Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2008CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle. and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Betsy Hohman OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Smith, Johanna Nyden, Coleen Burrus, David Galloway. Harold Dietrich, James Murray, Mike Niazrnand, Joseph DeLisi, Steve Bums, Paul D'Agostino, Stefanie Levine, Darlene Suenzon, Jean Gonzales, Jeff Eichhom. Joanne B. Morand, Mary S. Hair, Anne Earle, Mary Brugliera, and Mary McWilliams PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz, Dennis Marino 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present (Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Jon Willarson). Susan Rundle arrived at 8:10 p.m. Carlos Ruiz, staff. II. ELECTION OF PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS (2008) Emily Guthrie on behalf of the nominating committee reported and moved to elect the following 2008 Preservation Commission officers: Jordan Cramer as Chair, Emily Guthrie as Vice -Chair, and Betsy Hohman as Secretary. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 111. PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PLAN Discussion on the Proposed Downtown Plan Tom Smith, consultant and Dennis Marino, Assistant Director for Planning discussed the Downtown Plan. Johanna Nyden and Coleen Burrus of the P':an Commission were present. Carlos Ruiz said on the March 1, and March 15. 2006 Downtown Plan Committee minutes have two references by James Wolinski, Community Development Director and Dennis Marino about seeking the parbdpation of the Preservation Commission on the Downtown Plan. Since then there were seven meetings with the Downta,N-n Plan Committee at which either staff cc members of the Preservation Commission were in attendar-ce (April 11, May 2, June 27. July 11, September 6. September 27, and October 18. 2006). On October 18.2006 Ann Dienner, Jordan Cramer, Betsy Hohman, and Jon Pohl presented to the Downtown Plan Committee the results of the Downlown Building Survey. The report identified the landmark buildings and the buildings that most likely meet the standards for landmark designation (those that received a ranking of 7 or higher from a scale of 1 to 10). Also, the Commission presented the Building Condition Survey to the Downtown Plan Committee. Dennis Marino referred to the 1989 Downtown Ptan that has been mostly implemented. but now it is E%anston Preservation Carruttissiw Page 2 out of date. A decision was made two years to begin a process to create a revised Downtown Plan (October 19. 2007 - First draft of the plan). The Downtown Plan Committee was established about 19 months ago to work on updating the Downtown Plan. Duncan and Associates was hired late May early June 2007 to work on the Downtown Plan. The plan incorporates the strong elements of the 1989 plan, but also focuses on the physical form cf, development that it is desirable in Evanston from the consultants' perspective and the Downtown Plan Committee. A statement of goals and objectives and a public review process were adopted to consider a broader vision and plan, in contrast to the singular plan development application that is brought before the Plan Commission and the City Council. The plan will incorporate form based coC,ng, urban design issues and zoning, goals and objectives and programmatic strategies to achieve those objectives. The draft plan has generated a lot of debate in terms of height and density. The Plan Commission has had three public meetings where citizens and other parties made comments about the draft plan. That process continues tomorrow night. Mr. Marino said after the Plan Commission completes its review of the draft plan the next step is to submit recommendations onto the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council. Citizen participation occurred throughout the summer and included a one week 'charrette " There were also public meetings around the City. Tom Smith of Duncan and Associates said they are suggesting in the plan creating a bonus that will allow bigger buildings if they contributed to the protection, restoration and repair of landmark buildings. This could occur when a builder wants to build a taller building with more floor area, and then the builder will contribute towards the restoration or preservation of some building, typically within a three blocks area. In Toronto they do this primarily with public buildings. In New York they use it with old theaters and old buildings within a three block area. In Chicago they started to use it such as the Squire Theater. The developer is comributing S600,000 to the restoration of the landmark building on Dearborn Street_ Mr. Smith said in terms o1 historic preservation, me idea in the plan is to use the zoning bonus system In a way that may help maintain, repair and restore landmark buildings. In Evanston with so many landmark buildings there are a lot of opportunities to do this. The benefits have to be in the immediate area or two to three blocks, but in some cities, landmark groups have argued that the benefits of landmarks are more significant and so the bonus could be used further away than three blocks. In Toronto they say it could be a lot further array because public buildings are opened to everybody and everybody can use it_ There are some administrative issues in terms of contracts, or who protects the interests of a landmark buildings in accepting the dollars with the bonus, who insures that the money is accepted by the landrrz.rk and that the money is properly spent in terms of restoring the building. Other things in the plan that are significant in terrms of preservation are what they call the traditional streets (Sherman and Davis) where there are the traditional shopping areas. They are saying lets keep those at the sca►e that they currently are, and let's reduce the parking requirements in case uses change or activities in the buildings change. By controlling the height and scale that one can achieve on those streets and by being a little more generous on the parking, one gives people the incentive to save those buildings and reuse those buildings rather than demolishing those buildings and putting up something new. Mr. Smith said it cities that have the bonus system there is a debate about what the priorities are for bonuses. In Ch cago the top priority is for affordable housing. In Evanston maybe the top bonus would be for larcrnaric preservation. Jordan Cramer said he did not see in the draft pin incentives for current building owners. D. Marino mentioned objectives in the plan that encourage the preservation of historic buildings; he acknowledged that perhaps this should be more prominent. Mr. Smith and D. Marino answered questions from Commissioners regarding facade retention programs, the bonus system and the judgement and disuetion in granting the bonuses. Do the benefits of restoring a landmark building outweigh the benefits of constructing a taller building? D. Marino said the current planned development process considers public benefits, and some have been concerned that those public Evanston Preservation C mmmsion Page 3 benefits are too minimal. The draft plan looks for more substantial public benefits. Emily Guthrie said the draft plan assumes that developers will want taller buildings than allowed; perhaps the base height should remain what it is and not increase the base height. Mary McWilliams said that taller buildings could compromise the context of an area. Maybe the plan should encourage less tall buildings. D. Marino said that the proposed traditional districts seek to maintain the scale of the current buildings. Transitional districts would allow taller buildings. J, Cramer asked if the traditional districts may benefit from a historic district overlay. D. Marino said that was discussed with the Downtown Plan Committee and members of the Preservation Commission. The feeling was that the combination of form based coding and height restrictions below what the existing zoning permits, might be a good way to achieve that, without necessarily having a preservation district. Jordan Cramer said that in discussions among Preservation Commissioners the feeling is the need to be more proactive than just having the plan, which does not incorporate all of the aspects of the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Marino said the focus on west Davis was to preserve the scale; the feeling is that one could do that with the right kind of zoning as well as the form based coding approach. There are some buildings on west Davis that are not as significant. Ann Dienner said that the draft plan does not encourage adaptive reuse of buildings. it was suggested that the nomination of buildings for landmark designation be one of the bonuses. Anne Earle expressed concerns with the boundaries on Ridge Avenue and the Hinman Avenue stores on the first floor which should not be in the transition area. She suggested moving the boundary to the alley, east of Chicago Avenue. Similar approach should apply on Ridge. Colleen Bums said the Plan Commission wants to hear the Preservation Commission's recommendations and giving those recommendations to the consultants. Large buildings take away the historic context of the downtown. She said the Hahn building will be dramatically impacted. Ann Dienner said that the Downtown Plan has to be consistent. Landmarking a building does not guarantee that a building Is not going to be demolished. Johanna Nyden said that the Plan Commission will recommend the Downtown Plan to the City Council. Thomas Prairie said he was concerned with the tradeoffs. Dennis Marino said that there will be a rational for why the plan is what it is. Jordan Cramer said there are four recommendations: 1) change the boundaries of the (B) and (C) zones that affect the residential buildings on Ridge and Hinman; 2) the (1) district has a potential of a historic district for affordable office, retail, residential eligible for preservation economic incentives; 3) Incorporate into the plan landmarking several buildings identified in the building condition survey and inform building owners about financial incentives; and 4) preserve the architectural context of downtown. Carlos Ruiz said the financial incentives include Cook County`s Class L. financial incentives for buildings or dstricts listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The plan could incorporate local incentives such as a facade improvement program or a matching fund program. J. Cramer said the Commission could be more proactive with the downtown. Johanna Nyden asked the commission to identify on a map blocks that need to be preserved, show the historic overlay district, preserve buildings because they are character giving buildings or something to that effect so that it could be incorporated in the plan. Dennis Marino pointed out the traditional district (A) on Sherman and the south traditional district where the base height is proposed 3-stories and the maximum is 5-stories. The consultant's intent was to protect that scale without necessary creating a historic district. Jon Pohl said the Davis Street traditional area has a few landmark buildings candidates. The Sherman traditional area is more interesting. The south traditional area seems lacking of landmarks. Mary Brugliera pointed out some landmarks in the south traditional area. Jon Pohl said how about giving bonuses to the landmark owners. Dennis Marino mentioned the possibility of a fatfade program, also providing technical assistance related to other county (Class L), state and federal incentives that would be available, David Galloway suggested a bonus system where a developer gets an increase height by donating funds for the facade restoration of particular buildings in a traditional zone. He thanked the Evanston Preser.-wion Cotuni,s Page 4 Commissioners for their work on the downtown survey that was so valuable to the Plan Commission. Jordan Cramer thanked Dennis Marino and Tom Smith for attending the meeting. IV. MINUTES November 13 and December 18, 2007 Minutes The Commission passed a motion to table appravat of minutes until the next meeting. V. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS Carlos Ruiz said the Commission received a letter from James Murray, attorney and a letter from Jeffrey Wixon of Window Systems Unlimited, Inc. regarding 632-640 Hinman, VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Public Hearing (Continuation) - Rescission of Designation 1218 Elmwood Avenue —:approval of the Commission's report to the City Council regarding the application for rescission at Landmark designation for the property at 1218 Elmwood Avenue. Jordan Cramer said at the last meeting [December 18, 2007) that the Commission approved the preparation of the report. The Commission wilt send the report to the City Council formally recommending that they res<.ind the landmark designation for 1218 Elmwood Avenue. Emily Guthrie said she would like to note in the report that the Commission asked the property owner to place a plaque on the site roving that this was the site of a landmark [the house of Henry Leonidas Sottwood, First Prncipat and Superintendent of Evanston Township High School]. Ms. Guthrie thought that Ms. Carole Brite. the owner agreed to place a plaque [in June 20061. Jordan Cramer thought that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to do that. Ann Dienner and Susan Rundle seemed to recall that IAA. Brite agreed :o do the plaque. However. S. Rundle thought the Commission could not request the plaque because the property is no longer a landmark. E. Guthrie said that the house was a landmark that the City allowed to be tam down and it still has the historical significance, ev---n though the house is not there, because of the relationship to Boltwood. A. Dienner sugge-sted that perhaps the Commission could work with the Historical Society in some way on this matter. Jon Pohl fought 4 was a little too late. E. Guthrie said it is late, but it would remind peopi-e that there was a house there that had historic significance and unfortunatety is gone. She sao� Were are signs for Civil War battles where there is nothing to remind you of that battle exceat an open field. Jordan Crar er expressed legal concems, if the Commission asks [for a plaque) to City Council, where they (City Council) are saying that they no longer have jurisdiction over the property because it is not an Evanston !andmark anymore. He did not know what ability the Commission has to tell the owner to place a marker on the property. E. Guthrie thought the owner agreed to do that. Thomas Prairie suggested that staff asn :he crimer about the plaque. C. Ruiz said the motion of the City Council was --) demolish [the landmark house] without conditions. Stan Gerson asked whether the request for a plaque could be an acdition to the report and include with the report the mir.;stes of the meetin; when Ms. Brite agreed to the plaque. Carlos Ruiz suggested instead sending a letter w•:h the report with the request from the Commission to City Council to ask the owner to :ace a plaque. E. Guthrie said the letter should specify that his. Brite had agrees to the plaque. Jon Pohl thought Ms. Brite only agreed to consider putting the plaque. [At pis time the Commission held this item for later in the meeting to take care of the remaining items on the agenda]. Evanston Praservagon CoTmission Page 5 Later In the meeting Jordan Cramer resumed the discussion on 1218 Mmwood, Carlos Ruiz said he had obtained the minutes of June 20. 2006 when the Commission denied the certificate of appropriates for demolition of the landmark house. In reviewing the minutes, the Commission concluded that Ms. Brite agreed to consider placing a plaque if the Commission were to grant the demolition. C. Ruiz suggested that instead of imposing a condition as part of the recommendation to City Council, that the cover letter transmitting the resolution to City Council states the Commission's request that City Council consider asking Ms. Carole Brite to plane the plaque. Jordan Cramer said the cover letter should state that the conversation cane up in the context of 'what if the Commission approved the demolition'. Since the Commission did not approve the demolition, it did not have the chance to revisit any of the issues. J. Cramer said the Council will have one more chance to deal with the issue. The Commission instructed staff to draft such a letter. Commissions' Findings Ann Dienner moved to approve the report with the correction of having Betsy Hohman appear as Secretary. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson moved to approve the resolution with the following amendments: in Section 2, the sentence should read The landmark criteria for designation no longer apply" and change the name of the Secretary to Betsy Hohman. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motions passed. Vote: 9 ayes. 0 nays. B. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2420 Harrison Street - L — The property Is a recognized Evanston landmark with an unsightly detached garage. The proposed addition will provide a sympathetically designed garage and master bedroom. The proposed addition provides much needed space including garage, master bedroom, master bath and powder room. The addiiboon will also house an elevator that will provide access to all levels. (Applicant: Jamie Colb,er) [Constnidion/Demo0on/Zoning Variance] Harold Dietrich, architect presented the revised plans for the proposed addition. He said that the Zoning Division is expecting the Commission's recommendation on the proposed zoning variation_ The garage was built in 1959 which is 3' from the property tine. The easterly wall was moved back 3" for a minor variance. They also moved the south wall to within 3.25' of the side yard property line. The building coverage also needs a zoning variation. The addition is now wider making the distinction between the original hR:se and where the addition starts. They added a fake chimney which is where an elevator is going to be inside. The Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy issued a letter in support of t,�e proposed addition. Joanne B. Morand, of 2416 Harrison said that the addition does not complement the landmarks house. Sne said once the addition is built there will be no backyard. Mary S. Hair of 2418 Harrison said that the extension will block the view from her backyard. She said the addition should be d;fferentiated from the original house. She wondered how a car would be able to pull into the carage. At the end Ms. Hair said that she was okay with the addition if the house remains as a landmark. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards for construction 1-8, 10. and 12-16 as applicable. S. Gerson moved that a certificate of appropriateness for the 2-story addition at the rear of 2420 Harrison be approved, in that it meets the above standards. E. Guthrie seconded the moron. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Conurission Page 5 Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1-5 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing garage at 2420 Harrison as that meets the above mentioned standards. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for zoning variation A and C as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to recommend approval of the following zoning variances: 6-8-2-7 Maximum permitted lot coverage in the R1 distr,C is 30%. Proposal shows a lot coverage of 33.29%; 189.05 sq ft over the limit. "-2-8(A) 3. Minimum side yard in the R1 district is 5 feet. The proposed garage extension on the ease side only provides a side yard of 3.25 feet and a south side yard of 3.25 feet (side yard set:,ack at south due to flag lot configuration). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 632-640 Hinman Avenue — L/LSHD — Infill wincow openings and Install new windows on the west facade. Replace doors the west facade aryl north facades. (Applicant: Mike Niazmand) (Alterationj James Murray, attorney, Mike Niazmand, owner, Joseph DeLisl, architect presented the project. James Murray said they are requesting reconsideration of the Keeney side (where some windows have been shortened) because tr,ere are some aesthetic considerations that have been examined. He said that a format proposal has not been submitted. He said that the countertop height differential between the interior countertop level and the backsplash and the cut through the existing windows is problematic. J Murray said Mr. Ruiz thought that a 6" panel painted in black, it will not have an impact visually from the exterior and it will be acceptable aesthetically. J. Murray said the real differential will. be 24". In response to Mr. Prairie's question J. Murray said the top of the window sill to the floor is 18"; there will be a 36" plus a 2' back splash. He said they would like to present the Commission at some point some additonal arguments in favor of the reduced size windows for the Keeney side. James Murray said they have submitted in the interim three sheets of drawings: exhibit # 12 with three drawings Al. A2 and A3. Al is a site plan, A2 is a copy of the interior of the floors that are affected by the windows and trice designs for the second and third floor, and A3 shows the overall west elevations with alternative methods by which to re -fenestrate the west wall In either a 12-window configuration or a 6-window configuration. The preferred is the 12- window application as means to provide a single window to each bedroom which is on the other side of that window. The small window will serve as light and ventilation for the bathroom on the opposite side of that opening. Thomas Prairie said he was less concerned with the alley side (six or twelve winda^s) as long as it looks reasonable and fits in and it does not have the sore thumb such as the arches lintels and the new common brick not matching the o:d brick. Jordan Cramer said the twelve window configuration looks more balanced and better adaptive reuse. The new windows should be arched. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards `or alteration 1-5, 7, 9 and 10 as applicable for the west elevation, Thomas Prairie moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the window modifications to the west alley side of c,e properrl at 632-640 Hinman with the provision that the existing window openings have them arched brick removed and the courses matching the adjacent; that there will be a cleaning cf the existing common brick using gentle means possible (water wash) and then to match as close as possible the new brick. If that is not possible then tre new brick will be treated to blerc in with the existing brick. The new window openings will have curved linte•-Is to match what is there now (for the six large and six small windows configuration). The nee all wood w,mdows to match the replacement windows Evanston Preservation CommEssdon Pape 7 in the other elevations of the building in that standards for alteration 1-5. 7 (cleaning to be reviewed by staff), 9 and 10 are met. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Regarding the kitchen exit doors on the west and north sides of the building (exhibits #3 and # 4), J Murray said they found a suitable all wood door replacements (exhibit #14). T. Prairie amended his first motion to include the replacement of the kitchen doors on the west and north side of the building at 632-640 Hinman with using fifteen Simpson wood doors (Craftsman collection) with two vertical panels under a rectangular glass above. Emily Guthrie seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. Regarding the south elevation facing Keeney Street J. Murray said they did not think that is going to be aesthetically pleasing to have the original windows restored because what is behind the building. He said it is not just aesthetics, but it is operation as well as security factors. He said that the aesthetics is lacking with the use of a blasted glass or any other type of dear glass to be installed in the lower pane. The rear of the cabinetry, counter top is substantially higher than originally expected to be (20' to 24- to top of the back splash). Thomas Prairie said that leaving the window stone sills on the second story looks awkward (the limestone banding is continuous on the third and first floors). J. Murray pointed out exhibit #8 from left to right the windows that had been moved previously are the second and third tier and last tier next to the comer of the building. The windows that have been shortened are the central portion of the extended building entry area and there are on either side immediately adjacent to the central door entry and hall window. J. Murray said they will be willing to consider modifications to the extent that the second level sill be removed and replaced with matching brick. Susan Rundle said the Commission has heard the same before. Jordan Cramer said that the applicant should come back with other alternatives and also bring the floor plans. Vil. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (RBTA) 1. 2603 Sheridan Road — L —New ADA ramp to the restroom level; a relocated ramp to the roof top deck; a new more gradually sloped, lower hatf of the existing ramp, curb cuts; paving at the restroom level; railings around the roof deck and the deck itself will be renovated/replaced. (Applicant: City of Evanston) (Construction) Steve Bums, Paul D'Agostino, and Stefanie Levine presented the project. Steve Bums said the project is to provide accessibility to the bathroom facility to conform with ADA requirements, providing a curb cut, ramp to the roof deck, and a pedestrian ramp that goes down to the level of the rest of entrances, a paved plaza area, removing the shower from the current location and move it to the center of the plaza. The existing ramp will remain in the top half of it, with a landing. They will remove the lower half of the ramp and put up a flatter ramp with 5% slope. Additional four parking spaces were added about a year ago. The current railing in top of the building will be replaced with transparent anodize aluminum panels. There will be a wood deck on top of the building roof. The building will be brought to code and change the light fixtures. The exterior side of the ramp will have a veneer. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of alteration 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.10. Jon Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations as presented at 2603 Sheridan Road in that the above mentioned standards are met. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2855 Sheridan Place - L —Remodel of existing single family residence: Rear addition plus rear screened porch, new carport_ Exterior siding materials and colors to match existing Evanston Preservation Cmrrnussion Pape a home. Partial demolition of rear and side wails. (Applicant: Michael & Darlene Buenzow) (Construction/Demolition] Darlene Buenzon, Jean Gonzales, and Jeff Eichhom presented the project. J. Eichhom said the project creates a new mudroom, new kitchen, informal dining, and family room. Also, they added a screen porch with a trellis detail and a carport with columns. The addition has the same materials: c:ay tile roof, stucco, and double hung windows. In all one tree will come down because of the construction. The windows on the house first floor are casement with divided lights the windows on the second floor are double hung. The driveway will have brick pavers. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson questioned if the addition is distinguished enough from the original house. Emily Guthrie questioned if the carport is appropriate for the style of the house. Thomas Prairie said that the project is challenging because the addition is hard to being distinguished from the original home. Suzanne Farrand said the carport works very well because after it is built. the house no longer will be symmetrical while maintaining the integrity of the landmark. The Commission concluded that the larger east addition wou'.d not visible from the street. The applicant noted that there are no zoning issues with the proposed work. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1-8, and 10-16 as applicable. S. Gerson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of two additions at 2855 Sheridan Place in that the above menboned standards are met. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said demolition includes a wood patio at the north, part of the driveway and walls on the northwest elevation. He said RBTA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certifrca!e of appropriateness for the demolition as described above at 2855 Sheridan Place as it meets standards of demolition 1- 5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continuation) A. Public Hearing (Continuation) - Rescission of Designation 1218 Elmwood Avenue — Approval of the Commission's report to the City Council regarding the application for rescission of landmark designation for the property at 1218 Elmwood Avenue. Jordan Cramer resumed me discussion on 1218 Elmwood. Carlos Ruiz said he had obtained the minutes of June 20.2006 when the Commission denied the certificate of appropriates for demolition of the landmark house. In reviewing the minutes, the Commission concluded that his. Brite agreed to consider placing a plaque if the Commission were to grant the demolition. C. Ruiz suggested that instead of imposing a condition as part of the recommendation to City Council, that the cover letter trans.-nitting the resolution to City Council states the Commission's request that City Council considec asking Ms. Carole Bnte to place Lne plaque. Jordan Cramer said the cover letter should state that the cc <versation came up in the context of lwhat if the Commission approved the demolition'. Since tt-e Commission did not approve the demolition, it did not have the chance to revisit any of the issues. J. Cramer said the Council will have one more chance to deal with the issue. The Commission instructed staff to draft such a letter. Commissions' Findings Ann Dienner moved to approve the report with the correction of having Betsy Hohman appear as Secretary. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission Pape 9 Stan Gerson moved to approve the resolution with the following amendments: in Section 2, the sentence should read "the landmark criteria for designation no longer apply" and change the name of the Secretary to Betsy Hohman. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. VIII.COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Jordan Cramer said tomorrow at the Plan Commission meeting the Commission would like to have some incentives built in proactively for existing owners to establishing landmarks, to preservelrehabilitate existing structures. Incentives might include state, federal, local (facade program) but also adding something new in terms of establishing a pool of funds from which applicants could apply presumably to the Preservation Commission, in part, to do the work, and promote owners to keep their existing structures and not just an ordinance for new developers. Also, make reference in the plan of existing landmarks within the downtown and, lastly include the structures that have identified in the survey as being potential candidates for landmark designation. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date Approved: May 20, 2008 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman (late) Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie Susan Rundle, and ,ion Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Suzanne Farrand OTHERS PRESENT: Ellen Galland, David Foster, Mike Hauser, Don Jeffers, Donald Scott, Henry Latimer, Hollis Johnson, Karen Barrie, Helen Dritakis, Daniel Pyne, Cynda Alberts, Arthur Alberts, Cheron Stem, Stuart Cohen, Erika Blawat, Karen Ruberry, Cathy Osika. Gleb Nedzel, Anissa Nedzel Gage, Astri Lindberg, Tom Campbell, Clara Lukas, Betsy Lavoo, Susan Cox, Michael Poulos PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer. Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m, with a quorum of eight Commissioners present (Ann Dienner. Stan Gerson, Susan Rundle, Jon Willarson, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie and Emily Guthrie) Betsy Hohman arrived late. Carlos Ruiz, staff. It. MINUTES Result: The Commission approved the November 13, 2007 minutes with one revision. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays III. COMMUNICATiONS[REPORTS None. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1130 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Demolish garage, construct two -car brick garage. West elevation: Demolish two-story brick addition and wood deck. Remove rear yard concrete patio and walk. Construct concrete walk along south side yard and on rear yard. Construct a one-story and two-story brick addition and wood deck and stairs. Aft aluminum Gad wood double hung and fixed windows. French doors and doors on the new addition. Minimum side Evanston Preservation Commission February 19. 2008 — Minutes Page 2 yard setback in the R1 district is 5 feet (6). Proposed side yard setback = 4.05'. [Demolition/Construction/Zoning Variation) Ellen Galland, architect, and Davic Foster, owner presented the project. E. Galland said the project has obtained a minor zoning variance for a 4' side yard instead of a 5' side yard setback. The addition makes the current footprint bagger 5' to the west and 2' to the north, adding a mudroom, kitchen, and a bigger bedroom on the second floor. The new garage will provide some screening to the panting lot across the alley. The new windows will be wood windows on the sun porch. The neighbors are informed about the project because of the requested zoning variance. Mr. McGill the neighbor to the south (the most affected by the proposed work) has submitted a letter in support of the project. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the zoning variance should not have been granted without the Preservation Commission advisory review. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16. Emily Guthrie moved to approve ttse certificate of appropriateness of the construction of a 1 and 2-story addition at the rear, wooden deck, concrete walk, and 2-car garage at 1130 Hinman Avenue as the proposed work meets the above mentioned standards of construction. Susan Rundle seconded the moton. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 for the demolition of the existing 2-story existing addition at the rear, wood deck, concrete patio, and garage. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition as described above at 1130 Hinman Avenue as it meets standards for demolition 1-5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Ann Dienner moved to recommend the zoning variation for the 4.01' south side yard setback as it meets standards A and C for zoning variation. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson asked if there was away to avoid issuing zoning variations without the Commission's recommendation. Carlos Ruiz said he will mention this to the Zoning Administrator. Betsy Hohman arrived at this time 2. 2322 Isabella Street (L) — South elevation: Demolished 1960s family room; construct two- story stucco addition with concrete tile roof. All new wood casement windows and French doors. Copper canopies above first floor windows and doors of addition. Demolish two -car wood garage. Construct two -car stucco garage with concrete tile roof. (Construction/Demolition) Mike Hauser and Don Jeffers, arc'atects; Don Scot builder; and Henry Latimer, owner presented the project. Mike Hauser said this is a h storic bungalow house at 2322 Isabella Street. The house has a very distract texture to the skin of the building, and is lower than the rest of the houses on the block. ► ne bell tower is a unique feature and there is a variation in grade throughout the interior of the house. The current rear family room addition was built in the 1970s. The project includes replacement of the family room and adding two bedrooms above and the replacement of the garage in the back of the house. Mike Hauser said the core of the rouse remains: the new garage is on the same location but smaller. The actual addition is the same square footage as the one being replaced. The exterior of the addition is stone and stucco and limestone and brick on the front facade. The Evanston Preservation Cain ission February 19.2008 - Minutes Pape 3 second story addition is setback back and out of view from the front yard sidewalk. The materials of the addition includes matching gutters and downspouts, fascia treatment, window materials, the overhangs in the back are meant to continue the roof fine and provide shade. There are two French doors exiting to the rear yard. The original concrete tile on the roof is disintegrating, the intent is to salvage the concrete tile and replace the damaged tile. The Spanish Mission style where the brick and stucco are being used are complementary to the house. They are matching the roof slope of the bell tower on the addition. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie said distinguishing the original from the new is important, particularly for landmarks. In this case the proposed addition is an extreme of that goal. The window arrangement and the proportion of the windows are problematic. Emily Guthrie asked if arched windows were considered for the addition. M. Hauser said, yes. Susan Rundle said the south elevation looks like a 1970's addition. Jordan Cramer said the addition as seen from the rear looks like a different house. Stan Gerson said being on a narrow lot the addition will be hard to see from Isabella. However the massing of the addition is problematic. Thomas Prairie said the project will be improved without the shed copper roofs. As proposed it looks like two different houses. Also the second story windows seem too small. Don Jeffers said the addition is a low as possible. Jon Willarson said because the building is a landmark, they need to be careful with the addition. Emily Guthrie expressed concerned with the proposed windows on the first floor, they seemed very tall. Don Jeffers said they are trying to keep the addition as low as possible. Carlos Ruiz said the original design as submitted for building permit had a full second story on top of the 1.5-story front elevation. The applicants are making an honest effort to conform to the standards, although they seemed to have misunderstood the standard to distinguish the original from the new. Henry Latimer said that they did not know that the house was a landmark when they bought the house. The first design was very complementary to the style of the house. Emily Guthrie asked if the roof repair would count towards the tax freeze program. C. Ruiz said the roof repair would count but not the addition. The Commission continued the review of the proposed addition to March 18, 2008 to allow the architect make revisions to the design of the proposed 2-story rear addition. 3, 356410 Ridge Avenue (L) — Installation of four security fences and gates at the rear (west side) of building along the alley. The maximum height of a fence in a resdential district is six feet (6'). Proposed height = 8'. [Construction/Fence Variation) Daniel Pyne, President of the Saint Francis Community Condominium Association, Hollis Johnson. Vice -President of the Condo Board, Karen Barrie, a Board Director, and Helen Dritakis, Treasurer presented the project. D. Pyne said in the summer of 2007 they erected fences along the rear and the north side of the property without a permit or a certificate of appropriateness. D. Pyne said they were ignorant of the procedures. T"he property is a 73- unit vintage landmark building, built in 1928. Mike Forsell of Heil, Heil, Smart + Golee, Inc. is the property manager. Five of the six fences are 8' high the sixth fence on the north is 6' high. The five fences are on the alley and are located at least 6' from the property line. They have received numerous complaints from the condo owners and security, break-ins, attempted break-ins which have been reported to the police. The fences are for security reasons. The 8' high fences were done without the knowledge of the 6' height limitation, but they were done to maintain a sense of continuity with the building. The First floor of the building is elevated and there is a pitch of approximately 1'. The 8' high fences will discourage anyone from going over the fence or by standing on top of the dumpsters at the Evanston Preservation Carrn issian February 19. 2DO8 — Minutes Pape 4 rear. The fence is hand made in wrought iron. They are requesting a recommendation for a fence variation and the certificate of appropriateness. D. Pyne pointed out that the tops of the 8' high fences are directly in line wit the tops of the garage doors. On the other side of the building there is a house that has a 9' or 10' wall that goes along the entire property line. They believe the height of the fences is compatible with the wall across the alley. The fences are consistent with the gates in the front of the building. Their intent was not to detract from the landmark building. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer said the Commission appreciated the owners for coming forward with their application. Thomas Prairie said he found the fences somewhat overwhelming and over designed giving the sense of a fortress. Jordan Cramer said he did not feel the same way. Emily Guthrie said that she asked Carlos contact the management company so they would come to the meeting. D. Pyno said that they will do everything they could do to alert future boards to follow the proper procedures. Susan Rundle said the applicants really made the effort to design an appropriate fence and she understood the need for an 8' fence. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 7, 9, 10, and 13-16 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the security fences at 356-410 Ridge Avenue as erected in that they meet the above mentioned standards of construction. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 1 nay. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of variations A and C as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to recommend the approval of the 8' high fences at 356-410 Ridge, as erected because standards A and C of variations are met_ Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 1 nay. Thomas Prairie left the meeting at this time. 4. 925 Greenwood Street (ClRHD) — North elevation: Construct two-story stucco finish addition at the north rear elevation. Remove and reuse three windows on first floor and remove kitchen window and relocate to first floor of the addition east elevation. East elevation (1u floor): new window and door; (2nd floor) new casement windows. West elevation (1" floor): three new fixed windows; (2"d floor): two new casement windows. Proposed addition requires a thirty foot (30') setback from the rear lot line. Proposed setback = 25.9'. (Construction/Alteration/Zoning Variation) Cynda and Arthur Alberts, owners and Cheron Stem, architect presented the project. C. Stem said they are proposing a 14' x 14' two-story addition at the rear of the house. On the east facade, they have duplicated the door to match the north elevation. Both windows on the upper new east and west elevation have been duplicated to match the front elevation. The new building material is stucco, the wood windows, and trim will match the existing. The zoning variance is for the 4'-3" rear lot setback. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, T. 8, 10. and 12-16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed addition at 925 Greenwood Street in that meets the above mentioned standards of construction. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6, 9, and 10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for relocating windows, adding new windows and installing new roof at 925 Greenwood Street in that they meet the above Evanston Preservation CaTm ssion i=eMkuy 19, 2008 — Unutes Pape 5 mentioned the standards of alteration. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of zoning variation A and C as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to recommend granting the zoning variation for the proposed rear lot setback of 25.9' at 925 Greenwood Street as it meets standards A and C of zoning variation. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1334 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — West elevation (1st floor): Demolish existing rear porch and build a larger porch with stairs and railing. Relocate and replace existing door with new wood door, screen and transom. Relocate and replace window with new wood window. Remove window and replace with new door and transom; (2n° floor): Relocate existing window and replace with new wood window; add two new wood windows. North elevation (1st floor): Remove door and patch with siding. Remove window and replace with wood door and transom; add new wood window. Install A/C unit below porch. The proposed porch exceeds the 10% (.50) allowed encroachment into the required south side yard; proposed encroachment is 53.20% (or 2.66').(Construction[DemolitiorVAiteration/Loning Variation] Stuart Cohen, architect presented the project. The project requires alterations to the north half of the double house. They will add a mudroom and rear entrance on the south side of the property. The new porch extends 4' to the south with an extended roof. The railing of the existing porch is not original and the existing roof is sagging. Other work invotves relocating a door and windows that open up to the porch, remove a door and install a new door to the west and a new window on the north facade. On the second floor there are new windows. They are asking for a major zoning variation for the south side yard setback. New air conditioning units will be installed under the porch. The knee wall will be replaced with an open railing to replicate a railing at the north side of the house. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards 1, 3, 5.6. 7, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a rear porch, stairs and railing at 1334 Hinman because they meet standards of construction above mentioned. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing porch at 1334 Hinman Avenue as it meets standard 1-5 of demolition. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of variation A and C as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to recommend the variation for the 2.66' south side yard setback at 1334 Hinman as it meets standards of zoning variation A and C. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6, and 9-10 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for relocating windows, adding a door on the first floor, and on second floor relocating a window and adding two windows at 1334 Hinman Avenue, as the standards of alteration mentioned above are met. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 2831 Sheridan Place (L) — Construct on front yard (setback 50.5' from the east front yard property line) a detached 2-car stone garage. All new wood windows and doors. Parting is prohibited in any front yard in any residential district. The maximum impervious surface ratio for the R1 district is forty-fwe percent (45%). Proposed impervious surface ratio = 51%. [Construction/Zoning Variation] Evanston Preservabm Cammis m February 19. 20M — Wcwtes Page 6 Cathy Osika, Erica Slawat, architects and Karen Ruberry, owner presented the project. C. Osika said they are proposing a new two -garage on the front yard. The impervious surface is over the allowable although is less than the existing. Both require a zoning variation. They looked for a place far .he garage in the rear yard, but the 24' x 2 i' garage would be attached on to the existing conservatory, they will need a variation and sit on top of the side yard and rear yard set back. The garage entrance would be from the side yard. A garage at the rear would require removal of all the trees and shrubs on all comers. The front yard garage tries to maintain the spirit of the house and the historical materials such as the stone, state roof, stone details, and copper. There is a garage at 2735 Sheridan Road that is a close match to what the proposed garage would be. The placement of the proposed garage gives space to the street, the gable is in line with the main house, and it helps to minimize any reduction of natural light to the neighbor to the north. The garage is on the existing parking pad. The garage is placed so that it does not block the open area of the neighbor, so that all the current windows of the neighbor's house will get the south light into that living space. Ms. Osika said the impervious surface will be maintained and the applicant would be willing to include additional pervious material. There is some existing blue stone walkway. Cars parked now on the existing front yard parking pad. Commission's Findings The Commission discussed with the applicant about putting the garage at the rear of the house, the driveway leading to the garage at the rear, the need to request zoning variances, the requirement of having 10' distance between the garage and the conservatory for a detached garage which will require placing the garage on the property line. Anissa Nedzel Gage of 2829 Sheridan Place said according to a realtor (Lynnette Thompson) any structure on the front yard will adversely affect the surrounding properties and block the sweeping view. Gleb Nedzel of 2829 Sheridan Place said the house at 2831 was a coach and servant house, there was room for a wagon and there was a garage in the house before. Clara Lukas of 2833 Sheridan Place said the present owner when she bought the house was aware that there was no garage. A two -car garage on the front yard will exceed the maximum impervious surface (45%) ratio for the R-1 district, proposed (51%). Sheridan Place is in a downhill and many of the basements have been flooded one time or another. There are no other front garages on Sheridan Place, and putting a two -car garage on the front yard vAll change the appearance and character, not only of the historic home, but also the street. To pass this major variance could set precedence for others to seek such variances. Building a two -car garage in the front yard will have a negative impact on her property value due to blocking the view and light from her home. In addition, it could also k)wer the value of other properties on Sheridan Place. For these reasons she urged the Commission not to grant the major variance that is being requested. Astri Lindberg of 2B96 Sheridan Place said she opposes the construction of the front yard garage. Another neighbor, the owner of 2845 Sheridan Place wrote a letter also objecting to the proposed garage. ✓tits. Lindberg said the rights of one property owner should not be compromised by the wishes of another. Tom Campbell, of 2881 Sheridan Place said he supports his friend Clara Lukas. He said that Dr. Purcell bought the property in the mid 1950's for about S50,000 and invested another 54,000 to make a living space for his family. He said 30 years ago he met with his neighbors when his next door neighbor wanted to place a chain link fence along Sheridan Place, despite that disagreement they have been friends for 32 years. He said this will pass. Evanston Preservation Comr FebwM 19, 2008 — Minutes Page 7 Elizabeth Lavoo of 2845 Sheridan Place, said on the north end was a garage that could be Opened up. The solarium is a very recent add on, that could be taken off and put a garage there. The sacrifice then will be made by the owner rather than by the neighbors. Susan Cox of 2837-1/2 Sheridan Place said she was strongly opposed to the front garage. A neighbor said the garage at the comer of Sheridan Place and Lakeside Court was build with the house, and sits on a much larger property. A Neighbor mentioned the possibility of an underground garage. Cathy Osika said there are several homes along Sheridan Place such as 2833 Sher4an Place which has garage doors facing the street. They are not proposing a garage wit doors facing Sheridan Place. The drainage issue is a huge concern, but they are not changing the current impervious surface, but they are maintaining it. The building is no longer a coach house since 1950; it is an actual home for people. Talking about devaluing everybody else's property is okay, but there is no consideration for devaluing the current owner's house by removing a major room or two major rooms for a garage. Susan Rundle asked if the applicant had considered a one -car garage. The architect said a one -car garage will be more detrimental to the site and the area. They did not consider an underground garage. Emily Guthrie said the garage itself was well designed. Karen Ruberry said the conservatory was built in the early 1980s and it was the first English Amdeca conservatory built in the U.S. so it does have a litrie bit of history as well. She said she bought the house 3 years ago and the realtor provided drawings for a garage. She 6d not purchase the garage knowing that she could not build a garage. Later she learned there were many unsuccessful attempts to build a garage. Jordan Cramer said the garage is well designed. Jon Willarson said the garage obscures the view of the house. J. Cramer said respectfully that he did not think the garage will devalue the neighboring properties. The Commission discussed some of the standards for review of construction. Jon Pohl said many things have already happened in the neighborhood. He did not see any problem with putting something that is so well articulated and be related to the existing landmark. Ms. Ruberry said she believed the garage will look better than the two cars parked in the front of the house. Neighbors suggested underground parking or a tandem two -car garage at the rear. Carlos Ruiz said the suggestions for a new location may trigger other or additional zoning variations. Emily Guthrie moved to continue the review joincy with the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 4, 2008. She also requested permission from the neighbors to go over the area and walk around in the back of the property. Ann Diermer seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said he did not know if there is enough tune for notification for the March 4, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He will consult with the Zoning Administrator to confirm the date and time- B. Downtown Plan Response from the Preservation Commission to the Plan Commission request to draft the text of a new objective for the Downtown Plan regarding preservation of landmark buildings, potential landmark buildings and conservation district and incentives for current building owners. Jordan Cramer gave an overview of the Commiss4n's first draft of the new Objective 2 presented to the Plan Commission on February 13. 2008. Evanston Preservation Commmsss on February 19. 200B - Wutes Pape a Objective 2: Protect and Rehabilitate Character Givina Buildina Structures and Sites Promote the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of buildings and sites that provide historical and architectural context to the Downtown. Strategies: • Establish a Downtown Conservation Overlay District coinciding with the Traditional Zones, to provide additional guidance and architectural controls in those areas deemed to provide the greatest amount of historical and architectural context to the Downtown. • Extend Evanston's Facade Retention Program to buildings in the Downtown. • Establish a Rehabilitation/Adaptive Reuse Fund, from funds contributed through the bonus system for new downtown developments, which seeks to match funds from existing owners who desire to rehabilitate and/or adaptively reuse existing structures and sites. The Fund will be administered jointly by the Preservation and Plan Commissions. • Encourage and promote the designation of additional local landmarks from 10 properties identified in the Downtown Evanston Building Condition Survey Preliminary Report, as prepared by the Preservation Commission. • Promote the use of existing local and federal facade retention programs. Commissioners agreed to contribute more ideas and suggestions and present draft to at the next Plan Commission meeting in March 2008 for the Downtown Plan. C. Preservation Review Fees Carlos Ruiz said that the City Council is expected to take action on Ordinance 30-0-08 Amending} Section 16 and Creatino a New Section 17 of Title 2. Chaoler 9. of the Citv Code. to Implement Fees for Applications for Review by the Historic Preservation Commission on February 25, 2008. He noted that Commissioners could speak if they wished at the Council meeting before the Council adopts the proposed ordinance. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF None. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was mourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date Approved: May 20. 2008 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Suzanne Farrand. Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl. Thomas Prairie, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer and Susan Rundle OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Hauser. Don Jeffers, Henry Latimer, Barbara Gieger, John Gillan, Thomas Wesely, Edwin Getz, Chris Rudolph, Gary DeStefano, Michael Wetmore, Jennifer Gwilliam, Dennis Langley, Dan Wesee, Dan Dorfman, Alan Melsky, Greg and Jennifer Gavelek, Mary McWilliams. PRESIDING: Emily Guthrie, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz L CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Emily Guthrie, Vice -Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m, with a quorum present (Ann Dienner, Jon Willarson, Jon Pohl, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie. Stan Gerson and Suzanne Farrand). Staff: Carlos Ruiz. It. MINUTES Approval of December 18, 2007 and January 15, 2008 Minutes The Commission held the approval of minutes until next meeting_ Ill. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS None. N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R$TA) 2322 Isabella Street (L) — (Revised Elevations) South elevation: Demolished 19ws family room; construct two-story stucco addition with concrete tile roof. all new wood casement windows and French doors. Demolish two -car wood garage and family room. Construct two -Car stucco garage with concrete tile roof [Construction/Demolition] Mike Hauser and Don Jeffers, architects and Henry Latimer, owner presented the project. M. Hauser said the revisions include arched top windows on the first floor of the east and west facades. At the rear south elevation there is a large door also with the arched top. On the second floor, the new windows are Consistent with the windows throughout the house (rectangular French Casement windows). The limestone accents at the lower windows are being replicated as seen on the existing home. The new limestone base around the bottom is even with the sill height of the side windows. The new windows are all wood windows. Evanston Pn:servabon Corturiss+on Mardi 18, 2008 — Minutes Page 2 Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RSTA recommends an 5 standards of demolition and standards of construction 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16 as applicable. The Commission added standards 4 and 11. Betsy Hohman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the 2-story addition with concrete tile roof, also construction of a 2-car garage with concrete Tile roof at 2322 Isabella, as meeting standards: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10-16. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. Stan Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the garage and rear addition as meeting standards of demolition 1-5. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1730 Chicago Avenue (t-) — install new sign on front yard [Construction] Barbara Geiger, Board Member of the Frances Willard House Association presented the project. B. Geiger pointed to the site plan to show the location of the sign on the front yard. The proposed sign replaces the existing deteriorated sign. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson moved to recommend the installation of the sign at 1730 Chicago Avenue as meeting standard 17 of construction. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays 2. 2306 Harrison Street (L) — Build a wood dormer with wood window on roof over front elevation (Alteration) John Gillan. owner/architect presented the project. J. Gillan submitted a letter from his neighbor to the west. Robert Fugman, at 2310 Harrison Street in support of the dormer. J. Gillan said when he bought the house in 1971 there was a double hung window next to the bathroom that rotted (west elevation). The dormer on the north elevation has a frame around it. The dormer at the back was built sometime after the house was built. The slope of the proposed dormer is similar to tt,,e slope on the existing dormer. The detail drawing shows the window off the floor and a decorative soffit. The dormer has wood siding on both sides. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-5. 9 and 10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approvv a certificate of appropriateness for the dormer as proposed at 2306 Harrison Street as meeting standards of alteration 1-5. 9 and 10. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 910 Ridge Avenue (RHOIC) — Remove woodstove chimney at rear of house. Expand rear kitchen window opening from 1 io 2 windows. Install new custom, all wood double hung windows to match existing winnows (west elevation). Remove 2 windows and replace with French door. Remove rear porch in preparation for new porch (not included with this application) [AlterationlDemolition] Thomas Wesety, owner preserted the project. T. Wesely said he is asking to remove the original non-functional kitchen wood stove chimney on the rear of the house (requires significant tuck pointing); its rernloval will allow him to expand the kitchen. The window and door alterations at the rear consist of expanding from one double hung wood window to two double hung wood windows to match the original style and close out the rear entry door and Evamion Preservation Cm urission Mares 18, 2008 — Minutes Pape 3 fill in with existing brick. Further south, the pair of double windows will be removed and a French door will be installed in their place. The 1960s yellow fiber glass porch enclosure will be removed leaving the porch decking. A temporary porch will be built and the basement exit will remain. T. Wesely said he plans to restore in the future the second floor porch. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of alteration 1-5, 7.9 and 10. Thomas Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations as presented at 910 Ridge as meeting standards of alteration 1-5, 7, 9 and 10. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the chimney, the three windows, and the fiber glass panel enclosure at 910 Ridge, as meeting standards of demolition 1-5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays respectively. 4. 2749 Euclid Park Place (L) — Removal of existing wood TDL window units and glass block windows. Install new SDL windows. Raise window sill height (second floor W. N. E elevations). Remove 24 floor French door and replace with new window. Construct new rear 1-story bay addition (east elevation). Replace and install new AC condensers [Alteration/Construction] Edwin Getz, owner and Chris Rudolph, architect presented the project. C. Rudolph said the Tallmadge 8 Watson house originally located on Sheridan Road was moved at least twice. The house was altered from a Prairie School house to the existing Spanish Colonial style. They are proposing to change some windows (open sun porch) that are not original, On the second floor (top left) of the west and east elevations, the sills of the windows are being raised and new wood windows installed. The windows below, on the first floor, will be replaced with new wood windows. The glass block wall on the first floor on the north elevation will be removed and replaced with new wood windows. The first floor windows (left side) will be removed and a new bay window built. The second story windows above will be removed and new wood windows will be installed. Chris Rudolph said the remaining windows on the first and second floors will be replaced with new wood windows (with transoms windows in the living room). The awning on the east elevation will be removed. Two new doors will be added to open out to a new balcony with a railing. There A/C units behind the garage will be replaced and there will be a new A/C near the addition by the driveway in the back. On the south elevation, two doors over the porte- cochere are being replaced with a window. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends the new bay as construction. Standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10 are applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 2749 Euclid Park Place as stated above, as they meet standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and10. Ann Dienne, seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-15. S. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a bay at 2749 Euclid Park Place as meeting standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10. and 12-15. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays, S. 1314 Hinman Avenue (LSHDIL) — Demolition of existing 2-story rear addition. Construction of larger 2-story rear addition and 1-story screen porch and stairs [Construction/Demolition] Evanston Preservation Cornmrssion March 18, 2D08 — Minutes Page 4 Gary DeStefano, contractor, Michael Wetmore, architect and Jennifer Gwilliam, owner presented the project. G. DeStefano said they proposed the demolition of an existing addition and building a larger 2-story addition and 1-stot porch at the rear of the house in keeping with the building materials and style of the house. Michael Wetmore said the addition has similar pattern rhythm of windows, gables and siding to make it a harmonious whole with tl~e original house. There is no impact to the front elevation. The new windows are all wood Marvin windows primarily double hung. The clapboard siding, soffits, and trim are all wood. The existing windows are too low, the new windows are higher from the floor to meet the building code. The leaded glass windows remain. The basement windows will be all wood as well. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a 2-story addition and 1-story screen porch (and basement) at the rear of the house at 1314 Hinman Avenue as meeting standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8. 10, and 12- 16. Betsy Hohman seconded Lhe ma:ion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing 2-story rear addition at 1314 Hinman as meeting standards of demolition 1-5_ Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. 6. 1881 Sheridan RoadMormerly 1675 Sheridan Road (L) -- Restoration of exterior elevations and light fixtures. Remove west cascading stair and accessibility ramp. Construct new accessibility ramp. new west stair, be -.ow grade lower level addition on the south end of the building with exterior terrace and wrought iron rails. Install below grade fixed windows [Alteration/Construction/Demolition] Dennis Langley and Dan Weese arch"ects presented the project. D. Langley said Harris Hall at 1881 Sheridan Road (Northwestern University Campus) will be restored and expanded at the base to futfll the additional progra;n requirements for the History Department and the University Registrar's classrooms. Complete accessibility at all levels in the building will be provided. The building is 4' off the ground. All mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fife safety systems will be upgraded. On the first floor of the building there are two significant and historic spaces that will be saved: a 275 person classroom and a gathering room for up to 100 people. also a fireplace room_ Dennis Langley went over the existirg plans and elevations — the west or primary, the north facing the NU campus. the east with a round element, and the south facing Evanston. The site plan shows the north portion witty an accessibility ramp to the lower level, new mechanical room under ground on the wet side, on the south side the lower level is being extended and placing a terrace on tco of that lower level. D. Langley said new windows below the existing stone foundation a: the lower level will be installed. Dan Weese said one of the things tt`ey wanted to do is to encourage people to come in and out through the main cascading stairs with railings (west elevation). The addition on the south elevation is approximately 8' aQove grade with a terrace; two windows are being converted to two doors exiting onto tne terrace. The terrace is a stone wall terrace (3.5' high) with the same stone profiles as on tt"e building. The floor will be a stone paver system and stairs lead to the grade level. Below :he terrace floor there are new windows (east and west elevations). Also, two light fixWres will be restored. Evanston Preserva5on Con mssion March 18, 2008 — ktnuteS Page 5 Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said the alterations include: replacing the stairs on the west, replacing a ramp at the northeast, restoring many external elements, and enlarging two windows to doors on the south. S. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approve the alterations at 1881 Sheridan Road as described above as meeting the standards for review of alteration 1-10. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said construction include: below grade additions on the west and south with a terrace on top of the south addition and new stairs at the northeast. R&TA recommends standards of construction 1-7. and 9-16. Thomas Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction at 1881 Sheridan as meeting standards of construction 1-7 and 9-16. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes; 0 nays. Stan Gerson said demolition includes the replacement of stairs on the west and the replacement of the existing ramp. R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the demolition of existing stairs and ramp as meeting standards of demolition 1-5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 1232 Hinman Avenue (LSHDIL) —Remove rear porch and mud room. Rebuild walls and roof for 1-story addition. Build new open porch and stairs. Build wood balustrade over a portion of the new rear porch roof. Maximum lot coverage = 30%; proposed = 35.5% [Construction/Demolition/Alteration/Zoning Variation] Dan Dorfman, owner and Alan Melsky, architect presented the project. A. Melsky said they are proposing to remove the existing mudroom and an open porch. The existing addition is the family room that has tyvec insulation around the windows. The construction includes rebuilding the first floor kitchen and a new family room with a window bay and a new deck over piers with stone veneer. On the second floor they are building over the new kitchen and they are adding a new window on the second floor of the west elevation. The design of the rear addition takes cues from the existing details on the house. Also. the house occupies 36.6 % of the lot which is over the allowable 30%. With the new construction the lot coverage Is being lowered to 35%. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said the construction includes an open porch and stairs at the rear west side and the addition of a bay window on the existing west wall. He said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14-16 as applicable. S. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the above mentioned construction at 1232 Hinman as meeting standards of construction 1, 3, 5. 7, 10, and 14-16. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said demolition includes the rear porch and mudroom. R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. S. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the above mentioned demolition at 1232 Hinman as meeting standards of demolition 1-5. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said alterations include rebuilding the walls at the 1-story addition at the southwest with a deck at the top, new balustrade at the southwest, new windows at various places on the building. R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-5, 9 and 10 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the above mentioned alterations at 1232 Hinman as meeting standards of alteration 1-5, 9 and 10. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission March 18.2008 — Minutes Page s Betsy Hohman moved to recommend the zoning variance at 1232 Hinman Avenue for the proposed lot coverage of 35.5% (a reduction) as it appropriate in the Interest of historic preservation and it is not materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property in the district or vicinity where the property Is located. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Ti,p motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 550 Judson Avenue (LSHDlL) -- Demolish 1-car garage. Build 2-car garage. Required zoning variation for 36% lot coverage previously granted. Maximum allowed = 30% [Demolition/Construction) Greg and Jennifer Gavefek. owners presented the project. G. Gavelek said they want to tear down the existing one -car carage (bead board exterior) and replace It with a two -car garage. They want to maintain the general look of the existing garage. The new garage exterior finish is a composite siding (T). They will salvage the existing eve brackets and use them in the new garage. The existing 4 ellises will be pfaced on the north elevation. Greg Gavelek said the on Lne north and south property lines there is a dog-eared cedar fence, they propose to erect a similar fence on the property. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie said the ex;sting garage complements the front landmark house. The proposed garage does not have real relationship or sympathy to the front building. G. Gavelek said the existing garage has nothing to do with the house. T. Prairie said the exterior finish could be stucco to match the house. G. Gavelek said the neighboring garages range from stucco board to aluminum siding. Jennifer Gavelek said the reason why there are no windows on the sides of the new garage are for security reasons, G. Gavelek said he could re -use the existing windows if necessary. Also the existing garage door is steel; the new door will probably be trae same material_ He said if needed the garage door could be wood. Thomas Prairie said since L—,e existing exterior finish is vertical bead board; the new garage could have stucco finish. He would like to see a sample of the composite siding. He was concerned by the long walls with no relief in them, even a decorative panel could help on the north and south walls. J. Gavelek said she would like to reuse many of the features that are on the existing garage on tJ a new garage. Other suggestions from Commissioners included: north south elevation windows with interior or exterior bars or a band of windows at the top of the walls. Thomas Prairie said the fiat steel garage door was acceptable. Also the composite cement siding such as hardie-board is acceptable. The Commission requested the applicant to revise the north and south elevations of the proposed garage by incorperating windows. The Commission agreed to receive the revised elevation via email. B. Downtown Plan - UPDATE: Response from the Preservation Commission to the Plan Commission request to draft the text of a new objective for the Downtown Plan regarding preservation of landmark buildings, potential landmark buildings and conservation district and Incentives for current building owners. Carlos Ruiz said that he did not receive from Jordan Cramer a summary of the meeting between two associate members and two Commission members. Ann Dienner who was at Evanston Preservation CcnvnLss n March 18. 2008 — Minutes Page 7 the meeting said that they agreed on making the Hinman Avenue, between Davis and Grove, where the west side will have different zoning that the east side. Carlos Ruiz said the next Plan Commission meeting regarding the Downtown Plan is April 9, 2008. He recommended the Preservation Commission being represented at that meeting. C. Ruiz said a federal conservation district (for the traditional areas) should be considered to tap into the federal financial incentives. Jon Pohl said that if a federal conservation district which would overlay the form based zoning areas without creating a conflict could be a good strategy for the Downtown Plan. Vi. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Stan Gerson asked what can be done about Garret's sign. Jon Pohl asked what can be done about the Dawes House (225 Greenwood). Suzanne Farrand said she spoke to several people at the Evanston History Center, they would prefer the Corn.rnission to keep a low profile for the time being. They are trying to figure out what are the terms of Dawes' gift to Northwestern University was. S. Farrand called Gene Sunshine and he told her to also stay calm. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission should talk to the City Council members first, before taking a position regarding the Dawes House. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Approved Date: CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING 2100 Ridge Avenue - Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Dienner. Emily Guthrie, Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, Jon Pohl, and Suzanne Farrand OTHERS PRESENT: Jane Bayidon, Randy H riton, Laura Durkin, Hdleary Pippenger. Gary and Tracie Miller, Matthew Centofan- ti, Steve Knutson, and Janelle Walker PRESIDING: Emily Guthrie, Vice -Char STAFF: Carlos Ruiz, Dennis Marino 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Emily Guthrie, Vice -Chair called the meeting to ceder at 7:05 pm. with a quorum present (Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson) It. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Thomas Prairie moved to approve the December 18, 2007 minutes subject to any clarifications made aware to Carlos Ruiz. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed, Ill. COMMUNICATIONS None. N. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE 1. 2039 Maple Avenue (L) — Brick up the rear -facing basement window on the west elevation of house. [Alteration) Jane Bayidon, owner said the project is to brick up a basement window that is visible only from the alley. The window has severe wa:er damage. Her preference is to brick up the window rather than restore it or replace it. Thomas Prairie said that the window vnould be replaced rather than bricking up the window opening, espec�ally on a landmark hoL*e. Stan Gerson referred to standard for review of alteration 6: repair rather than replace -whenever possible, if necessary replace in kind. Ms. Bayldon reiterated her preference is to brick up the window. Ms. Bayidon anted if she could replace the existing window with a double glazed window. The answer was yes. She also mentioned that the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency had approved bricking up the window. She noted the difficulty of having a restoration contractor interested in restoring one window. Evanston Preservation CoaunissWi April 15, 2008 — Minutes Page 2 Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-7, and 10. Stan Gerson moved to deny the certificate of appropriateness to remove the basement window and brick up the opening at 2039 Maple as it does not meet standards: 2 (the distinguishing original quality of the window will be destroyed); 3 (objects shall be recognized as products of their own time); and 6 (deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 5 ayes, 2 nays. Carlos Ruiz informed Ms. Bayldon that she could appeal the Commission's decision within the next 30 days. The Commission concurred that the replacement window could be true divided light with single or double pane glazing. 2. 830-856 Hinman Avenue (L) — 2,500 S.F. of spot tuck pointing. 350 S.F. of various brick replacement. Recaulk all perimeter doors, windows and penetrations. Power -wash and seal all brick and mortar joints. Limestone repairs and pin loose coping stones [Alteration) Randy Hinton, contractor said the work has five parts. Part one is the tuck pointing. The building surface on all elevations is about 50,000 SF. so 2,500 SF of tuck pointing is about 5% of the surface. He said that the mortar samples have been submitted to U.S. Heritage Group for analysis. The building has been tuck pointed before with a darker mortar. The intent is to figure out what the light mortar composition is, and then have U.S. Heritage Group make the mortar and tint it red to match the rest of the building. Mr, Hinton said pneumatic routers will be used to remove the mortar to minimize damage to the brick. A mock up sample will be placed to ensure accuracy of the mortar application. Part two is brick replacement, approximately 350 SF to be rebuilt (most of it parapets). The intention is to reuse brick (approximately 90% out of 1,800 salvaged bricks). If needed bricks from the rear will be relocated and the missing bricks will be replaced with bricks to match. Part three is the repair and patching of some limestone with Edison Coating, a material that could be carved and its appearance is very comparable to limestone and terracotta. Part four is re -caulking all the frames to facade on all the windows, doors penetrations with Sonnebom (p1) and a filler rod. Part five is pressure washing the building prior to sealing the building with Chem -Treat (clear penetrating breathable water repellent that goes on the brick and the mortar). Mr. Hinton said a consultant provided the specifications of all the proposed work. Commission's findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-7 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness at 830-856 Hinman for the work as described above in that standards of alteration 1-7 are met. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1125 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — East e=evation: remove 3 French doors and round transoms above and replace with French door and double hung windows on either side. North elevation: Remove first floor window (eastern side) and fill in with stucco wall. Replace roof shingles with new asphalt shingles, repair; strip; repaint a`.l window shutters, windows and doors (Alteration] Laura Durkin, owner said they will replace the asbestos roof shingles with asphalt shingles. repair all the windows and shutters. Three French doors from the 1980s addition will be replaced with a single French door arc double hung windows. On the north side of the addition they will remove a door and fill in the opening. The windows at the back will be replaced with wood windows. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6 and 10 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the work at 1125 Evanston Preservation Commission April 15.2008 — Mrwtes Page 3 Sherman Road, as described above, it that it meets standards of alteration 1-6 and 10. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays 4. 534 Judson Avenue (l_SHD) — Construct a 2.5-car garage with exterior cement composite siding 4.5" exposure with vinyt trim, vinyl double hung windows and metal garage door and metal access door [Construction] Hilleary Pippenger, owner said she would like to build a 2.5-car garage with hardie plank exterior siding (4" exposure) to be painted, trim around vinyl windows and metal garage door. Susan Rundle said the house has a hip roof, the proposed garage has a gable roof, the window divided lights and proportions do not have anything to do with the house, and there are no comer boards. Thomas Prairie said the window on the first door, below the upper window Is proportionally odd, he recommanded a narrower window or two smaller windows. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5. 7. 8, 10, 12-14, and 16 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the constr=ion of the new garage at 534 Judson Avenue with the following revisions: hardie board or cedar trim and comer boards, gutters, and single narrower window of double windows, because as revised it meets standards 1, 3. 5, 7, 10, 12.14. and 16. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz will approve the revislons. 5. 2024 Ch-Ongton Avenue (NEHOIC) — Construct 2-car garage with cedar siding exterior finish, picture wood window, metal garage door, and asphalt shingle roof [Construction] Carlos Ruiz said the owner of 2420 Orrington is out of the country, but he requested if the Commission could review his application without him being present. The Commission discussed the window on the east side of garage. Carlos Ruiz said that the owner had indicated that there is similar window on the house. The proposed steel garage door with panels was acceptable. The Commission required that proposed picture window on the east side should be a double hung window instead. Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a garage at 2024 Orrington Avenue with a double hung window on the east side as it meets standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote; 7 ayes, 0 nays 6. 732 Cotfax Street (NEHDIC) — Add west facing cross gable to the gabled roof which runs north -south. Enlarge existing shed dormer on the east side. Materials to match stucco, asphalt shingles on the house. New wood windows with divided lights in the upper sash and wood trim to match the existing wood windows on the house [Alteration] This protect was presented after item 8 on the agenda Steve Knutson, architect presented the project. Janelle Walker, owner, arrived later. S. Knutson said to remodel the existing bathroom and to enlarge the existing space and make it more useful, they proposed to construct a gable towards the west w th the same roof pitch as the main body of the house, and it will be finished in stucco like the main house. In the front there is a board separating the triangular gable from the main body of the house so they can make that connection elegantly. The windows are very similar to the existing windows. The detailing of the windows is the same as the existing windows on the lust and second floors of the house. E astston Preserrabon C Tanssion A;d 15. 2008 - Knutes Page 4 S. Knutson said the dormer on the east side of the house is toward the rear and there is a chimney in front of it and is essentially invisible. The east dormer would be very discrete or invisible. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said there is not a north elevation with the proposed dormer. She questioned how the chimney would make the dormer invisible. She was concerned with the proposed dormer and a shed roof versus the gable roof. The existing smaller dormer has a shed roof. S. Knutson the dormer with the new shed roof is taller and longer than the existing. The north face of the dormer is 24' back from the face of the porch, therefore its going to be hard to see. The neighboring house (to the east) is very tall and pretty close. A gable roof would be a lot more than they need. The proposed north gable is 46' back from the property line. He said the proposed dormer would be very hard to see from the ground, because is so far back, it does not affect the symmetry of the house. The back, side and plan of the house are asymmetrical. The proposed dormer provides bedroom three and an escape window. The base of the gable is 23' in the air and the eave is 30% The Commission could not arrive to a decision without a site visit. Susan Rundle moved to continue the project at 732 Colfax until May 20.2008. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes; 0 nays. 7. 1242 Maple Avenue (RHDIS) — Replace in kind missing or rotten cedar siding, fascias, trim on house, Replace/restore porch columns, stairs and railings, gutters and downspouts as needed. Install cedar siding on garage. Remove rear entrance and replace with French doors as previously approved. Build new wood deck at rear and south side of house. Install new A/C units V-7" from the north property line requiring zoning variation. [Construction/DemolitionlAlteratio n/Zoning Variation] Gary and Tracy Miller, representing the owner (T. Miller's brother). presented the project. G. Miller said the house was vacant for twenty years and they would like to restore and repair what they can. The project calls for the replacement of rotten cedar siding trim and fascias, Install four railings on the porch to replace four missing railings, install two new columns to replace two missing columns, install four porch stairs post to replace the original. The inlaid gutters on the front will be repaired. The remaining aluminum hanging gutters will be replaced in kind. The garage will have cedar siding to match the house. A new wooden deck with railings to match the front porch railings and new air conditioning are being installed in the back. T. Miller said the front porch columns are cylindrical and the railing will be higher to meet the building code. The A/C unit requires a zoning variation for being less than 10' setback from the property line. The alternative is to build a deck without the wrap around and locating the A/C unit beyond the required 10' setback. The garage is a concrete cinder block structure; they plan to install cedar siding over the cinder block to match the house. There is an outdoor patio with a fireplace. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alterations 1-7 and 10 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approved a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 1242 Maple Avenue (replacement of cedar siding, fascias, trim, porch columns, stairs, railings, gutters, downspouts, and the installation of cedar siding on the garage, because it meets standards of alteration 1-7 and 10. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15. Betsy Hohman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a new deck with railings to match the front porch at 1242 Maple Avenue, because it meets standards 1, 7, 10, Evanston Preservation Commission April 15.2Q08 — Minutes Page 5 12. 13, and 15. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards A and C for zoning variations as applicable, Betsy Hohman moved to recommend the zoning variation for the A/C unit setback (6'-r setback) at 1242 Maple, because it meets standards of zoning variation A and C. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 633 Michigan Avenue (LSHD/L) — Replace 5'H chain link fence along S property line with a 6'H x 120'L wood fence or install VH x 4W solid wood gate on south property line between the chain link fence on path leading to the rear of the house. Replace N & S interior side yard fences (from the NIE & SiE comers of the house), & interior side yard fence from the S property line to the garage and replace ally wood fence from the N property line to the garage. Fence variation required (ConstructionfFence Variation] Matt Centofanti, owner said he would like replace the existing 5' high chain link fence with a 6' high fence (4.5' solid at the bottom and 1.5' open with lattice at the top) and install a gate up dose to the house for privacy and security. M. Centofanti mentioned other fences as alternates to the proposed fence. Commission's Findings The Commission discussed at length the appropriateness of the proposed fence and the location of other fences for comparison. M. Centofanti requested approval for installing a solid gate with 6'xT x 5' high posts and tie it to the chain link fence (4' out of 120'). Betsy Hohman suggested a 5' picket fence with a coordinated higher fence instead. Stan Gerson asked if only replacing the chain link gate with a solid gate would require a zoning analysis. Carlos Ruiz said that probably yes. The Commission took a straw poll for the solid wood fence and gate. No one voted for that option. The Commission asked M. Centofanti to consider other options such as: a) keeping the existing chain link fence and installing a new 6' high gale with an arch at the top; and b) consider a 4.5' wooden picket fence, with a gate 5' high. M. Centofanti said he would consider keeping the existing chain link fence and find a way to secure the gate. He said he does need a fence variation for the alley side fence. Betsy Hohman moved to continue the discussion on the fence variation for 633 Michigan Avenue to the next meeting. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Centofanti asked if he needed a certificate of appropriateness for the fences on the alley and between houses. The answer is yes. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes; 0 nays. 9. 100 Greenwood Street (LSHl3) Alterations to the existing house on all four elevations: remove windows, doors. portion of walls, trim, gutters and fascia, 1st -story entry posts. East: remove garage door, front brick facade, 3rd-story guardrail and post, portion of 1 st-floor northern wall. North: remove 2nd-story bay. South: remove 3rd-story guardrail and posts, 1-story overhang gutters and fascia. Construct 2-story garageloffiice addition on the south end of house, new windows and facade treatment and expansion of 1 st-story west wall at (season room) with porch jConstruction/DemolitionlAlteration] WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT Evanston Preservation ConymsSam April 15. 2OD8 — Minutes Pape 6 B. Downtown Plan - Update on the Plan Commission meeting (April o, 2008) and the Preservation Commission response to the Plan Commission request to dmaft the text of Objective 2: Protect and Rehabilitate Character Giving Building Structures and Sites. Carlos Ruiz said that on April 9, 2008 the Plan Commission accepted the draft text of Objective 2: Protect and Rehabilitate Character Giving Building S:ructures and Sites of the Downtown Plan. The Plan Commission discussed the intention of the Preservation Commission to nominate landmarks, the creation of historic districts in the Natonal Register. They also discussed incentives for owners (a faWde retention program) and developers (donating funds to a pool for restoration). The educalionai language regarding the Preservation Commission mission was reinstated. Also, there was a suggestion to creating a glossary to include the criteria used for the building survey to understand why a building might have been nominated. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Thomas Prairie asked about the status of the Dawes douse. Carlos Ruiz said that public access will be closed as of April 19, 2008. The Evanston History Center has a year to find another location. Regarding 632-640 Hinman, Carlos Ruiz said they applied for building permit for the west elevation. The Keeney Street side is still pending. Emily Guthrie asked Carlos Ruiz to send a letter to the owner requesting him to come back to the Commission in May 2008. Vt1. ADJOURNMENT Emily Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at appro)dmately 10:20 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes; 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Date: August 19, 2008 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie. Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Gerson OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Knutson, and Janelle Walker, Paul Janicki, Nancy and Henry Godinez, Kenneth Hazelett. Stuart Honeck, Eric and Patricia Kraft, Pastor Richard Sylvester. .lames Dyer, Howard Mitchell, Mario White, Anne Earle and Mary McWilliams PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 11. MINUTES Approval of January 15 and February 19, 2008 Minutes Emily Guthrie moved to approve the January 15 and February 19, 2008 minutes. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes: 0 nays Ill. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS Jordan Cramer referred to a letter to be sent to Mr. Niazmand, owner of 632 Hinman Avenue and a letter to the owner of 904 Hinman Avenue. Both letters seek to call these owners before the Commission in regard to their respective projects and attain a resolution and make a recommendation to City Council. Also, regarding 632 Hinman, no certificate of occupancy will be issued until the issues regarding this project are resolved. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 732 Colfax Street (NEHDIC) — Add west facing cross gable to the gabled roof which runs north - south. Enlarge existing shed dormer on the east side. Materials to match stucco, asphalt shingles on the house. New wood windows with divided lights in the upper sash and wood trim to match the existing wood windows on the house. Steve Knutson, architect and Janelle Walker, owner presented the project. S. Knutson said they are now proposing a gable dormer on the east side instead of the shed dormer. The southeast bedroom on the third floor has changed slightly because the new gable dormer. The materials remain the same: stucco walls, asphalt shingle roof, and wood windows. Evanston Presecvabn Carrnissm May 2D. 2008 - h&rx ftes Page 2 Commission Findings in response to Ann Dienner's question, S. Knutson said that the height of the eaves works with the existing stairway and additional space is gained at the southeast comer. If they were to mimic the other dormer, head height would be gained in the stairs, but a lot of non -usable space would be added. Emily Guthrie said the gable dormer is better than the shed dormer. S. Knutson said the east dormer starts 16' back from the face of the house. In response to E. Guthrie's question, S Knutson said that on the proposed west elevation, they want the eaves to connect the wall of the bedroom aligns with the wall below, but the roof aligns with the same overhung of me existing roof. Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6 and 9 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration of the roof at 723 Colfax, adding two gable dormers, matching the asphalt shingles, wood windows as it meets standards of alteration 1) minimal alterations, 2) original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the structure has been recognized a product of its own time, 4) changes that have acquired their own significance has been respected. 5) stylistic features will be treated with sensitivity, 6) whenever possible deteriorated architectural features will be repaired rather than replaced, 9) contemporary design shall not be discouraged and 10) alterations could be removed and the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: ayes, 0 nays. V. NEW BUSINESS A- Review and Technical Assistance Committee (RRTA) 1. 1138 Judson Avenue (LSHDlL) - Demolish the first floor rear west wall, build new rear west wall expanding kitchen area to the west, build open porch with round columns, railings and side stairs to the south yard, replace three windows on north wall, remove windows on the south wall and build bay window. Second floor west elevation: remove windows and fish scale siding from sunroom and install new windows with transoms (Alteration/Construction/Demolition). Paul Janicki, architect presented the project. P. Janicki said there Is a second -story sleeping porch will be added to the rear of the house. They are removing a portion of an existing structure and adding onto it another portion of the structure. Also, adding a porch to the back, a mudroom and stairs leading from the south up the porch, supporting the seating porch on the second floor and removing some of the fish scales and revert back to clapboard siding. The double hung windows will be replaced with casement windows that match other portions of the house and with leaded glass transoms. Also, add a bay for the breakfast area to the south and add brackets and leaded glass. The porch has Tuscan columns (not fluted) match the front porch. The existing lannon stone of the rusticated base will be continued around to complete the porch. The roof porch is new. The north elevation first floor windows will be replaced: the leaded windows on the second Boor sleeping porch (north and south) are new. All the first Poor windows on the north, south and west elevations are new windows. The basement windo%%s will remain. The new air conditiw.ing unit is for the kitchen and the basement doors are being replaced. Commission's bindings Thomas Prairie said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6, 9 and 10 as applicable. John WiVarson moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations as described abate for 1138 Judson because: 1) alterations are minimal, 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 3) alterations not having historical basis are being Evanston Preservation Commssion slay 20. 2008 - Minutes Page 3 discouraged, 4) history and development are being recognized, 5) stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) repairs are being done, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) additions will be removable. T_ Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Thomas Prairie said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1. 3, 5-6, 10. and 12-16 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 1138 Judson for the new west wall being expanded, built open porch, the additional bay windows as: 1) the height, 3) proportion of openings, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 6) entrance porches. 7) materials and texture, 8) roof shapes and 10) the scale of the structures are all compatible. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 15) additions could be removed without impairing the original structure, and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Thomas prairie said R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the rear west wall at 1138 Judson Avenue because: 1) the structure is not of such historic significance that its demolition is not detrimental, 2) that particular area is not of distinctive architectural character, 3) the demolition will not be contrary to the purpose or intention of the [Preservation Ordinance), 4) the wall is not of such unusual or uncommon design that could not be reproduced, and 5) there are plans. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 943 Ashland Avenue (L) — Replace front door on west elevation; remove two windows and construct new dormer with two windows and install three new windows on the second -story south elevation; new window on first floor north elevation; remove three windows, rear door and rear stairs and construct a one-story rear addition east elevation [Alteration/Construction/Demolition]. Nancy and Henry Godinez, owners and Kenneth Hazelett, architect presented the project for the construction of a single story family room addition at the rear of the house. The scale, materials and fenestration are compatible with the existing house, with a 3" lap wood siding, continuing with the brick face that is on the house around the addition. The new wood Windows match the existing double hung windows, the same detailing for the soffits and the fascia throughout. South elevation: a new dormer is proposed to comply with egress requirements, removing a double hung window and instaMng a pair of double hung windows and a single light window. North elevation: new double hung window on the first floor. A new wood front door will replace the existing non -original front door. The house became a two -fiat in the 1940s and the front stairs were removed. The new plan puts back the stairs the way it was. The proposed chimney is finished with cedar siding consistent with the house. The south elevation of the addition has windows at the top. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6. 9 and 10 as applicable. T. Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at stated above at 943 Ashland Avenue, in that: 1) minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) alterations are not done without historical basis, 4) changes that occurred over time are being recognized, 5) stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated features are being repaired rather than replaced, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) alterations could be removed and the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Betsy Hohman seconder{ the motion_ The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Evarm= Pnmer vzbon Commission May 20. 2008 — kinutes Page 4 Thomas Prairie said R&TA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-16 as applicable. Emily Guthrie moved for approval for the certificate of appropriateness [for the construction of the rear addition) as meeting standards of construction: 1) height, 3) proportion of openings, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street. 7) the texture and materials), 8) roof si ape and 10) the scale of the structure, are all visually compatible. Also, 12) distinguishing anginal qualities are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) new additions could be removed without damaging the essential form and integrity of the structure and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 1 nay. Thomas Prairie said R&TA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable for the demolition of the stair at the rear. Betsy Hohman moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the rear stair at 943 Ashland because: 1) the stairs are not of such historic significance that its demolition is not detrimental, 2) the stairs are not of distinctive architectural character, 3) the demolition of the stairs will not be contrary to the purpose or intention of the [Preservation Ordinance], 4) the stairs are not of such unusual or uncommon design that could not be reproduced, and 5) there are approved plans. Ann Dienner seconded tt-e motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 11235 .Judson Avenue (LSHDfC) - Demolition of existing sun room at rear of house. Construct new glass and aluminum sun room with deck, steps and handrail in cedar. The maximum lot coverage in the R1 district is thirty percent (30%). Proposed building lot coverage = 31.9% [ConstructionlDemolitionlZoning Variation). Stuart Honeck of Weather Seal New Sash, Eric and Patricia Kraft, owners presented the project. The sun pore is at least 40 years old. They proposed to build on the same space and size a Victorian stye conservatory. The materials include: glass, aluminum framing with enamel finish. Also, t3:ere will be a slab under the room and it is open to the air. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie said he was concerned with the structure sitting on stilts. Susan Rundle said the detail of the stairs is not clear. She said it It is built the way it is shown, it does have nothing to do with the existing house or the proposed addition. S. Honeck said the railing will have a grasp on top, vr.h spindles underneath to where the stringers are. Jordan Cramer said C is an interesting project, but the stairs should not be cheap looking. The Commission requested a detail of the stair railings via e-mail. Thomas Prairie asked if the detail is of a typical Chicago back porch would be acceptable? S. Rundle answered, yes. Thomas Prairie said ROTA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5, 6-8. 10 and 12-16 as applicable. ,ion Willason moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the sun room at 1254 Judson, with the condition that the staircase and the enclosure portion underneath be approved later. The standards being met are: 1) height, 3) the proportion of openings, 5) rhythm of spaces, 6) rhythm of porches recesses and projections, 8) roof shape and 10) scale, are visually compatible to the structure to which is visuailey related. Also. 12) the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 1) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the addition is removable and 16) a single style is not being imposed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Emily Guthrie amended the motion to remove standard 7 as it does not comply. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 9 ayes. 0 nays. Thomas Prairie said RBTA recommends standards of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to apprm a the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing back room at 1235 Judson, in that: 1) the it is not of such historic significance that its Evanstw Preservabm Commission May 20. 2008 - htnutes Page 5 demolition is not detrimental. 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive architectural character, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose or intention of the [Preservation Ordinance], 4) it is not of such unusual or uncommon design that could not be reproduced, and 5) there are approved plans. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Thomas Prairie said RBTA recommends standards of zoning variation A and C. Betsy Hohman moved to recommend the zoning variation for the 31.9% of lot coverage at 1235 Judson because: A) it does not adversely affect the historic, architecture or aesthetic integrity of the district and C) it will no be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1819 Dodge Avenue (L) - Demolition of landmark house, construction of 1 and 2-story addition to existing 2-story fellowship house (ConstructlonlDemotition). Richard Sylvester, Pastor of the First Seventh Day Adventist Church of Evanston, James Dyer, Howard Mitchell and Mario White. church members presented the application. Pastor Sylvester said the Church at 1825 Dodge has outgrown its ability to house itself. Al the community level they do not have the facility to meet the proper codes and the needs of the community, specially, after school. In order to do that, they need to expand the sanctuary. Currently they can sit about 100 people and with the addition they could sit about 280 people and a choir. Discussion ensued as to whether the lot is one lot or there are three tots of record. Jordan Cramer said the church has a solid project but what he needed to understand is wary the demolition of the landmark is necessary. Is the structure unsafe or beyond repair, or could the church incorporate the landmark into part of the program, so that to keep that parts of the history with the land. Pastor Sylvester said that the landmark building is in great disrepair and the foundation is deteriorated beyond repair. Susan Rundle said that for a report from a structural engineer would be desirable. The Commission suggested asking the architect, Zion Builders, if the landmark could be incorporated as part of the new plan and be preserved. Pastor Sylvester said that ew zoning requirements necessitate the current plans to meet the required setbacks (10' setback from the comer). They have reduced the proposed building by 10' to 12'. J. Cramer said he would be in favor of recommending a zoning variation in order to preserve the landmark bu3ding. Mr. Dyer said the required setbacks (10' to me south, 15' from the front, and 30' from the back. the land that is left is not enough to build a church and a parking tot. J. Cramee said that what has been presented so far is not enough to convince the Commission to demolish the landmark. He said, if needed, Commission members could meet with the architect at the site to work out a solution. Emily Guthrie said she would like to visit the site to determine the need demolishing me structure. Jon Pohl said that a site plan could help to reconfiguring the plan with the architect and work with the existing building to saving :he landmark. J. Cramer mentioned anot her project on Central Street where the developer came with a plan to incorporate a landmark with the proposed development. Unfortunatety, it did not wok that way. However, this is another opportunity for a similar approach. The Commission said it is important to understand why the house at 1819 Dodge Avenue is an Evanston Landmark. Anne Earle, Assocate member, said the Commission had made a decision to landmark worthy buildings of all sizes. The reason 1890 Dodge was desicgnated in 1986 as a landmark is because the house looked very close to the way it was when it was built (according to the building permit it was as a 20' x 30' — five room house). It has two of the three original porch columns and a knob at the top of the railing (even though the stairs are gone), a shed dormer at the back (fairly typical of the period). There is a whole row of Evanston Preservation Corrrsssm May 20. 2008 - Mirnstes Page 6 similar houses (not the same architect) around the comer on Emerson Street (on the south side) — going east from Dodge Avenue. Only one of those was made a landmark, because the others have had porches enclosed, or siding put on them or major additions to keep them from looking like they did when they were built_ The house at1819 Dodge is particularly unusual in that it survived nearly a century, not being change significantly (a representative of a building t)pe and its integrity not being changed). A. Earle said the integrity of the house is still there. Mary MCW!iams, Associate member said the Commission identified houses for landmark designation that included houses of people from all stratus. economic, social, etc. They wanted to include representative buildings, because those buildings give a complete picture of the history of Evanston, including the healthy and viable African American community since the 1850s, the Commission wanted to honor that, the affluent and working people of Evanston. Jordan Cramer said he would like to know if the structure is beyond repair from an expert. The Commission would like to work with the applicants to determine whether the landmark could be restored or not. The Commission and the applicants agreed to meet at the site on Wednesday. May 28. 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Emily Guthrie moved to continue the project review. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays B. Downtown Plan Update on the Plan Commission meeting (May 14, 2008) and the Preservation Commission response to the Plan Commission request to draft the text of Objective 2: Protect and Rehabilitate Character Giving Building Structures and Sites. Carlos Ruiz saA the Plan Commission has adopted Objective 2: Protect and Rehabilitate Character Giving Building Structures and Sites (April 9, 2008). On May 14. 2008 a motion to remove the section of the downtown plan dealing with the downtown core where buildings could be up 48 stories with the bonuses. No vote was taken, and the meeting adjourned due to loss of a quorum. Also, the proposed new building at 708 Church is not included in the downtown plan because the proposal was already in the pipe line for the planned development application. C. 2007-2008 Preservation Design Awards Update on the 2007-2008 Preservation Design Awards Carlos Ruiz said Mary Brugliera. Associate member volunteered to serve as a juror. Susan Rundle volunteered her husband (Phil Castillo) as a juror. Emily Guthrie said that the Awards Program should be held as soon as possible. VI, COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Thomas Prairie reminded the Commissioners that soon there will be four vacant seats and encourage everyone to keep looking for new Commissioners. John Willarson announced that the Chicago Architectural Foundation started the tour of downtown Evanston (May 10.2008). The next tours are scheduled on June 11 and June 14 at 10:00 a.m. The meeting place is tt:,e Evanston Library. Regarding the dosage of the Dawes House [Evanston History Center] at 225 Greenwood. Emily Guthrie mentioned that Thursday morning at 9:45 a.m. (May 22, 2008) a rally of supporters will take place at the Dawes House grounds. Susan Farrand said the Evanston History Center will ask Evanston Presenrabon Comntssion tVtay 20, 2008 - Knutes Page 7 Northwestern University to donate the house to them. Mary McWilliams said that the Fire Chief concluded that the Dawes House could have small gathering on the first floor (up to sixty people including the research room). Northwestern University maintains that the Dawes House Is inhabitable. VII. ADJOURNMENT Emily Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date Approved: November 18, 2008 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES Members Present: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl. Thomas Prairie. Susan Rundle and Jon Willarson Members Absent_ Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie Others Present: James Murray, Pastor Richard Sylvester, James Dyer, Howard Mitchell, Mario White, Brad Jeffery, Mary McWilliams, Anne Earle, Chris NesbctL Ms. Rorke, Harry Lo%%Tance, Philip Crihfield, Ken Itle, David A. Grosskopf, Andrew McGonagle, Homan Wong, Steven Smutny, Sue Auerbach. Ken Swanson, Robert Lubotsky, Sharon Vukmvich, Brent Moore, Cindy Berry, Heather Collins, Marc Bushala, Veronique Bushala and Fred Wilson. Presiding: Jordan Cramer, Chair Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7.05 p.m. with a quorum of eight members present (Ann Dienner. Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl. Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos Ruiz 11. MINUTES March 18, Apcd 15. and May 20. 2008 Minutes. No minutes were approved. III. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS A. Letter to Ramo Perocevic regarding 904 Hinman James Murray, attorney said his client Ramo Perocevic, owner of the building at 904 Hinman Avenue is out of town. He saw that the subcommittee that originally considered the application for replacing the windows should reconvene to attempt to resolve the issue. The cost of replacing the windows is an issue of concern. Jordan Cramer said trial to his recollection the ball is on the applicant's coumi and now two years later here is where things are. Carlos Ruiz said that the subcommittee recommended that over a period of time the owner remo-re the replacement double hung windows and Install new windows to be more In keeping with the original steel casement windows with divided lights. C. Ruiz said that there was at some point a proposal from the applicant to rehabilitate the first floor storefront at the comer of Main and Hinman and leave the double hung windows. J. Murray said the real motivation behind the double hung windows is the ability to utilize air conditioning units In the apartments. There are apartments now that are not rentable because of the interference to the existing windows vs. the Evanston Preservation Convnission .tune 17, 2008 - ru4nutes Page 2 double hung windows. He said Ramo Perocevic, the owner made the offered that C. Ruiz referred to earlier. There was an effort to identify a variety of window companies and identify potential tax cuts for the initial investment to completely replace the windows. J_ Murray said he would be less than candid if he would say that for his client that was an acceptable conclusion. J. Cramer suggested to J. Murray to submit in writing a proposal from his client and present it to the Commission for consideration at the next meeting. Stan Gerson said the Commission should come up with a specific recommendation to the City Council, Susan Rundle expressed concern about the applicant's lack of timely response. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission may come up with its recommendation to City Council and the owner could also come up with his own proposal. Jordan Cramer said the Commission would table this case to the next meeting with the understanding that the owner will submit a written proposal regarding the windows ahead of time. The Commission will take up the issue at the next meeting (July 15, 2008). Thomas Prairie moved to table the item until next meeting. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. B. Letter to Michael Niazmand regarding 632-W Hinman Jim Murray, attorney said that his client Michael Niazmand, owner is out of town. He acknowledged the commission's concern of why the work has not commenced on the exterior [south and west elevation]. J. Murray said under the directive of the lender, the work effort has been put into establishing a unit at the southeast comer of the building as the model unit. Carlos Ruiz said Joe DeLisl, architect indicated to him that the owner wanted to retain the modified smaller window opening on the south elevation (Keeney Street). C. Ruiz said that he reminded Mr. DeLlsi that the Commission's determination was to return those affected windows to their original size opening. Jordan Cramer said the applicant should come to the Commission and be ready to explain why he wants to retain the alterations on the south elevations and what the benefits are. James Murray said the owner intend to do that. C. Ruiz said that the west elevation has remained the same; the corrections should have been performed by now. J. Murray said the lack of work does not mean his client is ignoring the correctives of the Commission. C. Ruiz said a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the owner addresses the issues on the west and south elevations. Stan Gerson moved to table the item until the next meeting. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1819 Dodge Avenue (L) - Demolition of landmark house, construction of 1 and 2-story addition to existing 2-story fellowship house [ConstructionlDemolition] (Application was continued on May 20. 2008) Pastor Richard Sylvester, James Dyer, Howard Mitchell and Mario White were present as the owners. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie reported to the Commission that several of the Commissioners visited the site and that unfortunately the house is severely deteriorated. Ann Dienner and Jon Pohl said that there is severe water damage, every sub -floor is rotted and molded. The landmark house was designated for its architecture and not its historic significance. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the Church addition being built at 1819 Dodge as: 1) the height and 2) proportion of front facade are compatible with the Church building. 7) Evanston Presertiau n Carmission June 17. 2008 — Wtmtes Page 3 The materials and texture are the same, 8) the roof shape is appropriate to the type building and 12) distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the house at 1819 Dodge Avenue because: 3) its demolition would not be contrary to the purpose or intent of this chapter and 4) the house is of such old design that it would cause great expense to reproduce it_ Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said he wilt be available to work with the applicants to remove the 1819 Dodge address from the landmark list. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing — 2117 Greenleaf Street: Nomination for Evanston landmark Designation Brad Jeffery, co-owner of International Refining Manufacturing Company at 2117 Greenleaf presented the first draft of the nomination. B. Jeffery said the company was founded by his great grandfather. They are a fourth generation family owned business. Mary McWilliams said there are no industrial buildings designated as landmarks in Evanston. She said there is a strong case to be made for the building, but they need to do the research. M. McWilliams learned that there is a coincidence of planning. The area was annexed in 1913; in 1917 the Plan of Evanston was written. D. H. Burnham, Jr. and Hubert Burnham were two of the authors. In 1919 Mr. Jeffery bought the land and asked Burnham and Company to design the building for the land. In 1921 Evanston passed the first Zoning Ordinance in Illinois and that land became industrial. M. McWilliams believes that there is a strong connection that the building influenced the development of the area. She said this will be a nomination that will not focus on the architecture of the building, but on the planning issues and on the activities that took place and the history. M. MCWdtiams said that there is material available to provide a strong nomination. She would like to submit a nomination that the Commission could support. Ann Dienner moved to postpone the application and public hearing for the proposed landmark designation for 2117 Greenleaf Street until the applicant is ready. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. B. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (RBTA) 1. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Construction of single family house [Construction] Chris Nesbitt, owner presented the appi ation. He presented the affidavit for the notification of the meeting to the neighbors. A secondary letter clarifies between the renewal application and the three previous applications showing Vasilion as the architect. Hanna and Associates are the architects on the current application. They are doing the actual construction drawings. The drawings submitted to the Commission are the exact same drawings that had been submitted originally for the original certificate of appropriateness (COA) in April of 2005 for the demolition of the then existing home and the construction of the new home. Since then, he applied twice to renew the COA. In between those renev.-als he had a purchaser of the land. He provided to Carlos Ruiz some language of the contract that the purchaser could make alterations to the interior of the home, but could not change the exterior of the home without being in default of the contract. They came back to him after having hired an architect and told him they could not make the interior work to the design that the purchaser was interested in, and asked if the purchaser could make some modifications to the exterior and present it before the Preservation Commission. C. Nesbitt said he granted the purchaser an extension of the contract under the caveat that if he made changes to the exterior of the structure, he would recuse himself from appearing before the Commission. The purchaser completely redesigned the structure, and he never looked at the plans until after the purchaser was defaulted and out of contract. Evanston Preservation Cornmissi i ,tune 17. 2008 — "nutes Page 4 C. Nesbitt said he is back to renew the same COA that he obtain in 2005 and he is prepared to build the structure as it was previously approved. There are no changes to the original plan as provided in 2005. Susan Rundle said that she was concerned with the proposed height of the building in relation to everything else, particularly in tight to what has happened with the height of the new house at 925 Edgemere. She asked if the height of 917 Edgemere is the same as the height of 925 Edgemere. C. Nesbitt said that 917 Edgemere it is not the same eight as 925 Edgemere. He said he was asked to prepare a drawing of all the houses to show how the new two houses fit in with everything else. He said the bottom of the houses is on a straight line. At that particular time, there were two homes sitting on each of the sites at 925 and 917 Edgemere. They did not have an engineering benchmark for the elevation of 925 or 917 Edgemere because they were still existing homes. C. Nesbitt said the drawing showed the harmony of design between the existing homes and 925 Edgemere. C. Nesbitt said there were no neighbors present at the first meeting. Two neighbors were present at the time of the last renewal of 917 Edgemere. There were neighbors that thought the house at 925 Edgemere was taller than what they anticipated. At the time he produced the drawings for 925 Edgemere, he did not have idea when the benchmarks were set (0.0 for the house) that there would be a 6.7 foot difference, between the grade of 925 and the grade of 919 Edgemere. As soon he received that information he staked the side lot to show Mr. Lowrance (owner of 919 Edgemere) the elevation differences beh%een the out lots. C. Nesbitt said the house that existed on 925 Edgemere was a very small house, fiat on grade, 1950 style. It is the elevation change that made 925 Edgemere much taller than 919 Edgemere. The height of 917 is 43-feet to the ridge, mid -ridge is less than 34.2-feet which is below the maximum allowed. C. Nesbit said the house is setback so far that the highest ridge of 917 Edgemere is so far back from the ridge of 919 Edgemere, it will appear exactly as it appears on that plan, although it is tall. Ms. Rorke, owner of 920 Edgemere said 925 Edgemere is not Only tall but closer to the street. She asked the Commission to look at the front of the houses rather than at the property line. C. Nesbit said there is a 5-foot sidewalk in front of 925 Edgemere and 929 and there would be a 5- foot sidewalk at the base of 917 Edgemere based on the agreement of the neighbors. Harry Lowrance of 919 Edgemere Court said that he was at the meeting for the only meeting he was notified of for the original certificate of appropriateness as well another neighbor. At that meeting they were given those same roof lines and also they were given the setbacks which initially set the house further back than his house. Based upon those drawings they went along in saying that it looks like it was acceptable because it was set back and the roof line kept in rhythm with the block. The house at 925 Edgemere was built closer to the street and higher and it is not what it was supposed to be. He wanted to know if the drawings for 917 Edgemere are the same as the drawings submitted in 2005. H. Lowrance said the house at 925 Edgemere is 6-feet taller than his house. The old house was 2-feet taller than his house. His concern is that the drawings do not show what the house is going to be when built in terms of proportion, scale, height. He was concerned with the rhythm on the street and afraid that 917 Edgemere will come up the same way as 925 Edgemere. H Lowrance also mentioned the letter that C. Nesbitt sent to the neighbors assuring them that 917 and 925 Edgemere will line up with respect to height and proportion compared to the rest to the homes and that the building at 925 Edgemere would be the eighth tallest home out of sixteen homes, and 917 Edgemere would be the fifth largest/tallest building out of the other homes on Edgemere Court. Philip Crihfield of 900 Edgemere Court said he agreed with H. Lowrance's comments. He did not attend previous meetings because at the time everything had met his concerns about setbacks and height based on the drawings the Commission received which show 925 Edgemere behind 919 Edgemere. P. Crihfield referred to a letter C. Nesbitt had sent to the neighbors, he read: 'I arts enclosing a scaled elevation drawing of the entire east side of Edgemere Court, as you can sr - Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2008 — ti6rwtes Pape 5 the new homes are neither the tallest nor the shortest on the block.' He said the proposed house at 917 Edgemere should be 6-feet lower than the house at 919 Edgemere, so that there is a slope up to where it is now the peak of 925 Edgemere. He said he is not a party of any agreement about the sidewalk. He said he never received notice of any renewal application. Carlos Ruiz said there is no notice requirement in the Preservation Ordinance except for the notice to the owner(s) of a building nominated for landmark designation. A notice is required for zoning variations. The meeting agenda is posted in the City's wegsite and it is available through a subscription to receive the agenda via email_ J. Cramer said as a practical matter, on projects of this sort, the Commission typically ask the question if the project has been discussed with the neighbors, and it that had not been done, the Commission often limes ask that that be done. In response to the comments from neighbors Chris Nesbit said that he is confident that 925 Edgemere is not the tallest house on the street. He said that H. Lowrance and P. Crihfield noted that 925 Edgemere if 6-feet taller than the ridge of 919 Edgemere. C. Nesbitt said the drawings show a straight line drawing. He did not know that there would be a 6-Foot difference in the grade. In response to the assertion that H. Lowrance made about a 2-foot high difference between his property and the neighboring property, he would agree. 925 Edgemere is not the same 2,386 s. f. home that existed in 925 Edgemere previously. H. Lowrance's yard goes from the high side at the street to the lowest side at the Lake; going back it becomes a 6-foot change in elevation. Regarding the setbacks, at 917 Edgemere is 73-feet from the center line; 925 Edgemere is 71.5- feet from the center line of Edgemere. Jordan Cramer said the concern he has is looking the rhythm of the spacing on the street, based on what is there today. Susan Rundle requested a true elevation of the home in relation to the existing homes. C. Nesbitt asked about the status of the certificate of appropriateness (COA) for 917 Edgemere. C. Ruiz said the COA is expired. Thomas Prairie said the true elevation should have the ridge heights from grade. The Commission also requested a true street plan. Betsy Hohman moved to continue 917 Edgemere Court to July 15, 2008. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2, 2033 Sheridan Road (L) -Restore exterior of building to match original materials, including: tile roof. copper gutters and downspouts, roof areas, masonry, mortar, and stucco [Alteration] Ken Itle of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoc. Inc., ©avid A. Grosskopf of Northwestern University's Facilities Management Operations presented the project. K. Itle said the project is the roofing and masonry repairs at Lunt Hall. The existing roof is day tile; it Is relatively a new installation with a handful of tiles to be replaced with matching Ve. The perimeter of the the roof is a built in gutter lined with cupper, to be replaced with lead coated copper gutter liner. The existing damaged and missing downspouts will be replaced with the omamental scupper boxes (replicated from the last remaining scupper). The fiat roof areas (the portico roof -service vestibule roof) are not visible. The rusted galvanized sheet metal coping will be replaced with lead coated copper. The masonry will be restored and repointed. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards for alteration 1-6 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 2033 Sheridan as presented, in that it meets standards: 1) adapt.Gng the property, 2) distinguishing original character is not being destroyed, 3) alterations with no t tstorical basis are not being done, 4) changes that have taken place over time are being respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, and 6) deteriorated features are being repaired whenever possible rather than replace. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion_ The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 721 University Place (L) —Window replacements on the south elevation and 2-story addition on the north elevation (not visible from the public way) [Alteration] Erartstnn Presermbon Convnission .lane 17. 2008 — Knutes Page 6 Andrew McGonagle of Northwestern University Facilities Management, Homan Wong and Steven Smutny. architects of Panto-Ulema, Inc. presented the project. A. McGonagle said the building is the Evans Scholars House which is on a long term lease with the Evans Scholars Organization. A. McGonigle showed four photographs making the point that the proposed activity is barely visible from the street with exception of the south facade. The addition is located inside the courtyard. Homan Wong said any alterations would be to the south elevation. Windows were replaced between 1928 and with windows that are not historically compatible. The proposed new windows would be historically appropriate. They intend to keep the original downspouts and will repair or closely match the original gutters. The balcony railings will be repaired. They will repair the damaged dormers and replace the cupper flashing. The slate on the roof is in good condition. The slate of the dormers would be brought back to its original condition. They will clean the limestone and analyze the composition of the mortar. H. Wong said the new windows will closely match the original windows with the muntin dimension closely matching the original. The existing color is not a historic color; they proposed a blue -gray color to match what they believe the original color was. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of alteration 1-7 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for 721 University Place because: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property to a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the property is being recognized a s a product of its own time. 4) changes that have taken over the course of time are being respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced whenever possible, and 7) surface cleaning is being done with gentle means as possible. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. 4. 1111 Maple Avenue (L) - Alterations to the east rear elevation: Removing 3 windows and one door, and install four new windows a French door with transoms and a new wooden deck with stairs. Install new cedar lattice as railing and as fence [Alteratio nlConstruction] Sue Auerbach, architect presented the project. They proposed replacing vinyl windows and vinyl doors with casement wood windows with a muntin system more appropriate to the front of the house. They are switching the kitchen door with double doors in the dining room. They will change the existing deck system for easier access to the basement. A small area of the patio will be enlarged. The fence teas been already replaced for the whole complex. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of alteration 1-5 as applicable. ,ton Willarson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 1111 maple because: 1) it Is a minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 3) alterations without historical basis are being discouraged. 4) the history of the property is being recognized, and 5) stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote. 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of construction 1, 6, 7, 10, 12. 13, and 15 as applicable. Betsy Hohrnan moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new wooden deck and stairs at 1111 Maple because: 1) the height, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, and 10) the scale of the structure are all visually compatible with the properties and structures to which they are visually related, 12) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, a3) archaeological resources will be protected, and 15) whenever possible the new addition could be done In a manner that if it be Evarww Preservation Comofmion Jum 17, 2008 - Minutes Page 7 removed in the future, the integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote_ 8 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1630 Judson Avenue (L/LSHD) — Replacement of windows on 12 locations of the second floor [Alteration] Ken Swanson, owner and Robert Lubotsky, architect presented the project. R. Lubotsky said the previous owner already had replaced windows on the first floor and a portion of the windows a portion of the windows on the second floor on the front elevation of the house, except the front door. That replacement won a preservation award. They propose the replacement of windows in like kind, casement to casement w:th interior and exterior to match. Robert Lubotsky presented an actt:al window (window 10) of the second floor -south side. He said not all the remaining windows are in such bad condition. He referred to window 7 to illustrate the deterioration of the wood. The proposed window replacements are exactly what was done ten years ago by the previous owners. They proposed replacing the living, master bedroom, stairway windows, and the kitchen windows_ With the exception of the French doors, they will replace all the windows with casement Marvin windows retaining the existing frame and sill. The replacement will be made to fit into the openings. The replacement windows will have the muntins in the same pattern as the existing windows. They will have muntins on the exterior and Interior with the spacer bars in between the glass. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie asked if the replacement windows are smaller than the original windows. R. Lubotsky said yes. Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards of alteration 1-6 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the w•sidow replacement at 1630 Judson in that: 1) minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 3) alteration with historical basis are not being discouraged, 4) history and development are recognized, 5) stylistic features are treated with sensitivity, and 6) whenever possible the windows are being repaired rather than replaced. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1325 Judson Avenue (LILSHD) - Replacement of basement windows with glass block [Alteration] Sharon Vuinovich, owner and E.rent Moore. mason contractor presented the project. S. Vuinovich said her house is 136 years old, one of the older homes in Evanston. There are no brick headers on any of her windows. The windows fit directly under the silt plate. There is significant damage to the windows. She spent S30.000 in the foundation restoration. Two thirds of the interior masonry work was done last year and two thirds of the exterior masonry work was done this year. S. Vuinovich plans to do one thf d of me interior now and the exterior will be done next year. She said she has eleven basement w•indcrivs, seven different sizes and three types of windows. Some windows do not have sills at all. She proposed to replace the windows with glass block for the following reasons: 1) for securitt7 (she trues atone), 2) health reason due to significant mildew, 3) dampness, and 4) and the integn-ry issje because of the sill plate and the lack of a roof header. Regarding wood windows, Brem Moore said wood does not adhere well with the brick. S. Vulnovich said because water C.amaged several of the window frames are not even square. The cost estimate to reframe a window is S500 to S1,000. She said five of the eleven windows cannot be seen from the public way (the visiWity of windows 4, 5 and 8 is undetermined). Windows 1, 2, and 3 are visible. The front window is only 19-feet from the sidewalk. She found nineteen houses With glass block windows in the historic district. Three houses were similar in style to her house. Evanston Preservation Cornrmssion June 17, 2008 - Minutes Page 8 Thomas Prairie said he was concerned with glass block on a landmark house. B. Moore asked at what point the cost of replacing the windows in kind is considered a hardship to the owner. S. Vuinovich said she had 136 old brick walls that are either plumbed or squared; at some point the entire thing cannot be rebuilt. She emphasized that they considered many options. S. Vuinovich asked (referring to the site plan) if she would be allowed to do put glass block on the We windows that cannot be seen; brick up the three marginal windows and replace the visible windows 1.2 and 3 to the Commission's specifications. Windows 9, 10 and 11 on the north elevation and windows 6 and 7 on the south elevation are not visible from the public way in any manner. The visibility of windows 5 and 4 on the south side and window 8 on the north is questionable. She said there is no alley at the rear. Thomas Prairie and Susan Rundle said they would like to visit the site to verify if indeed the windows that the applicant mentioned are not visible. S. Vuinovich said glass block does help with the structural integrity issue. If the house had brick headers it would be a different argument. T. Prairie suggested that with non -visible windows the owner could do the glass block. The visible windows should be restored. S. Vuinovich said she would replace windows 1, 2, and 3 exactly as they are with custom windows. S. Vuinovich asked is she choose to brick up any of the windows does she need any special permission. T. Prairie said for non visible windows she could do whatever she wants as long as the building code requirements are in compliance. T. Prairie said fences and landscaping are not permanent obstruction to the view from the public way. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-6 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the basement windows at 1325 Judson with wood windows to match the existing windows for the windows visible from the public way in that the work will meet standards: 1) reasonable effort to adapt the property, 2) distinguishing original characters are not being destroyed, 3) alterations that have no historical basis that seek earlier appearance are being discouraged. 4) changes that have taken place over the course of time are being recognized, 5) distinctive stylistic features shall be treated Kith sensitivity, and 6) deteriorated features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. The repair and replacement of missing architectural features shall be based on accurate evidence rather than conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. Jordan Cramer clarified that the applicant would have to submit to Carlos Ruiz what the plan is, and if that deviates [from what was approved] the applicant would have to come back to the Commission. Commissioners would go to the site to determine what windows are visible from the public way. At this time the Commission and the applicant for 100 Greenwood agreed to review the project on a special meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 7.00 p.m. due to the advanced hour 7. 1140 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) - One-story rear addition and wooden deck. Also replacement of basement windows [Alteration/Construction] Cindy Berry, architect presented the project. The project includes a mudreom addition to the rear of the house; the brick and mortar joints will match the existing. All the details of the house will be replicated (moldings, dentils and roofing). The removed porch had an overhung roof with two columns, a railing and stairway. Originally they proposed a small deck off the new addition with the stairs coming down. Now the revised elevation is to replicate the porch with the overhung Evamlan Preservation Commission .tune 17. 2008 — thnutes Pape 9 coming straight off the rear of the new addition and aligning the new staircase with the French doors. The deck is now 4-feet deep with the stairway. All new windows are wood to match the existing. There are two windows at the porch and the existing bay will remain. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said the alterations include three new basement window openings and replacing eight existing windows. He said RBTA recommends standards of alteration 1-6 are applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed alterations at 1140 Hinman because: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property with minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the property is being recognized as a product of its own time, 4) changes that have taken place over time that have acquired significance are being respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, and 6) distinctive architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. C. Berry said that there are five new windows not three. B. Hohman amended her motion to include five new basement windows. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said the construction includes the one-story addition and wooden deck stairs at the rear. He said RBTA recommends standards of construction 1, 3, 5-8. 10, 12, 13, and 15. Thomas Prairie moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the rear addition and porch and steps at 1140 Hinman in that it meets standards: 1) height, 2) proportion of openings, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures, 6) rhythm of the porch and other projections, 7) materials and textures, 8) roof shapes, and 10) scale of the structure are all visually compatible to the structure to which are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original character of the property is not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources w3l be protected, and 15) the addition could be removed and the integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. 8. 100 Greenwood Street (LSHD) - East and North elevations: 2-story additions. West elevation: 1 and 2-slory addition. Remaining of house will undergo modifications to the trim, stucco, openings, windows and doors [Alteration/Construction] This project was previously rescheduled to a special meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 7.00 p.m. 9. 744 Judson Avenue (LSHD) -Replace 2nd-story windows at rear section of house [Alteration) Heather Collins, owner presented the project. She said she had already replaced (three weeks ago) rotten windows at the rear on the second story of her house at 744 Judson without a certificate of appropriateness. There are already a number of windows that have been replaced even before by the previous owner. She presented option A as the already installed windows (double hung), option B are casement windows. H. Collins said the house has a variety of different window styles. The second story windows that were recently removed were casement windows with divided lights (since 1996), She noted that the windows on the front elevation are double hung with divided lights on the upper sash only. Jordan Cramer said that given that the house is not a contnbubng structure he was okay with the current windows. The Commission suggested in the future replacing the bottom windows with windows to match the newly installed Wndo-ws on the second floor at the rear. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-6 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the window replacement at 744 Judson in that: the owner has the intention to replace the first floor windows to match the second floor windows, because: 1) every effort has been made to adapt the structure in a manner that • Evanston Preservation Commission June 17.2008 — Minutes Page 10 requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are nor being destroyed, 3) the property is being recognized as a product of its own time, 4) changes that have taken place over the course of time have been respected, 5) stylistic features have treated with sensitivity. and 6) applies but it has not been met. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. B. Downtown Plan Update on the Plan Commission meeting (June 11. 2008) Carlos Ruiz the Plan Commission is working on the Form Based chapter, they are not discussing historic preservation at this time. C. 2007-2008 Preservation Design Awards Update on the 2007-2008 Preservation Design Awards Carlos Ruiz passed the list of all the nominations (Susan Rundle, Mary Brugliera and Heidi Hoppe) selected six projects (1021 Greenwood. 2103 Orringlon, 2039 Orrington, 1031 Judson, 1730 Chicago and 1044 Elmwood). The awards ceremony is scheduled on Monday. June 23, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. before the City Council. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF None. VII. ADJOURNMENT With no further business for discussion the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date Approved: December 16, 2008 CfTY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2404 2100 Ridge Avenue Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Members Present: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle and Jon Willarson Members Absent: Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie Others Present: Marc Bushala, Veronique Bushala, Fred Wilson, John Henderson, Eileen Henderson. Katie Stallcup, Sarah McCarthy Presiding: Jordan Cramer, Chair Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with a quorum of seven Commissioners present (Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Jon Pohl, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos Ruiz 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 100 Greenwood Street (LSHD) - East and North elevations: 2-story additions. West elevation: 1 and 2-story addition. Remaining of house will undergo modifications to the trim, stucco, openings, windows and doors [Alteration/Construction) Marc Bushala and Veronique Bushala, owners presented the project. Fred Wilson, architect arrived soon after. M. Bushala said it is important to him that the character of the house at 100 Greenwood is in harmony with the neighborhood. The house now is not particularly attractive in terms of proportions. The existing garage is on the south elevation of the house, which means the asphalt driveway is traversing the front of the house. They are trying to reclaiming some of the garden by moving the garage to the other side. Marc Bushala said they propose bringing the east portion of the house forward on both sides, creating a classic 'U' shape, which also makes the existing glass addition less important. M. Bushala said ney met with the neighbors and heard their considerations. He is considering removing all of the existing brick and installing a new brick with stucco or stone facade and improving the took of the house. The prior owners had approval for an addition but it was not in compliance with the [Zoning] Code. The former owners had signed a memorandum of agreement with immediate neighbors that limited windows on the south and west elevation of the house to mitigate intrusions of privacy into their yards. M. Bushala said they will adhere to a binding legal agreement. They are proposing opaque glass or some other treatment that would ensure privacy but might look good aesthetically from the exterior elevation and still allow natural Evanston Preservation C nvnisslon Special Meeting Minutes — June 25.2008 Page 2 light on those rooms. John Henderson and Katie Stallcup, neighbors said that the agreement details will be discussed with M. Bushala separately and that the affected elevations are the south and west elevations, the least visible from the public way. Jordan Cramer said the private agreement does not trump the Preservation Commission's purview. Carlos Ruiz said another issue for consideration is the Building Code that may require a means of egress for specific rooms. Fred Wilson, architect described the project and said the garage is immediately to the right. On the front facade (east elevation) there are two wings coming out with a central part. The gable roofs are incorporated from the existing gable roof, The oblique views out of the comers maximize the fenestration. The materials include brick and stucco. The brick is up to the silts of the second floor. The piece receding back the brick goes up to the second story head of the windows. Glass will be introduced under the gable roofs. The new wings have roof porches. The rear west elevation has a similar treatment as the east elevation. The south elevation has a pair of obscured double windows under the double gable roof. The chimneys are all masonry. Landscaping would be introduced to maintain the privacy for the neighbors and the home owners. Marc Bushala said the agreement references a plan with the windows X-ed out (two on the south elevation and two on the west elevation, north and south) with the specific reference to keeping the center window on the west elevation. F. Wilson said the revised drawings showed the materiality of the additional brick (not included in the packet drawings). The new windows are aluminum clad wood windows (casements). The garage doors and main entry door are wood doors. Thomas Prairie expressed concern about the skylights. Fred Wilson said the skylights can be opened at any degree for ventilation and the color is dark like the roof. Sarah McCarthy, neighbor asked about the south and west facing facades and if the balcony facing west would it be visible on the south side. F. Wilson said the Juliet balcony will not be visible from the south. Kathie Stallcup asked if the existing skylights will remain or removed. F. Wilson said no decision had been made on the existing skylights (three on the east elevation and two on the north elevation). Fred Wilson said the Zoning Division approved the plans and the easement for the driveway is recorded. There are no impervious surface issues either. The Iron fencing is in bad condition and a decision has not been made yet_ M. Bushala asked if there would be a problem installing gates on the front. Commissioners did not object to installing gates. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said the new construction affects the east elevation towards the south of the east fagade; the rest of the east facade is 'U' shaped (going around the east, the north and coming around to the west) - those are largely two-story additions. The rest on the west are one-story additions. R&TA recommends standards of construction 1-8, and 10-16 as applicable. S. Gerson moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for the new construction at 100 Greenwood, in that: 1) the height. 2) the proportion of the front facade, 3) the proportion of openings. 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in the front facade, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures. 6) the rhythm of the entrance porch, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale of the structure, and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are all compatible with properties, structure, site to which they will be visibly related. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) the design is not contemporary and is not being discouraged, 15) the additions could be removed without destroying the essential form and integrity of the original structure, and 16) a single architectural style Is not Evamtan Preservation Commission Special Meeting Minutes — June 25. 2008 Pafle 3 being imposed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said alterations at 100 Greenwood include: changing the front entrance, new windows on the north fa;ade, and various modifications on the south and west facades. R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1-5 and 10 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the alterations as stated above for the house at 100 Greenwood because: 1) every reasonable effort has been made in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed, 3) all properties, structures, sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and seek to create an earlier shall be discouraged. 4) Changes may have taken in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of the property or structure, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the structure shall be treated with sensitivity. and 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 111. OFF AGENDA ITEMS A. 1200 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Replacement of Windows [Alteration] Carlos Ruiz consulted with the Commission about the proposed replacement of all the windows on the house at 1200 Sheridan Road, located within the Lakeshore Historic District. He said there are only three remaining wood windows on the house. The applicant is proposing replacing all the windows with aluminum clad windows and remove a first floor window on the north elevation and Install aluminum clad French doors with a Juliet balcony. The Commission deferred the proposal to Carlos Ruiz for administrative approval. B. 1325 Judson Avenue (ULSHO) -Replacement of basement windows with glass block [Alteration] This project was in front of the Commission on June 17, 2008. After a brief discussion on the site visits performed by some of the Commissioners, the Commission concluded all the basement windows except for the four windows at the back of the house would have to be replaced in kind. If the owner will like to do something else with the remaining window she will be asked to come back in front of the Commission. C. 2008 Preservation and Design Awards - Report Jordan Cramer said that on Monday. June 23, 2008 the Commission gave out the 2008 Preservation and Design Awards in front of the City Council and the Mayor. The awards were well received, particularly the renovation of the former church into a home at 1 D44 Elmwood Avenue. He said the event was a good promotion of the Commission's work. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: 115109 Approved: 1 /13109 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Betsy Hohman, Stan Gerson. Ann Dienner. Jon Willarson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle; and Suzanne Farrand MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, Jon Pahl, and Emily Guthrie OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Nesbitt, Candice Groot. Harry Lowrance, Liz Rorke, Phil Crihfield, Mike Niazmand, Joe DeLisi, James Murray, Mike Niazmand, Ramo Perocevic, Janet Clements. Terry Dason, Anne McGuire, Mary N. Dillon, Charlotte Whitley, Michael Libby, Allyson Wilkovich, and Heather Collins PRESIDING: Betsy Hohman, Secretary STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Betsy Hohman, Secretary called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. with a quorum of seven members present (Stan Gerson, Ann Dienner, Jon Willarson, Thomas Prairie. Susan Rundle; and Suzanne Farrand)_ Carlos Ruiz, staff. II. MINUTES March 18.2008 Minutes Suzanne Farrand moved to approve the March 18.2008 minutes. Stan Gerson seconded the motion_ The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ill. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS None. N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RBTA) 1. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Construction of single family house [Construction] Chris Nesbitt, owner presented the projecd C. Nesbitt said at the last meeting he was requested to hire an independent engineering firm to establish the roof peaks of the homes at the east side of Edgemere Court. He hired Daniel Creany, engineer to establish a grade mark and then establish from that grade mark the height peak of each of the homes of both sides of the street- C. Nesbitt said he submitted a copy of the elevations and a second page that shows the frontage or the footprint of the each of the homes on the east side of the street, also showing the footprint of the proposed 917 Edgemere home. The drawing shows Evanston Pmsemtion Coayrmsion July 15. 2008 — Minutes Page 2 the height peak of 919 Edgemere, which in the elevation was 134.74 and it shows a line coming across to the 917 Edgemere house, and it shows the peak height of that section of the home (a step down roof line). And in line with the 919 Edgemere home, the 917 house peak is 133.00. The height peak of 917 is well beyond the back of the 919 Edgemere home. C. Nesbitt passed around aerial photographs showing the relationship of 925 Edgemere and how it tits in with the elevations of the other homes, and a side view that shows the north end of Edgemere Court on the 925 Edgemere Court side, which represents 919 through 943 Edgemere Court. C. Nesbitt said he had the engineer pick a grade point which is the top of the manhole on Edgemere Court between 919 and 926 Edgemere (roughly the center of the block). The engineer established that as a datum of 100; then he transferred that mark to each one of the other fifteen properties. The engineer started at 100. if the house had a garage he could use the garage floor as grade, if it did not have a garage, then the engineer established what the grade elevation was at the front door, deducted the space between that grade mark and the front door and shot the peak of each of the houses. Stan Gerson asked about the shorter peak towards front, and how that relates to the peak of 138.00 (at 917 Edgemere). C. Nesbitt said the peak of 133.00 (at 917 Edgemere) is in line with the peak of 134.74 (at 919 Edgemere). The house at 917 Edgemere is setback 74'-6" from the property, because there is no street line, they used the property line, so the setback was increased based on what was in line with other homes, and at the time the setback for 917 Edgemere was established. 911 Edgemere did not have the third car stall in the garage (added later). So, originally it was a kind of a triangular line down the street. Candice Groot of 911 Edgemere Court said her concern is that the proposed house at 917 Edgemere is not only a very tall but also very long building and it is on the smallest lot in the neighborhood and the proposed house is not the smallest house in the neighborhood. She would like to see the house downgraded. Harry Lowrance of 919 Edgemere Court said in a letter that C. Nesbitt circulated to the neighbors on June 15, 2007 referring to the meeting of last month stated that: "I would be appearing on Tuesday, June 17 before the Historic Preservation Commission at 7:30 p.m. meeting. Renew the certificate of appropriateness for a home to be built at 917 Edgemere Court, to renew an application for the same home design and finishes granted by the Commission in 2005 and renewed in 2007. 1 wanted to be clear that this is not the plan submitted by our anticipated purchaser, Mr. Augunas, which was denied by the Commission in 2007." H. Lowrance said this is not the same home that was presented in April 2005 with respect to the layout. The new plan shows the ridge of the proposed new house look higher than the new home in 925 Edgemere, it is much higher than the first home that was approved in April of 2005. H. Lowrance said this is the narrowest lot on the block; it had a 1.5-story house before_ The new house will consume the entire lot. The present drawing does not really reflect me scale of how the houses are layout on the block. He believes the proposed house is taller than when it was submitted and larger (:,600 S.F. then, 7,800 S.F. now). Stan Gerson said tne 2005 west elevation looks pretty much than the current elevation. H. Lowrance said he will look for the information to corroborate his statement. Liz Rorke of 920 Edgemere Court said regarding 925 Edgemere, those drawing minimized the differences between the houses on the block. It did not get across the mass of that house in relat9on to all the other houses on the block. She said 925 is not same size as 935 Edgemere. Standing in front of 919 Edgemere there is no light in between the buildings. The total mass of 925 is missing from the picture. L. Rorke said the same thing is going to happen with 917 Edgemere, which goes back very far. She said it is a 3-story building (2- stories plus a half -story on the top and a half -story in the bottom). She stated that this is a 3- story building next to a 1.5-story house. it dwarfs the landmark building. Evanswn Preservzbw Crm-cssion July 15, 20M — Minutes Page 3 Liz Rorke wonder how City inspectors would make sure that the builder is building what was approved by the Preservation Commission, because the drawings are not blue prints. She asked how the City of Evanston would prevent the guilder building a house out of scale with the neighborhood as 925 Edgemere. Carlos Ruiz explained that the use, height, lot coverage, impervious surfaces and setbacks are regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. L. Rorke said the problem was not the zoning. The problem is that C. Nesbitt is getting approval from the Preservation Commission based on a picture of a block that had his new house that was going to be about the same height as everything on the block. The proposed house is taller than almost any other house on the block and it is next to the shorter house of the block, and there is not indication of the mass of it. She though the Preservation Commission is concerned about the scale of this house in relation to the others. L. Rorke said the house C. Nesbitt built before truly is out of scale with the neighborhood. The new house is a comparable situation. The front of the proposed house is ta'.ler than either of the houses on each side. L. Rorke said the neighbors have expressed the view that 925 Edgemere is not compatible with the neighborhood, it is way out of scale with the neighborhood; the height is out of line with the neighborhood and the size is out of scale with the neighborhood. She said the proposed house at 917 Edgemere is another of the same. In response to the previous comments and a question from Betsy Hohman, C. Nesbitt said that the height of the house at 925 Edgemere is the same. What it changed was the grade, when the City established what the grade was, the whole house was raised, but the height of the mid ridge and the height to the peak Is actually 1.5-foot lower than what the plans called for, which were approved. Regarding 917 Edgemere, 00.00 at 917 was established to be 100.48. The grade at 919 is 100.46; there is 0.2 difference between those two lots. He said there is a difference between the 2005 drawings and today's or last month drawings. The house at 917 is 5-feet shorter that it was. The 2005 drawings called for a peak of 43-feet, the drawing today is 38'-4". C. Nesbitt said he did not move significantly the location of the new home compared to the location of the former home. He said the difference of the new homes compared to the homes on the block is that, the new horses have a 3-car attached garage at the front. adding length to the houses, but it is not livable square footage. There is living space above the garage at 917 Edgemere. Phil Crihfie;d of 900 Edgemere said the Commission at the last meeting asked for accurate elevation drawings of the properties as well as the setbacks. He said the Commission has no accurate drawings of the proposed property. The submission of yesterday is the same old street plan that was submitted three years ago; it shows sidewalks (they do not exist), it does not show me d6-nensions of tie setbacks (a critical issue for the compatibility of the proposed structure to the surrounding homes in the flow and the rhythm of the proposed structure in relation to the others). Regarding the street elevation P. Crihfield said he double the size of the drawing, took the dimensions provided by the engineering, as the actual heights of the existing structures, measured the structures in the drawing, took the house at 919 Edgemere as the reference point (34.28' from grade) and then he used that proportionally against the other structures. He found that 919 Edgemere is accurate. 925 to the north is understated by 2 or 3 feet_ 911 Edgemere s overstated by 6 feet in the drawing (if the 26 foot height of 911 Edgemere is considered, and then the 1.83" is drawn on the elevation, then 911 is understate►:). If 917 Edgemere were to go to 38-feet as proposed, it will overwhelm 911 Edgemere (a landmark house). Also 911 Edgemere. in relation to 917 and 925, will appear in the middle of a cave. 917 would rise about 2.5-feet above 919 Edgemere. P. Crihfield said that is not in compliance with the standards the Commission is charge with administrating. Phil Crihfield referring to 925 Edgemere said the Commission should not allow for that to happen again. The Commission should demand accurate drawings with accurate dimensions of what will be built and condition its approval on the developer building to those dimensions, with a remedy agreed by the developer and the Commission that if he does not, Evanston Presenratim CarraT ission July 15. 2008 — Minutes Page 4 it will be removed and brought in compliance. P. Crihfield said the Commission should not act tonight. It should discuss with Corporation Counsel and consider the consequence of a second mistake. He said that 925 Edgemere was a mistake and a mutation of this process and the Commission should not be endorsing mutations, and to do it twice would be a travesty. In response to P. Crihfield's comments, C. Nesbitt said last month drawings show the set backs and the proposed set back of 917 Edgemere, but it shows the current location of 925 Edgemere. He said he was not asked at the previous meeting to provide the dimensions for any set backs, but to show the foot prints as they appear today. The drawing submitted to Mr. Crihfield and the Commission currently does show exactly that. C. Nesbitt said he was not asked to create a topographic drawing of Edgemere Court. Rather, he was asked to show the dimension of the high peak of each property, which is reflected. He did both sides of the street. C. Nesbitt said the house was lowered from the 2005 drawings to the drawings now submitted by 5-feet. The grade was established by the City, which had not been done in 925 Edgemere, because it could not be done. He said the house looks bigger, but if the garage is cut off, living space is not a greater square foot than the adjoining homes. Commission's Findings Suzanne Farrand asked C. Nesbitt why he designed a building that is higher than 911 (she would have started at 911 and start going down). C. Nesbitt said if the house was only seen in that view, she would be right. He pointed to page 2; the high peak is below 919 which is sitting next to it. The entire mass of the roof next to 911 is below 911's high ridge. He said the front of the house is lowered in sequence. The very low peak over the window area is to tie into 911 Edgemere. S. Farrand said the peak at 133.00 vs. 127.00 is still 6-feet higher. C. Nesbitt said he did not compromise between 919. 917 and 911 Edgemere. Suzanne Farrand asked about the proportion of the front facade, the ratio of the height to the width on the proposed house at 917. C. Nesbitt said the proportion is the same as 919. S. Farrand said 917 looks much narrower and taller from the drawing. C. Nesbitt said the lot is narrower. S. Farrand said it looks like a lot more house in a narrower space. C. Nesbitt said it is more house because it has a 3-car garage: 919 has no garage. Susan Rundle said the retaining wall at 925 is high. C. Nesbitt said he told the neighbors that the wall would be broken to match the house and finished with brick veneer to match the house at 919 Edgemere. He said he did not know if the Commission reviewed the bath house. Betsy Hohman said the concem is that there would be changes at 917 that the Commission did not approve. C. Nesbitt said that the permit plans were reviewed by Carlos Ruiz to verify that they were the same as the plans approved by the Commission before a building permit was issued. Thomas Prairie asked C. Nesbitt to respond to P. Crihfield comments. C. Nesbitt said he was not asked to produce a topographic of the entire street, instead he took a straight line and created drawings of each home through photographs and showed the high ridge. Thomas Prairie concluded that the houses on the drawing are not proportional to each other. Jon Willarson referring to the standards for review of construction cited standard 5: The rhythm of spacing and structures on the street: The relationship of the structure to the open space between it and adjoining structures; he said this gets right to the idea that of having a narrow lot. J. Willarson said his feeling is that it does meet standard 5. S. Rundle said she agreed urith J. Willarson because it might be short on the front, but it's tall in the back; because the street is so open, the height is seen all the way back and it does interrupt the spacing_ J. Willarson cited standard 10: Scale of the structure, he was also concerned with the scale of 917 Edgemere and to some extent he was also concerned with standard 1: Height S. Rundle added standard 12: Original Qualities. Evanston Pmervzbon Commission July 15. 2008 — Minutes PaQe 5 Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 1-13 and 16 to be considered. C. Nesbitt said the Commission does not need to take a vote. Living a vacant lot is fine to him_ At some point he might come back. He will consider whether he wants to go back and makee substantial change on the cost of that property to create a 1.5-story house. Is that economicaliy sensible, when is off the tax roles; it can stay as vacant land and be used for other functions. Ann Dienner said building a compact house might be the thing to do considering :he "green revolution." C. Nesbitt said he would consider that. He said he was interested in continuing the discussion on the particular house. He might come back some time later w.ti the project. Thomas Prairie moved at the applicant's request to table the review of the subject property indefinitely. Ann Dienner soconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 632-M Hinman Avenue (L) — On south elevation bay including east and west views: retain previously raised sill heights of 12 existing window openings and remove 4 original stone sills and infill with brick to match the existing (new alteration) [Alteration] James Murray, attorney, Mike Niazmand, owner, and Joe DeLisi, architect presented the project. J. Murray said they have a new proposal for the southern facade including the retention of the smaller windows with the removal of the limestone sills that used to accompany them and occupy the central portion of the space between the first and second floors. Aiso. the element at the far south east corner to give a sense of the existing building as originally designed without that limestone sill. He said this is a positive and good solution to the problem that was encountered originally; that is the question of the size and the dimensions of the windows and the means by which to address these 18 (eighteen) windows. There are 3 (three) windows on each side of the protruding element. The proposal is to remove the limestone sill, infill with brick to match the existing and allow the windows to remain in the sizes as they are shown at the present time. Jaynes Murray said there are a lot of motivating factors in the process of marketing the buBding as a condominium. During the fast fire months they have produced pursuant to the financial lenders reqjest, building units into saleable condition along the Hinman Avenue facade. Those units are finished to the point where they are now being offered and are models available in compliance with the request of the lender. That is the motivating factor that the alley side of the building has been deferred until some time in the course of the settlement of the issue relative to the fenestration, removal or lack of removal of the limestone elements_ The proposal is to be allowed to remove those elements, fill up with matching brick and }reserve and present a more finished interior and exterior for the market plane. Because of ne competition, several buyers have declined going further with purchasing the units because of the potential for removal of the windows and the exposure of interior cabinetry tha., will result from repladN the smaller style windows that the Commission preferred originally. Joe DeLisi said removing the stone sills on the second floor is not detrimental to the bays facade. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle expressed her frustration with the proposal. She believed that there was an understanding and reasonable compromise of how not to affect the building. Mike Niazmand said that they were asked to present and application for reconsideration of the already completed alterations and that is what they dd. They lined up the windows with prior alterations that seem :o make sense. The broker has told them that people do not want cabinets to show from the windows. They offered to put black covers or frosted glass, but people do not want it, They are having a hard time selling the units despite the great job they have done inside the units. M. Niazmand said they did not start the window alterations; some windows were shortened before at either side of the bay. Evanston Preservation Commission July 15. 2008 - Minutes Page 6 Jon Willarson said he wanted the windows to be put the way they were and he still does. The windows should not have been reduced in the fist place. Thomas Prairie questioned if the brick on the west elevation would match the existing. M. Niazmand said the brick will match the color and the curved lintels will be removed. He said they could not renew their loans until some units are put in the market. J. Murray said the occupancy permits are on hold. T. Prairie said the bay windows do not really go with the verticality of that bay. Suzanne Farrand said major alteration has occurred; it does not solve the problem at the third and first floor along the street. Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-5. 7, 9 and 10 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to deny the certificate of appropriateness for 632-640 Hinman (shortened windows) on the Keeney facade because it does not meet standards: 1) minimal alteration to the property — that was not done; 2) the distinguishing original quality of the property were not destroyed, but the alteration lessens the property; 3) the property was not recognized as a product of its own time; 5) the distinctive style of the structure was not treated with sensitivity; 9) contemporary design for the alteration is not being discouraged; and 10) if the windows were to be taken out, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission is requiring returning the windows as they were. The applicant has thirty days to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. 3. 904-908 HInman Avenue1501-509 Main Street (L) — Main Street southern facades of the east and west wings: remove existing casement windows and doors and replace in kind. Main Street Court replace and/or restore central windows/doors at the fourth floor Juliet balcony elements facing east and west on the east and west walls of the court. Retain the double hung windows in other openings. Hinman Avenue upper floors: remove casement windows from southerly apartments, replace with double hung windows to match the balance on the Hinman fagade. Repair or replace the central balcony with casement style equipment. Remove the new third floor central windows and replace with casement windows. Retain the balance of new windows installation on the norm, west and east walls of the building perimeter. First floor Main Street and Hinman Avenue: restore the corner store front and other alterations to improve the storefronts [Alteration] James Murray, attomey and Ramo Perocevic, owner presented the project. J. Murray said last year the Commission had asked something in writing as a proposal by which to complete a resolution on the on going discussions relative of a certificate of appropriateness for the building on the basis of windows that had been Installed almost 90% complete in 2003-2004. In short 130 of approximately 155 windows ere in fact replaced and Installed. The proposal in writing is an attempt to resolve the issues that are outstanding. There are ten items for consideration: Item 1 relates to photo #11 in the packet of materials which shows exposed aggregate material that has been used on that comer for perhaps 15-30 years. The fagade is also seen in photos #2 and #4. The proposal is to remove the mansard style overhang window shield and remove some of the curvilinear elements L,at lead up to the doorway and entry and recreate to match the facade at 908 Hinman (photo #10). A rectilinear element of limestone at the base; a grill within the limestone and a large pane glass for the entries. The relative sizes will remain the same. The limestone bases are approximately 18-Inches high, the size of the window would almost triple by comparison to what it is at the corner. The inhibitor Is that in the interim, during the discussions, the comer turned over, and there is a ten-year lease for that property at the moment. They feel obligated to honor the lease without reaping out the front and not disabling the opportunity of the current occupant and tenant to do business there. The ultimate result would be a substantial expenditure and a worthy one in Erartstw Preservation Cantrussian Jury 15, 20N - Minutes Page 7 terms of the overall appearance of the building and its closer reversion to its original style and design (photo #10) for symmetry and unity to the facades around the building. The same would apply to the Oceanic facade (photo #E3), the canopy (photo #6) and the basic facade (photo KS). Turning around on Main Street, they would propose in the course of the next two years, when the Oceanic lease runs out, to address the matter of the mosaic like the that is the base there; and try to restore that to the limestone elements seen on Hinman. Also remove the existing awning as part of a unified awning and business facade plan with the City. Also match up everything with color scheme that is been referred to on item t of the proposal, which is utilizing the existing color of that common yellow brick, limestone grey, the forest green paint for window trim, and there are some natural wood Oak doors that would also be a part of the replacement effort. That will apply to the Luttier, the violin shop at the far north end of the Hinman facade (photo #5). There are electrical lighting fixtures that would be removed (photo 96). J. Murray said they would undertake that whether that was a part of the requirement or not. Susan Rundle expressed concern with the timing of the different stages of the project. J. Murray said they would put it in writing and execute an agreement or covenant with the City 9 that has to be a necessary element of the resolution. Regarding the facades above the store front level (items 3, 4 and 6). primarily, the Juliet balconies shown in (photo #6) would be retained. There are six of them at the end of either wing of the building that surrounds the courtyard. They propose to replace with casement material, either new or replacement or scavenged windows on the Hinman (9 left), to create or reconstitute the windows in a fashion that would satisfy the tenants that occupy those units, which are basically a single apartment on either each of the three floors (items 2, 3, and 4). That apartment runs through from the courtyard to the Hinman facade in each instance. Referring to photo #3 (far right side of the photo) it shows three openings and a scotching in the building. Each of those windows are not the same size, but the second floor window (fully operating balcony) are actually doors that open completely 6.5-feet, that would be replaced in kind with an operating casement style and designed window or door. The third (up above that particular Juliet balcony), is a large window as is the third or four floor. Each of those would be replaced with casement materials (there is a double set of those). There are six windows and doors on that particular element. There are a total of 12 major window openings on the Main Street side proposed to be replaced in kind with casement material to match (sca,.vnged or new). Susan Runde said Northwestern University has been replacing windows on multiple buildings over the past three years and doing an incredibly good job of new casement Windows. J. Murray said there is the capacity to replace casement windows, is just that the cost is about ten times higher than other windows. The estimates obtained over the years just for window replacement are 5300.000 to 5350.000. That cannot be obtained from this building. He said he was not attempting to dealing with the issue of financial hardship, but if an understanding cannot be achieved, that may be the next stop on the way, because S300.000 is more unan all the proposed work plus 5150.000. They are proposing to do about 5125.000 worth of additional work; S 100.000 have been spent in cosmetic and architectural detail in terms of me deferred maintenance that was encountered as a result of the prior ownership. Stan Gerson asked about the twelve windows on the south facade. J. Murray said those would be the prominent ones. There will be two more in the courtyard and two more on the Hinman facade above the main entry doors (the ones with the balconies). Evanston Preservation Commission July 15, 2008 — Minutes Page 8 Item 4 relates to the interior court (photo #3). The third opening within the court and the upper right hand portion of the building, that is a substantially different type of window, it too is accompanied with a Juliet balcony, and across the court on the west interior wall of the court is a similar window. The one on the east element is a part of an existing apartment. The one to the west is part of the stair halt. The north elevation has the replacement double hung windows. J. Murray said they are only twenty and some windows that are not replaced. Item 5 relates the awnings, the tile base and the comer store. Item 7, the concrete infill is photo #12 (the dark material) is proposed to be replaced with material that would match up better with the limestone. Susan Rundle said that the proposed work is well and good, but she did not know if that is a trade off for what the applicant was asking for. And that is the replaced windows on the Main Street side and a couple others that are connected to the Juliet balconies are going to be casement windows. But all the rest of the windows that were not replaced before the project was shot down, all those windows on Hinman will be changed to what they did originally anyway. J. Murray said there are nine windows remaining on Hinman. Those would be changed to double hung windows. There are twelve windows on Main Street, those will be replaced with casement (scavenged or new). There are three windows on Hinman above the main entry door that would be replaced with casement (scavenged or new). Those are the only casements that they propose to do other than in the court, which are the Juliet balcony elements that are on the central portion of each wing of the court (photo #8). Everything else is double hung windows now (except for the remaining casement windows - twenty some windows). S. Rundle asked if the new casement windows would be metal casement windows to replicate what is there now. J Murray said yes, they will do whatever the Commission directs. There are 156 windows (17 casements). There are 26 to be installed. Regarding item 8, Stan Gerson asked what was there. J. Murray said it was a window, now it is a portion of the Valencia. in response to a question from S. Rundle, C. Ruiz said the Commission denied the replacement of the casement windows for the current double hung windows. The applicant appealed to the City Council the Commission's denial. City Council asked the Commission and the applicant to try and work out a solution or agreement. The applicant is proposing a plan that at the end the Commission may or may not agreed to. J. Murray said they want to keep the replacement windows because it would be a waste to dump them and the facade of the building does not suffer substantially in their view. Having the windows more uniform and appealing, they think it is appropriate means of bridging the gap between the original denial and where they have been attempting to get more recently (131 double hung). Carlos Ruiz said the Commission could have a counterproposal. Chris Carey and Mary Brugliera (former Commissioners) wanted to propose redoing the Hinman facade and Main Street facade and leave the north and west facade windows the way they are. The courtyard is also a primary facade. Thomas Prairie disagreed that casement windows cost ten times more than double hung windows. J. Murray said the Illinois Sash, Savocchi and third window supplier provided those estimates. Betsy Hohman said [the Commssion and the applicant] are talking about a compromise or some kind of agreement. She said that it seems that generally Commissioners don't feel that this particular offer is what they are looking for. J. Murray said that the casement windows do not really work for modem apartment occupation. Without a resolution at hand Ann Dienner moved to table the discussion of the window replacement and subsequent plan 904-908 Hinman and 501-509 Main Street. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. B. Hohman said a team of no more than three people including Associates members (Chris Carey and Mary Brugliers) would be organized to review the plan and make a recommendation to the Commission. Evanston Preservation Ccmr.%&sian July 15.2009 — Minutes Page 9 V. NEW 13USiNESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL. ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (ROTA) 1. 1501 Forest Avenue (LSHDlL) — Remove from original 1888 house subsequent additions to the rear of the house, and restore the rear east elevation with the exception of three windows on the first floor [Partial demolition/Alteration] Janet Clements, applicant/contract owner presented the project. J. Clements said she brought a plat of survey as requested. She said the house was built in 1888 by Frank Elliot, a Queen Anne Victorian house. She referred to photos showing the flat roofed areas (added in the 1960s) that she was seeking to remove, along with the carport on the west side of the house. On the east at the top of the flat roofed areas there is a porch that hides a turret of the house. She plans to remove Mat porch and the carport. J. Clements said that she has the original plans of the home, but not the elevations, except for a portion of the south elevation. A picture (from the Historical Society) shows a porch on the west elevation that she would like to rebuild. There will be no changes to the original east elevation now covered by the addition(s). J. Clements said she would like to add three windows on the first floor of the east elevation. Regarding the building materials J. Clements said the west side carport could be removed and cedar shingles would be installed to blend in with the existing cedar shingles. The east side top part %-mil not change. The bottom part will conform to the original with shingles. The new windows %%ill match the existing windows. J. Clements cited the standards for demolition 1-5 and said the proposed demolition would not be detrimental to the public Interest because it actually help to see the beauty of the house; the addition does not contribute to the distinctiveness of the building; it would not be contrary to the historic preservation objective; and the (addition) is not of unusual or uncommon design. In terms of alteration J. Clements cited standards of alteration 1-5 and 8-10. She said the proposed windows are a minimal alteration; the craftsmanship of the house will be treated with sensitivity, every reasonable effort will be made to protect and preserve any archaeological resources; she is not seeking contemporary design or alteration; if the proposed windows were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson asked if the first floor bay on south elevation would be removed. J. Clements said yes, and it is not original. The windows in dotted line are existing windows. S. Gerson asked about the porch steps on the south elevation. J. Clements said the steps would be removed to conform to the original and part of the roof will be removed to conform to the photo. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards of alteration 1-5 and 8-10 as applicable. Thomas Prairie moved to approved a certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 1501 Forest Avenue in mat meets stancards of alteration: 1) minimal alteration; 2) original character will not be destroyed; 3) alteration do not seek creating an earlier appearance; 4) changes that may have taken place over time are being respected where applicable; 5) stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity; 8) every reasonable effort will be made to preserve archaeological resources; 9) contemporary design or alterations are not being discouraged; and 10) if the alterations were to be removed the integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evamton Presembw Comnussion July 15.2008 — Minutes Pape 10 Stan Gerson said earlier that R&TA recommends standards of demolition as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition at 1501 Forest Avenue of the 1960s add on to the rear of the house and the partial demolition of the porch/porte-cochere [carport] because: its demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest; it may not be preserved for the benefit of Oe people; it will not be contrary to the objectives of historic preservation; it is not of such uncommon design that it could not be reproduced; and plans have been approved for the replacement/restoration of the home. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes; 0 nays. 2, 1702 Chicago Avenue (L) - Replacement of non -original wood windows at two-story enclosed porch with new, wood, divided -light windows (option A: new casement windows with sidelights and retention of existing transom windows; option B: new casement windows and sidelight and new ransom window). Repair of historic windows at all facades and repair of porch balusters and replacement of wood panels [Alteration] Anne McGuire, architect, and Terry Dason, Woman's Club of Evanston President presented the project. A. McGuire said the project involves removing the original 30-years old wood windows at a two-story porch and replacing them with new wood windows. The restoration of all the other windows on the building is not part of the application. They have two options to replace the sliding rotted windows that do not function any longer. The replacement windows are casement windows instead, also on the masonry wall of the porch that would have been the exterior, those windows are all casements. Option A is keeping the existing fixed transom. The new windows are wood with insulating glass with applied muntins with the spacer in between the layer of insulating glass. They will match the narrow muntins on the original windows and they are not affecting historic windows. Anne McGuire said the balusters will be removed and re -installed. The step stud wall behind will be rebuilt. The first floor wall is 2.5' thick. They proposed to get a panel and some insulation in. The panel behind the balustrade will be painted. Option B has to do with the transom glass at the very top with a different mullion configuration. A. McGuire said she would prefer to ohtain approval for either configuration. They looked at various options; they prefer to continue to operate the windows. Glider or sliding windows are not available in the current size. The new windows would have a single stud pocket in between the windows to maintain the took more of the time period. Commissions Findings Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-6, 9 and 10 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of windows, either option A or B at 1702 Chicago Avenue (south side porch) because meets standards: 1) minimal alteration; 2) distinguishing qualities of the original porch will not be destroyed, 3) an earlier appearance is not being created; 4) is not met, but Is not a major issue; 5) stylistic features are being respected; 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 10) should the windows be removed, the form and integrity of the original porch is not being impaired. Also, the balustrade is being repaired and the wall behind is being rebuilt. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1103 Sheridan Road (LSHDIL) — Alterations to three existing windows and two doors and remove window and infiitl window opening at the northeast (rear) comer of the house [Alteration] Charlotte Whitley, architect and Mary N. Dillon, owner presented the project. C. Whitley said the house built in 1912 has a long history of alterations up until 1930. The project is to renovate an inaccessible and unheated space to a family room. The floor on that area would be raised to match the elevation of the main part of the house. They need to alter two arched Evanston Preservation Commission Judy 15. 2008 — L"utes Page 11 top windows and also a door adjacent to that space. They will also renovate an area that once was used as a servants seating room and convert mat area into a mudroom with a bathroom with a vanity and a shower. A Large triple window on the east elevation would be altered; a window on the north elevation would be filled in. The affected area is the northeast comer of the house. Charlotte Whitley said they have four sets of arched top glazing and masonry openings; the two on the left are in an area used as a screened porch, and the two on the right are In an area that is proposed as a family room. That area was once a court which was altered with a second floor for a bathroom where the single window is. All four of those windows are in non - heated areas currently. The arched top panels are remasable and can be replaced by screens. On the first floor right hand side of the existing east elevation there is a triple window which was the main seating room at one time; that is the area for a new bathroom. That opening will be retained, but incorporating two narrow double hung windows and a painted panel. Regarding the middle arched top windows. C. Whitley said to make those units operable, they propose dividing them so that the lower sections could operate as casements with a pair of quarter round transorns above that_ A panel will be inccrporated below to reach the original limestone sill due to the unusual elevation of the openings related to the main level of the house. If the floor is built up to the rest of the house level, the limestone sills would be 8' too low. On the north elevation first floor, on the far left, the door vw-t steps would be altered and higher to match the height of the arched windows and using similar height windows and a similar height panel below it. The steps will be removed and fill in with like materials, and the window and limestone sill on the main seating room woulc be removed and the opening filled with brick. The screened porch is 8' donrn and the mudreorn is also 8' down. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said she had a concerned with the two doutaie hung windows and the panel in the middle on the east elevation. After additional discussion C. Whitley said they have other three more options for altering the three windows. C. Whitey said they preferred option 2. The Commission preferred option 3. Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-5. 9 and 10 as applicable. S. Gerson moved to grant the Certificate of Aroropriateness be granted for 1103 Sheridan as described and using option 3 in that: 1) requires minimal changes; 2) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed; 3) an early appearance is not being created; 4) changes that may have taken place over time are not being respected — this standard is not met; 5) stylistic architectural features are being treated with sensitivity; 9) contemporary design is not being proposed and 10) if the a:anges were removed, it will not destroy the essential form and integrity of the structure. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. C. Whitley said they preferred option 2 because there is a 1^:eerarchy to the windows on the building. Susan Rundle amended the motion to remain the same except for substituting option 2 to for option 3. Jon Willarson seconded the amencrnent to the motion. The Commission voted on the amendment. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays. The Commission voted on the motion as amended. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 2145 Sherman Avenue (NEHDIC) - Addition of enclosed stairs for accessing new rooftop deck with pergola at rear of house JAlteration) Michael Libby, representing the owner Sherry Miller, and Atlyson Wilkovich, architect presented the project. M. Libby said they propose a deck and enclosed stairs over a flat roof Evanston Pnmemban C.orrrnms= July 15, 2008 — Minutes Page 12 addition on the back fa;ade of the building at 2145 Sherman. A. Wilkovich said the open deck is cedar wood with a pergola. The materials (vinyl siding) will match the materials on the existing addition. The proposed addition will not be visible from Sherman Avenue, but would be visible from the rear. M. Libby said that they invested over S30,000 dollars in repairs to the building. Thomas Prairie asked if a window could be added to the stairs enclosure on the south elevation. A. Wilkovich said they do not think that would be necessary because it would not be visible. Susan Rundle asked if the higher portion of the fence is solid and if the lower portion is a stair rail. A. Wilkovich said that was correct, the first portion is like a screen and the lower portion is more of a rail. There is a roofed area behind the chimney. Thomas Prairie asked about the trim on the existing addition. A. Wilkovich said the trim is smooth cedar wood trim. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said RBTA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-5, 9 and 10 as applicable. Jon Wiliarson moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted at 2145 Sherman for the addition of a deck at the rear of the structure and enclosed stairway because: 1) this is a minimal alteration; 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed; 3) the historical basis of the building are not being altered; 4) history and development are being recognized; 5) the style is being treated %%ith sensitivity; 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 10) the addition is removable. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. 1130 Judson Avenue (LSHDIL) — Removal of first floor door and three windows on the rear west elevation; reconfigure openings and install two French door and a door; infill openings with siding to match the existing and re -roof house. Also, installation of A/C unit on south side yard [Alteration] Heather Collins, owner presented the project. H. Collins said she is proposing adding three sets of French doors to the first floor at the rear of the house. The balustrade on the new rear deck would match the existing balustrade on the south elevation. On the west rear elevation there Is an exist door to a small porch with stairs. The proposed deck is about 16' x 32'. A window on the first floor of the north elevation would be removed (pantry and mudroorn area). The Commissioners discussed leaving the window in place. Regarding the rear west elevation H. Collins said she would like to add two French doors and a smaller door in the middle. The deck would have middle stairs leading to the back yard. The Commission discussed filling in the space below the deck with panels. Heather Collins said the turret windows on the third floor of the front elevation are at floor level. She would like to replace the glass K7th tempered glass. Stan Gerson said three windows on the south elevation, three windows on the second floor of the south elevation are being removed and a new roof is being proposed. H. Collins said that if possible she would retain the taller bathroom window. The Commission decided keeping the bathroom window. Also, removing time middle door on the west elevation and consider a window instead or leave the wall between the French doors blank. Heather Collins said if she could apply for a building permit for the inside and return to the Commission for the revisions to the exterior including wood French doors instead of aluminum clad. The Commission could receive the plans via email. Thomas Prairie moved to continue the review of 1130 Judson. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. • Evanston Preservation Commission JOy 15.2008 —Minutes Pape 13 Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Data: 12/16/08 Date Approved: 01/13/09 Date Approved: 2117/09 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Gerson, and Jon Pohl OTHERS PRESENT: Jeffrey K. Clements, Janet Clements. Paul Audrain. Richard Heuberger, Michael Gelick, Tim Aiken, Ellen Gatland, David Foster, Jean Gonzales, Paul Florian, Isaac Eun, Cheryl Lulias, Peter A. O'Brien, Fred Wilson, Cameel Halim, Nefrette Halim, Adam Wilmot, Frank Cicero. John Chapman, Tom O'Brien, Leesa Sherbome, David Foster, and ..... PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m. with a quorum present (Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz. 11. MINUTES April 15, 2008 Minutes Approval of minutes was tabled to the next meeting. Ill. COMMUNICATIONSfREPORTS None. IV. UNFINISHED BUS114ESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS 1501 Forest Avenue Jordan Cramer said a number of residents would like to speak regarding 1501 Forest Avenue. He suggested holding a special meeting to allow everyone interested to speak. He acknowledged the presence of the owners/applicants Jeffrey and Janet Clements. Janet Clements said scheduling a special meeting was a good idea. Carlos Ruiz noted that the Commission's Rules require the applicant to notify neighbors within 250 feet about the meeting at least five days prior to the meeting. The Commission agreed to hold the special meeting to review 1501 Forest Avenue on September 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Evanston Preservabw commissim August 19. 20M - &L-wtes Page 2 Date Apprwed 2117/09 Frank Cicero of 222 Lake Street said he represents about Monty neighbors, they heard about the meeting since Sunday. Emily Guthrie moved to continue 1501 Forest Avenue to a special meeting on September 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. A- REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1901 Wesley Avenue (RHD) — Construction open wrought iron fence 6' high x 79'-6" long from the east rear property line going west along the south property line with rolling gate with 7' high posts; 6' high x 13'-4" long (interior south side yard to the stairs and 6' high x 15' long along east alley. Requires fence variation (fence on street side yard and 7' posts are not permitted) [Construction/Fence Variation] Paul Audrain, architect and Richard Neuberger, owner presented the project. They requested changing a 5'-0" iron picket fence along L) ans Street to a 6'-0' fence. The original 6'-0' high stockade wood fence was removed over tS-..e winter. They are allowed to re -erect Mat fence on the existing location. In lieu of the wood fence, the owner would erect an open iron picket fence, 5'-0" high along Lyons Street, then going to 6'-0" high along the alley, and then going down to 5'-0" along the north property line. P. Audraan showed photos of the wood fence and an iron picket fence at 1317 Lyons Street. The two posts for the rolling gate are 6'-0" high. Richard Neuberger said originally he proposed a 6'-0' high fence all around, but after talking to the immediate neighbors the fence has been lowered to 5'-0" high. P. Audrian said documents show that a 6'-0' high fence was permitted in the past. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standard of construction 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a wrought iron fence 5'-0" high with 6'-0" high post at either side of a rolling gate x 79'-6" long (increasing gradually the height to 6'-0' along the alley at 1801 Wesley Avenue, because: 1) the height, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 7) the material, 9) the continuous fence, and 10) the scale c` the fence, are all visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways. objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. Also, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 Nay (Guthrie). Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standards A and C of special uses and variations as applcable. Jon Willarson moved to recommend to Lne Zoning [Administrator] to grant a variance for the construction of the fence at 1801 Wesley as described, because: A) it is necessary to fit in the local historic district, and C) it will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Ann Dienner seconded the motion.. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay (Guthrie). 2. 1225 Sheridan Road (LILSHD) Demolish existing garage and construct new two -car garage (proposed street side setback is 10'. required setback :s 15) [Demolition/Construction/Zoning Variationj Michael Gelick, architect presented the project. M. Ge-lick said the request is to remove the deteriorated existing garage which is in a different character and style than the original English Tudor house. The existing garage is on Bumham at the east north comer of the property and about 2.5' from the Burnham property lira and about 2.5' from the east property tine. The new garage is 3' from the east property line and 10' setback on Burnham versus the required 15'. The new garage is in the same character and design as the existing house (bridle, tle roof, and roof pitch to match the dormers)_ The 24'x36' garage would be deeper Evanston Preservation Ccrrxruss;on August 19. 2008 - Unutes Page 3 Date Avroved 2117M into the site. Brick pavers are proposed in front of the garage on Burnham. Garbage containers will be screened by a fence. Michael Gelick said the proposed site plan shows the new garage with a 10' setback on Burnham, a 3' setback, the existing fence on the property line with a return to conceal refuge containers. There will be an overlapping to the garage of the adjacent house to the east. M. Gelick showed photos of the existing conditions of the property and immediate neighboring properties. The existing garage under the house will remain. The existing garage has one door on the south side accessing the yard. The size of the new garage is to store a boat. The propose garage door trim would match the wood trim of the existing house; it might be a metal insulated clad door with the articulation of the trim similar to the front door of the house. The windows are integrated into the door. The attic will be used as storage area. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of construction 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a two -car garage with wood doors for 1225 Sheridan Road, because: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of the front facade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solid to voids in the front facade, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale, and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are all visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. Also, 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. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage art 1225 Sheridan Road, because: 1) the demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest. 2) the current garage does not contribute to the distinctive historic character of the district, 3) its demolition will not be contrary to the purpose of this chapter, 4) the garage is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, and 5) new plans have been reviewed and approved by the Commission. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standards for special uses and variations A and C as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved that the Commission recommend a variance for the garage at 1225 Sheridan Road allowing the street setback of 10% because: A) it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark, and C) it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Jordan Cramer advised Michael Gelick if he would like to show the Commission the sample of the composite 1 metal clad garage door to contact Carlos Ruiz to be scheduled for the next agenda. 3. 1417 Ashland Avenue (L) — Remove front porch and stairs (except for the roof) and rebuild front porch with a new balustrade and stairs; replace rear enclosed porches top and bottom and stairs with open decks with balustrades and new stairs. Demolish existing garage and construct new two -car garage [Alteration/Construction/Demolition] Tim Aiken, owner presented the project. T. Aiken said he is seeking approval for the replacement of back and front porches and the construction of a new garage. The porches are deteriorated; the rear porch is not original to the house. The new rear porch will be open decking. The existing garage would be demolished due to severe deterioration. The rear Evanson Preservabon Corsmiss;cn Au ,fit 19, 2008 — 64mies Pape i Dale Approved 2117109 porch would have the beaded smooth hardie board siding to match the siding on the new two -car garage with a gable roof. Betsy Hohman said she did not have an issue with the hardie board on the new garage, but she had an issue with hardie board on the landmark house. T. Aiken said the existing rear addition has deteriorated siding, and he did not know how to apply stucco on the existing siding. He said the rear addition is nearty impossible to see from anywhere on the street and from the alley. The garage doors are steel doors for maintenance and safety. He did not believe his house and the previous case are comparable. Jon Willarson said he agreed with the applicant regarding the lack of significance of the existing garage facing the alley. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of alterations for the front and rear porches 1-10 as applicable. Emily Guthrie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the front and rear porches and stairs, in that: 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the property, structures, site, and objects are being recognized as products of their own time, 4) changes that may have taken place are ttieing respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible, 7) no surface cleaning of structures is required, B) every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) wherever possible, the new additions or a. erations if removed the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of construction 1-5. 7, 8, 10, 13 and 16. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new two -car garage at 1417 Ashland, because: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of the front falrade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solid to voids in the front facades, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, and 10) the scale are all visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways. objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. Aiso,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: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applicable. .ion Wiltarson moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the existing garage at 1417 Ashland, because: 1) the demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest. 2) the current garage does not ne-ed to be preserved for the benefit of the people, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the objective of historic preservation, 4) the garage is not of such unusual or uncommon design that could not be reproduced, and 5) plans for replacement have been approved. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1501 Forest Avenue (ULSHD) — a) Move original house 20' to the east and 20' to the south on the existing lot, demolish existing foundation, construct new foundation at the same height as the existing (34'), reuse existing winda.%s and red brick of the current foundation on the new foundaton, construct below grade access to garage in the new basement and install new scissor IM with brick pavers on top on the east side yard [RelocationlConsiructionlDemolition]; and b) Re -subdivide lot into two lots (75' x 96') respectively, (east tot front yard facing Lake Street and west lot being a comer lot at Lake and Forest) [Re -Subdivision Recommendation] Earlier this pr*ct was moved to a special meeting on September 3, 2008. E-62M n Presembon Convi issi in A.Lp sl 19.2008 — Minutes Pa2e $ Date Approved 2117M9 5. 1130 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Raise main ridge of house 5'. add two dormers on the east side of roof (front of house). Demolish existing garage and construct new three -car garage (Alteration/Construction/Demolition) Ellen Galland, architect and David Foster, owner presented the project. E. Galland said they are proposing two revisions to previously approved projects. Both revisions meet zoning requirements. The Commission previously approved the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new garage on the same location. Now they would prefer having the garage on the other side of the back of the property to block the view of the Jewel store behind. The garage has larger foot print, the height remains the same. The garage door would be a metal door. There are new dormers on east side of the garage facing the house. Ellen Galland said the Commission approved previously two dormers; the existing finished third floor had no egress windows and only had the quarter rounds on each end, substandard in terms of stairway width, headroom, and headroom in the bathroom and in the bedrooms. The revised roof height is now 5' higher than the current roof, allowing more ornament on the front overhang of the house and a bigger piece of crown molding over the windows. David Foster said the neighbors on either side have been informed and are supportive. He said everything they have done to the house is to preserve and enhance the classic Colonial house. The current project continues to do that as demonstrated with the model of the proposed work. Commission's Findings Betsy Hohman cited standards for review of alteration 1-5, 9 and 10 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations intruding raising the roof of the main house by additional 5' and the changes in the appearance of the dormers at 1130 Hinman, because: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property requiring minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the property is being recognized as products of its own time, 4) changes that have taken place are being respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) wherever possible, the new additions or alterations if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Betsy Hohman cited standards for review of construction 1-5. 7, 8, 10. and 11-16 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of the new 3-car garage at 1130 Hinman, because: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of the front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solid to voids in the front fa rades. 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale, and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are all visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will De protected, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, 15) it is possible to change the roof and dormers and to return the property to a point wtrere the essential form and integrity is not been impaired, and 16) a single architectural style has not been imposed_ Ann Dienner seconded the motion_ The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 0 nays. Jon Willarson moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for the demolition of the main roof at 1130 Hinman, because: 1) the demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest. 2) it does not need to be preserved for the benefit of the people, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the objective of historic preservation, 4) it is not of such unusual design that Evanston Preservation Cornmissial August 1g. 20l)8 — Minutes Page 6 Date Approved 2117M could not be reproduced, and 5) plans have been approved for a new roof. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 2855 Sheridan Place (L) — Remove existing windows (four on 2r4 floor of north elevation); (seven on 1 " and 2"d floors of south elevation); (ten on the 10 and 2'" floors of east elevation) and replace them with new windows (SDLs) (Alteration] Jean Gonzales, project designer with Orren Pickell Design Group, presented the project. J. Gonzales said the owners would like to replace some existing divided light wood windows on the two-story element on the east side of the house with aluminum Gad wood interior simulated divided light Hurd windows. The wood interior grill is 1' to match the thickness of the existing munt;ris. The green color closely matches the green color on the house. The reason for replacement of windows is because the maintenance. The Hurd windows offer superior performance with low E-glass windows while maintaining the same appearance and dimensions. The existing wood casement windows (east element, a two-story bump out — at one point an open porch, the casement windows continue on the inside wall; the second story is a sitting room foc the master bedroom) (southeast -north side are all wood casement windows) and doLble hung with muntins on the top sash (the rest of the windows of the principal house on the second floor). The windows at the first floor are leaded glass casements windows. There are aluminum storm windows on the front. The windows on the right east, the norm rear side, and the front south are to be replaced (casements). Betsy Hohmar, said the Commission does not like to see any clad replacement windows on a landmark building, in fact restoration of windows is desirable whenever possible or if necessary replacement of wood windows with new wood windows (standard 6 of standards for review of attera:ion). J. Gonzales asked what could be done for improving energy efficiency with the existing windows. C. Ruiz said storm windows or interior energy panels are ways of improveig energy efficiency along with the restoration of windows. Also, weather stripping, insulation of gaps between the window frame and walls, insuiabng cavities between the window frame and exterior walls, and changing the glass with new low E glass. J. Gonzales said he would consult with his clients about restoring the windows or replace them in kind. He said one of the reasons for replacing the windows is because the sun room on the first floor will became an office. Emily Guthrie moved to table the application. Anne Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 1211 Dempster Street (RHD) — Construct two-story house with attached garage (Construction) Paul Florian, Isaac Eun, architects presented the project. 1. Eun said the site plan has changed slightly during the zoning approval process. They obtained clearance from Zoning. The elevation drawings have been revised and updated. P. Florian said the owners are Marshall and Robin Ross. The proposed house is in the American Arts and Crafts style. The house is a modest t cuse inspired by the Bungalow style also. The exterior material is primarily stucco Mr. a stone or cast stone base, plaster in two colors and stained wood trim. The doors are all wood; the windows are wood windows with aluminum Gad. The roof has a shallow pitch and it s a 90 percent recycled rubber with slate appearance as roofing material; the height of the hoo-se is 32' to the top of the ridge. Paul Florian said the AC units are behind a garden wall at the stair case to the ceremonial front door (south elevation) and set back 10' from the property line. The house is set back 7.5' from the side property line. There is a one car parking pad with permeable pavement. P. Florian said that in Me inside the house steps down. Regarding the garage door I. Eun said the door is not visible from the street but they will consider adding some vertical elements to complement the vertcality of the north elevation. Evanston Prsservabon Cartunission August 19. 230B — Msnutes Page 7 Date Approved 7J17109 Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of construction 1-11. 13 and 16 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for the construction of a 2-story house with attached garage at 1211 Dempster Street because: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of the front facade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solid to voids in the front fagade, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, recesses, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale, and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are all visually compatible with the surrounding structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. Also, 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: 6 ayes, Onays. 8. 1027 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Demolish existing front porch balustrade, columns, structure and steps and construct new balustrade , columns, structure and steps with similar materials and finishes to the original porch (at existing location and dimensions) [Alteration] Cheryl t.ulias and Peter O'Brien, owners and Fred Wilson, architect presented the project. F. Wilson said they would like to shift the stairway to relate to the entry. The lower portion of the skirt is siding, the balustrade will be opened. The columns are a new form (octagon shaped). The balustrade will end at the columns; the New Orleans posts are for the stairs. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-6 and 9 and 10 as applicable. Emily Guthrie moved approval for the Certificate of Appropriateness because: 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the structures, site, and objects are being recognized as products of their own time, 4) changes are being respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired, 7) no surface cleaning of structures is required. 8) archaeological resources — no digging is being performed, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) wherever possible, the new additions or alterations if removed the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 1560 Oak Avenue (URHD) — Restoration of landmark house, construction of two story addition and accessiVe concrete ramp and stairs on the south side yard as revised. Proposed impervious surface 66% (8,844.8 S.F.); maximum allowed 66% (8,686 S.F.) (AlterationlConstructionRonIng Variation] Cameel Halim and Nefrette Halim, owners and Adam Wilmot, architect presented the revised project. A. Wilmot said the building is slightly shorter than before due to lining up of all the floors with the existing building, which requires now an exterior ramp on the south elevation. All the other materials are the same as previously approved. The overall proportions of the addition have shifted somewhat due to some of these changes, but the spirit of the design is essentially the same. The previously larger open balcony (10' in depth) on the third floor is now reduced (5' in depth) due to the moving the front of the addition out, but it is still set back. The material for the ramp is poured form concrete. The neighbors want landscaping on the site adjacent to the ramp. There would be space to adding a planter to the 5' wide ramp. Adam Wilmot said that the ramp is more fitting in the very contemporary design of the building addition and considered as another massing element. The design of the building addition is based on several massing elements that come together. In plan the ramp fits within the overhang of the building making it part of the mass of the building. Regarding the Evanston Pnmenmbw Cmnntission August 19, 2008 — Minutes Page 8 Date Approved 2117/09 impervious surface A. Wilmot said they are less than one percent over (65% is permitted), they are proposing 66%. the existing is 68%. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of alteration (restoration of the landmark house) 1- 10 as applicable. Betsy Hohman moved to extend the Certificate of Appropriateness approval for the restoration of 1560 Oak Avenue because there have been no changes and therefore the restoration still meets standards 1 — 10 as previously approved. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for review of construction 1-8 and 10-16 as applicable. It was agreed that the applicant will come back to the Commission for the review of signage. Betsy Hohman moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the two story addition, concrete ramp and stairs on the south side yard at 1560 Oak because: 1) the height of the addition, 2) the proportion of the front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solid to voids in the front facades. 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale of the structure, and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are all visually compabbte with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elernents are visually related. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities of the property are not be.ng destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, 15) should the addition be removed the essential form and integnty of the structure would not be impaired, and 16) a single architectural style has not been imposed. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said RBTA recommends standards for zoning variation A and C as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to recommend Mal the application for zoning variation at 1560 Oak Avenue because: A) it is necessary and appropriate in the interest of historic preserva'.lon so it would not adversely affect the historocal, architecture of the landmark or character of the historic district, and C) will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property or the vicinity where the property is located. Emity Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF No comments. W. ADJOURNMENT Ann Dienner moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:50 p.m. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: 2/17/09 Efate Approved 2117M CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Wednesday, September 3, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie, ,ion Pohl, and Jon W illarson MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Janet Clements. Jeffrey Clements, Raymond C. Gerard, Mary B. Singh, Amalia Matos, Chae Yi, Alice Eagly. R Eagly, Helen Wider, Jan Cicero. Katie Stallcup, Sid 8 Ann Saltz, Alaka Wali, Ellen Galland, Randy Zwick, Virginia L. Beatty. Bernard Jennett. Tom O'Brien, Mary Kay Clinton, Susan Frankel. Cathleen Hammerschtag, Richard Schwartz, David Baker, John Mancini. Chris Ernst, Colleen Cannon, Frank Cicero, Judy Fiske, Paul Janicki, David Doyle, Ann Jennett, Alan Gratch. Anne O. Earle, Mary B. McWilliams, Sallie Gratch, Tim Gerdeman, Jes Sherbome, Mark Simon, David Reynolds, Holly Reynolds, and Shirley Conley PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m, with a quorum present (Ann Dlenner, Suzanne Farrand. Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos Ruiz - II. MINUTES April 15, 2008 and May 20. 2008 Minutes (No action taken] 111. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS Carlos Ruiz said he received a letter from John and Jane Chapman of 215 Lake Street regarding 1501 Forest Avenue_ IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1501 Forest Avenue (LILSHD) — a) Move original house 20' to the east" 20' to the south on the existing lot, demolish existing foundation, construct new foundation at the same height as the existing (34"). reuse existing windows and red brick of the current foundation on the new foundation, construct below grade access to garage in the new basement and Install Evanston Preservation Urnn fission Date A -*roved: 2117109 September 3, 2008 — Knutes Pape 2 new scissor lift with brick pavers on top on the east side yard [Relocation/Construction/Demolition]; and b) Re -subdivide tot into two lots (75 x 96') respectively, (east tot front yard facing lake Street and west lot being a corner lot at lake and Forest) (Re -Subdivision Recommendation) Janet Clements and Jeffrey Clements, owners and Raymond C. Gerard, attorney presented the application. R. Gerard showed pictures of the house at 1501 Forest in its original 1887 configuration and also the original blue prints also dated 1887. He said his clients wish to restore the house to its original condition. There are two items in front of the Commission. one, the subdivision of the property, and two the relocation of the house. The house is being moved a short distance, but a large portion of the house, primarily on the eastern side, is to be removed to restore the house to its original 1887 configuration. R. Gerard referred to the standards for review for the relocation of the home. 1) Whether or not the historic contnbution of the home to the neighborhood is preserved. He said that the home is not only being preserved, but it is also being enhanced by restoring the house to its original condition. 2) Whether or not any construction in the area to be vacated is compatible with the historic district. He said the area being vacated is primarily on the north section of the property and that in that particular area there is not going to be any new construction. There would be new construction perhaps at some point down the line on the lot that is to be created by the sub& sion. 3) Whether or not the structure will be damaged by the relocation. He said Mr. Mrs. Clements looked into this extensively and they have determined that this can be done without any damage what so ever to the house. And 4) whether or not if the proposed relocation area itself is compatible with the historic nature Lhe building that iYs to be moved. On this particular case the building is to be moved a short distance and the area is essentially the same. Raymond Gerard discussed a diagram of the subdivision. The subdivision line is down the middle of the property. There is also a line that runs from east to west on the property. He said the property is currently subdivided_ The original subdivision of the particular block at this property is divided into two pieces. One is the northern piece on which the house now sits and the other is the southern piece. Under the particular Zoning Ordinance that southern lot it is a lot of record. The lot of record would meet at least 75% of the minimum lot size requirement under the current zoning code applicable to this district today and would be a buildable lot. So the pnmary objective with the subdivision that is being proposed is to take the current subdivision of this land and reconfigure it in a more orderly manner. Raymond Gerard showed an aerial photo of the block on which the home now sits. The block is not exactly a square block and it could be described as an eastern half and a western half. The eastern half has four homes already. The western half has three homes. They propose with the subdivision to create four lots on the block, there are four lots right now, they are just reconfiguring it. The lot to be reconfigured, in terms of proportion is on the southwest corner of the block, divided in ha'f, it is quite proportional with the lots on the eastern half of the block. They are not proposing anything that is out of character with this particular block. Raymond Gerard referred to the standards that apply to the proceedings before the Commission with regard to the subdivision. First. whether or not the subdivision would preserve the landmark property or structure. He said they will preserve the existing home; in fact they will restore it to Me condition from the 19M Century. Second, any new structure would it have to be compaLble with the area. He said since the property is in the historic district, any new construction would be back before the Commission for determination as to whether or not that standard is met. By [law] something could not be constructed there unless (the Commission] determines later that it is in fact compatible. Third, there is the requirement that the view of the relocated structure will not be blocked. That is one of the Evanston Preservat= Carmussm Sepmmber 3. 2OW - M urtes Page 3 Date Approved: 2117109 reasons why they are proposing a division of the property and relocation, because that will create a better streetscape and visibility of the original home. Fourth, the requirement that the streetscape be preserved. He said they are accomplishing that, if fact they are improving that in terms of the project they intend to do. Fifth, there is no adverse effect on traffic pattems, municipal services, adjacent property values. This is a small subdivision, only one additional [lot], taking the existing home and reduced it in size. There would be no impact on the surrounding area from the subdivision limited scope. Raymond Gerard said that was in essence the project, and that the Commission is already familiar with it having already decided to approve the elimination of portions of the structure previously. He said that he has seen some of the correspondence from neighbors provided to the City on the project_ He believed the objections the Commission may hear fall primarily In a couple of categories. One is that there Is a carport/portico (porte-cochere] on the western side of the property that has some type of historical significance because it dates to the early part of the twentieth century and that ought to be preserved. There is in fact a standard that talks about preserving architectural significant elements of a property that were not original to the structure, but that ►%ere added some time later, and perhaps had acquired some significance of their own. Raymond Gerard said while the carport (porte-cochere] 7a be compatible with the original structure, the City of Evanston would benefit from a late 19' century home restored to the cond,:ron that it was original. The carport was added perhaps for some type of convenience for cars of the day; it does not serve that purpose any more. The other objection is that they will poi up two homes evhere there is one. What they are doing is removing a great deal of the square footage (of the house] by removing the additions that have been made overtime. Then there will be a smaller foot print of the existing home_ By putting another home of the same size or smaller. there is some gain effect on this. In another words by one change cancaeiing out the other change, so there is no detriment to the area. Raymond Gerard said another comment that the Commission may hear is that there was some attempt on the part of the petitioners in the past to mislead the Commission. Also, that representations were made that the only additions that were being removed are the ones that date from the 1960s and nothing further than that was being removed. R. Gerard said the written application of the petitioner says something very different. So there was never any intent to say something that was not true. He said Ms. Clements is a very warns, gracious and honest person. What they intend to do is restore the game and create a property that shows the original home, the way it was in 1887. Anne Dienner asked wno recommended that the house was movable. Janet Clements said she faked to four house movers; one outside of Indiana, ore in Wisconsin and a couple In the Bzmrington area. They looked at the foundation and condition of the house. She said the foundation is crumbling and they need a new foundation. The cost of putting in a beam is $53,000 and underpinning the house and a new foundation is 5120,000. They would like to build a new foundation for the house. Regarding the Oak tees, there is an Oak tree (155 years old) which will remain, there are two Oak tress that are dose to where the new foundation would be. Ann Dienner referring to the information submitted by Frank Cicero (neighbor) said, there seems to be a discrepancy as to the date of construction of the 'porte-cochere' (1910) not 1960. his. Clements said the information of the 1910 permit does not show the same dimension of the carport. The 1910 permit shows plaster, the carport does not have plaster. J. Clements said the 1910 permit indicates a frame structure: the carport is a brick structure. Also, it does have brick in the list of materials that were used in the foundation of the small addition that was added at that time by the original architect She believed Mr. Cicero's exhibit mislabeled that was the carport addition which was not. R. Gerard said although they think the 1910 building permit could not have been for the poste-cochere they certainly think Evanston Preservation Cc .v-. ss'= September 3, 2008 — Mr oes Page a Date Approved: 2117,09 that was added sometime part of the early 1900s. He said that Is not the issue, and they did not say and do not say now that, that part of the house was added in the 1960s. The eestem side part of the property is plainly different from the rest of the house, it has a flat roof; it does not match the architecture of the house. Ms. Clements said nobody asked when that was built; she would have said it if she knew. Suzanne Farrand asked regarding the relocation and the streetscape along Lake Street why they elected to move the house south and as well east. J. Clements said it was to conform to other hoes that are there. She said everything that it has been proposed is according to the codes of Evanston. The houses there are very close (the first house from the east is 7% the next one is 1 V. The houses are very close to the sidewalk, it is a very dense area. The new location of the house matches with what is across the street from it. Jordan Cramer asked if an actual structural engineer had looked at the house to move it physically. Ms. Clements said they had two engineers looked at the house. J. Cramer asked if the subs-Msion is not allowed, is the intention of the owner to restore the house as proposed including removal of the existing additions. J. Clements said absolutely. She added the 1960s addition to the east is very distracting from the house as she showed at her previous presentation. Raymond Gerard said he thought that his clients need the subdivision in order to make it feasible. The house is in great state of disrepair, the electric and plumbing need complete renovation. There is a great deal involved in preserving the house. That is the objective. J. Clements said her original intent is to bring the house back to its original design. She said the property always has been two lots. The property was subdivided in 1878 and even before that in 1860. The house was constructed on the one lot. The other lot has remained vacant for all of these years, but it is a lot of record and it shows that when the existing house was originally built, they intended to build another house. If they didn't, they would have built the existing house on a different location. The original house is right on the center of the lot. With the subdivision they are maintaining what it already is. They are changing the shape; instead of east to west is north to south, still two lots. The way being proposed it makes it more in harmony with the other houses that are on that block. Jon Pohl asked about the site plan and the outline of the existing house and the proposed location of the relocated house, he said he vvas concemed about the overlap and how the house could be moved from here to there. J. Clements said it can be done by digging a foundation for the new location; the house is lifted to dig the new foundation under the house. J. Pohl asked if the owners have the intention to develop the westem half. J. Clements said they will not develop it. They wsll maintain the two lots they have already, they are maintains�g that other lot, but it is a lot, just like it is now, the lot in front of that house is a buildable )ot, so they are not changing it. Emily Gumrie noted that the applicants are changing the orientation, currently the two lots run east to west. The new lots run north to south. J. Clements said that was correct. E. Guthrie said the orientation is on Forest Avenue, and probably two houses could have been built facing Fccest. The driveway was changed on Lake in 1934. Public Comments At this tirr-e Jordan Cramer called the names from the sign up sheets. Frank Cicero of 222 Lake said he was speaking for himself and his wife and submitted a list of people (fifty-five) who have indicated that they wanted their names provided to the Commission as being opposed to these proposals. These people have asked him to speak for them. He noted no one in the room except for the next door neighbor new about this project prior to August 16. 2008. Evanston Preservanon Conunisson September 3, 2008 - Minutes Page 5 Date Approved: 2/17109 Frank Cicero described Forest Avenue as a great concourse; the proposal would change that drastically. He said Lake Street has been historically a major east/west thoroughfare. The four comers have big houses on even bigger lots. This site and this lot would be the smallest lot on Forest Avenue, Forest Place or Sheridan Road from Dempster all the way north to Northwestern University, by more than 20 percent. He maintained that the house can't be moved and fulfill the historically significant things which have been cited by the Preservation Commission and others, because it isn't just the house itself that has the historical significance as his Exhibit 1 points out (Evanston Historical Society House Walk of 1982). 1501 Forest Avenue, Architects Handy and Cady. 1887, "Conspicuously sited on this comer lot is this Shingle Style house with a porte-cochere added in 1910 and the porch extended to the east in 1923." Frank Cicero referred to the Statement of Significance and noted the porte-cochere (added in 1910 by Cady) and the porch extended to the east (added in 1923) items cited as significant in the Statement of Significance; two items which the applicants want to demolish in their proposal. The additional alterations from 1931 are the two-story addition on the eastern part of the house. He said all of this is signAcant because the Commission and the Historical Society knew how to designate the signcficant things. Frank Cicero marked as Exhibit 2 a four -page exhibit. Standard for resubdivision (fourth page of the exhibit) Section 2-9-12 of tt9e Preservation Code: 1- The design of the subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation shall: '(a) Preserve, adaptively use, or otherw�se protect the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district." F. Cicero said the proposal does not preserve or otherwise protect the landmark house nor does it preserve or otherwise protect the structure, site or object in the district. It does major violence to the landmark house by destroying about 49% of the length of the house from east to Kest (7 and 8 in the exhibit book). F. Cicero referred to the plats of the plans that the petitioner provided to the Commission. He had superimposed on them in color the demolitions that the Commission had approved on July 15, 2008, starting with the porte-cochere (1910), then the porch that extends towards the east (1923). then the two-story addition (1931) further on the east side and the garage on the east end. Approximately 49%. He passed around three photos: first, standing on the comer of Forest and Lake and walk 4-5 paces noM along Forest, showing how the porte-cochere dominates the s e, that the porte-cochere and that corner of the house would be a very conspicuous tar.,Cmark or site on the concourse along Forest Avenue. The porte-cochere was added by t-,a� original architect in 1910. The second photo is of the porte-cochere and the porch, the porte-cochere is proposed to be tom down. Portions of the porch (7 in the exhibit book) are also proposed to be tcm down. The third picture shows the eastern end of the house and the garage (1980s addition) and the two-story addition (1931). The lower floor of the two story addition (1931) it is a room which is adjacent to on the east of the living room door, it is significant inside and outside a the house. '(c) Not result in blocking or otherwise eostmcting, as viewed from a public street or public way, the critical features of the landmarx or area, property, structure, site or object in the district" F. Cicero said the removal of t~.s may not result in blocking the view, but it will result in eliminating the view of the structure s e or object at its place in the district. '(d) Preserve anc protect the critical fez ::res of the streetscape associated with the landmark, or area, property, structure, sire or object in the district." F. Cicero said this structure and its site is part of that Forest Avenue streetscape. The applicant chose the talk about Lake Street_ but in fact it is part of me streetscape on both streets. Evanston Preservation Commission September 3.2008 - Minutes Page 6 Date Approved: 2/17/09 '(e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns. Municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. F. Cicero said (e) was not a significant standard. Frank Cicero said the house sits on two lots (he passed around Exhibit 3 which includes the survey provided in connection with the sale on the first page and it shows the proposed plat on the second page). The house had a Lake Street address, it still had the 225 Lake Street address in 1960 when the garage permit application was filed and issued. For eighty years or more it had an address on Lake Street. The whole house is facing on Lake Street and it is positioned so it sits at the north end of the two lot property with a vista over the lawns to the south. He maintained that no one had thought of building on the lot to the south because the porte-cochere sits on the south lot_ The south lot is not a buildable lot at the present time. Frank Cicero said that the porte-cochere is critical from a historic stand point because it is an early addition, twenty years after by the original architects. It is cited frequently as a matter of historical significance. It is also significant from the stand point of what the applicants want to do on the property, because the presence of the porte-cochere prevents them from cutting down the house and demolishing it enough to tit it in the new lot and it prevents that souln lot from being a buildable lot. It is a vital element from the historical stand point and it is critical for the applicants to do violence to that historical feature in order to accomplish their plans. If the house is moved to the east in order to have the original size house on the eastern lot, there is no need to do the resubdivLsion, unless one intends to develop that lot. The resubdivision is necessary not to preserve the open space, but to facility the filling in of the open space. That is why the pone-cochere is a critical element in terms of accomplishing that, and that is why the permissions that were granted in July should be rescinded because they do violence to a critical historical element. Frank Cicero read the standards for review of relocation (second page of Exhibit 2). 1.'The historic or urban design character and aesthetic interest the structure or object contributes to its present setting.* He said the plan eliminates the historic or urban design character and aesthetic interest the structure or object contributes to its present setting. 4. "Whether the proposed relocation area is compatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the structure or object.' He said putting the house in and among the Oak trees is not compatible with the historic aspect of that area and nor is its moving away from its site, the site that was cited and commended in the statement of significance (compatible with historic or architectural characte- of the area). He questioned whether the relocation of the structure can be accomplished A-dhout significant damaged to its physical integrity. The Commission should demand certificates from competent engineers with the opportunity for other parties to comment on them, about whether that house can survive a move or not. Frank Cicero said regarding the standards for demolition, [the application] fails to meet them. 2. 'Whether the property, structure or object contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the dis-ict as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the City and the State-- He sad the porte-cochere and the other elements of that house are contributing. 3. "Whether demolition of the property, structure of object would be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of me historic preservation for the applicable district' He said the demolition and stripping of tree house and the significant features of it cited in the Historical Society and Commission statements, would be contrary to this standard. Evarudon Preservation Commission September 3.2008 — Minutes PaQe 7 Dale Approved: 2117109 Frank Cicero discussed the principle that the applicants primary objective is to restore the house to its original design. Nowhere in the code could it be found that as a principle or objective with respect to historic structures. Instead, the code does recognize and say it must be respected — additions which have come to have historical significance: '4. Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property ... changes that have taken place in the course of time ought to be respected, but even more the principle makes no sense. He referred to the two houses across the street (222 and 216 Lake Street), what is cited in the statements of significance for those two homes are the front porches and various other things. These two houses were virtually identical when they were built by the same family in 1867. He said there were additions to both houses over the years (in 1885 at 222 Lake — front porch, bay on the west, an alcove, additions at the east side), if all those things are stripped and follow the principle the applicants want to follow, the landmark historical district probably would end up not qualifying as a landmark historical district. It would induce severe damage all over the district. F. Cicero cited the alterations to the White House in Washington D.C. that occurred over the years. He said to mem or to suggest that as a matter of historical principle that one should go back to the original design of the house is a ridiculous principle or to cite that for 222 Lake and 216 Lake Street or numerous other properties in the historic district. It does not have any foundation in the code_ Finally. F. Cicero said that is urgent that the Commission move and adopt a motion to reconsider and reexamine the actio-is taken on July 15, 2008. He said it is appropriate for the Commission to do rL because the reason why the room is full of people tonight (where nobody was present on July 15, 2008, he said) is because the applicant failed to give the notice that the rules of the Commission require to property owners within 250 feet of the property (highlighted an the list). None of those people received notice of the [hearing) for the opportunity to talk about it. F. Cicero said that on August 16, 2008 he met Ms. Clements who admitted that she did not talk anybody else, except to Virginia Beatty who lives next door to the north. The Commission's rules provide that it is mandatory for the applicant to notify the neighbors, and the applicant did not. The failure to do that meant that no one was here to bring the true facts of what the app5cant(s) were proposing. They can't profit and benefit from that under the law. The true facts concerning the significance of these additions were not presented at the meeting and that provide additional basis under the law to invalidate and void the actions of that time. In interest of a full examination of these things and in the interest of preserving the integrity of the Commission's decisions, the Commission should reopen those matters. F. Cicero said the urgency is that a week ago last Friday the applicants filed applications for binding permits to accomplish the demolitions that were order in July. In the normal course of actions, Mr. Ruiz signed off on them as being authorized by the Commission. F. Cicero said t'e did not know how soon those permits maybe issued. If is going to be a burde-i on somecie to have any consequences at all from the failure of the notice, they should be on the petitioner. his. Clements still will gel her chance to come in and convince the Corrmiss*n that these drastic demolitions are of historic value and should be permitted. F. Cicero said the approval should be reconsidered and it should be denied. At this time Jordan Cramer callec the names of people who signed up to speak (and suggested that people who agree with Mr. Cicero (') should say that instead of repeating the same): Jot^n Chapman (not prese:-t). Tom O'Brien of 210 Davis Street said he was concerned with allowirig the carving out of a house to fill on a smaller lot; to subdivide a lot, essentially puts a bounty on ever: historic house on a double lot in Evanston. He pointed at the comer of Greenwood and Forest (southeast comer) where a historic house was subdivided. Also at tie southwes, comer of Davis and Forest where there was a historic house which is been replaced by rwo or three smaller homes that clearly are out of character with everyhing else around it. Pt;:*jng a bounty on the historic homes that remain on double lots is a bad precedent for the Preservation [Committeej. Evanston Preservation Commisslon Date Approved: 2117109 September 3.2008 - Minutes Pape 8 NOTE: (•) indicates the person agreed with F. C;cero's comments: Lisa Sherborne & David Foster (did not speak), Mary Singh of 1711 Hinman ('), Amalia Malos of 1332 Hinman ('), Chaw Yi of 1332 Hinman (•), Alice Eagly of 324 Davis (agreed with Tom O'Brien), Helen Widen of 425 Greenwood ('), Jan Cicero of 222 Lake (•), Katie Stallcup of 144 Greenwood said the Lakeshore Historic District has faced many challenges in the past 17 years. She sees this as another one in a continuing series of challenges to trying to preserve the integrity of the entire neighborhood. She said this is a very important precedent, it is a real threat. Sid and Ann Saltz of 416 Lake ('), Alaka Wali of 1424 Judson ('), Ellen Galland of 408 Lake said she was the architect for the neighbor immediately east at 215 Lake Street, the standards for relocation are applied here, that the views of that house would be significantly and adversely effected. The view of the relocated structure would ultimately be blocked by the potential new house west of it. She said those two standards are not met. Randy Zwick of 1510 Forest ('), Virginia Beatty of 1509 Forest said she saw in her computer that there was going to be a meeting on July 10, 2008. it was going to suggest taking parts of the house. She came over and met Ms. Clements. She asked Mr. Ruiz how come she did not get a notice of the meeting, because she is within 250 feet. Mr. Ruiz told her it was not necessary to give her the information or maybe Mr. Ruiz told her it was not necessary to send her a message or something like that. V. Beatty quoted from the 2000 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Evanston, page 107:'The landscape setting of Evanston's buildings is as Important to the preservation of Evanston's historic ar4 architectural character as are the Individual buildings themselves. In Evanston the spaces in between and around buildings, and the placement of buildings relative to one another, are influenced by two factors; first, by the layout of streets In a grid pattern, and second, by the maintenance of greenery and landscape grounds " V. Beatty said it is her professional opinion (referring to the standards of the International Society of Agriculture) that three of those Oak trees on the east side of the property will be completely killed if the proposed new foundation or footing ... it Is Important to consider what might happen to those Oak trees, because is part of the Oak grove that went down from Northwestem University further south and it was the reason Northwestern University was placed in the spot it was. Bernard Jennett of 216 Lake ('), Mary K. Clinton of 210 Davis (•), Susan Frankel of 204 Lake ('), Cathleen Hammerschlag of 311 Lake (•), Richard Schwartz. David Baker of 400 Clark (•) said many of the neighbors chose to live in the area because of the historic neighborhood. He strongly urged the Commission to rescind the Certificate that was granted on the property. John Mancini of 1433 Hinman ('), Chris Ernst of 1639 Hinman ('). Colleen Cannon of 1625 Hinman (•) said her concern was that they were not notified. Judy Fiske of 2319 Sherman said the Preservation Commission should consult the Legal Department on whether the property has been subdivided or not. Regarding the applicant's comment about how moving the house is going to make the streetscape more appropriately in line with another; that is something that preservationists are only concerned about in subdivisions; where the subdivsion has been created with a very uniform appearance. That is not something seen in Evanston; especially on the o-dest neighborhood, where houses have been built over decades and staggered on the block and reflect the fact that they have been built over decades. J. Fis�e read her letter to the Commission where she indicated: her twenty years experience in his:o-ic preservation in Evanston; being Past President of the Preservation League of Evanston, Board Member of the Evanston Historical Society, and one of the authors of two nominations to list the Northeast Evanston Historic District in the National Register of Historic Paces and as the local Hstoric District. She researched and wrote the nomination to list the Georgian Hotel in the National Register and as a local landmark. She prepared the nomination to designate Wesley Hall of Kendall College. She worked with an expert in historic preservation matters, with state and local groups, and was employed as a realtor assisting residential and commercial clients with historic preservation projects. She knows the challenges of balancing historic preservation and property rights Evanston Preservation C,orfuniss.ian September 3, ZWO - Minutes Papa 9 Date Approved: 2117M and has even appeared in front of the Commission as an advocate for appropriate infill development; most recently at the northwest comer of Orrington and Foster in the Northeast Evanston Historic District where the addition of a new single family house actually strengthens the fabric of the district. But what is appropriate and even desirable for a vacant lot at the intersection of Foster and Orrington is not desirable at Forest and Lake, she said. Judy Fiske expressed her strong opposition to the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1501 Forest. She said according to architectural historian Barbara Buchbinder-Green in her books Evanstoniana and Evanston: A Pictorial History, 1501 Forest Avenue designed in 1887 by architect J. K. Cady for the prominent realtor Frank Elliot and his wife Anna Shuman, it is a superb example of the Shingle Style. According to B. Buchbinder- Green the house at 1501 Forest was a radical change in style from the other Queen Anne houses built during that period. J. Fiske said in her opinion that the relocation, partial demolition of the J. K. Cady addition from 1910. subdivision and possible infill development on the site, does not conform to the standards contained in the Evanston's City Code, and therefore should be denied. That the Preservation Commission may have acted at its July 15, 2008 meeting without sufficient and accurate information about the significance of the house and its subsequent alterations, and therefore the Commission should revisit that decision. The proposal will diminish the integrity of both the structure and the historic district and finally that the proposal sets an undesirable and dangerous precedent that will encourage inappropriate infill development on two of the most architecturally and historically significant blocks in the entire Cry of Evanston, where landmark structures comprise 65% of the property including the Dawes House that is a National Historic Landmark. No better care of caution must be taken here, for the-ie precious blocks transcend time and define Evanston to everyone who travels through Evanston. J. Fiske said all benefit from their preservation. For the past three and a half years, under the City Council, Evanston's preservation program has come under attack, but in these troubling times the public is looking to the Commission for leadership, without regard to what actions the Commission feels the City Council may or may not undertake subsequently. This project fails to meet the standards; the right thing to do Is to vote it down. Paul Janickl of 1422 Judson said he is an architect who does restoration work. Regarding economic hardship, he said he bought his house twenty years ago, it Is a 1890s Holabird S Roche and it was crumbling, but when buying a historic house In a historic district, a person has to know what one is getting into. He said he did not find the basement condition (at 1501 Forest] and issue, he worked on thirty houses in Evanston and all had bad basements and bad foundation walls, it just the tray it is. P. Janicki said regarding the Oak trees that there is not an arborist in the state of lllinos who will say that an Oak tree could be saved by building anywhere within the crown of the tree. He said all the Oak trees will be lost. He mentioned his exhibit of Shingle Style and Queen Anne houses with porte-cocheres, some of them in very similar style to 1501 Forest. He said Frank Uoyd Wright home studio in Oak Park was add onto several times by Frank Uoyd Wright and nobody in Oak Park is suggesting that they rip those additions out to get back to the original structure. He said if one keeps the porte- cochere at it should be, and move it to the east, there is not enough side yard on the alley side to get a second lot. P. Janicki said the Oak trees contribute to the property values because trees are part of the historical notion of the sense of place. David Doyle of 300 Church said he had heard Counsel (Mr. Gerard) say to his client (Ms. Clements), when she said she was not going to do anything with the lot, that he wanted her to reconsider and make sure he understood her, because that was necessary to the preservation. D. Doyle understood that to mean that in order to afford the preservation they would have to sell the lot or somehow use the lot for development purposes to afford the preservation. Ann Jennett of 216 take (') said she lived for forty years in her house, then a 100 years old when she bought the house. She said the house at 1501 Forest is part of the landscape and Evanstm Preservation Commission 5eptenst w 3. 2008 -- Minutes Pape 10 Date Approved: 2/17,09 the house is vital to the green approach way to Lake Michigan from downtown Evanston. She thought it was wonderful that people were present to protect as stewards of the people who have been before them. Alan Gratch of 1134 Judson (•). Anne Earle of 1508 Hinman (') said to move the house that was built as a corner house to an alley house completely changes the selling of the neighborhood, and the significance of the house in relation to the neighborhood. Mary McWilliams of 1606 Wesley said she sat in the original committee that evaluated the property for designation. The property was designated for two reasons: one, it exemplify the work of a nationally or internationally known architect or major local architect or master builder. Two, it exhibits an unusual distinctive or eccentric design or construction technique which contributes to the architectural interest of its environment as an accent or counter point. She said this means it was a distinctive feature, the house on the lot and its position where is, was a significant historic characteristic. To move the house tweny feet east and twenty feet south would destroy in effect the gate; one of two reasons why this house was listed as a landmark. Building a house on the property would ultimately further diminish that. Sally Gratch of 1134 Judson (') said she also agreed with Anne Jennett's statement. Tim Gerdeman of 303 Lake Street (t) said that Counsel for Ms. Clements had said that subdivision is necessary to fund the rehab. Jes Sherbome of 1513 Forest (') said he views the siting of the house on the lot as a critical aspect of its historic character and he was greatly concerned about doing anything that would change that siting. Mark Simon of 204 Lake ('), David Reynolds and Holly Reynolds of 204 Davis ('). At this time the Commission took a recess. NOTE: After the recess inadvertently no recording of the meeting occurred until approximately 10:05 p.m. Carlos Ruiz mentioned this to the Commission, the applkants and the audience. Raymond C. Gerard, attomey for the applicants Janet Clements and Jeffrey Clements provided next day at Carlos Ruiz's request his written remarks that he made at the meeting following the recess in response to the neighbors' statements. The following remarks are from Carlos Ruiz's notes, not the recording. Shirley Conley of 1632 Forest said she was opposed to the lot being subdivided; she thought she will be protected by being in the historic district. She said a site might be significant on its own right. The subdivision will ruin the integrity of the site. Raymond Gerard In response to the neighbors' statements said: - The pone-cochere will not prevent to create a buildable lot. - For economic feasibility, they are proposing a resubdivision. - They intent to restore the house according to standard 2 for review of alteration (distinguishing original qualities shall not be destroyed). Also, in regard to standard 4 (changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property. structure, site or object and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected), they intend to preserve the original house. - Standard 4 is not the only standard. The proposal should be judged in its entirety. (The standards say that) one can make a Grange. People have property rights wt1i interest in the community. The applicants want to preserve the 1887 rouse. Janet Clements made the following remarks: - The property owners at 234 Greenwood and 315 Davis support the project. The house had an address on Lake and &anged the address on Forest in 1934. - Moving houses is done all the time, it is not an issue. - The Commission's decision on July 15, 2008 does not set a precedent. - The 1878 subdivision was for two lots. - They will restore the house and its historical significance. Evanston Preservabw Commission September 3, 2008 - Mantes Pape 11 Date Approved: 2117109 - The subdivision is necessary to finance the restoration of the house. - Regarding the porte-cochere Mr. Gerard had observed that the plaster and dimensions do not match [1910 building permit]. It is not know that Cady is the original architect. They will still remove the additions if the subdivisioWrelocation is not allowed. Other remarks., - Ann Dienner requested from the applicants a write up on the feasibility of moving the house. - The porte-cochere is definitely typical of the period. - A comment was made about conforming to the streetscape. - A comment was made about no zoning laws — irregularity. - A comment was made about the 1921 zoning law — [porte-cochere] typical of the area. - tits. Clements said that the zoning analysis is done. NOTE: Raymond C. Gerard, attorney for the applicants Janet Clements and Jeffrey Clements provided next day at Carlos Ruiz's request his written rernarks that he made at the meeting following the recess in response to the neighbors' statements. R. C. Gerard written remarks are provided below: "Summary of comments made by counsel for the Applicant, Raymond Gerard, immediately following statements made by neighbors and other members of the public at the Special Meeting of the Evanston Preservation Council on September 3, Ms. 1 am marking and submitting for the record Petitioner's Exhibit 101, a copy of a survey of the property showing the existing house, ,with an overlay showing the proposed relocation, and Petitioner's Exhibit 102, an aerial view of the block in which the property is located. These are accurate copies of the items viewed by the Commission in my power point presentation earlier this evening. l mill first address certain individual points made by members of the public and will then address certain comments that «were made on a more common basis. While it has been contended that the proposed lots are 20% smaller than nearby lots, the proposed lots do meet the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district and are not out of keeping with the area. The land subject to the petitions is composed of three parcels, a southern lot, a northern lot and an additional 6-foot strip to the north of the northern lot. This strip allowed the placement of the existing home on the northern lot and evidenced intent to preserve the undeveloped, buildable status of the _--iuthem lot. The porte-cocltere does not prevent the southern lot from being buildable, it is merely an encroachment onto that lot. While it was contended that the economic costs of resaoring an older home in need of substantial repairs is not a proper consideration in approving a subdivision, the petitioners are not proposing to create a subdivision, they are proposing to merely reconfigure lots in an existing subdivision. Evanston Preser-2um Cammission September 3, 2008 — Minutes Page 12 Date Approved; 2117M Ha-*zng addressed these specific items, attention will now be turned to more common points. It has been contended that the Preservation Ordinance contains no reference to the importance ofthe original architectural design of structure. While this particular standard is not relevant to the matters pending before the Commission, standard number 2 relating to building alterations does signify the intent of the Preservation Ordinance. It states. "The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed." It has been mentioned that the Statement of Significance refers to two features that are to be eliminated. These features are covered by a separate standard, number a. The standards are part of a group of factors to be considered, in their entirety, by the Commission. No one standard is necessarily more important than the others. It has also been said that a home on the new, western lot would block the view from the west of the existing home and that the different setback from the street of the existing home should not be changed. These relatively common objections essentially amount to the view that there should be no changes at all to a property in a historic district. There is, however, a reason why changes have been approved to other historic properties by the City in the past, the property rights of individuals. The standards are meant to balance the property rights of individuals with an attempt to preserve historic properties. The Preservation Ordinance does not disallow all changes. If that was the intent, it would have said so. The reason it does, however, is that such a law would be unconstitutional. The petitioners are clearly making an attempt to preserve this historic property. They are prepared to go to great lengths in restoring this home to its original l9rh century form. Lastly, a suggestion has been made that you reconsider the action taken by this Commission on July 15'h. If that is done, I wish to state for the record, that the petitioners object to the reconsideration and do not waive any rights they may have acquired in regard to the prior approval. It is my understanding that the petitioners were told by City staff and by this Commission or a member of it that they did not need to provide notice to nearby property owners. They relied on those statements. The purchase of the property took place after the July 15ei approval and they relied on the approval in making the purchase. I am not necessarily making a claim at this time based on such rights, but I am sa%ing that the petitioners are not waiving any such rights they may have acquired in this regard." Thank you for your attention. Commission's Findings After considering the applicant's statements and the neighbor's statements Jon Willarson moved to reconsider the July 15, 2008 decision approving the Certificate of Appropriateness. E"mton Preservation Commission September 3. 2008 — Knutes Pape 13 Date Approved: 2117109 Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Suzanne Farrand noted the different interpretation of the Porte-cochere and the new information about it. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. NOTE: At 10:05 p.m. the tape recording was re -started. The following portion of the minutes is from the tape recording: Jon Pohl said that the recent additions would be removed in the east elevation of the original house; a very compelling argument. He said however that the removal of the porte-cochere is an obvious denigration of the historic character [the architectural character]. The porte- cochere seems to probably be designed by Cady because it is detailed exactly like the original porch, where the arch is led into the vertical peers, is all detailed exactly the same. The argument that changes that took place over a period of time can enhance the architectural character of the historic proper., is very compelling. He said the White House is a great example of that. Regarding the east elevation what cannot be seen is the original elevation behind the 1960s addition (a gable end, like the west elevation). The plan is to restore that. Jordan Cramer said his biggest question is U)e 1930s section because when viewed from the street is hardly the expression of the house as far as the character of it. He did not know about what historic value the garage adds to the house. Jon Pohl said the garage does not have historic value what so ever. Janet Clements said the porch actually hides the turret that matches the other side. She said the carport [porte-cocherej is falling down and it is in great disrepair and not secure. Jon Pohl said they are talking about character and clearly the porte-cochere, which is an architectural device that one can drive thru. l_-t the 1 r century people drove horses and carriages. On the site plan the porte-cochere clearly was intended to be driven thru. J. Pohl said it does matter when the porte-cochere was added, it works, it embellishes and it fits with the character of the house. As oppose to what is going on the east side of the house; it does not fit. He applauded the owner's desire to fix that. Carlos Ruiz said that in an R1 zoning district the required front yard setback is 27', the required side yards setbacks are 5'. and the required rear yard setback is 30'. The maximum allowable tot coverage is 30% of the lot: it will include the porte-cochere because it has a roof on it. J. Clements said the foot print is only about 1,800 square feet. The 7,200 square feet is for the [new) lot, there is no problem with that. Carlos Ruiz said the minimum square footage of a lot in an R1 zoning district is 7.200 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 35- feet. Jordan Cramer referring to the relocation standard: I. `The historic or urban design character and aesthetic interest the structure or object ccntributes to its present setting", said when driving down Forest Avenue the house has a presence on that comer. When moved [the house) certainly will change that look. J. Pohl said that is what he refers to as context. There Is more to this than dealing with the bricks and '-�ortar, it is me whole look of things. J. Pohl asked the applicants if they are moving the ho"4'e to the southeast, why they could not move it to the southwest. Then they will still have Lhe house with the porte-cochere on the comer. J. Clements said they would happy to do it, but me reason wf;y is proposed [on the southwest) is because is quiet and it is her persc oal preference. J. Pohl said he wants everyone to win including preservationists and tre community which is interest in no change. Jordan Cramer said the Commission is not opposed to change. They have done it time and time again. The Commission has allowed changes to historic structures; often times people had come to the Commission with one idea that comes not sit well with the standards, the Commission works with the owners to try to come up with something that does, which often times is a win -win situation. The neighbors might; still disagree, but if the Commission feels Evanston Preservabcn Commission September 3, 2008 - Lscwtes Pape 14 Date Approved: 2/17/09 that it meets the standards and they are not going to denigrate a very prominent landmark in Evanston, then the Commission is going to show a lot more latitude towards that project. He has not thought of it all the way thru, but if something is going to give, is keeping the presence on Forest Avenue and keeping that facade the way it has been since the early part of the 20"' century. Emily Guthrie said part of that assumes that anything could be built on lot 4, which runs east to west along Lake. E. Guthrie said Ms. Clements is correct when she says that lot 4 is a buildable lot and they can sell it off. Who ever builds on that lot would have to come to the Commission, but the Commission will not have a lot of leverage. E. Guthrie did not know if the neighbors understand that. If lot 4 is buildable and the owners sell it off, the Commission would have very little impact on what could be put there, which is going to obscure the way 1501 Forest looks as coming north on Forest. Jon Pohl said that it is a 45' deep lot north to south and a 150' deep east to west. He said any architect would put a 20' wide house in there, three stories tall with no problem. J. Cramer said somebody had mentioned the projw on Orrington earlier. That was a good example, some of the neighbors were up in arms, saying "you cannot build here" and the fact of the matter was they had a right to build something. Most of the Commissioners agreed then that the new house was well in keeping with the neighborhood. If some of those neighbors had gotten their way, the house was going to look bizarre and awful. He did not know whether one could build on the subject lot. He said that is why the meeting, getting notice and getting together with people (sometimes when is painful and one feels being at odds) ideas come up and when is not presented to people in absolutes like "if you don't allow this I will put something awful in my front yard." J. Cramer said, let's instead took at it and if this is a developable lot, and if somebody could build on it ten years from know, let's talk about what works. He said this is a good reason for people to get together and talk about these things and see what can be done. Jon Pohl said from looking at the drawing and lot 4, the porte-cochere has to be demolished. Ms. Clements argued that is not true, she said it is an encroachment; that is why zoning Is focusing on the porte-cochere. They believe if that is hanging off then they sell the lot, but it does not matter, one can still leave it and can still sell the lot. She said she welcomed the Commission's ideas. J. Cramer said sometimes it does not work. The Commission talked about many variables tonight, while Ms. Clements seems very certain to build on it; while J: Pohl and C. Ruiz are looking at it and saying perhaps you can. Other people are saying that you can't Carlos Ruiz described the zoning requirements for a comer lot. He said the owner chooses which side would be the front yard, either Forest or Lake. A side yard on a comer lot has to have 15' of setback (whether on Forest or Lake). That will impact the total area, one has to have 15' setback for the side yard from either street and 27' from the front yard. Also, if the front yard (either on Lake or Forest) is more than 27'. they have to be at least at the average setback that could be more than 27'. Jon Pohl asked if Ms. Clements asked Zoning to look at lot 4 as a buildable lot. J. Clements said no, but there will be 15' from the comer, 5' side yard, 27' for the front and 30' for the back yard. Judy Fiske said the Commission was making the wrong assumption about lot 4. The sunxxznding block was platted long before the zoning ordinance. These were platted not by the City but by developers. So lots 4, 5. and 6 have no relationship at all to any zoning ordinance (1921 or the current Zoning Ordinance). A title search will show the original lot old records by the developers that actually were resubdivided over time and many times over time. To make the assumption that somehow or another that lot 4 is a buildable lot, when it Is not. A lot cannot be created, or subdivide a property or considerable lot that would create the originaJ house and make 4 non conforming to existing zoning, and that would be because it would not have the required front yard, or if it is turned on its side, it would not have the Evanston Pmsenabon Ummission September 3. 2008 - mnutes Page 15 Bate Approved: VIVO required yard setback. J. f=iske said the way the applicants have proposes for moving the house will create two 72,000 S.F. lots and that is appropriate. With the retention of the porte- cochere, suddenly there is no two 72,000 S.F. lots any more, if it is going to have what Is required under side yard requirements. So there is a problem here. She asked the land use attorneys in the room to comment on this, because she though the Commission was running off on the wrong direction about lot 4. She said the Commission should forget about lot 4 because it is not a buildable lot yet, and she could not see that if ever it could be a buildable lot. She said the Commission needs a legal opinion on this, because it is being assumed that lot 4 is a buildable lot. Emily Guthrie noted drat she was saying if lot 4 is a buildable lot, then a lot of what lent itself to the siting of this house could be ... J. Fiske said that assumption is not true. Raymond Gerard referred to section 6-18-3 of the City Code, it defines a lot of record as "a lot that is part of a subdivision, the plat of which has been recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of Cook County, ... prior to the adoption of this ordinance. He said if a lot is shown on the plat of subdivision that is recorded ]prior to the adoption of the ordinance] as this would be, then it constitutes a lot of record. Then section 6-4-1-7 "In any residential district, on a lot of record, on the effective dale hereof, a single-family dwelling may be erected regardless of the size of the lot, provided all other requirements of this code are in compliance. And there is a bare minimum standard that "In no case may the minimum lot area established be less than SO% of the required minimum ..." so that is why they maintain that is a buildable lot, it is a lot of record, he said. Frank Cicero said he has been ready to talk to the applicant at any time. He thought it was unfortunate that they had not been given notice, his. Clements had apologized profusely. He said okay but when asked Ms. Clements to talk to them and let them know what she was going to do, Ms. Clements said no. If they want to talk about something, maybe they have an idea. He did not think the Commission has the authority to make any kind of deal relating to that lot. The appropriate thing, if the Commssion is ready, is to go ahead on the matter that was notice tonight, vote on the subdivision matter. He did not know how the Commission could approve the subdivision and thereby create two tots on one of which the house could sit. and without approving the relocation as well. As long the Commission is reconsidering the size of the house, the Commission can't approve the relocation because it won't fit, If the Commission is prepared to vote on it, the Commission has the alternative to turn down the subdivision and proceed from there, he said. Jordan Cramer said the Commission is not here to prompt any deals, but simply to help facilitate ideas. If the community wants to ciscuss these things and come back with a different application, even then if the comminity comes back with an agreement to the Commission, it could still be denied a Cert:ricate of Appropriateness because it does not meet the standards. Hopefully that does not happen but it is a possibility. In terms what Is buildable and what is not, he or any Commssioner is not prepared to take anybody's word at that right now. There are always good arguments that could be made on both sides. The real question is where it does ultimately fall - it might fall %%ith a zoning officer. In terms of the Commission's options, they could go down the subdivtsion tonight. He for one would deny that, he did not know how the other Comm ssioners fe:. That is part of the reason there is this dialogue to give the applicant the opper'vnity to say 'maybe we would want to go back and come up with some alternatives before we get shut down.' Sometimes applicants prefer to have the Commission vote and get that over with and they have appeal rights, so they can move forward with that. If the applicants w-ant, the Commission could take a straw poll and they can decide what they want to do next_ Emily Guthrie said her concern with the question about lot 4 was that it could be a whole lot worst than what the applicants have proposed. v.-hich is a house that is 27' back from Forest Avenue (where the existing house is 53' back) so it will be half way closer to Forest than it Is. And the side yard on Lake Street is 15', so there will be a long skinny house, but one can put Evanston Preservation Conn isssion Date Approved: 2JIM September 3. 2008 — Knutes Page 16 a decent size house in there, and it is going to change the way 1501 Forest looks. and the Commission will not have power of review. She would like to hear from Zoning and she would like the neighbors to sit down with the Clements and a mediator such as the Alderman. She referred the house on the 1200 block of Hinman Avenue on the west side of the street, (third down form the comer), it had a side yard which once had a bam at the back, that side yard was buildable. They put in a house that is very sympathetic to the rest of what is in the neighborhood. Jeffrey Clements said they did not own the house (1501 Forest) until August 15, 2008. The day after they bought it they moved in. The sane day they met with Mr. Cicero across the street to talk about their plans. He said Mr. C;oero started drilling his wife pretty much like the cross examination here tonight. He said he got upset and he stopped the conversation. He asked what right Mr. Cicero has to do that on the first day they had moved in the neighborhood. He thought they had done everything with the City staff, they presented a plan which they thought was approved and now they are sitting in front of the entire neighborhood. He said it does not feel right. Jeffrey Clements said he loves the idea of the historical commission and shares many of the same sentiments people have about preserving the neighborhood. He said the who'.e block has essentially been subdivided before. Other provisions have been made; the largest lots are in the back of their house. There is now a 2-story garage that completely blocks that view of the house in the block. He said the 'not in back yard" attitude is present. He asked where the line is being drawn suddenly when they move in the neighborhood; where is it written that they can't enjoy a home in the neighborhood the way they want where everybody Else is done what they want with their own. Jeffrey Clements said [tie Dooreys have put a two story addition that blocks part of the view of their neighbor. Jeffrey Clements said they are perfectly happy to visit with the neighbors, work on a solution that fits everybody's vision for the proposal. But the Idea that it is going to be blocked at every turn and being forced to hire an attorney to defend themselves it does not feel right either. Jordan Cramer said the Commission can't sit at the table with the applicant in those terms. He thought both sides have expressed that they are willing to talk about. Ann Dienner asked about the July application where Charles Wilke of Roscoe, Illinois is listed as the owner and Janet Clements is the [contractor]. Then on tine August application, the Clements are the owners. A. Dienner asked the Clements if they considered 1501 Forest their address at that time. J. Clements said no. When she made the application for the zoning analysis as well as [preservation] they indicated that they were the owners of contract on the house, it is required in the application to put down [the information]. Jordan Cramer asked for any additional comments from the Commissioners before they vote on the relocation and resubdivision. Jeffrey Clements said they would prefer that there not be a vote tonight. J. Cramer said that is a prerogative the Commission gives to all owners if the owner wants to table to the next regular meeting or perhaps another special meeting if required. He said the Commission does not ► xe to have to work in absolutes. He said it seems likely that as proposed [the application] would not be approved. Perhaps, there is something the applicants can come up with mat meets the standards and that satisfies the neighbors. Ms. Clements said they will take tne Commission's suggestions in terms of the zoning and come back. E. Guthrie said she �&ould like the applicants go to the neighbors instead coming back to the Commission. bia}be there is some kind of compromise. J. Cramer said the community absorbed some of the Commission's comments as well. Putting things in perspective and some of the caveas they are looking out for thinking long term as well. What the Commission does not want to see happen is deny [the application] as suggested, as the Commission would probably go, and at the same time shoot everybody on the foot, because the owner has designs that are legal but don't fit with what the community wants. r Evanston Preservation Commission Date Approved: 2117109 September 3. 2008 — htnutes Page 17 Jon Pohl said E. Guthrie's point is a good point. He said the applicants need to go to Zoning and ask if lot 4 is really buildable. He said Ms. Clements made the point that it is, but they need to verife that. Because if it is, we all have to get together and talk about it. J. Pohl said if the applicants were to sell lot 4, the results of what could be built there are going to be a lot worst than what the applicants are proposing today. J. Cramer said the way the relocation is proposed does not sit well with him. If there were any relocation that would be feasible he would really Bike to see something from a structi.�—al engineer who has evaluated this. The applicants can then go on record as saying that the house can be moved. It is something that not only " I)e applicants but the community is entitled to know as well. Ms. Clements reiterated the Commission's suggestions regarding a zoning analysis [lot 4], a structural engineer report for moving the house, and going back to the community and see what can be done. Suzanne Far -and asked if the Commission will review the whole project including the Certificate of appropriateness for demolition as well. J. Cramer said yes. He suggested doing that at ne next regular meeting. He also said that perhaps it might be best to have a separate meeting again and give people plenty of time and notice to mobilize, and arrive to an agreement. Carlos Ruiz r-(erred to section 2-9-8 (C) Of the preservation allowing the Commission 45 days to review, the application. The time to consider the application may be extended with the consent cf the applicant. Raymond Gerard said his clients consent would be to wave the 145 day] requirement for consideration of these miters at the special meeting date that they agreed in. Ann Dienner moved to hold the meetng to a special meeting. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The notion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 na)s. Frank Cicero said the application for building permits is in process. E. Guthrie said it is stopped because the Certificate of Appropriateness [for demolition] has been revoked. J. Cramer said that Carlos Ruiz will not y [City staff] that the Commission voted to reconsider, so there isn't at this point in time a Certificate of A;�propriateness [for demolition]. Carlos Ruiz said he would like to consult with the Law Deaartrnent to determine what exactly that really means. But, if he understands correctly, by voting to reconsider, the Commission has to make a decsion whether or not the proposed Gamolitions will still be approved, so that it is on hold until is resolved. J. Cramer said the Commission had already voted to reconsider, the question is whether the Commisson will appr--ve or disapprove [demolition), so his view at this point is :nat there is no Certificate of Apprcpriateness that has been issued for the demolitions or. alterations. He expects that the owners recognize that and that the community recognizes that, so nobody has to rush off and do anything rushed and staff will let the people and proper channels know in the City as well. Carlos Ruiz said by directive of the Commission he will notify to the Building Departrent to hold on the issuance of the permit and the Certificate of Appropriateness. Janet Clements said she talked to C. Ruiz the day she turned in the building permit about that somebody was going to ask to reconsider. She as.+,ed a week later about the reconsideraticr.. C. Ruiz said then he had spoken to the Law Department and they had said because that issue was not brought up at that mewing that the opportunity to doing that had passed. J. Cramer said his view of it is when the Commission was here in August, the Commission filed this entire matter, so the Commission could have the special meeting. He said these are difficult issues and the Commission is telling now the applicants how the Commission vcned. At the appropriate juncture if tie applicants disagree with that, there are certain legal rigtnts the applicants have. r • Evanston Pre5e atiw Cortunissi September 3, 2MB - Minutes Page 18 Late Approved: 2117104 Jordan Cramer thanked everybody in the audience for coming out because their input Is valuable and appreciated. He also thanked Mr. and Mrs. Clements and their attorney Mr. Gerrard. At this time Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that at the recess he stopped the recording. After the recess he did not start the recording until 10:05 p.m. He had taken notes along the way. He asked Mr. Gerard to submit his comments in writing to be included as part of the testimony as far as the rebuttal. Mr. Gerard said he would do that. Vl. ADJOURNMENT Emily Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senor Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: 02/06/08 oil Date Approved 2/17109 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Wednesday, September 3, 2008 7.00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, and Jon Wiftarson MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Janet Clements, Jeffrey Clements, Raymond C. Gerard, Mary B. Singh, Arnalia Malos. Chae Yi, Alice Eagly. R Eagly, Helen Wider, Jan Cicero, Katie Staltcup, Sid & Ann Satz, Make Wali, Ellen Galland, Randy Zwick, Virginia L. Beatty, Bernard Jenneit, Tom O'Brien, Mary Kay Clinton, Susan Frankel, Cathleen Hammerschlag, Richard Schwartz, David Baker, John Mancini, Chris Ernst, Colleen Cannon, Frank Cicero, Judy Fiske, Paul Janicki, David Doyle, Ann JennetL Alan Gratch. Anne O. Earle, Mary B. Mc%Nilliams, Sallie Gratch, Tim Gerdernan, Jes Sherbome, Mark Simon, David Reynolds, Holly Reynolds, and Shirley Conley PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present (Ann Diener, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl, and Jon Willarson). Stafh Carlos Ruiz II. MINUTES April 15, 2008 and May 20.2008 Minutes [No action taken] III. COMMUNICATIONS1REPORTS Carlos Ruiz said he received a letter from John and Jane Chapman of 215 Lake Street regarding 1501 Forest Avenue. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RBTA) 1. 1501 Forest Avenue (LILSHD) —a) Move original house 20' to the east and 20' to the south on the existing lot. demolish existing foundation, construct new foundation at the same height as the existing (34"), reuse existing windows and red brick of the current foundation on the new foundation, construct below grade access to garage in the new basement and install <t Evanston Presesv.2bon Coffwassion Date Approved: 2117109 September 3.2008 - Minutes Page 2 new scissor lift with brick pavers on top on the east side yard [Relocation/Construction/Demolition]; and b) Re -subdivide lot into two tots (75' x 96') respectively, (east lot front yard facing Lake Street and west lot being a corner lot at Lake and Forest) [Re -Subdivision Recommendation] Janet Clements and Jeffrey Clements, owners and Raymond C. Gerard, attorney presented the application. R. Gerard showed pictures of the house at 1501 Forest in its original 1887 configuration and also the original blue prints also dated 1887. He said his clients wish to restore the house to its original condition. There are two items in front of the Commission, one, the subdivision of the property, and two the relocation of the house. The house is being moved a short distance, but a large portion of the house, primarily on the eastern side, is to be removed to restore the house to its original 11387 configuration. R. Gerard referred to the standards for review for the relocation of the home. 1) Whether or not the historic contribution of the home to the neighborhood is preserved. He said that the home is not only being preserved, but it is also being enhanced by restoring the house to its original condition. 2) Whether or not any construesion in the area to be vacated is compatible with the historic district_ He said the area being vacated is primarily on the north section of the property and that in that particular area there is not going to be any new construction. There would be new construction perhaps at same point down the line on the lot that is to be created by the subdivision. 3) Whether or not the structure will be damaged by the relocation. He said Mr. Mrs. Clements looked into this extensively and they have determined that this can be done without any damage what so ever to the house. And a) whether or not if the proposed relocation area itself is compatible with the historic nature the building that it's to be moved. On this particular case the building is to be moved a short distance and the area is essentially the same. Raymond Gerard discussed a diagram of the subdivision. The subdivision line is down the middle of the property. There is also a line that nsrs from east to west on the property. He said the property is currently subdivided. The original subdivision of the particular block at this property is divided into two pieces. One is the northern piece on which the house now sits and the other is the southern piece. Under the particular zoning Ordinance that southern lot it is a lot of record. The lot of record would meet at least 75% of the minimum lot size requirement under the current zoning code applicable to this district today and would be a buildable lot. So the primary objective with the subdivision that is being proposed is to take the current subdivision of this land and reconfigure it in a more orderly manner. Raymond Gerard showed an aerial photo of the b",ock on which the home now sits. The block is not exactly a square block and it could be described as an eastern half and a western half. The eastem half has four homes already. The western half has three homes. They propose with the subdivision to create four lots on the block, there are four lots right now, they are just reconfiguring it. The lot to be reconfigured, in terms of proportion is on the southwest comer of the block, divided in half, it is quite proportional with the lots on the eastern half of the block. They are not proposing anything that is out of character with this particular block. RayTnond Gerard referred to the standards that apply to the proceedings before the Commission with regard to the subdivision. First, whether or not the subdivision would preserve the landmark property or structure. He said they will preserve the existing home; in fact they will restore it to the condition from the 1 r Century. Second, any new structure would it have to be compatible with the area. He said since the property is in the historic district, any new construction would be back before the Commission for determination as to whether or not that standard is met. By (law] something could not be constructed there unless (the Commission) determines later that it is in fact compatible. Third, there is the requirement that the view of the relocated structure will not be blocked. That is one of the Evanston Preservation Unyrr(ss September 3. 2008 - Knutes page 3 Date Approved: 21I7M9 reasons why they are proposing a division of the property and relocation, because that will create a better streetsca;>e and visibility of the original home. Fourth, the requirement that the streetscape be preserved. He said they are accomplishing that, if fact they are improving that in terms of the project they intend to do. Fifth, there is no adverse effect on traffic patterns, municipal services, adjacent property values. This is a small subdivision, only one additional [lot], taking the existing home and reduced it in size. There would be no impact on the surrounding area fr= the subdivision limited scope. Raymond Gerard said that was in essence the project, and that the Commission is already familiar with it having already decided to approve the elimination of portions of the structure previously. He said that he has seen some of the correspondence from neighbors provided to the City on the project_ He believed the objections the Commission may hear fall primarily in a couple of categories. One is that there is a carport/portico [porte-cocherel on the western side of the property that has some type of historical significance because it dates to the early part of the twentieth century and that ought to be preserved. There is in fact a standard that talks about preserving architectural significant elements of a property that were not original to the structure, but that were added some time later, and perhaps had acquired some significance of their own. Raymond Gerard said w'tile the carport [porte-cochere] mar be compatible with the original structure, the City of Evanston would benefit from a late 19- century home restored to the condition that it was original. The carport was added perhaps for some type of convenience for cars of the day; it does not serve that purpose any more. The other objection is that they will put up two homes vrnere there is one. What they are doing is removing a great deal of the square footage [of Me house] by removing the additions that have been made overtime. Then there will be a smaller foot print of the existing home. By putting another home of the same size or smaller, there is some gain effect on this. In another words by one change canceling out the other change, so there is no detriment to the area. Raymond Gerard said another comment that the Commission may hear is that there was some attempt on the pa..-t of the petitioners in the past to mislead the Commission. Also, that representations were made that the only additions that were being removed are the ones that date from the 1960s and nothing further than that was being removed. R. Gerard said the written application of the petitioner says something very different. So there was never any intent to say something that was not true. He said Ms. Clements is a very warm, gracious and honest person. What they intend to do is restore the home and create a property that shows the original home, the way it was ire 1887. Anne Dienner asked was recommended that the house was movable. Janet Clements said she talked to four house movers; one outside of Indiana, one in Wisconsin and a couple in the Barrington area. They looked at the foundation and condition of the house. She said the foundation is crumbling and they need a new foundation. The cost of putting in a beam is 553,000 and underpinning the house and a new foundation is $120.000. They would like to build anew foundation for the house. Regarding the Oak trees, there is an Oak tree (155 years old) which will remain, there are two Oak tress that are close to where the new foundation would be. Ann Dienner referring to the information submitted by Frank Cicero (neighbor) said, there seems to be a discrepancy as to the date of construction of the 'porte-cochere' (1910) not 1960. Ms. Clements said the information of the 1910 permit does not show the same dimension of the carper:. The 1910 permit shows plaster, the carport does not have plaster. J. Clements said the 1910 permit indicates a frame structure; the carport is a brick structure. Also, it does have brick in the list of materials that were used in the foundation of the small addition that was added at that time by the original architect. She believed Mr. Cicero's exhibit mislabeled that was the carport addition which was not. R. Gerard said although they think the 1910 building permit could not have been for the porte-cochere they certainty think Evanston Preservabon Conxsrssm September 3.2008 — Minutes Page 4 Date Approved: 2117109 that was added sometime part of the early 1900s. He said that is not the issue, and they did not say and do not say now that, that part of the house was added in the 1960s. The eastern side part of the property is plainly different from the rest of the house, it has a flat roof; it does not match the architecture of the house. Ms. Clements said nobody asked when that was built; she would have said it if she knew. Suzanne Farrand asked regarding the relocation and the streelscape along Lake Street why they elected to move the house south and as well east. J. Clements said it was to conform to other houses that are there. She said everything that it has been proposed is according to the codes of Evanston. The houses there are very close (the first house from the east is 7% the next one is 11'. The houses a-e very close to the sidewalk, it is a very dense area. The new location of the house matches with what is across the street from it. Jordan Cramer asked if an actual structural engineer had looked at the house to move it physically. Ms. Clements said they had two engineers looked at the house. J. Cramer asked if the subdivision is not allowed, is the intention of the owner to restore the house as proposed including removal of the existing additions. J. Clements said absolutely. She added the 1960s addition to the east is very distracting from the house as she showed at her previous presentation. Raymond Gerard said he though: that his clients need the subdivision in order to make it feasible. The house is in great state of disrepair, the electric and plumbing need complete renovation. There is a great deal involved in preserving the house. That is the objective. J. Clements said her original intent is to bring the house back to its original design. She said the property always has been two lots. The property was subdivided in 1878 and even before that in 1860. The house %%as constructed on the one lot. The other lot has remained vacant for all of these years, but L: is a lot of record and it shows that when the existing house was originally built, they intender to build another house. if they didn't, they would have built the existing house on a different %,)ration. The original house is right on the center of the lot. With the subdivision they are maintaining what it already is. They are changing the shape; instead of east to west is north to south, still two lots. The way being proposed it makes it more in harmony with the other houses that are on that block. Jon Pohl asked about the site plan and the outline of the existing house and the proposed location of the relocated house, he said he was concerned about the overlap and how the house could be moved from here to there. J. Clements said it can be done by digging a foundation for the new location; t: ie house is lifted to dig the new foundation under the house. J. Pohl asked if the owners have the intention to develop the western half. J. Clements said they will not develop it. They wit.:, maintain the two tots they have already, trey are maintaining that other lot, but it +s a lot, just like it is now, the lot In front of that house is a buildable lot, so they are not cha-ging it. Emily Guthrie noted that the app+ Fcants are changing the orientation, currently the two lots run east to west. The new lots run north to south. J. Clements said that was correct. E. Guthrie said the orientation is on Forest Avenue, and probably two houses could have been built facing Forest. The driveway was changed on Lake in 1934. Public Comments At this time Jordan Cramer called the names from the sign up sheets. Frank Cicero of 222 Lake said he was speaking for himr self and his wife and submitted a list of people (fifty-five) who have indicated that they wanted their names provided to the Commission as being opposed to these proposals. These people have asked him to speak for them. He noted no one in the room except for the next door neighbor new about this project prior to August 16. 2008. Evanston Preservation C mn ission September 3, 2008 -- Minutes Pape 5 Date Approved: 2Ji7109 Frank Cicero described Forest Avenue as a great concourse; the proposal would change that drastically. He said Lake Sxeet has been historically a major east/west thoroughfare. The four comers have big houses on even bigger lots. This site and this lot would be the smallest lot on Forest Avenue, Forest Place or Sheridan Road from Dempster all the way north to Northweslem University, by more than 20 percent. He maintained that the house can't be moved and fulfill the histarrcally significant things which have been cited by the Preservation Commission and others, because it isn't just the house itself that has the historical significance as his Exhibit i points out (Evanston Historical Society House Walk of 1982). 1501 Forest Avenue, Arch'ects Handy and Cady. 1887. "Conspicuously sited on this comer lot is this Shingle Style horse with a porte-cochere added in 1910 and the porch extended to the east in 1923." Frank Cicero referred to the Statement of Significance and noted the porte-cochere (added in 1910 by Cady) and the porch extended to the east (added in 1923) items cited as significant in the Statement of Significance; two items which the applicants want to demolish in their proposal. The additional Wlerations from 1931 are the two-story addition on the eastem part of the house. He said all of this is significant because the Commission and the Historical Society knew how to designate the significant things. Frank Cicero marked as Exhibit 2 a four -page exhibit. Standard for resubdivision (fourth page of the exhibit) Section 2-9-12 of the Preservation Code: 1. The design of the subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation shall: '(a) Preserve, adaptively Lie. or otherwise protect the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district,:" F. Cicero said the proposal does not preserve or otherwise protect the landmark house nor does it preserve or otherwise protect the structure, site or object In the district. It does major violence to the landmark house by destroying about 49% of the length of the house =rom east to west (7 and 8 in the exhibit book). F. Cicero referred to the plats of the plans that the petitioner provided to the Commission. He had superimposed on them in color the demolitions that the Commission had approved on July 15. 2008, starting with the Porte-cochere (1910), then the porch that extends towards the east (1923), then the two-story addition (1931) further on the east side and the garage on the east and. Approximately 49%_ He passed around three photos: first, standing on the comer of Forest and Lake and walk 4-5 paces north along Forest, showing how the porte-cochere dominates the site, that tt�,e porte-cochere and that corner of the house would be a very conspicuous landmark or site on the concourse along Forest Avenue. The porte-cochere was added by the original architect in 1910. The second photo is of the porte-cochere and the porch, the porte-cochere is proposed to be tom down. Portions of the porch (7 in the exhibit book) are also prcposed to be tom down. The third picture shows the eastern end of the house and the garage (1980s addition) and the two-story addition (1931). The lower floor of the two story addition (, 931) it is a room which is adjacent to on the east of the living room door, it is significant inside and outside of the house. "(c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstructing, as viewed from a public street or public way, the critical features & the landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the district." F. Cicero said the removal of this may not result in blocking the view, but it will result in eliminating the view of :ne structure site or object at its place in the district. "(d) Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark, or area, proper-y, structure, site or object in the district." F. Cicero said this structure and its site is part of that Forest Avenue streetscape. The applicant chose the talk about Lake Street, but in =act it is part of the streetscape on both streets. Evanston Preswvabm Cammission September 3. 20M - Minutes Page 6 Date Approved: VIM "(e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, Municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. F. Cicero said (e) was not a significant standard. Frank Cicero said the house sits on two lots (he passed around Exhibit 3 which includes the survey provided in connection with the sale on the first page and it shows the proposed plat on the second page). The house had a Lake Street address, it still had the 225 Lake Street address in 1960 when the garage permit application was tiled and issued. For eighty years or more it had an address on Lake Street. The whole house is facing on Lake Street and it is positioned so it sits at the north end of the two lot property with a vista over the lawns to the south. He maintained that no one had thought of building on the lot to the south because the porte-cochere sits on the south lot. The south lot is not a buildable lot at the present time. Frank Cicero said that the pone-cochere is critical from a historic stand point because it is an early addition, twenty years after by the original architects. It is cited frequently as a matter of historical significance. It is also significant from the stand point of what the applicants want to do on the property, because the presence of the porte-cochere prevents them from cutting down the house and demolishing it enough to fit it in the new lot and it prevents that south lot from being a buildable lot. It is a vital element from the historical stand point and it is critical for the applicants to do violence to that historical feature in order to accomplish their plans. If the house is moved to the east in order to have the original size house on the eastern lot there is no need to do the resubdivision, unless one intends to develop that lot. The resubdivision is necessary not to preserve the open space, but to facility the filling in of the open space. That is why the porte-cochere is a critical element In terms of accomplishing that, and that is why the permissions that were granted in July should be rescinded because they do violence to a critical historical element. Frank Cicero read the standards for review of relocation (second page of Exhibit 2). 1. "The historic or urban design character and aesthetic interest the structure or object contributes to its present setting' He said the plan eliminates the historic or urban design character and aesthetic interest the structure or object contributes to its present setting. 4. *Whether the proposed relocation area is compatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the structure or object." He said putting the house in and among the Oak trees is not compatible with the historic aspect of that area and nor is its moving away from its site. the site that was cited and commended in the statement of significance (compatible with historic or architectural character of the area). He questioned whether the relocation of the structure can be accomplished without significant damaged to its physical integrity. The Commission should demand certificates from competent engineers with the opportunity for other parties to comment on them, about whether that house can survive a move or not. Frank Cicero said regarding the standards for demolition, [the appticationj fails to meet them. 2. "Whether the property, structure or object contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectu.al or archeological character of the district as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the City and the State." He sad the porte-cochere and the other elements of that house are contributing. 3.'Whettw demolition of the property, structure or object would be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable district." He said the demolition and stripping of the house and the significant features of it cited in the Historical Society and Commission statements, would be contrary to this standard_ Evanston Preservation Commission September 3, 2008 - Minutes Page 7 Data Approved: 2117ft?g Frank Cicero discussed the principle that the applicants primary objective is to restore the house to its original design. Nowhere in the code could it be found that as a principle or objective with respect to historic structures. instead. the code does recognize and say it must be respected - additions which have come to have historical significance: "4. Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property ... changes that have taken place in the course of time ought to be respected, but even more the principle makes no sense. He referred to the two houses across the street (222 and 216 Lake Street), what is cited in the statements of significance for those two homes are the front porches and various other things. These two houses were virtually Identical when they were built by the same family in 1867. He said there were additions to both houses over the years (in 1885 at 222 Lake - front porch, bay on the west, an alcove, additions at the east side), if all those things are stripped and follow the principle the applicants want to follow, the landmark historical district probably would end up not qualifying as a landmark historical district. It would induce severe damage all over the district. F. Cicero cited the alterations to the White House in Washington D.C. that occurred over the years. He said to merit or to suggest that as a matter of historical principle that one should go back to the original design of the house is a ridiculous principle or to cite that for 222 Lake and 216 Lake Street or numerous other properties in the historic district. It does not have any foundation in the code. Finally, F. Cicero said that is urgent that the Commission move and adopt a motion to reconsider and reexamine the actions taken on July 15. 2008. He said it is appropriate for the Commission to do it, because the reason why the room is full of people tonight (where nobody was present on July 15, 2008. he said) is because the applicant failed to give the notice that the rules of the Commission require to property owners within 250 feet of the property (highlighted on the list). Nore of those people received notice of the (hearing) for the opportunity to talk about it. F. Cicero said that on August 16, 2008 he met Ms. Clements who admitted that she did not talk an}tody else. except to Virginia Beatty who lives next door to the north. The Commission's rules provide that it is mandatory for the applicant to notify the neighbors, and the applicant did not. The failure to do that meant that no one was here to bring the true facts of what the applicant(s) were proposing. They can't profit and benefit from that under the taw. The true facts concerning the significance of these additions were not presented at the meeting and that provide additional basis under the law to invalidate and void the actions of that time. In interest of a full examination of these things and in the interest of preserving the integrity of the Commission's decisions, the Commission should reopen those matters. F. Cicero said the urgency is that a week ago last Friday the applicants filed applications for building permits to accomplish the demolitions that were order in July. In the normal course of actions, Mr. Ruiz signed off on them as being authorized by the Commission. F. Cicero said he c 4 not know how soon those permits may be issued. If is going to be a burden an someone to have any consequences at all from the failure of the notice, they should be on the pelitioner. Ms. Clements still will get her chance to come in and convince the Commission that tl~ese drastic demolitions are of historic value and should be permitted. F. Cicero said the approval should be reconsidered and it should be denied. At this time Jordan Cramer called the names of people who signed up to speak (and suggested that people who agree wit.- Mr. Cicero (•) should say that instead of repeating the same): John Chapman (not present) Tom O'Bren of 210 Davis Street said he was concerned with allowing the carving a.;t of a house to fill on a smaller lot; to subdivide a lot, essentially puts a bounty on every h;s:oric house on a double lot in Evanston. He pointed at the comer of Greenwood and Forest (southeast comer) where a historic house was subdivided. Also at the southwest cc ner of Davis and Forest where there was a historic house which is been replaced by two or three smaller homes that clearly are out of character with everything else around it. Putting a bounty on the historic homes that remain on double lots is a bad precedent for the Preservation [Committee]. Evanston Preservation GoTmivs Dale Approved: 2117109 September 3. 2008 - htnutes Page 9 NOTE: (•) indicates the person agreed with F. Cicero's comments: Lisa Sherbome & David Foster (did not speak), Mary Singh of 1711 Hinman (•), Amal'la Malos of 1332 Hinman (•), Chaw Y of 1332 Hinman {•}, Alice Eagly of 324 Davis (agreed with Tom O'Brien), Helen Widen c` 425 Greenwood {'), Jan Cicero of 222 Lake ('), Katie Stallcup of 144 Greenwood said the Lakeshore Historic District has faced many challenges in the past 17 years. She sees this as another one in a continuing series of challenges to trying to preserve the integrity of the entre neighborhood. She said this is a very important precedent, it is a real threat. Sid and Ann Saltz of 416 Lake ('), Alaka Wali of 1424 Judson (•), Ellen Gafland of 408 Lake said she was the architect for the neighbor immediately east at 215 Lake Street, the standards for relocation are applied here, that the views of that house would be significantly and adversely effected. The view of the relocated structure would ultimately be blocked by the potental new house west of it. She said those two standards are not met. Randy Zwick of 1510 Forest (•), Virginia Beatty of 1509 Forest said she saw in her computer that there was going to be a meeting on July 10, 2008, it was going to suggest taking parts of the house. She came over and me,. Ms. Clements. She asked Mr. Ruiz how come she did not get a notice of the meeting, because she is within 250 feet. Mr. Ruiz told her it was not necessary to give her the informat;on or maybe Mr. Ruiz told her it was not necessary to send her a message or something like tf at. V. Beatty quoted from the 2000 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Evanston, page 107: "The landscape setting of Evanston's buildings is as important to the preservation of Evanston's historic and architectural character as are the individual buildings themselves. In Evanston the spaces in between and around buildings, and the placement of buildings reiacve to one another, are influenced by two factors; first, by the layout of streets in a grid patterr_, and second, by the maintenance of greenery and landscape grounds.' V. Beatty said it is her professional opinion (referring to the standards of the International Society of Agric u ture) that three of those Oak trees on the east side of the property will be completely killed if the proposed new foundation or footing ... it is important to consider what might hacipen to those Oak trees. because is part of the Oak grove that went down from Northwestern University further south and it was the reason Northwestern University was placed in the spot it was. Bernard Jennett of 216 Lake (•), Mary K. Clinton of 210 Davis (•), Susan Frankel of 204 Lake ('), Cathleen Hammerschlag of 311 Lake (•), Richard Schwartz, David Baker of 400 Clark (') said many of the neighbors chose to live in the area because of the histora. neighborhood. He strongly urged the Commission to rescind the Certificate that was granted on the property. John Mancini of 1433 Hinman ('), Chris Ernst of 1639 Hinman (•), Coile,en Cannon of 1625 Hinman (') sad her concern was that they were not notified. Judy Fiske of 2319 Sherman said the Preservation Commission should consult the Legal. Department on whether the property has been subdivided or not. Regarding the applicant's comment about how moving the hotze is going to make the streetscape more appropriately in line with another; that is something that preservationists are only concerned about In subdivisions; where the subdivision r as been created with a very uniform appearance. That is not something seen in Evanston: especially on the oldest neighborhood, where houses have been built over decades and st�iggered on the block and reflect the fact that they have been built over decades. J. Fiske read her letter to the Commission where she indicated: her twenty years experience in historic preservation in Evanston; being Past President of the Preservation League of Evanston, Beard Member of the Evanston Historir-al Society, and one of the authors of two nominations to list the Northeast Evanston Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places and as the local Historic District. She researched and wrote the nomination to list the Geom an Hotel in the National Register and as a local landmark. She prepared the nominat:con to designate Wesley Hall of Kerjdall College. She worked with an expert in historic preservation matters, with state and local groups, and was employed as a realtor assisting residential and commercial clients with historic preservation projects. She knows the challenges cI balancing historic preservation and property rights Evanston Preservation Commission September 3. 2DO8 - Minutes Page 9 Date Approved, 21t = and has even appeared in front of the Commission as an advocate for appropriate infill development; most recently at the northwest comer of Orrington and Foster in the Northeast Evanston Historic District where the addition of a new single family house actually strengthens the fabric of the district. But what is appropriate and even desirable for a vacant lot at the intersection of Foster and Orrington is not desirable at Forest and Lake, she said. Judy Fiske expressed her strong opposition to the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1501 Forest. She said according to architectural historian Barbara Buchbinder-Green in her books Evanstoniana and Evanston. A Pictorial History, 1501 Forest Avenue designed in 1887 by architect J. K. Cady for the prominent realtor Frank Elliot and his wife Anna Shuman, it is a superb example of the Shingle Style. According to B. Buchbinder- Green the house at 1501 Forest was a radical change in style from the other Queen Anne houses built during that period. J. Fiske said in her opinion that the relocation, partial demolition of the J. K. Cady addition from 1910, subdivision and possible infill development on the site, does not conform to the standards contained in the Evanston's City Code, and therefore should be denied. That the preservation Commission may have acted at its July 15, 2008 meeting without sufficient and accurate information about the significance of the house and its subsequent alterations, and therefore the Commission should revisit that decision. The proposal widl diminish the integrity of both the structure and the historic district and finally that the proposal sets an undesirable and dangerous precedent that will encourage inappropriate infill development on two of the most architecturally and historically significant blocks in the entire City of Evanston, where landmark structures comprise 85% of the property including the Dawes House that is a National Historic Landmark. No better care of caution must be taken here, for these precious blocks transcend time and define Evanston to everyone who travels through Evanston. J. Fiske said all benefit from their preservation. For the past three and a half years, under the City Council, Evanston's preservation program has come under attack, but in these troubling times the public is looking to the Commission for leadership, without regard to what actions the Commission feels the City Council may or may not undertake subsequently. This project fails to meet the standards; the right thing to do Is to vote it down. Paul Janicki of 142-2 Judson said he is an architect who does restoration work. Regarding economic hardship, he said he bought his house twenty years ago; it Is a 1890s Holabird & Roche and It was crumbling, but when buying a historic house in a historic district, a person has to know what one is getting into. He said he did not find the basement condition (at 1501 Forest] and Issue, he worked on thirty houses in Evanston and all had bad basements and bad foundation walls, it just the way it is. P. Janicki said regarding the Oak trees that there is not an arborist in the state of Illinois who w111 say that an Oak tree could be saved by building anywhere within the crown of the tree. He said all the Oak trees will be lost. He mentioned his exhibit of Shingle Style and Queen Anne houses with pone-cocheres, some of them in very similar style to 1501 Forest. He said Frank Uoyd Wright home studio in Oak Park was add onto several times by Frank Lloyd Wright and nobody in Oak Park is suggesting that they rip those additions out to get back to the original structure. He said if one keeps the porte- cochere at it should be, and move it to the east, there is not enough side yard on the alley side to gel a second lot. P_ Janicki said the Oak trees contribute to the property values because trees are part of vie historical notion of the sense of place. David Doyle of 300 Church said he had heard Counsel (Mr. Gerard) say to his client (Ms. Clements), when she said she was not going to do anything with the lot, that he wanted her to reconsider and make sure he understood her, because that was necessary to the preservation. D. Doyle understood that to mean that in order to afford the preservation they would have to sell the lot or somehow use the lot for development purposes to afford the preservation. Ann Jennett of 216 Lake (') said she lived for forty years in her house, then a 100 years old when she bought the house . She said the house at 1501 Forest is part of the landscape and Evanston Preservation Commission SerpWnber 3, 2W8 - klawtes Page 10 Gate Approved:VIVO the house is vital to the green approach way to Lake Michigan from downtown Evanston. She thought it was wonderful that people were present to protect as stewards of the people who have been before them. Alan Gratch of 1134 Judson ('). Anne Earle of 1508 Hinman (') said to move the house that was built as a comer house to an alley house completely changes the setting of the neighborhood, and the significance of the house in relation to the neighborhood. Mary Mc;Yilliams of 1606 Wesley said she sat in the original committee that evaluated the property for designation. The property was designated for two reasons: one, it exemplify the work of a nationally or internationally known architect or major local architect or master builder. Two, it exhibits an unusual distinctive or eccentric design or construction technique which contributes to the architectural interest of its environment as an accent or counter point. She said this means it was a distinctive feature, the house on the lot and its position where is, was a significant historic characteristic. To move the house twenty feet east and twenty feet south would destroy in effect the gate; one of two reasons why this house was listed as a landmark. Building a house on the property would ultimately further diminish that. Sally Gratch of 113 : Judson (') said she also agreed with Anne Jennett's statement. Tim Gerdeman of 303 Lake Street (') said that Counsel for Ms. Clements had said that subdivision is necessary to fund the rehab. Jes Sherborne of 1513 Forest (0) said he views the siting of the house on the lot as a critical aspect of its historic character and he was greatly concerned about doing anything that would change that siting. Mark Simon of 204 Lake ('), David Reynolds and Holly Reynolds of 204 Davis ('). At this time the Commission look a recess. NOTE: After the recess inadvertently no recording of the meeting occurred until approximately 10:05 p.m. Carlos Ruiz mentioned this to the Commission, the applicants and the audience. Raymond C. Gerard, attorney for the applicants Janet Clements and Jeffrey Clements provided next day at Carlos Ruiz's request his written remarks that he made at the meeting following the recess in response to the neighbors' statements. The following remarks are from Carlos Ruii s notes, not the recording. Shirley Conley of 1632 Forest said she was opposed to the lot being subdivided; she thought she will be protected by being in the historic district. She said a site might be significant on its own right. The subdivision will ruin the integrity of the site. Raymond Gerard in response to the neighbors' statements said: The porte-cochere will not prevent to create a buildable lot. For economic feasibility, they are proposing a resubCivision. They intent to restore the house according to standard 2 for review of alteration (distinguishing original qualities shall not be destroyed). Also, in regard to standard 4 (changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property, structure, site or object and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected), they intend to preserve tie original house. - Standard 4 is not the only standard. The proposal would be judged in its entirely. - (The standards say that] one can make a change. - People have property rights wth interest in the community. - The applicants want to preserve the 1887 house. Janet Clements made the following remarks: - The property owners at 234 Greenwood and 315 Dav s support the project. - The house had an address on Lake and changed the address on Forest in 1834. - Moving houses is done all the time. it is not an issue. - The Commissions decision on July 15, 2008 does not set a precedent. - The 1878 subdivision was for two lots. - They will restore the house and its historical significance. Evarmton Preservation Uffirriss+an September 3, 2W8 — Knutes Page 11 [late Approved: 2117M9 The subdivision is necessary to finance the restoration of the house. • Regarding the porte-cochere Mr. Gerard had observed that the plaster and dimensions do not match (1910 building permit). It is not know that Cady is the original architect. They will still remove the additions if the subdivisionlrelocation Is not allowed. Other remarks: - Ann Dienner requested from the applicants a write up an the feasibility of moving the house. - The porte-cochere is definitely typical of the period. - A comment was made about conforming to the streetscape. A comment was made about no zoning taws — irregularity. A comment was made about the 1921 zoning law— (ports-cocherel typical of the area. - Ms. Clements said that the zoning analysis is done. NOTE: Raymond C. Gerard, attorney for the applicants Janet Clements and Jeffrey Clements provided next day at Carlos Ruiz's request his written remarks that he made at the meeting following the recess in response to the neighbors' statements. R. C. Gerard written remarks are provided below: "Summary of comments made by counsel for the Applicant, Raymond Gerard, immediately following statements made by neighbors and other members of the public at the Special Mecting of the Evanston Preservation Council on September 3, 2008. I am marking and submitting for the record Petitioner`s Exhibit 101, a copy of a survey of the property showing the existing house, with an overlay showing the proposed relocation, and Petitioner's Exhibit 102, an Trial view of the block in which the property is located. These are accurate copies of the items viewed by the Commission in my power point presentation earlier this evening. I will first address certain individual points made by members of the public and will then address certain comments that were made on a more common basis. While it has been contended that the proposed lots are 20% smaller than nearby lots, the proposed lots do meet the minimum lot size require-.ments of the zoning district and are not out of keeping with the area. The land subject to the petitions is composed of three parcels, a southern lot, a notthem lot and an additional 6-foot strip to the north of the northern lot. This strip allowed the placement of the existing home on the no:them lot and evidenced intent to preserve the undeveloped, buildable status of the --outhern lot. The porte-cochere does not prevent the southern lot ftm being buildable, it is merely an encroachment onto that lot. While it was contended that the economic costs ofrestoring an older home in need of substantial repairs is not a proper consideration in approving a subdivision, the petitioners are not proposing to create a subdivision, they are proposing to merely reconfigure lots in an existing subdivision. Evanston Preservation Commission September 3, 2WB — Minutes Page 12 Date Approved: 2)17/09 Having addressed these spar ific items, attention will now be turned to more common points. It has been contended that the Preservation Ordinance contains no reference to the importance of the original architectural design of a structure. While this particular standard is not relevant to the matters pending before the Commission, standard number 2 relating to building alterations does signify the intent of the Preservation Ordinance. It states: "The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed." It has been mentioned that the Statement of Significance refers to two features that are to be eliminated. These features are covered by a separate standard, number 4. The standards are part of a group of factors to be considered, in their entirety, by the Commission. No one standard is necessarily more important than the others. It has also been said that a home on the nett, western lot would block the view from the west of the existing home and that the different setback from the street of the existing home should not he changed. These relatively common objections essentially amount to the view that there should be no changes at all to a Mperty in a historic district. There is, however, a reason why changes have been approved to other historic properties by the City in the past, the property rights of individuals. The standards are meant to balance the property rights of individuals with an attempt to pmserve historic properties. The Preservation Ordinance does not disallow all changes. If that was the intent, it would have said so. The reason it does, however. is that such a law would be unconstitutional. The petitioners are clearly making an attempt to preserve this historic property. They are prepared to go to great lengths in restoring this home to its original 19'h century form. Lastly, a suggestion has ccn made that «u reconsider the action taken by this Commission on July 15`"_ If that is done_ i wish to state for the record, that the petitioners object to the r:zonsideration and do not %naive any rights they may have acquired in regard to the prior approval_ It is my understanding that the petitioners were told by City staff and by this Comr-nission or a member of it that they did not need to provide notice tc, nearby property owners. They relied on those statements. The purchase of the prop•rrty tool: place after the July laei approval and they relied on the approval in malting trhe purchase. I a_-n not necessarily making a claim at this time based on such rights, bu_ I am saying th— the petitioners are not waiving any such rights they may have accuirev in this rt:zard." Thank you for your attention. Commission's Findings After considering the applicants statements and the neighbor's statements Jon Willarson moved to reconsider the :tiny 15, 2008 deasion approving the Certificate of Appropriateness. Evanston Preservaton Carrunission September 3. 20M — Minutes Page 13 Date Approved: 2117109 Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Suzanne Farrand noted the different interpretation of the porte-cochere and the new information about it. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. NOTE: At 10:05 p.m. the tape recording was re -started. The following portion of the minutes is from the tape recording: Jon Pohl said that the recent additions would be removed in the east elevation of the original house; a very compelling argument. He said however that the removal of the porte-cochere is an obvious denigration of the historic character [the architectural character). The porte- cactiere seems to probably be designed by Cady because it is detailed exactly like the original porch, where the arch is led into the vertical peers. is all detailed exactly the same. The argument that changes that took place over a period of time can enhance the architectural charaCer of the historic property is very compelling. He said the White House is a great example of that. Regarding the east elevation what cannot be seen is the original elevation behind the 1960s addition (a gable end, like the west elevation). The plan is to restore that. Jordan Cramer said his biggest question is the 1930s section because when viewed from the street is hardly the expression of the house as far as the character of it. He did not know about what historic value the garage adds to the house. Jon Pohl said the garage does not have historic value what so ever. Janet Clements said the porch actually hides the turret that matches the other side. She said the carport [porte-cochere] Is falling down and it is in great disrepair and not secure. Jon Pohl said they are talking about character and clearly the porte-cochere, which is an architectural device that one can drive thru. In the 19' century people drove horses and carriages. On the site plan the porte-cochere clearly was intended to be driven thru. J. Pohl said it does matter when the porte-cochere was added, it works, it embellishes and it fits with the character of the house. As oppose to what is going on the east side of the house; it does not ft. He applauded the owners desire to fix that. Carlos Ruiz said that in an R1 zoning district the required front yard setback is 27'. the required side yards setbacks are 5', and the required rear yard setback is 30'. The maximum afowrable lot coverage is 30% of the lot; it will include the porte-cochere because it has a roof on it. J. Clements said the foot print is only about 1,800 square feet. The 7,200 square feet is for the (new] lot, there is no problem with that. Carlos Ruiz said the minimum square `aotage of a lot in an Ri zoning district is 7.200 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 35- feet. Jordan Cramer referring to the relocation standard: 1. 'The historic or urban design character and aesthetic interest the structure or object contributes to its present setting", said when driving down Forest Avenue the house has a presence on that comer. When moved (the house) certainly wrill change that look. J. Pohl said that is what he refers to as context. There is more to this than dealing with the bricks and mortar, it is the whole look of things. J. Pohl asked the applicants if they are moving the house to the southeast, why they could not move ii to the southwest. Then they will still have the house with the porte-cochere cn the comer. J. Clements said Ltiey would happy to do it. but the reason why is proposed (on the southwest] is because is quiet and it is her personal preference. J. Pohl said he wants everyone to win including preservationists and the community %bich is interest in no change. Jordan Cramer said the Commission is not opposed to change. They have done it time and time again. The Commission has allowed changes to historic structures; often times people had come to the Commission with one idea that does not sit well with the standards, the Commission works with the owners to try to come up with something that does, which often times is a win -win situation. The neighbors might still disagree, but if the Commission feels Evwiston Presm3ban Commission September 3. 2W8 — Minutes Page 14 Date Approved: 2117J09 that it meets the standards and they are not going to denigrate a very prominent landmark in Evanston, then the Commission is going to show a lot more latitude towards that project. He has not thought of it all the way thru, but if something is going to give, is keeping the presence on Forest Avenue and keeping that facade the way it has been since the early part of the 20u' century. Emily Guthrie said part of that assumes that anything could be built on lot 4, which runs east to west along Lake. E. Guthrie said Ms. Clements is correct when she says that lot 4 is a buildable lot and they can sell it off. Who ever builds on that lot would have to come to the Commission, but the Commission will not have a lot of leverage. E. Guthrie did not know if the neighbors understand that. If lot 4 is buildable and the owners sell it off, the Commission would have very little impact on what could be put there, which is going to obscure the way 1501 Forest looks as coming north on Forest. Jon Pohl said that it is a 45' deep lot north to south and a 150' deep east to west. He said any architect would put a 20' wide house in there, three stories tall with no problem. J. Cramer said somebody had mentioned the project on Orrington earlier. That was a good example, some of the neighbors were up in arms, saying "you cannot build here" and the fact of the matter was they had a right to build something. Most of the Commissioners agreed then that the new house was well in keeping with the neighborhood. If some of those neighbors had gotten their way, the house was going to look bizarre and awful. He did not know whether one could build on the subject lot. He said that is why the meeting, getting notice and getting together with people (sometimes when is painful and one feels being at odds) ideas come up and when is not presented to people in absolutes like 'if you don't allow this I will put something awful in my front yard.' J. Cramer said, let's instead look at it and if this is a developable lot, and if somebody could build on it ten years from know, let's talk about what works. He said this is a good reason for people to get together and talk about these things and see what can be done. Jon Pohl said from looking at the drawing and lot 4, the porte-cochere has to be demolished. Ms. Clements argued that is not true, she said it is an encroachment; that is why zoning is focusing on the porte-cochere. They believe if that is hanging off then they sell the lot, but it does not matter, one can still leave it and can still sell the lot. She said she welcomed the Commission's ideas. J. Cramer said sometimes it does not work. The Commission talked about many variables tonight, while Ms. Clements seems very certain to build on it; while J. Pohl --nd C. Ruiz are looking at it and saying perhaps you can. Other people are saying that you can't. Carlos Ruiz described the zoning requirements for a comer lot. He said the owner chooses which side would be the front yard, either Forest or take. A side yard on a comer lot has to have 15' of setback (whether on Forest or Lake). That will impact the total area, one has to have 15' setback for the side yard from either street and 27' from the front yard. Also, if the front yard (either on Lake or Forest) is more than 27'. they have to be at least at the average setback that could be more than 27'. Jon Pohl asked if Ms. Clements asked Zoning to look at lot 4 as a buildable lot. J. Clements said no, but there will be 15' from the corner, 5' side yard, 27' for the front and 30' for the back )-ard. Judy Fiske said the Commission was making the wrong assumption about lot 4. The surrounding block was platted long before the zoning ordinance. These were platted not by the City but by developers. So lots 4, 5. and 6 have no relationship at all to any zoning ordinance (1921 or the current Zoning Ordinance). A title search will show the original lot old records by the developers that actually were resubdivided over time and many times over time. To make the assumption that somehow or another that lot 4 is a buildable lot, when it is not. A lot cannot be created, or subdivide a property or considerable lot that would create the original house and make it non conforming to existing zoning, and that would be because It would not have the required front yard, or if it is turned on its side, it would not have the Evanston Preservat;an Cornr'.ssion September 3, 2008 - Minutes Page 15 Bate Approved: 2l17M required yard setback. J. Fiske said the way the applicants have proposed for moving the house will create two 72.000 S.F. lots and that is appropriate. With the retention of the porte- cochere, suddenly there is no two 72,000 S.F. lots any more, if it is going to have what is requed under side yard requirements. So there is a problem here. She asked the land use attorneys in the room to comment on this, because she though the Commission was running off on the wrong direction about lot 4. She said the Commission should forget about lot 4 because it is not a buildable lot yet, and she could not see that if ever it could be a buildable lot. She said the Commission needs a legal opinion on this, because it is being assumed that lot 4 is a buildable lot. Emily Guthrie noted that she was saying if lot 4 is a buildable lot, then a lot of what lent itself to the siting of this house could be ... J. Fiske said that assumption Is not true. Raymond Gerard referred to section 6-18-3 of the City Code, it defines a lot of record as "a lot that is part of a subdivision, the plat of which has been recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of Cook County, ... prior to the adoption of this ordinance. He said if a lot is shown on the plat of subdivision that is recorded [prior to the adoption of the ordinance) as this would be, then it constitutes a lot of record. Then section 6-4-1-7 "In any residential district. on a lot of record, on the effective date hereof, a single-family dwelling may be erected regardless of the size of the lot, provided all other requirements of this code are in compliance. And there is a bare minimum standard lhat'In no case may the minimum lot area estabhshed be less than 50°% of the required minimum ...' so that is why they maintain that is a buildable lot, it is a lot of record, he said. Frank Cicero said he has been ready to talk to the applicant at any time. He thought it was unfortunate that they had not been given notice, Ms. Clements had apologized profusely. He said okay but when asked Ms. Clements to talk to them and let them know what she was going to do. Ms. Clements said no. If they want to talk about something, maybe they have an idea_ He did not think the Commission has the authority to make any kind of deal relating to that riot. The appropriate thing, if the Commission is ready, is to go ahead on the matter that was notice tonight, vote on the subdivision matter. He did not know how the Commission could approve the subdivision and thereby create two lots on one of which the house could sit. and without approving the relocation as well. As long the Commission is reconsidering the size of the house, the Commission can't approve the relocation because it won't fit. If the Commission is prepared to vote on it, the Commission has the alternative to turn down the subdivision and proceed from there, he said. Jordan Cramer said the Commission is not here to prompt any deals, but simply to help facil4ale ideas. If the community wants to discuss these things and come back with a different application, even then if the community comes back with an agreement to the Commission. it could still be denied a Certificate of Appropriateness because it does not meet the vanda.•ds. Hopefully that does not happen but it is a possibility. In terms what is buildable and what is not, he or any Commissioner is not prepared to take anybody's word at that right now. There are always good arguments that could be made on both sides. The real question is where it does ultimately fall - it might fall Kith a zoning officer. In terms of the Carnniss;on's options. they could go down the subdivision tonight. He for one would deny that he d1C not know how the other Commissioners felt. T hat is part of the reason there is this cialog-..je to give Me applicant the opportunity to say 'maybe we would want to go back and come up with some alternatives before rre get shut down! Sometimes applicants prefer to have the Commission vote and get that over with and they have appeal rights, so they can move forward with that_ If the applicants want, the Commission could take a straw poll and they can decide what they want to do next. Em�y Gutruie said her concern with the question about lot 4 was that it could be a whole lot worst than what the applicants have proposed, which is a house that is 27' back from Forest Avenue (r+Ihere the existing house is 53' back) so it will be half way closer to Forest than it is. And the s4e yard on take Street is 15% so there will be a long skinny house, but one can put Evanston Preser%2bw Commission September 3 :008 — iLUwtes Pape 16 Date droved: 2117M a decent size house in there, and it is going to change the way 1501 Forest looks, and the Commission will not have power of review. She would like to hear from Zoning and she would lke the neighbors to sit down with the Clements and a mediator such as the Alderman. She referred the house on the 1200 block of Hinman Avenue on the west side of the street, (third down form the comer), it had a side yard which once had a barn at the back, that side yard was buildable. They put in a house that is very sympathetic to the rest of what is in the neighborhood. Jeffrey Clements said they did not own the house (1 V01 Forest) until August 15, 2008. The day after they bought it they moved in. The same day they met wnh Mr. Cicero across the street to talk about their plans. He said Mr. Cicero stxled drilling his wife pretty much like the cross examination here tonight. He said he got upset and he stopped the conversation. He asked what right Mr. Cicero has to do that on the first day they had moved in the neighborhood. He thought they had done everything with the City staff, they presented a plan which they thought was approved and now they are sitting in front of the entire neighborhood. He said it does not feel right. Jeffrey Clements said he loves the idea of the historical commission and shares many of the same sentiments people have about presem ing the neighborhood. He said the %tiole btcGk has essentially been subdivided before. Other provisions have been made; the largest lots are in the back of their house. There is now a 2-story garage that completely blocks mat view of the house in the block. He said the "not in back yard" attitude is present. He asked where the line is being drawn suddenly when they move in the neighborhood; where is it written that they can't enjoy a home in the neighborhood the way they want where everybody else is done what they want with their own. Jeffrey Clements said the Dooleys have put a two story addition that blocks part of the view of their neighbor. Jeffrey Clements said they are perfectly happy to visit with the neighbors, work on a solution that fits everybody's vision for the proposal. But the idea that it is going to be blocked at every turn and being forced to hire an attorney to defend themselves it does not feet right either. Jordan Cramer said the Commission can't sit at the table with the applicant in those terms. He thought both sides have expressed that they are willing to talk about. Ann Qienner asked about the July application where Charles Wilke of Roscoe. Illinois is listed as the owner and Janet Clements is the [contractor). Then on the AugL*t application, the Clements are the owners. A. Dienner asked the Clements if they cons dered 1501 Forest their address at that time. J. Clements said no. When she made the appucation for the zoning analysis as well as [preservation] they indicated that they were the owners of contract on the house, it is required in the application to put down [the information]. Jordan Cramer asked for any additional comments'= the Commiss;oners before they vote on the relocation and resubdivision. Jeffrey Clements said they would prefer that there not be a vote tonight. J. Cramer said that is a prerogative the Commission rives to all owners if the owner wants to table to the next regular meeting or perhaps another special meeting if required. He said the Commission does not like to have to work in absolutes. He said it seems likely that as proposed [the application) woulc not be approved_ Perhaps, there is some"ming the applicants can come up w+th that meets the standards and that satisfies the neighbors. Ms. Clements said they will taike tt,e Ccr..mission's suggestions in terms of the zoning and come back. E. Guthrie said she would I!ke the app! cants go to the neighbors instead coming back to the Commission. Maybe there is some kind of compromise. J. Cramer said the community absorbed some of the Commission's comments as well. Putting things in perspective and some of the caveats they are looking out for thinking long term as well. What the Commission does not want to see happen is deny [the application) as suggested, as the Commission would probably go, and at the same time shoot everybody on the foot, because the owner has designs that are legal but don't fit with what the community wants_ Evanston Preservabon Cwrvrvsscn September 3. 2008 - W wtes page 17 Date Approved: 2117109 Jon Pohl said E. Guthrie's point is a good point_ He said the applicants need to go to Zoning and ask if lot 4 is really buildable. He said Ms. Clements made the point that it is, but they need to verify that. Because if it is, we all have to get together and talk about it. J. Pohl said if the applicants were to sell lot 4, the results of what could be built there are going to be a lot worst than what the applicants are proposing today. J. Cramer said the way the relocation is proposed does not sit well with him. If there were any relocation that would be feasible he would really like to see something from a structural engineer who has evaluated this. The applicants can then go on record as saying that the house can be moved. It is something that not only the applicants but the community is entitled to know as well. Ms. Clements reiterated the Commission's suggestions regarding a zoning analysis [lot 41, a structural engineer report for moving the house, and going back to the community and see what can be done. Suzanne Farrand asked if the Commission will review the whole project including the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition as well. J. Cramer said yes. He suggested doing that at the next regular meeting. He also said that perhaps it might be best to have a separate meeting again and give people plenty of time and notice to mobilize, and arrive to an agreement. Carlos Ruiz referred to section 2-9-8 (C) Of the preservation allowing the Commission 45 days to review the application. The time to consider the application may be extended with the consent of the applicant. Raymond Gerard said his clients consent would be to wave the 145 day) requirement for consideration of these matters at the special meeting date that they agreed in. Ann Dienner moved to hold the meeting to a special meeting. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Frank Cicero said the application for building permits is in process. E. Guthrie said it is stopped because the Certificate of Appropriateness (for demolition) has been revoked. J. Cramer said that Carlos Ruiz will notify ]City staff] that the Commission voted to reconsider, so there isn't at this point in time a Certificate of Appropriateness ]for demolition). Carlos Ruiz said he would like to consult with the Law Department to determine what exactly that really means. But, if he understands correctly, by voting to reconsider, the Commission has to make a decision whether or not the proposed demolitions will still be approved. so that it is on hold until is resolved. J. Cramer said the Commission had already voted to reconsider; the question is xInether the Commission will approve or disapprove (demolition], so his view at this point is that there is no Certificate of Appropriateness that has been issued for the demolitions or alterations. He expects that the owners recognize that and that the community recognizes that, so nobody has to rush off and do anything rushed and staff will let the people and proper channels know in the City as well. Carlos Ruiz said by directive of the Commission he will notify to the Building Department to hold on the issuance of the permit and the Certificate of Appropriateness. Janet Clements said she talked to C. Ruiz the day she turned in the building permit about that somebody w►zs going to ask to reconsider. She asked a week later about the reconsideration, C. Ruiz said then he had spoken to the Law Department and they had said because that issue was not brought up at that meeting that the opportunity to doing that had passed. J. Cramer said his view of it is when the Commission was here in August, the Commission tabled this entire matter, so the Commission could have the special meeting. He said these are difficult issues and the Commission is telling now the applicants how the Commission voted_ At the appropriate juncture if the applicants disagree with that. there are certain legal rights the applicants have. Evamlon Preservabcn Cmn ni&s September 3.2008 - Knutes Page 18 Date Approved: 2117;M Jordan Cramer thanked everybody in the audience for coming out because their input is valuable and appreciated. He also thanked Mr. and Mrs. Clements and their attorney Mr. Gerard. At this time Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that at the recess he stopped the recording. After the recess he did not start the retarding until 10:05 p.m, He had taken notes along the way. He asked Mr. Gerard to submit his comments in writing to be inGuded as part of the testimony as far as the rebuttal. Mr. Gerard said he would do that. VI. ADJOURNMENT Ern4 Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner[Preservation Coordinator Date: 02101;J08 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:D0 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie. Kris Hartzell, Dian Keehan, Jon Pohl and Jon Willarson OTHERS PRESENT: Neal Vogel, Jill Tuinier, Warren Kibbe, Kim Dietz, Tim Patenode, Judy Royal, Ellen Galland, Fran Ex, Charles Portis, Frank Steinberg, John B. Potter, Marts Tendam. Neal Moglin. Steve Rugo, Brian Grohle, David Dwyer, Alan Gratch, Anne Earle and Mary McWilliams, MEMBERS ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum of eight members present (Ann Dienner, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie, Jon Pohl. Jon Willarson, Kris Hartzell and Dian Keehan). He welcomed new Commissioners Dian Keehan and Kris Hartzell. If. MINUTES Jon Willarson moved to approve the April 15 2008 Minutes. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. III. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS Carlos Ruiz said he received in the afternoon a letter dated September 11, 2008 from Landmarks Illinois regarding 1210 Michigan. Landmarks Illinois has approved the removal of the existing deck and the installation of a masonry patio. The patio shall be constructed of brick to match the existing brick on the house and the brick shall be laid in a pattern to match the brick of the foundation of the house. Suzanne Germann, Preservation Easement Coordinator signed the letter. Carlos Ruiz said he rece., ed a phone call in favor of the removal of the tennis court at 1206 Sheridan. He also received an email in favor of the addition at 2248 Lincolnwood Drive. Also. Carlos Ruiz received a letter from Anne Earle, Associate Member, regarding 1415 Judson. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1130 Judson Avenue (LSHDIL) (Revised Plans) — West elevation - rust floor, removal of door and three windows on the rear west elevation; reconfigure openings and install French door and six windows f3 contiguous windows on either side of the French door, infill openings with siding to match the existing. Construct rear wooden deck and re -roof house. South elevation — first floor, add French Evanston Preser ia:im Conmisston September tfi. 20M — M[nutes Page 2 door (deck area) — second floor. remove 2 windows. East elevation — first floor. remove door (from recessed plane) and install new window. Also, install new air conditioner unit west of the new rear deck. [Alteration/Construction] Alan Gratn~i of 1134 Judson wanted to know what was proposed for 1130 Judson Avenue. He said the owner of 1130 Judson gave him notice of the project. Jordan Cramer said while Mr. Gratch reviews the application the Commission will proceed with the agenda. Carlos Ruiz said that the intent was to review the revised application administratively, but he decided to bring the application to the Commissions instead. V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1208 Florence Avenue (L) — Repair and restoration of the front porch on the existing brick foundation to include new wood decking, new turned balustrades, railings. newels and columns. Replace asphalt shingle roof with wood shingles. Restore front of house. re -faring brick foundation with matching brick, repair/replace comer boards, string courses, window casings and siding as required. New 111 storm windows and folk Victorian reproduction storm door [Alteration] Neat Vogel and Jill Tuinier of Restoric presented the project representing George Paul, the owner_ N. Vogel said the house is a Victorian house. There are two adjacent homes that were built at the same time that have been altered with aluminum siding and aluminum trim details_ The architectural integrity of 1208 Florence has been diminished by porch ratings that disappear and raiilings that are not code compliant. The aluminum windows, the aluminum panning around the Window casings, and aluminum storm door will be replaced in wood. The brick foundation was parched with a concrete mix that will be removed and the brick will be restored. The stoop is alwa)s been masonry under the wood porch and it will be restored with brick to match. The comet boards on the house were severed about a foot down. They will put a larger band instead. The roof on the front would be wood shingles as well as the porch roof. Neal Vogel said the restoration plan includes a period color scheme from the late 1890s. Commission's Findings Dian Keehan said the new 36-inch high railing appears as an add on. N. Vogel said it is an add on from keeping spindles from looking too elongated in scale and proportion to the porch, a dark color is used on the rail and add a second railing on top of it. Suzanne Fatrand asked about the turned post that N. Vogel had suggested had been altered. N. Vogel said there is no head or cap detail., the turn dies into the beam, he said to reuse the existing post, they w not fine up with the railings that would be to code. The new posts are a closest match to the existing posts that they could find. Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-6 and 8-10 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration at 1208 Florence Avenue according to standards: 1) reasonable effort to adapt the property requiring minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing original qualities of the property shall nc: 5e destroyed. 3) properties shall be recognized as products of their own time, A) changes tha: have taken place in the ccurse of time are evidence of history and development and may have acquired significance on their own right, 5) dstinctive stylistic features of craftsmanship that char=erized the property shall be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rathef than replaced, 8) every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve a.-chaeological resources, 9) contemporary design for alterations shall not be discouraged. and 10) wherever poss.ble alterations shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be remove in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay, Evanston Preservation C mmtssion September 16. 2008 — Minutes Pape 3 1130 Judson Avenue Jordan Cramer reopened the discussion on 1130 Judson Avenue. Alan Gratch asked about the setbacks for the deck and the location of the air conditioner. Carlos Ruiz said the deck is setback at least 5' from the side yard property lines. The new air conditioner is located behind the rear deck and least 10' from the property line. Alan Gratch said they have no objection to the project. Carlos Ruiz read the revised items: 1) deck narrowed to conform to lot line requirements, 2) pantry window at NW comer to remain, 3) windows at rear removed, one central set of all -wood French doors, 3 all -wood double -hung windows on either side (same width and height as existing first floor windows), 4) Remove back door and steps at NW comer, fill opening and side to match existing, 5) French doors to be added to South wall onto side porch, single door at West end of porch replaced with double -hung window to match existing first floor windows, and 6) Remove screens from wrap -around porch and store. East elevation: a door is proposed now Instead of a window on the recessed front elevation. North elevation: pantry window at NW to remain. Jordan Cramer decided to postpone the vote until later in the meeting. 2. 1210 Michigan Avenue (ULSHD) —Build new brick, limestone and flagstone deck at the rear southwest comer of house behind existing bay on south elevation (in lieu of former wood deck that was removed due to carpenter ants Infestation) . Remove asphalt patio and stone paved area at rear west yard and add brick walkway at rear of house. [Construction] Warren Kibbe, owner presented the project. W. Kibbe said the rear deck was infected with carpenter ants and it was removed. They proposed to replace it with a stone and brick base deck. Dian Keenan said the integrity of the brick foundation should be maintained. Jon Willarson noted that the new deck is wider than the former deck. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said RBTA recommends standards for review of construction 6, 7 and 10, 12 -16 as applicable. E. Guthrie moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness in that; 6) relationship of the entrances. 7) relationship of materials and texture and 10) scale of the structure are all visually compatible with other properties and structures. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) if the porch and deck 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. E. Guthrie moved to amend her motion to include the walkway. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. The amendment to the motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Jordan Cramer said the circumstances to remove the porch due to the carpenter ants were understandable. Jon Pohl moved to approve the demolition after the fact of the former wooden deck at 1210 Michigan Avenue as it meets standards for demolition: 1) the former deck was not of such historic or architectural significance, 2) the former deck did not contribute to the distinctive architectural character of the district, 3) the demolition of the former deck is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter, 4) the former deck was not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture and'or material, and 5) plans have been approved for the new brick and stone deck. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1206 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Demolition and removal of tennis court, grading of soil and planting of trees, plants. flowers and grass. Remove chain link fence on west and south sides. [Demo lition/Alteration) Kim Dietz, owner presented the project. K. Dietz said they purchased the tennis court and they would like to remove a retaining wall and turn the tennis court into a yard. There is a conceptual landscape plan to handle the drainage problems. They plan to sod the yard and plant flower Evanston Preservation Cornmissicn September 16, 2008 — Minutes Page 4 beds. The fence to the north of the house will be removed in the future. Emily Guthrie suggested including as part of the review the fence. Carlos Ruiz said because of the property being a comer lot it would be easier to wait until the owner knows what they want to do with the front yard. K. Dietz said the south side (east to west along the house) fence is being removed along with the retaining wall as well as the fence on the west side, along the condominium apartment. Commission's Findings Suzanne Farrand moved to issue a Certftate of Appropriateness for the property at 1206 Sheridan Road where the tennis court would be demolished and removed, also removal of the chain link fence on the west and south s;des of the property in that: 1) the demolition of the tennis court would not be detrimental to the pubtic interest. 2) the tennis court does not need to be preserved for the benefit of the people of the City, 3) the tennis court removal is not contrary to the purposed of this chapter, 4) the tennis court is not old, unusual or uncommon design. and 5) there are no plans for new structures. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 2325 Hartrey Avenue (L) -- Demolish existing garage; construct new frame 2-car garage with hip roof and asphalt roof shingles, exterior wood siding and metal panel garage door [Constructlon/Demolition] Tim Patenode and Judy Royal, owners presented the project. T. Patenode said the current detached garage is not original to the 102 years old house. The garage trusses on the rxxth are rotting and the concrete throughout the garage is deteriorated. They would like to replace the existing garage writh a new 22' x 22' garage with a new concrete slab. The exterior finish would be cedar siding with the same roof line and roofing material as on the existing home. There will be a window on the west side. The new garage will have large overhangs. Emily Guthrie said they propose metal garage doors, she said if the garage door could be wood being a landmark property. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 1.5. 7. 8, 10-13 and 16 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of the new garage at 2325 Harvey in that: 1) the height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids to voids, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures, 7) relationship of materials, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale, and 11) the directional expression of front elevation are all compatible to the structures to which are visually related. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources shall be protected, and 16) a single architecture' style is not being imposed. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applitxtile. Ann Dienner moved to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 2325 Hartrey as it meets standards: 1) the garage is not of such historic or architectural significance, 2) the garage does not contribute to the distinctive architectural character of the district, 3) the demolition of the garage is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter, 4) the garage is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture and/or material, and 5) plans have been approved for the construction of a new garage. Emily Guthrie seconded Me motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 rays. In response to questions from Tim Patenode the Commission said unless there are zoning issues, the applicant does not need to come back in, front of the Commission. 5. 1415 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Replace existing concrete front steps and omamental iron railing with new frame roofed wrap -around front porch (similar to the original front porn). Requesting zoning variation for proposed 27' front yard setback. Required = 37.2' [Construction/Domolition/Zoning Variation] Evanston Presenra5w Corr-imicn September 16, 2008 — to mi*s Page 5 Ellen Galland, architect presented the project. E. Galland submitted a copy of the letter that notified neighbors of the meeting with the Commission. E. Galland said the house was submitted for the tax freeze through the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. The tax freeze application was based in surveying houses in the neighborhood to see if the proposed work is consistent with the design of the house. E. Galland said the design is as consistent as possible in the overall design and detailing. They will use salvaged doors from the house to replace a window to access the porch from the kitchen area. Without wrapping the porch that condition could not occur. The concrete non historic steps and wrought iron railing will be removed. E. Galland passed around photos of other houses that have front porches. Ellen Galland acknowledged the letter from Anne O. Earle, Associate Member (September 15, 2008) asking the Commission to deny the project as proposed with the wrap -around porch. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 1-8 and 10-16 as applicable. Jordan Cramer said Anne O. Earle's letter said that the original structure porch did not wrap -around. Ellen Galland said the letter acknowledges that there are other structures with wrap -around porches. Jon Pohl moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of the wrap -around porch at 1415 Judson because: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of the front fa(,-ade, 3) proportion of the openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures an streets, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, 7) relationship of materials. 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale, and 11) directional expression of front elevation all are visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related. Also, 13) archaeological resources shall be preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) if the addition is removed the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) a single architectural st)1e is not being imposed. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. Emily Guthrie moved approval for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of concrete steps and wrought iron railing becausel) the structure Is not of such historic or architectural significance. 2) the structure does not contribute to the distinctive architectural character of the district. 3) the demolition of the steps and railing is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter, 4) the steps and railing are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture and/or material, and 5) plans have been approved for the new wrap -around porch. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Emily Guthrie moved to recommend approval of the zoning variation for the porch at 1415 Judson because: A) it is necessary in the interest of historic conservation and will not adversely affect the historic architecture of tre district and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. 6. 101 Hamilton Street —North Lot (LSHD) —Subdivision and consolidation of north lot to preserve historical fences and legitimize exerting encroachments. [Advisory review) John B. Potter of Morgante Wilson Architects and Fran Ex and Charles Portis, owners presented the project. Frank Steinberg of 1214 Lake Shore Blvd was present. J. Potter said there is an existing 71 years old historic wrought iron fence. Over the years many encroachments have occurred to the benefit of 1214 Late Shore Blvd inc3uding the A/C condensers, landscaping and a port}. that are over the property line. J. Potter said they proposed the subdivision of 101 Hamklon-north lot (625 SF) placing the tot line about 7' south x 124' deep so that the existing fence would be wholly on 1214 Lake Shore Blvd and legitimize the existing encroachment so that the existing porch and concrete stair, condensers and pa3o would all be wholly on 1214 Lake Shore Blvd. The zoning analysis shows the proposed subdivision is in compliance on both Evanston Preservation Ccrwrission September 16, 2008 - Minutes Page 6 properties. J. Potter said that both structures on either side are at least 5' setback from the respective side yard property tines. John Potter read for the record the responses provided on the application for subdivision. Emily Guthrie moved to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed subdivision as it meets standards 1: a) it will preserve existing historical fences and legitimize existing encroachments, b) there are no new structures being proposed, c) the proposed subdivision preserves the existing wrought iron and masonry fence, d) no change to the existing streetscape is proposed, and e) the subdivision and consolidation will create two lots with equal street frontage and not adversely affect traffic patterns. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. T. 2448 Lincolnwood Drive (L) — Addition on the western side to reconfigure existing garage. re- roofing and installing new siding on the respective gable and dormers of the existing structure. Construction of new garage on the Harrison Street side with wood garage doors. New in -swing casement wood windows with true divided lights; new Gothic arched entry wood doors. Roof: Replace gable roof asphalt shingles with cedar shake shingles. Remove asphalt shingles on existing dormers and replace with standing seam metal. Garage roof to be replaced with a shed cedar shake shingle roof. New Gable roof is cedar shake shingle with standing seam roof over each dormer. Siding: Replace dormer siding with new uneven edge wood siding. Add one additional condenser jAlteration/Construction] Mark Tendam and Neal Moglin, owners, Steve Rugo, and Brian Grohle, architects presented the project. Neal Moglin said they received positive comments from neighbors. They bought the house five years ago and focused on the exterior restoration and interior of the house_ The existing floor plan is not workable with a number of dead ends and small kitchen. They want to add a serviceable kitchen a two -car garage, a master bedroom and bathroom. The proposed work is in keeping with the original architecture in terms of design, roof tine and materials. They will remove the asphalt shingles on the roof and install cedar shingles. The damaged cedar shake siding will be replaced with new wood siding. The dormers will have metal standing seam roofing. Existing brick will be salvaged and reused and mix with new brick to match as mutts as possible. Jordan Cramer asked if the roof height on the addition is lower that the existing roof height on the house. N. Moglin said the roof height of the addition is 2' iower than the existing to clearly show the addition. With the new garage they break up the mass of the addition. Dian Keehan saki historically there was cedar shake shingle on the original house with shallow dormers, but the standing seam is taking away from the original landmark character. N. Moglin said the standing seam roofing material call out the eye brow windows more prominently. Suzanne Farrand wondered about standard 15 of construction if the addition could be removed. Steve Rugo said yes. Additional discussion included the infilt of the existing garage doors and the brick finish on the addition. Carlos Ruiz said the owners should consider mat the proposed alterations could also be approved by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency if they were contemplating applying for me Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program. A.so, some alteration on the landmark house may be desirable but not necessarily appropriate. Dian Keehan felt that reworking the original landmark house or modify it to conform to the new addi on might be too much, even though it looks great - Jon Pohl said the new chimney appears too large or tall as viewed from the north elevation. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said RSTA recommends standa ds for review of alteration 1-6. 9 and 14 as applicable. Jon Pohl moved to approve the a.�erations at 2448 Lincolnwood Drive in that: 1) minimal alteration of the structure (does not meet); 2) distinguishing original qualities of the structure will not be destroyed and the removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive Evanston Preseratim C n7mssian September 16. 2DD8 — tiGnutes Page 7 architectural features are being avoided when possible; 3) all of the objects are being recognized as products of their oven time and alterations that have no historical basis and seek to create an earlier appearance are being discouraged; 4) does not apply; 5) Distinctive stylistic features or example of skilled craftsmanship that ctzracterized the structure are being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced whenever possible, 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged; and 10) whenever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in a manner which if such additions or alterations are to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the s—t jcture would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes. 1 nay. Emily Guthrie said RSTA recommends standards for review of construction 1-10. and 12-16. Suzanne Farrand moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of the addition of the westem side because it meets standards: 1) height; 2) proportion of the front fagade; 3) proportion of openings; 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in the front fagade; 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street; 6) ;he rhythm of the entrance porches and other projections; 7) the relationship of materials and text re; 8) the roof shape, the walls of continuity, and 10) the scale of the structure all being compatible with structures around it. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed; 13) archaeological resources will be protected and preser+.vd; 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged; 15) the new addition shall be done in a manner that it can be removed if necessary. and 16) a single architecture stye or period is being imposed. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. 1130 Judson Avenue At this time Jordan Cramer reopened Lie discussion on 1130 Judson Avenue. Suzanne Farrand moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness be Issue to the property at 1130 Judson reflecting the revisions to the original Wan (location of the A/C unit; the new door on the east 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property; 2) distinguishing orginal qualities of the structure shall not be destroyed; 3) the structure is being recognized as product of their own lime and alterations tnat have no historical basis and seek to create an earlier appearance are being discouraged; 4) changes that occurred over time are being respected; 5) dstinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity; 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced whenever possible, 91 contemporary design is not be discouraged; and 10) the addition can be removed to protec:the integrity of the structure of tho original structure. Ann Dienner seconded trse motion. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. Suzanne Farrand moved to issue a certificate of Appropriateness to the proper;} at 1130 Judson for the construction cl a new deck on the west because: 1) it is compatible with other structures to whicii is visually related; 7) the relationship of materials and texture is compatiWe with structures to which is visually mated; 10) the scale of the structure is compatible; 12) dist nguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed; 13) archaeological resources will be preserved and protected; 14) contemporary des.an is not being discouraged; 15) the new addition is done in a manner that could be removed; and 1 6) no single architectural style is being imposed. Ann Dienner seconded ~e motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. VI. COMMENTS BY Pt1BUC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Emily Guthrie requester that the Commission members receive an updated Commission roster. She also suggested that Stan Gerson and Susan Rundle should be asked if they are interested in becoming Associates Members. The Commission members welcomed again Kris Hartzell (Realtor) and Dian Keehan (Architect), the newly appointed Commssioners. Carlos Ruiz said Anne McGuire, Architect has applied to be appointment to the Preservation Commission. Evanston Preservation Commission September 16.2008 — Minutes Page 8 All Commissioners and Associates Members present and the Preservation Coordinator gave an overview of themselves about their professional background and experience with historic preservation and the Preservation Commission_ Vill. ADJOURNMENT Emily Guthrie moved to adjoum the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: a ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Preservation Coordinator Date: March 13, 2009 Approved: March 1 7, 2009 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Emily Guthrie, Suzanne Farrand, Anne McGuire, Kris Hartzell, Dian Keehan, Jon Pohl and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Diener and Jordan Cramer OTHERS PRESENT: Kristen Farrell Freund, Linda Emanuel, Jennifer Blair. Andrew Sollinger, Chris George. Denise Galloway, Ceil Bouchet, Kirsten Kingsley, Keith Ginnodo, Kimberley Rafilson, Fred Rafilson, Jeff Herberholtz, Anne Earle and Mary McWilliams. Also, John Burke and Sat Nagar (City Staff). PRESIDING: Emily Guthrie, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Emily Guthrie. Vice -Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum of seven Commissioners present (Suzanne Farrand, Anne McGuire, Kris Hartzell, Dian Keehan. Jon Pohl and Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos Ruiz. It. MINUTES The Commission tabled the approval of the May 20 and September 3, 2008 minutes until the next meeting. Ill. COMMUNICATIONWREPORTS Lake Street Resurfacing Project (Elmwood to McDaniel) — Street resurfacing project paid by Federal funds (Requ res Advisory Review to the City Council) The Commission held this item until later in the meeting when City Staff is available at the conclusion of another meting IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 919 Edgemere Court (LILSHD) — Construction of two -car garage [Construction] Carlos Ruiz said that the owner of 919 Edgemese Court had requested to reschedule his application to the November 18, 2008 meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) Evanston Preservation Commission October 21.2008 - Minutes Page 2 1. 1319 Ashland Avenue (L) — Enclose existing screened -in rear porch (east elevation) with wood windows. Enclose existing stairs and landing on south elevation, add window and door. Finish exterior walls of enclosed porch with wood lap sailing, wood trim and fascia to match existing and re -shingle existing roof with asphalt shingles [Alteration] Kristen Freund, owner presented the project. K Freund said she would like to enclose a rear screen porch with wood windm s. Also enclose the staircase on the south elevation. On the north elevation enclose the wal and add a gas fire place. The new exterior materials will match the existing materials. The new door is wood with glass. The addition plans date 1994. Dian Keehan said the landing for the mudroom needs to meet the code requirements. K. Freund said the landing is 3' deep. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-6 and 8-10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to the rear of 1319 Ashland (enclosing the rear porch and re -shingling the existing roof because: 1) it is minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 3) aiterations without historical basis are not proposed; 4) history and development is being recognized; 5) stylistic features are treated with sens+uti ity, 6) repair rat,*)er than replace is being done when possible. 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the additions are removable if necessary. Dian Keehan seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1037 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) — Demolish exsting coach house. Construct a two car frame coach house with one dormer and a door leading to stairs on the north elevation, one dormer with a balcony and French doors on the south elevation. Double hung wood windows and wood garage doors. Gable roof with asphalt shingles and solar tiles facing south. Remove structurally unsound front porch brick stairs and deck (non -original) and rebuild stairs and deck in wood. [Construction/Demolition] Linda Emanuel, owner and Jennifer Blair, architect presented the project. Carlos Ruiz said the applicant is submitting additional drawings for tine front porch. L. Manuel said the front stoop needs also to be replaced. The columns are load bearing and need to be replaced. The brick porch structure may date from the 1930s and it is not original. The structural engineer recommended replacing the front porch and deck in wood. J. Blair said the deck with three raisers will be 30" from grade. eliminating the need of handrails or guardrails. Jennifer Blair said the existing coach house has no foundation and is not structurally sound and it needs to be demolished. The new coach house meets the zoning requirements. The exterior siding will mimic the lap siding of the existing coach house. Regarding the stairs to the second floor, they would be moved out and a door is corning of the north elevation; the French doors are on the south. The clip gable on the west elevation wilt be added. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction for the garage 1-8, 10-13 and 16 as applicable. Jon Pohl moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the new coacn house at 1037 Michigan Avenue because it meets the following standards: 1) the height; 2) proportion of front fa;.ade and the relationship of width and height; 3) proportion of openings; 4) rhitnm of solids to voids in front facade; 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street and relationship with adjoining structures; 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections in relationship of the entrances and projections to sidewalks; 7) the relationship of materials and texture; 8) roof shapes; 10) scale of the structure; and 11) the directional expression of the `rant elevation, are all visually compatible to the structures to which they are visually related. Also. 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the site are not being destroyed (not met); 13) archaeological resources shall be protected; and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Jon li illarson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nais Evanston Preservation CorrvrussLan October 21. 2M - Minutes Page 3 Jon Willarson moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the coach house at 1037 Michigan in that: 1) its demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest; 3) its demolition would not be contrary to the objectives of historic preservation; 4) it is not of unusual or uncommon design; 5) plans for its replacement are approved. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays. Regarding the reconstruction of the base of the front porch (concrete pier with veneer stone under each column). the Commission determined the standards for review of construction 1, 6, 7, and 12-16 as applicable. Anne McGuire moved to approve the reconstruction of the front porch base at 1037 Mic')igan Avenue as it meets standards: 1) height; 6) rhythm of entrance porch; and 7) relationship of materials and texture, are all compatible with the house to which they are visually related. ,also. 12) the distinguishing original character of the structure shall not be destroyed by keeping the columns; 13) archaeological resources will be preserved; 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged; 15) additions if removed, the essential form and integrity of the s--vcture would be unimpaired; 16) the use of a single architectural style has not been imposed. _{on Willarson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes; 0 nays. Anne McGuire moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the front porch base as it meets standards for demolition: 1) its demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest; 2) its demolition does not contribute to the distinctive architecture of the house; 3) its demolition weld not be contrary to the objectives of historic preservation; 4) it is not of unusual or unccr-nmon design; 5) plans for its replacement are approved. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The merion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission noted that it approved 'Plan 2' as submitted by the applicant during the meeting. Plan 2 is for a taller coach house to dosety resemble the design and height of the existing coach house to be demolished. The apptkmt w2l submit Plan 2 for zoning analysis and building permit 3. 2026 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) —Demolish existing garage. Construct two -car wood frame garage with exterior wood siding. gable roof with asphalt shingles, metal garage door, service door and vinyl windows (east elevation) [ConstructioNUemolltion) Andrew Sollinger, owner presented the project. A. Soliinger said he bought his house four years ago. The existng garage is not structirally sound and it needs to be demolished. He proposes a new two -car garage (22' x 24-) mknick3 ng the exterior of the house and the garages in the neighborhood. The garage would have white wood siding and black trim as the house. The garage would rave a gable root as tl;e rear roof gable cm the house. The vinyl windows and the entrance/exit door on the east side have no visible access to the alley or the street. The garage door is a steel coor. The roof shingles will match the shingles on the house. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said RBTA recommends standards for review of construction 1-8, 10, 11. 13, 14, and 16 as apple able. Suzanne Farrand moved to issue the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2026 Orringtor, Avenue for the construction of the garage (as described above) In that it meets standards: 1) cne height; 2) proportion of front fa(ade: 3) the proportion of openings; 4) the rhythm of solids to voics; 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures: 6) the rhythm of entrance; 7) the relationship of materials and texture; 8) roof shapes; 10) scale of the structure; and 11) its the directional expression. are all compatble to other stru=ores in the area to which they are visually compatible. A.:so, 13) archaeological resources shall be protected; 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged; 15) the new structure could be removed in the future if necessary, and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed_ S. Farrand amended her motion removing standard 15. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Pmse bcn Commission Oc otw 21, 2008 - Minutes Page 4 Emily Guthrie said RBTA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Suzanne Farrand moved to issue for 2026 Orrington a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage because: 1) its demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest; 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive character of me district in which is located; 3) its demolition would not be contrary to the purpose or intent of the historic preservation ordinance; 4) it is not of unusual or uncommon design; 5) plans for is replacement are approved. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion the motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 2024 Orrington Avenue (NERD) — Remove concrete parking slab. construct two -car wood frame garage with exterior hardie-board siding, wood windows, wood service door and steel garage door [ConstructionIDemolition] Denise & John Galloway, owners presented the project. D. Galloway said the house has a pad for a single car and no garage. They are proposing constructing a two -car garage (20' x 24'). The garage roof pitch is 7' and the exterior is hardie-board matching the color of the house. There are two windows and a door entrance on the east elevation. The garage door is on the west elevation. There is one window on the south elevation. Jon Pohl asked if the hardie-board is beveled and textured and 6" exposure. D. Galloway said the hard"le-board is textured. Anne McGuire said 4 is more appropriate for the hardle-board be smooth and not textured. Jon Pohl said that wood sing is preferable. Jon Pohl asked about the shutters on the east elevation if they were closed would they fit the window. D. Galloway said yes. The new windows are wood. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 1-8, 10, 11, 13.14 and 16 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new two -car garage at 2024 Orrington in that: 1) the height; 2) the proportion of front facade; 3) the proportion of openings; 4) the rhymm of solids to voids; 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures; 6) the rhythm of recesses; 7) the relationship of materials; 8) roof shapes; 10) scale of the structure', and 11) its the directional es.,pression, are all compatible to other structures in the area to which they are visually compatible. Also, 13) archaeological resources shall be protected; 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1720 Asbury Avenue (URHD) —Window repair and replacement. Replace: nine basement windows, six windows on first floor (south and west); ten windows on second floor (east, south and west); two windows on attic (south). Repa:r;restc. e: eicht windows (east and south). [Alteration] Ceil Bouchet, owner and Kirsten Kingsley, and Keith Ginnodo, architects presented the project. C. Bouchet thanked the Commission and staff for these work. She said they bought the house five years ago. They would like to install new windows on the house. She tried to do the project on her own, but after spending some time with Carlos Ruiz she realized that the scope of work was beyond her expertise to figure out what needed to be restored, how to restore it, what to replace in order to enhance the beauty of the house and its heritage. K. Kingsley said any windows on the elevations that do not have an RS or N will remain. The windows on the first floor that face Asbury will be restored, including all around the rotunda area (five windows) and two windows along the south elevation facing the alley will be repaced (FRS) with a new storm. The other symbol (SS) on the first floor on the south will be untouched with new wood storms. The rest of the windows will be replaced, but keeping the trim and installing wood windows with muntins on the second floor (there are no windows with muntins on the first floor). Anne McGuire said she has not seen any windows that are beyond repair. C. Bouchet said the house is so tall that the windows on the second floor are tco far to notice a difference from the Evanston Preservabon Comn fission October 21. 2DD8 - Minutes papa 5 existing to the new windows. They want to make the effort to restore as many windows as possible but they are costs considerations. The Commission members maintained the repair is usually cheaper than new windows. K. Kingsley said that they understand the desire to restore the windows on the east elevation but the owners of the house would like to have the convenience of having new Windows that could be used and for sound mitigation (it's pretty loud on Asbury). She suggested restoring the windows that turn the comer. The side elevation is so large that all can't be seen in one visual take. From that point on, those windows are hard to see because of the close angle, and they cannot be seen from the alley. The windows on the north and west elevations will remain. The windows on the third floor on the front were replaced prior to the current owners but there is no need to replace them and also the windows in the kitchen on the west elevation (they are either vinyl or aluminum clad). Ceil Bouchet said she consulted two contractors for restoring the windows. Emily Guthrie said she understands the replacement of the basement windows and the attic windows, but the primary facade windows should be restored. Jon Willarson concurred with E. Guthrie's assessment. Suzanne Farrand said one of the considerations of restoring the windows is the cost, she asked about the storm windows. Keith Ginnodo said the storms are aluminum triple track and they look bad and do not work too well. K. Kingsley said the rotunda windows will be repaired and the storm windows will be removed and replaced with wood storms. All the windows on the first floor with the exception of the breakfast area will be restored. The windows that will have a screen will be the operable windows (on the second level). K. Kingsley said the second floor double hung window(s) proposed to be replaced in the bedrooms are warped and leaky (there is a large space between the medium rail). The same condition occurs at the first floor double hung windows on the south elevation. Anne McGuire said when windows are restored and weather stripped the issue of cold air infiltration should be resolved. She said to decrease the noise issue they can install laminated glass. She did not have an issue with replacing the breakfast room windows on the First floor because they are not original to the house. Cell Bouchet said she would Wke to do the first floor windows this year and return for the second floor windows next year. She thought doing something on the front elevation that would look even better without the storm windows was desirable. Carlos Ruiz said in response to Anne McGuire's question about precedent to replace windows on secondary elevations, that the Illinois Historic preservation Agency does allow the replacement of windows on secondary elevations with the same windows and rewires the restoration of front elevation windows when possible. Cell Bouchet said she will repair the second floor windows. Nine basement windows and seven windows on the first floor breakfast area only w�f be replaced. The first and second story front elevation windows will be restored as well as the remaining first and second story windows and attic windows all with wood storms) Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said RSTA reccxmmends standards for review 1-10 as applicable. Kris Hartzell moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 1720 Asbury to replace nine basement windows and seven windows on the first Boor [breakfast area) and repair the remaining windows on the first floor, second floor and attic in that: 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration; 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure shall not be destroyed; 3) all properties, structures shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged; 4) changes that may have taken place in tie course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property, structure. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right; 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property, structure, site or object shall be treated with sensitivity; 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible; 7) the surface cleaning of structures and Evanslian Presanrabw Cam ussam 0ctobw 21. 2308 — Knutes Page 6 objects shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible; 8) every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources; 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged; and 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Jon Pohl seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote; 7 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission clarified that the breakfast area new windows could be without muntins. Ill. COMMUNICATIONSiREPORTS Lake Street Resurfacing Project (Elmwood to McDaniel) — Street resurfacing project paid by Federal funds (Requires Advisory Review to the City Council) John Burke. Public Works Director and Sat Nagar, Senior Engineer presented the project. J. Burke said the City gets Federal funding through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to do some of the State's roads such as Ridge Avenue. The project is to resurface with new curbing Lake Street between Elmwood Avenue and McDaniel Avenue to be done next year. S. Nagar said the curbs will be repaired. J. Burke said the project has been through the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency because it is a Federal project and they approved it. in response to Suzanne Farrand's question about the scheduling of street repairs, J. Burke said in Evanston there are a lot of State roads that have left to disrepair and the arterials in particular. The City has focused on the arterials, many of which like Ridge Avenue haven't been done in 45 years. They do repairs in phases and the worts is from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Jon Pohl moved to recommend to the City Council that the take Street Resurfacing Project because it does not adversely affect the Evanston Ridge Historic District (the segment between Maple Avenue and Wesley Avenue). Anne McGuire seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1419 Judson Avenue (LSHO) — One-story addition and deck to the rear (east), a two-story tower addition to the rear (east), a fireplace and projecting square bay addition to the south side of house. Alterations: remove aluminum siding and restore original beveled wood siding, remove metal storms ana restore existing windows, replace asphalt roof shingles with cedar shingles, add oval window in north and south wall, add two new double -hung windows flanking chimney on south wall, add two windows on second floor east wall, add new door to basement stairs on north wall, and restore muntin pattern to original attic windows on south wall. (Alteration/Construction] Kimberley Rafilson and Fred Rafilson, owners and Jeff Herberholtz. architect presented the project. J. Herberholtz said the project has t w-ee elements as far as additions to the structure, then some restoration and some alterations to the existing portions of the building. The main alterations are off the rear of the house and t*ie one-story addition and the two-story tower element. Then off of the side of the house there is a fire place with a projecting element. The alterations include two new windows and two windows flanking the fire place. The rear door going to the basement is being moved into tt:e side wall. The original submission showed two oval windows that no longer are included. The existing windows will be retained. They would like to remove the poured concrete front steps with black iron rail and install Instead a rail system that matches the porch and wood steps. Evanston Preservation Ccarnissirn October 21. 2008 — Minutes Page 7 Jeff Herberholtz said the aluminum siding would be removed and the wood siding restored (2-3/4- inch) exposure. Apparently there is an area on the front elevation 0-tat was damaged by fire; the intention is to patch that area matching the existing. The asphalt shingles on the face of a wall would be removed and cedar shingles would be installed instead. The asphalt shingle roofing will be removed and cedar shingles installed. The side window on the third floor will be restored. The attic window has a different pattern. They will pull the mill finished aluminum storms and restore the windows. Suzanne Farrand observed that the north elevation as presented was not correct. Anne McGuire asked about the new foundation material. J. Herberholtz said the foundation is concrete with brick veneer. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-16. Anne McGuire moved that the proposed addition at 1419 Judson be approved (Certificate of Appropriateness) because it meets the standards for construction: 1) the height; 3) proportion of openings, relationship of the height and the width of windows and doors; 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in front facade; 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street; 6) the rhythm of entrance porches (including the new wood steps and railing) and other projections in relationship of the entrances and projections to sidewalks; 7) the relationship of materials and texture; 8) roof shapes; and 10) scale of the structure, are as] visually compatible to the structures to which they are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the site are not being destroyed; 13) archaeological resources shall be protected; 14) contemporary design for the addition has nct been discouraged; 15) Me new addition could be removed while retaining the original form and integrity of the original building; and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Jon Willarson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays Emily Guthrie said the standards for review of demolition 1-5 are applicable for the removal of the front porch steps and the rear deck. Anne McGuire moved to approve the demolition of the rear deck and the front porch steps at 1419 Judson (Certificate of Appropriateness) because they meet standards for demolition: 1) the demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest; 2) these elements do not contribute to the distinctive character of the dstrict in which is located; 3) the demolition would not be contrary to the purpose or intent of the historic preservation ordinance; 4) these elements are not of such old or unusual design: 5) plans for replacement are approved. Jon Pohl seconded the motion C-.e motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Jeff Herberholtz said they would also like to replace the siding on tt,e detached garage at the rear and the garage roofing material to match the house. Emily Guthrie said the standards for review of alteration 1-6 and 8-10 are applicable. Jon Willarson moved to grant the Certificate of: �apropriaieness for 1419 Judson for the alterations to the garage as described above because: 1) minimal alteration will occur, 2) distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed: 3) alterations without historical bass are not being proposed; 4) history and development are being recognized; 5) sglis;ic features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) repair is being done rather than replace when possible. 8) archaeological resources would be protected; 9) contemporary design Ls not being discourageC, and 10) alterations could be removed if necessary. Anne McGuire seconded the motion. Tl~e motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Vl. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Jon Pohl asked about the 50-yea: Northwestern university Plan. Q%--Ios Ruiz said there was a Northwestern University/ City of Evanston Committee meeting with tr-e community (OCober 16, 2009). Another meeting is scheduled on October 30, 2008. The plan proposes among many other things relocating Lunt Hall and a number of homes on Sheridan Road to be moved. Evansim Preiervatw Gmxriss m Ocb:Aw 21, 2005 — L%rn,.tes Pape 8 VIL ADJOURNMENT Jon Willarson moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: March 16, 2009 Approved: March 17, 2009 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7.00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Suzanne Farrand, Kris Hartzell, Emily Guthrie, Dian Keehan, Jon Willarson and Ann Dienner MEMBERS ABSENT: Anne McGuire and Jon Pohl OTHERS PRESENT: James Murray, Stefanie Levine, David Woodhouse, Andy Tinucci, Sigrid Pilgrim, Ellen Galland, Melissa Wynne, David Foster, Dov Hillei Klein, Marc Kalman Segel, Alan Debrin, Harry Lowrance, Jim Wells, Erwin Komau, Brian Hammersley, Lou Maltezos, Anne Earle, and Mary McWilliams PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. with a quorum being present (Suzanne Farrand, Kris Hartzell, Emily Guthrie, Dian Keehan. Jon Wiilarson and Ann Dienner). Staff: Carlos Ruiz IL MINUTES The Commission deferred the approval of the May 20, 2008 Minutes for later during the meeting. III. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS None. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 904 Hinman Avenue (LIABTR) —Window Replacement (Update on the July 10. 2008 Proposal from the Owner) Carlos Ruiz reported to the Commission that the proposal from the owner of the building at 904 Hinman Avenue regarding the replacement of windows was transmitted to Commission Associate Members Mary Brugliera and Chris Carey for their review and recommendation to the Commission. He requested M. Brugliera and C. Carey to meet with him to discuss the proposal. James Murray, attorney for the owner of the building did not have any comments V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RBTA) 1. 101 Dempster Street (LSHD) —The Dempster Street Non -Motorized Boat Storage Facility Reconstruction Project includes reconstruction and replacement of the severely deteriorated non -motorized boat storage locker and racking facilities at Dempster Street Beach. These Evarmw Preservation Commission Novemtw 18. 2008 - Minutes Pao 2 facilities are visible from the park and lakeshore (Dom oiition/Construction) —The Commission's review is advisory to the City Council. Stefanie Levine of the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department (project manager) and David Woodhouse and Andy Tinucci, consultants presented the project. A. Tinucci said they had several meetings with the users and the public for the reconstruction of the Dempster Street Beach non -motorized boat storage facility. The current facility is in need of repair which was identified in the Evanston Lakefront Corridor or Master Plan. Currently, the boat storage racks are on the socsth side of the beach. The view out to the take is being maintained. The plan calls for the replacement of the boat racks starting on the east -south and extending north bound. The key mnponents are: the aluminum storage racks, a set of different racks for kayaks separated from boats: replacing the existing sail locker facility (two concrete buildings) with one building maintaining an access point to the south-east. Andy Tinucci said the new locker building will take a similar shape to the existing. The materials will be some form of concrete vw,.h expose aggregate concrete in nature with the sand. The new facility is expected to weather better than the current facility, there are roll up t1pe doors in the front and back to protect the metal systems. The facility has a light shade form for natural ventilation. The new facdI), is behind the existing vegetation, Andy Tinucci said %n the earlier during the development phase of the plan they expanded the project further norm on the Lake front. A meeting with neighbors produced the current plan keeping the facilities behind the existing tre of vegetation and placing boast much lower and off the sand Sigrid Pilgrim of 2750 Bernard Place said she stored her kayak for the last six years. She expressed her support of the project. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer said RBTA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applicable, and standards for review of construction 1, 2, 4, 5, 7. 8, 10-13, and 16 as applicable. Ann Dienner moved to recommend to City Council the construction of the on -motorized boat storage facility at 101 Dempster Street because: 1) the height. 2) proportion of front facade; 4) the rhythm of sol:ds to voids; 5) the rhythm and spacing of structures on the beach in relation to the open space; 7) the relationship of materials and textures; 8) the roof shape; 10) the scale of the structure; and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation, are all visually compatible with structures, sites, public mays, and places to which the elements are visually related. Also, 12) me distinguishing orighal qualities of shall not be destroyed; 13) archaeological resources shalt be proteCed, and 16) the Commission has not imposed a single architectural style. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed: Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays Jon Willarson moved to recommend to City Council that the existing non -motorize boat storage facility a: Dempster Street shou;d be demolished because: 1) its demolition would not be detrimental to me public interest; 2) a does not need to be preserved for the benefit of the people; 3) it does not conflict with the ol%ective of historic preservation; 4) it's not of such uncommon desicn that needs to be saved; 5) and plans for replacement have been approved. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1811 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — The Clark Street Beach RestroomlEntry Drive Reconstruction Project indudes first, the demolition of both the existing Clark Street restroom building and the existing access roadway at Church Street, and second, the construction of a new restroom and service building, entrance road way connecting to the existing motorized boat ramp parking lot, turnaround and four accessible parking spaces for Clark Street Beach (Demolition/Construction) —The Commission's review Is advisory to the City Council. Evanston Preservation Conynwion November 18. 2008 - Minuxs Page 3 Stefanie Levine of the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department and David Woodhouse and Andy Tinucci, consultants presented the project. D. Woodhouse said they had three public meetings over a couple of months. It was after the second meeting that the application was submitted to the Commission. There are some modifications to the design in response to the comments they received at the second meeting. The revised designed was well received at the third meeting. The Clark Street Beach building project is another part of the Lakefront Master Plan. It is intended to be a prototype for what would happen at the other beaches in the City, in the sense that the program of the building and the basic plan orientation would remain the same; although there might be elevation changes when these buildings are eventually built in other beaches. The site plan from the Master Plan removes the road at Church Street that connects Sheridan and the parking lot that the boaters use, also restoring the land as park land and removing the current restroom building on Sheridan. The project calls for the construction of the new road from Clark Street into the parking lot and reconnecting it to an existing parking lot, and replace the existing building with a new restroom building for the park and the beach. The new building is closer to the beach and farther from Sheridan. David Woodhouse said the site plan shows a turn around to drop off people at the beach and go back out. The creation of parking stalls for people with disabilities and re-route the bike and pedestrian path as an interim which eventually will become the pedestrian path only. There is a in and out gate for cars and trailers controlling access and stopping traffic at the crossing. The third lane would be removed. David Woodhouse said the landscaping recognizes three zones: 1) the park proper (grass, trees and the beach); 2) intermediate beach grasses and dunes created as a buffer between the two and 3) hide the snow fence. The proposed changes are: 1) remove the third lane; 2) reduction of partying stalls for the disabled; 3) moving the traffic circle away from the building. The pedestrian path material is permeable pavers. David Woodhouse said the plan is similar to the one in the Master plan including the building of a gateway to the park. There is a breezeway to the center and it divides the gilding into two pieces. The northern piece is beach restrooms and park restrooms. On the other side, there is a ticket area and staff room, a small concession area, and storage room. The elevations are based on the existing restroom building (stone and wood). The stone could be reused on the restroom side. The other side has windows with shutters that in the summer time will expose natural colors and in the winter time wall button up the building (winter palate). The revisions include: moving the concession on tte south side of the building, making it more accessible; adding stone seat walls to extend the building into the landscape. The big change is in the roof form. The revised roof form is now a slightly pitched fiat roof with the high paint on the restroom side. The building kind of disappears from Sheridan view and is visible from the beach. The roof would be a metal panel. The colors on the building are natural colors found In the landscaping. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Emily Guthrie, D. Woodhouse said it is difficult to find a standard that applies in a park. The estimate is based on the Parks estimate of the users of the park. There is no change in the number of boating parking. Jordan Cramer said R8TA recommends standards for construction 1-4, 6-8 and 10-13 and 16. Suzanne Farrand moved to recommend to City Council approval of the construction of the restroom facility, entrance roadway connecting the existing low raise boat ramp, parking lot turn around and two accessible parking spaces at 1811 Sheridan Road because it meets the following standards: 1) the height, 2) proportion of front facade; 3) the proportion of openings; 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in the front facade; 6) the rhythm of entrance porches; 7) the Evanston Preservation Camrrkssian November 18. 2008 — Minutes Pape i relationship of materials and textures; B) the roof shape; 10) the scale of the structure; and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are all visually compatible with structures, sites. public ways, and places to which the elements are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed; 13) archaeological resources shall be protected, and 16) the Commission has not imposed a single architectural style. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed: Vote. 7 ayes. 0 nays Jordan Cramer said R&TA recommends standards for demolition (existing restroom) 1-5 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to recommend to City Council the demolition of the restroom and some of the access facilities be demolished at 1811 Sheridan because'. 1) demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest; 2) it does need to be preserved for the benefit of the people; 3) it would not be contrary to the objective of historic preservation; 4) is not of such unusual design that needs to be saved; 5) and plans for replacement have been approved. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1130 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Placement of two new air condensing units to the north of a new garage, require zoning variation. Required setback from the north property line = 10'— proposed = 1.66' (Zoning Variation) - The Commission's review Is advisory to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Melissa Wynne and David Foster, owners presented the project. M. Wynne said they are requesting a major variation for the location of two air conditioning units. The location is on the north side of the new garage. The rode requires A/C units located 10' away from the tat line. The only location they had with the old technology was next to the rear deck. They used the rear deck all summer. The new technology allows A/C units to be located up to 100' from the house. As proposed the A/C units would be moved away from the house and away from the next door neighbor's house to the north side of the garage. Melissa Wynne said at Site Plan Committee they suggested putting the A/C units in front of the garage. This would make the sound bounce off the brick garage back to the house and the neighbor's house. They propose instead locating the A/C units within the 10' setback on the north side of the garage and at the request of the neighbors they will be aligned with the front of their garage. The neighbors see this as a superior location. M. Wynne said the code was written to protect neighbors from the noise at the time the technology would not allow otherwise. The AIC units will not be any closer to any residential unit at all. M. Wynne said they are requesting the Commission's recommendation to permit the A/C units within the 10' setback from the property line on the north side of the new brick garage. The A/C units will not be visible form the alley because of the existing a' fence nor would be visible from the neighbors to the south and north. David foster said they notified the neighbors and obtained their support as far as on Judson Avenue. Jordan Cramer said a communication was received form Ellen Gratch of 1134 Judson supporting the application. Dian Keehan asked if they considered complying with the ordinance, landscaping around the A/C units and locating them on the south side of the garage. M. Wynne said the location of the new garage allows them to have a garden on the south side. The north side is an unused space. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer said R&TA recommends standards for review of variations A and C as applicable. Suzanne Farrand moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the application for major variation at 1130 Hinman Avenue to place two new A!C units to the north of the new garage be approved because: A) it is necessary or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation in the neighborhood and it does not adversely effect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the district; and C) it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to the historic district Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. Evanston Presemabon Commission November 18. 2008 - Knutes Page 5 4. 2014 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) - Two story brick addition to the rear west elevation and new wood ramp on the north elevation. Requires major variations for the maximum allowed lot coverage (30%) - proposed = 32%; maximum allowable impervious surface (45%) - proposed = 52%; the proposed addition requires (15') setback from the north property line - proposed 5.4% the proposed addition requires (15') setback from the south property line - proposed = 9.5'. (Zoning Variation) - The Commission's review is advisory to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dov Hiltel Klein, Rabbi and Marc Kalman Segel, architect presented the project. 0. Hillel Klein said he is the Executive Director of Lubavitch Chabad of Evanston at 2014 Orrington. He said for many years they have tried to make their building more hospitable for handicapped accessibility and safer in terms of existing the building as well. They would like to extend the building 20' at the rear. This would allow putting two accessible bamrooms on the first floor. There spiral staircase leading to the exit of the building is extremely dangerous. The building is a synagogue and student center, servicing the Evanston Communay and Northwestern University students. Rabbi Klein said if there was a reason to evacuate the building would be very dangerous due to the spiral stair case. They want to put a safety staircase and an accessible ramp. A prayer space area is on the first floor and reception area on the second floor. With the ramp disabled people will be able to come to the services. On the Jewish Sabbatn in the Orthodox Community, one is not allow to using an elevator or chair lift. In the extended area, they will relocate the offices that are on the first floor at the rear of the build..ng. They need the additional 20' to install the safety staircase behind the building as well as two offices in the back. On the second floor of the addition would be an industrial kitchen up to code. Rabbi Klein said the building is in the historic district and in terms of the tr.tilding. The plan is to continue the building straight 20' on the side line. The exterior of Lne addition would be brick and similar design and type of windows as the existing windows, tt:e spacing of the windows ►vould be coherent with what is there now. to response to a question from Jordan Cramer, M. Segel said page on A-5 of the drawings, the windows are on the middle of the landing of the stair, where as the door on page A-4, is coming in to the right hand side of the stairs. Therefore, they do not line up. He thought it would be preferable to have the window in the middle of the landing above the door. They could change it if the windows need to be lined up. Alan Debrin of 2018 Orrington said their property on the north abuts the subject property. That is the smallest distance from the property line is with the proposal. The existing building is non -compliant, built long time ago. When the Chabad house took it over, it was not built as a synagogue, it was actually a two -flat apartment building with residential; the whole neighborhood is residential. A. Debrin said this is a special use and they do not have an objection to using the existing building for any legal purpose for tt ,�e last 27 years. Now they plan to add on a tremendous amount to the building that is totally out of character with the bulk of all the other bindings in the neighborhood. Regarding the stantards for alteration is the accessibility ramp and new stairs on the side of the house closes; to their house. Although the notice for the meeting tonight said that they are required to have 15'. which in the original application, they did not notice. Alan Debrin cited standard of alteration (i regarding reasonably adapting the property, structure, site in a manner that requires minimal alteration). The notice said that the setback from the property line would be 5' where the requirement is 15'. The diagram where the new ramp and stairway would be is less than 2' because the new concrete walk is 9' and the end of the new landing and wood ramp and stairs are in the middle of ttzat walk. So, it got to be less than 3' and it's probably closer to 2%clearly encroaching their property. A. Debrin said this is the kind of thing that the Northeast Evanston Historic District was clearly created to prevent. Evanston Preservation C ffvmssian Noveanber 18.2488 — Minutes Page 6 What they are doing is having an institutional building in a residential neighborhood. The 27' addition, the chang.bg of the outside of the building (he referred to standard 12 regarding distinguishing original qualities that shall not be destroyed). He said at the present time there is a porch in the back, page A-2 (west rear elevation) would be totally eliminated, a characteristic of the building that no longer is going to be there. There is also an existing brick column that sticks = that is also going to be eliminated. Also, the bay windows would be obscured with the rew ramp. Alan Debrin said in regard to standard 1 and the new ramp, the ramp is accessible from Orrington, not from the parking lot. The City Ordinances require that they have to have off street handicapped parking places clearly marked. They have seven parking spaces; none of them is a handicapped space. Because the ramp is not accessible from the handicapped parking spaces if t!-Ry put one in, what they have to do is ask the City to have curb cuts and handicapped parking in front to access the ramp. He said he has seen buildings with lifts or elevators that will provide access to the first and second floor. Also, there is currently a ground floor entrance that goes to the stairwell. He suggesting taking out the stairwell and install an elevator for access_ Alan Debrin said L-e biggest thing he is concerned about is the bulk (standard 10 regarding the scale of the structure and visual compatibility). He said the building is not a compliant building, adding 27' more of non -compliant structure, essentially a brick wall that will look from their family room. They can look thru the second floor porch and get some visibility. Now within 5' of their property lire there will be the 2-story brick wall. A. Debrin said the Commission should be concerned with s how the building relates to the other buildings in that area. For historic preservation purpcses if all the buildings occupy 30% then it could be argued that the building is compatible, but Y, all the other buildings occupy only 20% that should be considered. Alan Debrin said another error in the application is the 30% allowable footprint or 2,500'. The diagram shows the existing footprint as 2,195' therefore they are allowed an extra 351'. It turns out that the Zoning Ordinance in terms of R-1, item 6-8-2-7 building coverage it says the maximum lot coverage in the R-1 district is 30%. they are asking for 32%. However, the next paragraph says building lot coverage shall include 200' S.F. for each required parking space in any residential um: where a parking space is provided other than within a building. That means that those seven parking spaces that 1,400' S.F. and if added to the existing 2,100' S. F. one gets 3,600' S. F. ,which is lot more than the allowable space. From the stand point of Preservation it seems that the parking lot is clearly institutional (seven parking spaces is not what a resident has), it is incompatible with the neighborhood, but it has been there for years and they mind iL However, how much of the land mass is covered, when they are going to need a major variance for the 30' rear yard and 5' for parking as required by the Zoning ordinance. From {fie stand point of preservation there is no back yard. Also, the alley is a public way and tre rear is visible from the alley. The amount of grass that is left is part of the characteristic of coen space of the neighborhood. A. Debrin asked the Commission to recommend to tl,e Zoning Board that the project be denied. Marc Kalman saic there was a mix up with the Zoning (Division) regarding the 15' setback, that was added to the nonce. Regarding the lot coverage, 30°% maximum of building, the reason why the project is 1.7% or 2� is because when the alley was made public, they gave 10' of their property to co it because the City paid for it. Now they are short because of that. The parking spaces are existing spaces. The issue of the handicapped parking, they are not increasing the arnount of people in the building and they will keep the seven spaces, therefore they do not have 1a comply with providing handicapped parking. The ramp facing Orrington is because most people that came to the building can park on the street and they come up to the front of the building or walk. The reason why they cannot put an elevator is because in the Sabbath and hci:c:ays they don't use electric facilities; therefore they are providing space on the first floor which is accessible. The facilities on the second floor are not priority spaces that are used for the public. Evanston Preservation C=misslon November 18, 2008 — Knums Page 7 M. Kalman said in order to upgrade the building, it became necessary to increase the amount of square footage on the First floor, because of the two handicapped bathrooms, the elimination of a kitchen, the provision of proper stairwell and relocation of the Rabbi's offices. As far the rear yard setback, they are within the requirements because is from the building to the alley not to the parking area. He does not believe they made mistakes with their applications; they corrected and modified the elevations at the rear. He be. eved they are within the guideline of preservation district. He said sometimes neighbors have difficulty to accepting the fact that special use permits were granted not only to the synagogue, but to Episcopalians, Lutherans, Muslims to take residential properties and convert them for their use. M. Kalman said what they are doing is something that is already been acceptable. Rabbi Klein said the ramp is on the side yard because of consideration to their neighbors, because if the ramp were located at the rear they will seed as oppose to seen greenery. There are other buildings that do not have 30' to 40' of grass area within the neighborhood_ There is a new building that has been put on the comer of Orrington and Foster that is large, that does not have 30' or 40' of grass space. The bay windows will remain; the ramp will not Interfere with that. The portion on the first floor that jets &A was originally a covert in the kitchen. Ellen Debrin said in regard to the other religious institutions, they are far from the neighbors; nobody is 2' to 5' next to their neighbors. Rabbi Klein other religious institutions that are also close to their neighbors. Jon Willarson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 3 nays. Emily Guthrie said her concemed was the effect on the neighbor. Dian Keenan said if they could ramp the other side, and wiggle the plan a little bit to meet the 30%. there seems to be a very generous office and spaced that coulc be manipulated a little better. She was concem with the scale of the 2-story addition in relation to the back yards seen to the north. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer said 2014 Carrington is in the NEHD and is not contributing. Regarding the zoning variations is for lot coverage, impervious surface and setback. The applicable standards are A and C. Suzanne Farrand moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the application for special uses and variations be approved [tot coverage = 32%; Impervious surface = 52%; the proposed addition requires (15') setback from the north property line — proposed = 5.4 ; and (15') setback from the south property line — proposed = 9.51 because it meets the standards: A) not adversely effecting the historical architectural or aesthetic integrity or character of the historic district, and C) would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity where the property is located. Jon Willarson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 3 nays. Emily Guthrie said she voted against because of her concern with the effect on the neighbor. Dian Keenan said she voted no she though they could rarnp the other side, and wiggle the plan a little bit to meet the 30% lot coverage, there seems to be a very generous office and spaces that could be manipulated a Gabe better. She was also car�,emed with the scale of the 2-story addition in relation to the bacK yards seen to the north. Jordan Cramer said RBTA recommended standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. and 12-16 as applicable (construction of the 2-story brick addition to the rear of the property and accessibility ramp with stairs on the north side). Jon Willarson moved to approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of the rear addition and access ramp on the north side of the building at 2014 Orrngton because: 1) the height, 3) proportion of openings, the rhythm of spacing, rhythm of porches and recesses and projections are all visually compatible with the structures around it, as are the 8) roof shapes, and 10) the scale. Also, 12) the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources must be Evants=n Preservation Carer i --w November 18. 200a - Ursutes Page e saved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the additions are being done so that they could be removed in the future, and IS) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 3 nays. 5. 919 Edgemere Court (LILSHD) — Construction of two -car garage [Construction] Harry LowTance, owner presented the project. H. Lowrance said the garage builder thought he could obtain a replacement permit He said there is no such a thing. He thought everything was fine because there were City Inspectors next door (during construction of the new house) and no one said anything at the time about the garage being built. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission reviewed the application back in November 15. 2007. It was determined then that the construction of the garage had occurred without a permit or a Certificate of Appropriateness. At the time Mr. Lowrance and Chris Nesbitt were present to present the project. The Commission asked that the zoning analysis be completed and the Commission would determine if a fine would be appropriate. The zoning analysis is now completed and approved. Harry Lowrance said the garage is framed out and there is one course of brick on each side. Carlos Ruiz said the new garage is similar to the design and materials of the former garage. Jordan Cramer said the minutes indicate that Emily Guthrie requested the completed zoning analysis and there is no precedent of fine in a situation like this. Jordan Cramer noted that the Commission conducted a preliminary review, the proposed garage has French wood doors on the east elevation. The garage doors are all wood doors. No issues were raised with the design of the garage. Commission's Findings The Commission determined that the applicable standards for construction 1-8 and 10-14 and16 are applicable. Emily Guthrie moved approval for the Certificate of Appropriateness because the garage meets standards: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of front facade; 3) the proportion of openings; 4) the mlothm of solids to voids; 5) the rhythm and spacing of structures on the street; 6) the rhythm of me projection; 7) the relationship of materials and textures; 8) the roof shape; 10) the scale of the structure; and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation, are all visually compa:ble with structures, sites, public ways, and places to which these elements are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of shall not be destroyed (is not met); 13) arWaeological resources shall be protected (is not met), 14) contemporary design is not bea rg discouraged, and 16) the Commission has not imposed a single architectural style_ Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed: Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays 6. 940 Judson Avenuel400-412 Lee Street (LIABTR) —Install a temporary 4' x 8' marketing free standing sign facing Lee Street (Construction) - The Commission's review is advisory to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. Jim Wells of residential Homes of America presented the proposal. J. Wells said they are currently the property manager at 940 Judson/400-412 Lee Street. They would like to install a temporary 4' x 8' rental sign. The building is under new ownership. The prior owner started marketing the units as for sale. There are three gutted units inside the building. They recently installed a new roof and boiler. They are trying to advertise the rental building to the community. He said he previously attained a sign variation for the property for a 2' x 3' sign. Part of the conditional approval is to get the Certificate of Appropriateness. In response to a question from Jordan Cramer, J_ Wells said the lattice at the bottom of the sign will be removed. The sign permit is for six months. They have 26 units and a 75 percent vacancy rate. Evanston Preservabon C mmission November 18. 2008 — Mnutes Page 9 Jordan Cramer said Robin Schuldenfrei of the Plan Commission had some concerns with the size of the sign (via email). J. Cramer said in this case the sign is temporary and it will help the owner to market the rental property. Jim Wells said they are proposing the temporary sign for six months only. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R$TA recommends standard for review on construction 17 as applicable. E. Guthrie moved to recommend to the Sign Review Board and Appeals Board the 4' x 8' temporary sign at 940 Judson Avenuef400-412 Lee Street because the proposed sign is not incongruous to the historic character of the Landmark and because the sign is temporary (6 months). Dian Keehan seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 1401 Elmwood Avenue (UABTR) — Existing garage: remove aluminum siding, gutters, two windows, side service door and garage door. Replace exterior finish with hardy plank siding (3' exposure) with tr:rn boards, new aluminum gutters and downspouts, new wood side door. new double hung wood windows and new wood garage door 10'-0* wide from 9'-0" (Alteration) . Erwin Kornau, contractor presented the project. E. Kornau said the owners of the property would like to remove form the existing garage the aluminum siding and the wood siding underneath, down to the bare studs on the exterior, then install plywood and hardie-plank smooth siding (3" exposure) and trim boards, new aluminum gutters and downspouts. Replace the existing fixed sash wood windows with double hung wood windows and the entry wood door with the same style and in kind. Also, enlarge the garage door opening from 9'-0' to 10'- 0' opening; the new garage door is a wood door with plywood panels. The garage is not original to the house. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said RSTA recommends standards for review of alteration 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10. Ann Dienner moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations to the garage at 1401 Elrrwood in that meets standards of alteration: 1) minimal alteration of the structure; 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the structure are not being destroyed; 3) the structure is being recognized as product of its own time (not original to the historic Landmark); 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the structure will be treated with sensitivity; 9) contemporary design for alterations to the existing property is not being discouraged; and 10) the new alterations to the structure are being done in such a manner that if such alterations were to be removed in the future. the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vole: 7 ayes. 0 nays. B. 1126 Main Street (L) — Demolish existing open air porch from the rear south elevation. Construct one-story wood frame rear addition with roof deck. Exterior finishes include: wood siding, casement wood windows with transoms, casement wood doors with transoms, asphalt shingles on roof and concrete stoops. On the second story south rear elevation -remove one double hung woof window and replace it wth casement wood doors to access deck over new addition (Demolition/AlterationlConstruction). Brian Hammersley, architect presented the project. B. Hammersley said the owners proposed to construct a one-story addition to the rear of the house. The materials are wood siding, wood windows and mating the roof asphalt shingles. The owner plans to also do some repairs to the house. Ann D enner asked about the addition extending beyond the exterior wall of the existing house on me east elevation. B. Hammersley said the owners need a couple of extra feet to accomplish :he goals in the kitchen eating area. There is no dining area currently. He also said the house already has an addition on the front that extends on the front to the east. Dian Keehan asked about the hip roof and the way it meets the existing house on the west Evanston Presenatwn Corny is&= November 19. 2008 - Knutes Pape 10 elevation. B. Hammersley said the hip roof maintains the massing of that autonomous structure. The portion facing the rear has a flat roof to maintain the continuity of the square and keep the molding wrapping around. The project also calls for the demolition of the rear open air porch and existing one-story addition. Jordan Cramer said alterations include removing the second floor window on the south elevation and replace it with wood doors to access the roof deck. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10. Emily Guthrie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 1126 Main for alterations to the rear elevaton in that meets standards: 1) minimal alteration of the structure; 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed; 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated A-ah sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 10) the new alterations to the structure are being done in such a manner that if such alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Jordan Cramer said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction (addition at rear with roof top deck) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-16. Susan Farrand moved to issue the Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a one-story wood frame addition with roof deck at 1126 Main Street because it meets standards: 1) the height, 3) the proportion of openings; 5) the rhythm and spacing of structures on the street; 6) the rhythm of entrance porches; 7) the relationship of materials and textures. 8) the roof shape; and 10) the scale of the structure, are all visually cornpatible with structures, sites, public ways, and places to which these elements are visually related. Also, 12) the disz guishing original qualities are not being destroyed; 13) archaeological resources shall be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged; 15) the addition is being done in a way that it could be removed in the future; and 16) the Comm.ssion has not imposed a single architectural style. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed: Vote: 7 a}es. 0 nays Jordan Cramer said R&TA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the rear porch an existing on -story addition at the rear of 1126 plain Street because: 1) demolition would not be dev imental to the public interest; 2) it does not need to be preserved for the benefit of the people; 3) it would not be contrary to the objectives of historic preservation; 4) is not of such unc�ual design that needs to be saved; 5) and plans for replacement have been approved. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 2510 Ashland Avenue (L) — Installat;on of 6 solar panels with a surface area of 2'-r x 5'-3" each on flat roe` section of the school building. The panels are not visible from the street, but will be partially risible from the alley ac;acent to the rear playground area of the school (Alteration). Lou Mallezos 0:he St. Athanasius Scwoi Board presented the project. L. Maltezos said the solar panels are 1 Kilowatt demorstraton project done under the Illinois Solar School Program through a grant ` om the Illinois Clean Energy Foundation. One of the requirements of the grant is that there is some visibility to t*e students for educational purposes. ETHS, Chute, Haven, and Nic nols Schools have partcipated in the program. The panel roof area is 5' x 15' for six panels facing south at 42 degrees. L. Mattezos said several locations were considered for vtsibility for ne kids. The proposed location is on a flat roof on the second story of the school building. overlooking the parting lot used for recess and play area. They built a mock up of the panels on the roof facing south and took pictures from the ground to illustrate its visibaity or lack of. The panels would save the school about 5100.00 a month. There is no visibdAy of the panels from the front of ne Church or from Ashland or Lincoln. There are four neighboring hoes on Lincoln and one house on Elmwood owned by the Parish. The IEvamton Preservabon Commission Noveriber 18. 2008 — Knutes Page 11 neighbors have been notified. There is one location that the panels would be seen from Eastwood (50 yards north of Lincoln, looking over the yard of the house at the comer). Lou Maltezos said the proposal has to fulfill the grant requirement (visibility) and at the same time minimize the visibility to neighbors and the public street. There is no visibility from Lincoln or Ashland. The four neighbors were notified and there is no permanent modification of the building. Commission's Findings Jordan Cramer said it is a well thought out proposal. The Commission may see more and more of this type of proposal. Dian Keehan said it is great that the program is incorporated into the curriculum. Jordan Cramer said the project is on the school building not on the Landmark Church building. R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1. 2. 5, 9, and 10 as applicable. Dian Keehan moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2510 Ashland for the installation of solar panels on the school building as meeting the standards: 1) minimal alteration of the structure; 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not being destroyed; 5) stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity; 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 10) alterations could to be removed in the future; the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Lou Maltezos thanked Carlos Ruiz for his assistance. Ill. MINUTES Approval of May 20, 2006 Minutes Ann Dienner corrected the spelling of her name on page 2 and on page 4. Emily Guthrie moved to approve the May 20, 2008 minutes as corrected. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz distributed the June 17. 2008 minutes for approval at the next meeting. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS. STAFF Carlos Ruiz said the Commission's meeting in January 2009 will be on the second Tuesday (January 8, 2009) rather than on the third Tuesday. Suzanne Farrand asked the status of 1501 Forest. Carlos Ruiz said there is some question as to whether the Commission required the applicant to meet with the neighbors. Jordan Cramer said the Commission made the suggestion that the applicants and the neighbors meet to workout differences. The work that is currently taken place on the house is to restore the existing windows. VII. ADJOURNMENT Jon Willarson moved to adjourn the meeting at 1025 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: November 21, 2008 (partial) and March 17. 2009 Approved: March 17, 2009 CITY OF EVANSTON EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer. Emily Guthrie, Dian Keehan, Anne McGuire, Jon Pohl and Jon Willarson MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Diermer, Suzanne Farrand and Kris Hartzell OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Schneider. Sat Nagar, Sagar R Sonar, Kindon Mills, Chris Nesbitt, Harry Lowrance. Liz Rorke and Phil Crihfield PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with a quorum of six Commissioners present (Emily Guthrie, Dian Keehan. Anne McGuire, Jon Pohl, Jon Willarson). Staff: Carlos Ruiz 11. MINUTES Jon Pohl moved to approve the .tune 17, 2008 minutes as submitted. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Ill. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS None. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (RBTA) 1. Sheridan Road from South Blvd to Isabella Street (LSHD) -- Rehabilitate roadway pavement, improve pec5estrian and bicyclist safety. improve pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility, traffic cairning. intersection operation improvements and signal modernization. and Improve roadway arainage (Construction) - The Commission's review Is advisory to the City Council. Paul Schneider, Sat Sagar (City Staff) and Sagar S. Sonar (Tran Systems — Consultant) presented the project_ P. Schneider said the project started with Phase One -Study and Pubtic Coordination in April of 2008. It includes the portions of Sheridan Road from South Blvd. to Isabella Street' Sheridan Road is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Evanston Preservation Commission Deoeinber 16.2008 — Minutes PaS02 Transportation (IDOT). The City of Evanston will take over jurisdiction under the agreement for funding as of December 24, 2008. The project runs through the Lakeshore and Northeast historic districts. The purpose of the project is to replace the deteriorated roadway. The first section from South Blvd will start in 2009, the next section in 2010 (Forest to Chicago) and last in 2011 the section adjacent to Northwestern University. Other aspects of the project include: improving pedestrian access to the lake front (Bicentennial Park); improving bicycle access where possible; traffic calming with bump -outs narrowing the road; replacing some of the antiquated traffic signal equipment with post top units in kind; and road drainage. P. Schneider said Phase Two — Design Approval and Contract Documents and Phase 'three — Construction will follow. IDOT has provided funding for a'3-R project'— Rehabilitation (remove curia and gutter, new curb and gutter, grind out the old surface, patch the base, and resurface the road). There is no Roadway Widening (working within the existing back a curb to back a curb and no changes to the footprint of the road). In some locations the road would be narrowed (Centennial Park) and areas with bump outs. Regarding public involvement P. Schneider said there were a series of meetings in August 2008 with stakeholders for each of the affected Wards, to gather people's ideas and what they wanted to put for the road before drawing 'geometry.' Subsequent to that geometry was devised that were shared with the public in a series of design charrettes; once for south Chicago Avenue; and once for the north of Chicago Avenue. A public hearing was held on December 3, 2008. At this point the project has been submitted to IDOT for cultural clearance as of June 2008 and IDOT Geared the project in November 2008. IDOT has an agreement with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA), where IDOT makes the review and judgment on whether they have to further process with IHPA. In this case no further coordination with IHPA is required. Paul Schneider said at this stage they have further refinements of two design details, brief the Alderman on those and then have a public meeting in late January or early February. Then the City will request design approval from the State of Illinois, move forward into design and construction. Sign inventory and contemplating reducing signs. Sump out, paint marking, yield signage and pedestrian crossings (access by Centennial Park). Church is the preferred route for pedestrian crossing (Mather Development) signal for pedestrian access. Mid block crossing between Church and Clark is being considered. Tallmadge lights to remain in place — protecting the wiring and bases. Traffic signal at South Arts Drive by NorftAestem University, south of Garrett, and South Drive, viewed as private benefit, if the University requests them and if they fund them Calming effect to the bike plan, some of the findings have been incorporated. Where there is a designated bike route, the Evanston Bicycle Club agreed that at the bump outs to provide with a 14-feet width and stripe on the pavement the width of a bike line. The bump outs will be only where there is parking. On Kedzie the bump out is only on the west side. The section north of main has been worked on within the last six years and will not be reconstructed for some time. There is a bump out at Lincoln School for sassing. Brick pavers may or may not be installed, at some point it will be decided whether to use hardscape or plantings. The historic districts sign will not be moved — way finding signage could be considered during the actual design. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 12-V as applicable. Emily Guthrie moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction on Sheridan Road from South Blvd. to Isabella Evanston Preservation C,a rrnission December 16, 2009 - Minutes Page 3 Street as meeting standards, 12) distinguishing original qualities or character of properties, structures, sites or objects is not going to be destroyed; 13) every reasonable effort to protect archaeological resources wilt be done; 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged; 15) new additions are being done in such a manner that if they were to be removed the essential form and integrity would be unimpaired; 16) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 17) any signs that are visible would not be incongruous to the historic character of landmarks or the district. Anne McGuire seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 na)s. 2. 1221 Judson Avenue (LSHD) -- install 1 new window (1" floor) and 2 new windows (2n0 floor) on existing north elevaton. Install new casement window (1" floor), remove one window and close opening, and relocate window opening and install new double hung window (2n0 floor) on existing south elevation. Demolish rear deck and stairs, east rear wall and parking pad at rear. Construct 2-story and 1-story wood frame addition(s) at east rear elevation of house. Construe 2-ar wood frame garage. Garage requires minor zoning variation for the required set track=3'; proposed=2'-2'(AlterationlConstruction/Demolitiont Zoning Variation) - The Commission's review on the zoning variation is advisory to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Kindon Mills, architect preserved the project. K. Mills said the project is for a 2-story addition at the back of the house with a basement. The height of the ridge is being maintained and matching the rhythm of dormers on the root. The existing house has punch openings and ganged windows. The projef-- maintains the windows size, head and sill and for the most part the width of the windows (30' width). The windows on the kitchen and mudroom have higher sills. The new exterior maten&s will match the existing brick base and water table and the existing band trim that divides the first floor from the second at the second floor window sills. Also, clapboard siding in ceda*, cedar trim and cedar shingles above the band trim of the second floor. Kindon Mills said the house is in fine shape, and the detailing will be replicated, the flare of the siding at the water table, c�e flare of the siding of the roof at the dormers and the mitered comers of the siding. A new detached 2-car garage is proposed that requires a minor zoning variation for the required side )ard set back of 3'-0'. The proposed set back is 2'-2' in order to save a 30' Maple tree north of the proposed garage. They contemplated moving the garage back from the alley (12 feet to the west), but the owner would build a full size garage 22-feet wide garage which wilt increase the height of the pitch of the roof and the garage would be closer into the neight)or's view. This was considered as an option to avoid the minor zoning %ariation. Howe,;er, t!;e owrers prefer to have more yard and less garage. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie said R&TA rec xnmends standards for review of alteration 1-10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved to appruee a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed alterations at 1221 Judson because: 1) tfi-s is a minimal alteration; 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed; 3) alterations -mat have no historical basis are not being encouraged; 4) the history and development are be,ng recognized; 5) the styylistc features are being treated with sensitivity, 6) when possible re -,airs are being performed rather than replacement; 7) surface cleaning will be gene; 8) arch�-_eNogical resources will be preserved; 9) contemporary design is not being discourages; and 10) alterations would be removable if necessary. Emily Guthrie seconded me motion_ The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Emily Guthrie said R&TA recor, mends standards for review of construction 1-3. 5-8, 10. and 12-16 as applicable. Anne McCulre moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new construction for the adccion and detached garage at 1221 Judson because: 1) the height of the addition and garage; 2) the proportion of the front fagade and the relationship to adjacent properties and structures; 3) the proportion of openings, the width to height of windows and doors: 5) the rhyt.-gym of spacing of structures on the street and alley are Evamtrxn Preser►abw ConMssbn Deoember 16. 20M — N%nutes Pape 4 appropriate to the spaces between them and the adjoining structures; 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections; 7) the relationship of materials and texture; 8) the roof shapes; and 10) the scale of the structure, are all visually compatible with properties, structures to which they are related. Also. 12) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the property shall not be destroyed; 13) archaeological resources shall be protected; 14) contemporary design as not been discouraged; 15) the addition and construction of the garage if they were to be removed. the integrity of the original structure is not impaired; and 16) a single architectural style has not been imposed. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Emily Guthrie said RBTA recommends standards for review of demolition 1-5 as applicable. Anne McGuire moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the west facade at 1221 Judson because: 1) the demolition is not detrimental to the public interest or contrary to the welfare of the people, the City or the State; 2) archaeological character of the district or cultural historic characteristic would be preserved; 3) demolition is not contrary to the purpose of the Chapter of the Historic Preservation Ordinance; 4) the demolished aspects are not of such old or unusual or uncommon design that they could not be reproduced without great difficulty; and 5) plans for a new replacement structure have been approved. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Regarding the Zoning Variation Dian Keehan moved to recommend the Zoning Variation for 1221 Judson Avenue for the side yard [2'-21 set back to construct the garage In that: A) it does not affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the district; and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare to property in the district. E. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) —Construction of a single-family home with a 3-car attached garage [Construction) Chris Nesbitt, owner presented the project. C. Nesbitt submitted to the Commission a copy of the letter he sent to the neighbors and the current site plan with a correction to the site plan that was submitted with the packet. The site plan that went to the neighbors was the one with the correction. C. Nesbitt said based on the concerns raised by neighbors at the last time the project was in front of the Commission eonceming the height and the size of the proposed home. The redesigned home has a lower ridge height one half the difference between the adjacent building ridge height to the north and the home to the south [of 917 Edgemere), so there is a gradual tapering of the roof line from north to south. The length of the house has been shortened by 14-feet. The back of the new hie is lined with the back of the house at 911 Edgemere Court. Regarding the site plan, C. Nesbitt said he overlaid I on the City of Evanston's site plan for Edgemere Court to show the actual location. The front of the new home at 917 is in line with the front of 911, which added a single stall garage to the front of the house (not shown on the City's site). In actuality the frontage comes further forward and basically lines up all three homes (911, 917 and 919). 925 Edgemere is sligh::y ahead and the other homes are at different distances. The setback for 917 Edgemere :s 76-feet from the property line, well within the guidelines of the City of Evanston_ The highest point of the ridge on 917 Edgemere is substantially further back than the high ridge on 919 Edgemere. Chris Nesbitt said he provided an elevation of what the house would appear like in between the two homes. The height of the ridge of 917 would fall in between the height of the ridge of 919 and 911 Edgemere. The materials of the revised house are the same materials that were proposed in the original house: lannon stone, state roof, true wood, Mahogany garage doors, and paved driveway. The exit from the lower level (stair case that exists from the basement on the south side of the house and it has 3-foot garden wall, abutting an 8-foot Evanston Preservabon Commission December 16. 2008 — Minutes Page 5 cedar fence at the neighbor to the south. There are no retaining wails required on 917 Edgemere. Because the house that was there was demolished and he backfilled the property, the grade varies. When the house is done. using the grade mark of 100.48 (the grade mark of the man whole roughly located in front of 919 Edgemere as 00.00, the grade tapers toward the east for runoff as do all the other properties. The grade as it may appear today would be revised once the excavation commences and the foundation is put in. The elevation where the house was superimposed is exactly the way it would be seen when the house is completed, if they were all lined up. Dian Keehan asked if there is a site plan with the structure itself and all the other elements such the fence and everything else listed. C. Nesbitt said, no. The fence as proposed now is along the south side of the house, where the stairs come out from the lower level. Whether or not there would be a requirement for further fencing, no fence will be placed any further 3- feet behind the front facade of the house, strictly for public safety. He would come back for the Commission's approval if a fence were to be erected. C. Nesbitt said there Is a fence on the south property line that belongs to 911 which is actually on the 917 property. Neighbors' Comments Hart' Lowrance of 919 Edgemere asked the square footage of the house. C. Nesbitt answered 6,412 S.F. on the narrowest, but not the smallest lot. The current grade as n appears now is based on the actual dimensions, any access material is removed. In this particular case there are no requirements for retaining walls. There is an existing retaining wall to the south of 917 Edgemere which will remain; it belongs to the 911 property. There is nor retaining wall between 919 and 917 and there is no requirement for a retaining wall between those two properties. H. Lowrance said the grade of 919 is 100.46; the grade at 917 is 100.48 or a Y4* difference, he wanted to make sure that remains at that grade. C. Nesbitt said the City Engineering department has the same dimensions to work from (submitted two years ago) and they match. He is not asking to raise the property. H. Lowrance asked Htto enforces the will of the Preservation Commission, because the project could be different when is concluded. C. Nesbitt said the City enforces the work within the City guidelines. Jordan Cramer said the Commission has certain recourses to enforce its decisions. He suggested H. Lowrance to contact the City if there is any problem with the project during construction. Carlos Ruiz said the City Engineer would enforce proper drainage of the site that may require change of the grade. J. Cramer said change of materials would require the Commission's approval. C. Ruiz said the current elevations are not final. H. Lowrance requested to be noted if change of the grade occurs. Liz Rorke of 920 Edgemere said the proposed house has roof tines that reflect the house next door to the soutn (a 1.5-story house). The proposed house would do that as long as it remains 30.4-feet. The grade should remain with that of 919 Edgemere. On Edgemere Court on either side of the property line, where there is an easement of 33-feet. Measuring the front of the house set back from the front property i:ne, the easement could be in violation. The easement should be mentioned. The 76-feet need to be measured from 33- feet east of the property line. Jordan Cramer said the easement is a binding covenant that runs the land between all of the people who live on Edgemere. He said the Commissions purview is: Does it meet the rhythm and spacing requirements; the height requirements; is the setback in keeping with what the rest of the block looks like visually. The Commission could not address the easement. Liz Rorke said the easement is a factor in the history of Edgemere Court. it is an historic element in it and the houses that sit on it are measured from the edge of the easement, rather than from the property line. C. Nesbitt said it is a 20-fool Evanston Pnnewabon Commission Decwulw 16. 2008 - KnuUs Paw 6 set back from the edge of the easement, in which case, he could move the house another 18- feet forward. He did not think the neighbors will appreciate. He is keeping the house in line with the setback of the two houses that are to the north and the south. Liz Rorke said her concern is that the Preservation Commission defines what the terms under which they are happy for the house go forward, and define it in such a way that the building department can say, this is the way it has to be, to avoid any confusion six months from now. Jordan Cramer said the applicant is giving the Commission a site plan with dimensions on it; that is the Commission is voting on. If something else is going to be built, then that is another matter and there are all kinds of consequences. The only assumption is what is represented on these plans is what is going to be built Regarding the site plan, C. Nesbitt said the original site plan does not reflect the new addition to the garage at 911 Edgemere. L. Rorke said her concems are the grade level not changing and the house staying 30.4 feet. C. Nesbitt the same dimensions went to Zoning and Engineering, and that is what the surveyors work from for the staking of the foundation of the front elevation of the house. Phil Crihfield of 900 Edgemere said the listing for the new house is for a 3-story building with 14 rooms, 6 bedrooms, 6.5 baths, and 3 fire places. A third floor with a bedroom and office, a basement with a pool and office, an outdoor bathhouse with a kitchen. He asked what is it being approved? - What C. Nesbitt is selling to the public or what he is selling to the Commission? P. Crihfield said what C. Nesbitt is presenting is something different to what Is on the website for the project. Phil Crihfield said the site plan shows a sidewalk on the east side of Edgemere, in fact the sidewalk has been removed three years ago. C. Nesbitt has been asked to replace the sidewalk, but has denied any obligation to replace the sidewalk. P. Crihfield said there is a current litigation for the enforcement of the Edgemere Court easement (recorded in June 1. 1911 — the Edgemere Court Development Plan — and the December 7, 1911 easement). The June 1, 1911 easement calls for sidewalks and it establishes the pillars at either end of the court, the current street and the sidewalks, parkways between the sidewalks and the street, the gates, it is part of the history of Edgemere Court. Dian Keenan said the site plan does not show a driveway, there is no detailed site plan. Phil Crihfield said he had a problem with the south elevation in relation to the home at 911 Edgemere, a landmark home. The south elevation wall is in his opinion in violation of standards of construction 1, 5. 6. 10 and 12. P_ Crihfield said if t!--e Commission approves the proposed house at 917 Edgemere it will destroy the historic character of Edgemere Court, in particular in relation to 911 Edgemere. If there is no commitment to replace the sidewalk. Chris Nesbitt said in response to P. Crihfileld's comments that what is being discussed is the home fitting with the other homes that t abuts to. To the issue of Cie lawsuit, he said he is not the only litigant in the lawsuit; H, Lowrance is also a defendant in the same lawsuit, as is Mr. Arrington to the north of 925 Edgemere. He said the sidewalk is r:ot an issue to be resolved by the Commission_ He also said that he wits seek approval from t')e Commission if a bathhouse and a gazebo are included in the future. Emily Guthrie moved to hold the review of 917 Edgemere until a detailed site plan Is submitted for the applicant. Jon Willarson seconded the motion. Jordan Cramer said is the expectation that what is represented is what is going to be built. Dian Keenan said the she appreciated that the proposed house telescopes back, if the design stays to the proposed height of 30.4 feet is great, the architecture form the street is really nice. C. Nesbitt said the designed was flipped over to avoid the canyon like effect between 925 and 917 with 919 Edgemere in between. He minimized the area that comes closer to 919 toward the rear of Evanston Preservation Carnvasaon December 16. 2008 - Minutes Page 7 that house. The north elevation of 911 Edgem ere is the back watt of the garage, then a utility room door, and the other windows are at the higher elevation. Chris Nesbitt said the site plan that went Zoning has to reflect the driveway, and it shows the two gates so there is the staircase that goes from the lower the level to the back yard — that is the fence came in. There is a pool as designed inside the house. The only reason a number is seen in the application for 186-feet is if that pool were to be moved outside the house, and he came back for approval, then the taw requires that the property be fenced in. C. Nesbitt said there is a liability issue with access from the take. Anne McGuire said that the Commission and Zoning should be looking at an accurate site plan that is consistent one to the other. The Commission passed a motion to hold the review of the proposed construction of the single family home until the applicant submits a detailed site plan. Vote: 6 ayes; 0 nays. B. APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATION COMMITTEE FOR THE 2009 PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS Appointment of volunteer Commissioners to the Nomination Committee for the Election of the 2009 Preservation Commission Officers Result: The Commission appointed Anne McGuire and Jon Willarson to the Nomination Committee. The Committee will report back to trio Commission with proposed nominations for the 2009 Preservation Commission Officers on January 13. 2009. C. 2009 EVANSTON PRESERVATION AWARDS Discussion on new nominations for tt�e 2009 Evanston Preservation Awards Result: Emily Guthrie said the Commission should start thinking about nominating projects for the 2009 Preservation Awards and to hold the Awards Ceremony in May 2009 during Preservation Month, The Commission and staff agreed to initiate the process now. Vl. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF 904 Hinman Avenue (UABTR) — Window Replacement (Staff report/update) Result: Carlos Ruiz reported that Mary Brugiiera and Chris Carey (Associates Commissioners) will present a report with thez recommendation about the proposal submitted by the owner of 9D4 Hinman regarding the replacement of windows. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adioumed at 9:10 p.m - Respectfully Submitted: Date: 12I29108 Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PtannerlPreservation Coordinator Approved Date: January 13, 2009.