance application. B. 632-W Hinman Avenue (Landmark) —Alterations to the west and south facades without certificate of apprapriateness, building permit and zoning analysis. [Alteration] Note: The Commission moved this item down the agenda. N. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RSTA) 1. 1047 Forest Avenue (LandmarklLSHD) -Replace 3 kitchen windows (Ion north elevation; 2 on south eevation) [Alteration] Preser abon Commission December 18.2007 - Minutes Page 2 The Commission did not take action since the applicant was not present at the meeting and the application is incomplete. 2. 1024 Judson Avenue (LandmarkfLSHD) - Adapt attic above garage for livable space. alterations to the east elevation vestibule, new dormers on the south & north elevations, replace garage doors, new walkways. Also, demolish one-story addition and hardscape [Construction/Demolition/Alteration] Tom Basset-Dilley, architect, and Scott Stack, builder presented the project. T. Basset-Dilley said he is a member of the Oak Park Preservation Commission and he was happy to learn from the Evanston Preservation Commission. T. Basset-Dilley said there are three components to tree application: the coach house (the attic will be converted into usable space); front of the property (removing curb cut and concrete path driveway and replacing it with a walkway); and repair/replacement of windows. In 1912 there was a one -car garage and in the 1930's the four -car garage was built. The existing garage is not original to the Walter Burley Griffin house. The vestibule and the ramp will be removed. Also, build new ramp and stairs to the south side of the garage and install paved walkways into the vestibule from the north and the south. The garage doors facing east will be replaced with designer doors or equs! overhead garage doors, as welt as the four garage doors facing the alley. The new space above the garage requires the two new dormers with gable roofs (one on the north and the othe" on the south). The existing windows above the new vestibule will be replaced with a pair of French doors to access the balcony. The dormers window details are the same as the existing windows. On the south elevation the vestibule has French doors and the coach horse has a new door to access the second story. On the west elevation the new garage doors have raised panels with lights above. The second story window will be uncovered and exposed. All new doors and windows are all wood and the basement windows will be restored or the window sashes will be replaced with wood sashes. tilt turn hopper windows will allow ventilation and means of egress flanking the front projection of the house. The landscape plan addresses the front, a new walkway is proposed in lieu of the existing driveway. The materials being considered are: a washed concrete to match the existing, blue stone and limestone pavers. A new walkway is proposed from the rear of the house to the new ramp and stairs. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 7, 9, and 12-1G as applicable. S. Gerson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the new vestibule on the east facade of the garage at 1024 Judson in that meets standards of Construction 7, 9, and 12-16. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vv.e: 7 ayes. 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. S. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the one-story addition on the east of the garage, as well as any of the existing hardscape that is going to be removed at 1024 Judson as none of it is contrary to standards 1-5 of demolition. Ann Dienner seconded tne motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-6. 9 and 10. Jon Wdlarson moved to approve Me certificate of appropriateness for the alterations of the garage adding living quarters as described, the garage doors. walkway, driveway and basement windows at 1024 Judson, in that standards 1-6, 9 and 10 are met. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Pnnai vabon Cammission December 18.2007 — ivfinutes Page 3 3. 2112 Orrington Avenue (Landmark/NEHO) -Enclose and expand 1st floor porch on west elevation. Build new open porch on south elevation and add decorative railing above. On third floor west facade: remove two windows, install French doors. Also, relocate air conditioning and demolish rear porch and wall (Construction/DemoliliontAlterationl Matt Fink, owner and Jeamie Petrick, architect presented the project. J. Petrick said they propose a one-story porch addition on the west elevation including a second floor sun room, porch and mudroom on the first floor. The side entry on the new porch matches the front porch. The railing will be 3'-6" high. They will relocate the existing door. The new windows are double hung windows in proportion with the size of the existing windows. They will use all wood windows. The concrete foundation with stone veneer of the addition is to march the limestone on the existing home. On the third floor at the back side of the house, two double hung windows will be removed and French doors will be installed with a guardrail. The new siding will match the existing wood siding with the flaring detail at the foundation. The AIC unit on the second floor sleeping dorm will be relocated on the lower flat roof. The zoning has been approved_ Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1. 3. 5-8. 10 and 12-16 as applicable. Ann Dinner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the one-story rear addition and open porch at 2112 Orrington as meeting standards 1, 3, 5-8. 10 and 12-16. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R$TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. Emily Guthrie moved to approve the demolition of the existing rear porch an existing low wall as the application for demolition meets standards 1-5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5. 9 and 10. S. Gerson moved to grand a certificate of appropriateness to 2112 Orrington for the removal of the third floor west facade windows, the installation of French doors and railing and the relocation of the A/C unit as meeting standards 1-5, 9 and 10. S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. At this time the Commission returned to Old Business. Ill. OLD BUSINESS B. 632.M Hinman Avenue (Landmark) —Alterations to the west and south facades without certificate of appropriateness, building permit and zoning analysis. [Alteration) Note: The Commission previously had approved the replacement of windows and the demolition of rear porches and the construction of new porches. The Commission also recommended granting the zoning variance to construct the new porches. Mike Niazmand, managing member of Hinman Court Homes. I.I.C. Joseph DeLisi, architect and James Murray, anorney presented the project. J. Murray said that his clients have been before the Commission for windows, porches, roof top and condensers to convert the building for condominium ownership. Discovery of some violation of the Preservation Ordinance in so far as certain window elevations and locations, window openings and relative and in close proximity to the approved porches. J. Murray said the owners express contriteness about the offense given relative to the modifications without prior approval. Kolbe Windows was hired for the total replacement of windows on north and south porch area and the south elevation itself. Also, a new proposal in relation to the west elevation. Preservation Carsnass=' December 18, =7 — htnutes Pape 4 Exhibits 1-13 - North porch: exhibits # 1 and # 2 of the west elevation before the changes_ Exhibit # 3 (with one wheel of the cart), # 4 (two wheels on the cart) represent the north portion where the porches had been removed and certain of the windows had been filled in with masonry and tuck pointed. The organization of Hinman Homes, LLC is divided among two active members and an investor side. Vladimir Novakovic is the investor member of the LLC and Mr. Niazmand is the financial director of the company. Mr. Novakovic is a member of the LLC and the superintendent of construction. The failure results from the lack of communication between the field member of the LLC and the financial member of the LLC. Mr. Niazmand. In the context of exhibits # 1- # 4, the blocked in windows were necessitated by revisions and undertakings for the new porches that will be affixed to the building at points at which the in fills were to take place. In the same context, exhibit # 7 shows a porch in place, the south porch system, it does suggest the relationship between structural elements of porches and the masonry that more or less coincide. The windows that have been blocked were windows that were opened into pantries that are adjacent to kitchens. There is substantial difference in terms of grade of color of the new brick. J. Murray said they proposed to clean the older brick so the yellow and sand of the Chicago common brick will be more compatible. Suzanne Farrand noted that the bond on the new bricks is different that the existing brick. In response to S. Rundle's question regarding the exterior alterations where the new porches have been built, Joseph DeLisi said that there were field adjustments where the coordination of d--e structural members to the windows that were discovered were in the way of the stairs, treads and landings. Mr. DeLisi contract did not include overseeing the work on site. In response to J. Cramer's question about the removal of the basement doors. J. Murray said the doors were blocked for security and construction issues. He said that it was clear that something fell out in the process. Mike Niazmand said that ultimately he was responsible. He had relied on the window contractor and he wrote in the back of the contract subject to approval of the Preservation Commission. He did not measure every window, but he relied on the contractor who was under the impression that the Commission is not concerned with the back of the building. Carlos Ruiz said that he approved the construction drawings as submitted and approved by the Commission and with no additional changes. Mr. Niazmand said that he was under the impression that the changes had been approved. Regarding the south elevation facing Kedzie, S. Rundle asked who made the decision to shoren the windows. Mr. Niazmand said his partner made that decision and the reason given was that other windows had previously been shortened. J. Murray said that his clients will conduct weekly meetings on site to discuss issues of construction andlor design issues and modifications and other problems. The question of field adjustments has to be cleared through Mr. Niazmand. Jordan Cramer said that the Preservation Commission has provisions that provide for fines which the Commission could recommend to the Director of Community Deve>opment for the transgressions that have occurred. The other issue is what to do about with what is in place. Woulo the Commission approve shortening the front facade windows, would the Commission appro%,e filling in with a different course of brick and color of brick on a facade visible from the public way. J. Cramer said he will not limit himself to the fact that there could be a hardship broug!tt upon the owner in terms of having to undo this. Regarding the west elevation Stan Gerson said he would prefer replacing the infill that is already there with brick that matches and with the courses that match and the removal of the arched headers. Carlos Ruiz recommended to cleaning the brick with gentle means and then comparing the existing brick with the new brick and then deciding whether to stain the new brick to match the existing brick. J. Murray, referring to exhibit # 5 said it shows the area of clean~ brick due to rain, suggesting that the new brick could match the existing brick. Presemabon Comrnms+on Qeoen ber 18. 2007 — Knutm Page 5 Stan Gerson asked Commissioners their opinion on retaining or removing the arches. J. Cramer said when canvassing the downtown buildings as part of the survey and looking at some fantastic old buildngs that were not going to make it to landmark status because of the integrity and the changes that were made. There were things just like this that kept buildings off the list. He said this building has been changed in such a way that the Commission would never perceive it as a landmark. He will consider the overall impact on the integrity of the structure. James Murray said wha: is clearly an issue is the contrast between the lnfill brick and the existing brick. He suggested that staining the brick or removing the arches could be done or it could be a discretionary decision by the owners and report back to the Commission. Regarding the Keeney e:evation the modifications were not done in a way that is not in keeping with the modifications that went before. Exhibit # 8 shows the elevations before the modifications. There is a projection with twelve large windows and a couple of smaller ones. The twelve larger winda.%s were reduced in size vertically and filled in with brick that fairly dose match the original `ace brick of the building. The modifications took the modified line that was established by the earlier renovations and maintained it throughout and shorten the larger windows by approximately 20". E. Guthrie said the Keeney side modifications were done pretty well; she thought an effort was made to match the brick and mortar. which is why, is even more disturbing t hat when it came to the west elevation it was done without the same attention. Mr. Niazmand agreed and said if he needs to take those bricks or stain them he will do that. Susan Rundle was concerned with the Keeney side and shortening of windows flanking the entrance. Regarding the alley side she said she was unsure if removing the window arches was appropriate, but deFnitely the bricks should be stained to match the original brick. Referring to the south frcxnt elevation, she knew that some windows were raised some time ago, but that does not make it right to raise the windows again, especially because these windows are more prominent and they should be lowered. She will favor some translucent glass for the bottom sash and retain the openings. Jordan Cramer agreed. He said that fortunately some of the Changes will be covered by the porches, but the changes have to blend better than they do now. He said that trying to remove the arches and trying to make it look completely smooth and take that course is probably not the right way to go. Regarding the south elevation, he said to continue with the original; which is a window of a certain size that gives the appearance of that front elevation as it projects out towards the street. He also noted the vents punched on the wall which was not submitted to the Commission. Stan Gerson said he woud not change what was done on the south facade (raising the sill height of windows). He would like to see on the Keeney side the window arches removed, because there are other -windows where the arches are preserved, so that characteristic will be retained, and reinstate the brick course. Susan Rundle said she would go along with Stan Gerson's point of view. Jon Willarson said he would like to see the windows on the Keeney side the way tney were. Ann Dienner said she liked the arches as a typical feature of buildings of tr.at period. Regarding the Keeney facade she said that it was a busy facade. James Murray said the Fi,nman facade and the courtyard have been rehabilitated. Jordan Cramer said t-.e protrudirc bay on the courgsrd does not match w;m the bays on Keeney Street. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson moved (regarding the alley side) to amending the original certificate of appropriateness for alters,ion of the exterior facade facing the alley at 632-640 Hinman where windows have been removed and filled in, that the arches be removed and filled in, to match the original (where mere are headers going across that those be continued) and the brick be stained to match as dose as possible the existing brick. Emory Guthrie added to the motion that the original back be cleaned and the infill brick be stained to match the original Preservabon Commis. l DecwnWr 18, 2007 — Knutes Page 6 brick. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, 3 nays. The motion passed. Susan Rundle moved to keep the certificate of appropriateness as originally stated, that all the windows that have been shortened will be returned to the way that they were approved originally, with the exception of an allowance to change the glass in the bottom sash only if deemed necessary. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Additional Alterations to the West Fagade James Murray said the application includes a request for a modification of the existing certificate of appropriateness to permit the relocation of twelve windows on the alley facade on the westem most wall, to accommodate modifications of the interior that divides walls to for bathroomlbedroom combination that will interfere with the existing fenestration and thus be visible from the exterior. The larger southem most windows will be moved approximately 2' to the north and the next most southern smaller windows be relocated to the south by approximately 10', so that the bedrooms and baths will have integrity. The Commission requested a new elevation of the west elevation and floor plans to the affected units. James Murray asked for a continuance for the new proposed changes to the west elevation. The Commission decided to discuss at the next meeting the issue of Fines. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission could File a petition to impose fines with the Department of Community Development in accordance to the Preservation Ordinance, Section 2-9-3 (G) 27. James Murray introduced Exhibit #13 which is part of the original floor plan and indicated the relative positions of the kitchen equipment and interiors visa-vi the windows. B. PUBLIC HEARING - RESCISSION OF DESIGNATION 1218 Elmwood Avenue - Application for rescission of landmark designation for the property at 1218 Elmwood Avenue. On September 11, 2006 City Council passed a motion to reverse the Commission's decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the then Evanston Landmark house at 1218 Elmwood. The applicant maintains that rescission Is warranted since the original structure was demolished in .tune 2007, therefore the original building lacks the integrity necessary to retain landmark designation, section 2-9-6: Amendment and Rescission of Designation. Carole Brite, owner presented the application. Carlos Ruiz said he consulted with Me Law Department about Ms. Brite's application. According to the Law Department, there is not a provision in the Preservation Ordinance to allow the automatic landmark delisting of a property. This means that the Commission has to review the application for rescission of the landmark designation and make a recommendation to City Council to delist the property as a landmark, following the same procedure as if it were for the nomination of a landmark. The Commission will have to do the reverse and find that the property no longer meets the standards of landmark designation and recommend the deNsting of the property. Jordan Cm-.)er asked if this has to be a public hearing. C. Ruiz said that the ordinance says a public hearing is required. Emily Guthrie asked if a court reporter was needed for the public hearing. C_ Ruiz said no. Susan Rundle recapped the issue by saying 1218 Elmwood was an Italianate house and the Commission denied its demolition and the City Council reversed the Commission's decision. The house has been demolished and there is a new building on the site. The City Council also approved the house that is being built. S. Rundle asked if this is In front of ne Commission to get the property not a landmark any more. C. Ruiz said yes, because t1he designation applies to the land of record. Emily Guthrie said one of the things the Commission talked about when dealing with the Preservation Carrrnis. i December 18. 2007 — Minutes Pape 7 demolition of the Boltwood house (Leonidas Boltwood was the first Evanston superintendent and high school principle), the Commission suggested a bronze plaque like the one that Is front the school house on RidCe and Greenleaf that says it is the site of the first school house. The Commission had talked about the owners providing a plaque with similar language and maybe a drawing of the original house and its historic significance. E. Guthrie did not remember if that was required as part of a motion. She said she would like to see a plaque like the one the Commission asked the people on Oak Avenue to do it for the house that the Commission approved: demolition, C. Ruiz said the Commission did not approve the demolition of the house at 1218 Elmwood, J. Cramer thought the Commission did not touch on that because the Commissicn did not believe that the house was not savable. Susan Rundle asked if the Commission is being asked to say that the house is no longer worthy of landmark designation_ C. Ruiz said yes because there is no longer a landmark to protect. This is a formality. Carole Brite said it is her understanding that the landmark designation attaches to the lanC. C. Ruiz said if there is a motion to recommend to City Council the delisting of the property, that it should state the reasons why the property no longer meets the criteria for des 9nation. He could prepare a report citing all these issues and by January 2008 he will sub -nit it to the Commission for approval to be sent to City Council. E. Guthrie asked if the Commission could ask to have a plaque as part of the report. J. Cramer said he did not think nas a fitting tribute at this point, C. Ruiz said the Commission has to use the landmark design --ion process in reverse, and there is no provision that requires the owner to do somening like the proposed plaque. Ann Dienner said the Commission should promote the historic significance of the site or pass it along to the Historic Society. Carole Brite asked if this a decis:cn the Commission could decide or it needs to recommend to City Council. C. Ruiz said the Commission has to recommend the delisting of the property to the City Council. Commissions' Findings Stan Gerson moved that the Commission recommends to City Council that the property at 1218 Elmwood be removed from landmark designation because the building that was the basis for landmark designation no longer exists. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 mays. J. Cramer added that the Preservation Coordinator will prepare the report for approval and the transmittal to City Council. C. APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE 2008 PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS Susan Rundle, Emily Guthrie, Stan Gerson and Ann Dienner volunteered for the Nominating Committee and will report to the Commission on January 15, 2008. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: March 18. 2008 Approved: April 15. 2008